Letter: Looking At Wayzata School Attendance Boundaries

To the Editor:

Wayzata School District is in a box...literally. 

It's 2012 - which means it is a Presidential election year, it also means, that it is time for that every six-year pain of redrawing the boundaries of the Wayzata elementary schools. And finally, if you believe in the Mayan Calendar - that it will be the end of the world in December.  Which must be what some members of the Wayzata School Board are hoping for, so we don't have to go through with another boundary adjustment in three or fewer years. 

Six years ago - the board of the Wayzata Schools announced that they were redrawing the boundaries for the seven elementary schools in the district.  A committee of parents and district staff, headed by consultant Dennis Cheesebrow and Fred Ratzloff from transportation was formed to come up with scenarios for the school that would last for 10 years. The committee worked hard and came up with three different scenarios which were presented to the public. The public looked at the scenarios and said - one of them makes a lot of sense, two of them make some sense, but all of them destroy the sense of community at some of the schools. At the time - Kimberly Lane was hardest hit, with the comments being that the school becomes a funnel with a couple of neighborhoods to the north of it and then expanding to include the undeveloped (at the time) area north of County Road 47. 

Two-hundred plus community members attended the public information sessions and provided feedback to the board. The numbers were explained, tweaked slightly, then presented to the board. At the final meeting for approval of the plan, three parents spoke. One of the three commended the board and asked, ever so humbly, if the board remembered the promise they had made to his neighborhood the last time they redrew the boundaries, to move them back into Kimberly Lane as soon as possible. The board members nodded, said yes, and moved them back into Kimberly Lane. Two other parents, myself included, spoke out against the plan bringing facts to the table. 

Fact: Ninety percent of the development in Plymouth at the time was occurring North of Schmidt Lake Road. (Information from the city's website.)

Fact: Enrollment in southern elementary schools was dropping faster than the board could bus new students in. (Wayzata Board minutes and documents from 2006.)

Fact: The demographer at the time, had grossly under counted the number of new families with young children moving into the district. (From my conversation with a board member.)

Fact: New developments where announced after the initial plans were presented to the public and were not accounted for in the plan. (From Plymouth Planning Commission and City Council meetings from 2005-2006.)

At the time, I presented options to the board.  I suggested closing one of the southern schools - either Oakwood or Birchview and re-opening the closed school as a Chinese/Spanish/Hindu immersion school and actually using the land (which the district owns already) on the northeast corner of Dunkirk and CR 47 to build a school in the same model that was followed by Rogers and Elk River a few years prior - where they had built a school with two wings - one for elementary students and one for middle schools. The schools share administrative and support staff, resulting in lower operating costs for the district. 

The Board listened to my suggestion, then promptly dismissed me and my idea. Stating that it was not "feasible" and that there was nothing in the numbers to suggest any kind of growth which would require such a step.  

Since the 2006 re-bounding effort - no fewer than 5 neighborhoods have been moved out of various schools into others.  Neighborhood 11a has moved no fewer than 3 times itself. 

Since 2006 - Gas prices have doubled, yet the board continues to think that busing is a solution. 

Since 2006 - Plymouth has opened up more than 7 new housing developments in the Wayzata District Since 2006 - Medina has approved 4 major developments in the Wayzata district. (Source: city of Plymouth website)

And since that time - what has the Wayzata board done? Let's see: voted to spend $15 million plus on the following: 

• New parking lot at East Middle School

• Air circulation improvements at West and East Middle Schools

• Expanding the cafeteria and classroom space at Greenwood

• Extensive remodel of Oakwood and adding rooms in 2008

• Another remodel/addition to Oakwood for addition classrooms in 2012-13

I understand that any building project must get the approval of the Department of Education before a school can go ahead with it. The criteria as I understand them are not that tough to meet: 

1. You must show a need.  (I think we could do that) 

2. You must show that your current schools are over capacity - we can do that for Plymouth Creek, Greenwood, Kimberly Lane and Gleason, if we were to also convert one of the remaining to a charter / magnet). 

3. There must not be excess capacity at a neighboring district - Robinsdale is our closest neighboring district. They closed Pilgrim Lane Elementary in 2009.  The commissioner could, and I emphasize the word COULD, demand that Wayzata lease that space, un-mothball it, and use it as an eighth Wayzata Elementary school.  However given the location of that school, it is highly unlikely that anyone with a functioning brain would consider that a viable option, as the school has a) sat unused for 3 years, b) is on the wrong side of 494 to help with the issue and c) would result in 50 minute plus bus rides for students (one way). 

4. You must show that you have built your current schools to optimum capacity.  This is a tough one - but there are studies that show test scores improve in smaller schools as opposed to mega schools.  Also, 4 of the schools in the Wayzata elementary inventory are not able to expand due to site limitations (Plymouth Creek, Kimberly Lane, Gleason Lake, and BIrchview) - even though the district owns much of the land around 3 of the 4. As for the others - a strong argument could be made that it is time to stop throwing money at Oakwood and Sunset. 

Therefore, I am led to believe, especially since our State Representatives and Senators from Plymouth and Wayzata all support education that we could, with minimal effort get a new school approved for the northern end of Plymouth. 
Would a new 500-700 child Elementary School and 500 child middle school be cheap? No, but it would have been cheaper 6 years ago, and it will be cheaper now than six years from now. 

Would it solve all the capacity problems and challenges?  No, but it would help.  It would provide us with a Northern school - initially for the students north of CR 47 (elementary) and an expanded area for middle school.  That alone would allow the current neighborhoods between CR 47 and Schmidt Lake to go to schools much closer to home (i.e. Kimberly Lane and Plymouth Creek). 

It would allow the school to reexamine the Middle School needs and capacity at West, Central and East. Perhaps even allowing the district to solve the High School space problem by re-converting Central back to a high school, since that was what it was originally designed as. On second thought bad idea - imagine the fights over which kids will go the current HS vs the "new / old" one.

All of what I have mentioned is doable. Most of it could have been done with the 15 million or so that was spent on upgrading existing elementary schools, and expanding them.  Would it increase taxes?  Probably.  But aren't we all willing to spend money on our children? After all the last four referendums in this district passed by wide margins. 

Now we need a board and leaders who will not just see the future as busing, busing and more busing, but will take a stand for a long term solution and will act upon it. 

David Haas

Plymouth