Central’s Renovation Raises Questions About Planning Process and Communication

Last August, without debate or public comment, the Board of Education adopted the facilities plan prepared by its consultants last spring. With this green light, the administration accelerated its efforts to develop a plan to renovate Central High School. In a recent blog post on the Rapid City Journal’s Learning Curve, reporter Kayla Gahagan complained that the press had not been invited to the planning meetings that led to the development of the new design for Central.  Board member Doug Kinniburgh responded:

…Over the recent 6 months or so, the full board has met on at least two occasions at Central for a public advertised study sessions as well as the Facility Committee has been meeting once a month specifically on this topic. The staff and building administration meetings in recent months with the design team has been for the design teams purpose of gathering the necessary data to develop the design concept that was unveiled last week. These were merely interviews and not meetings. The next stage of this design process will incorporate more input from parents, students, staff, and administration as specific details are incorporated into the design. You, of course, will be welcome in participating in this part of the process as well.

Kinniburgh’s comments raise a number of issues for all of us, including board members, administrators, journalists and members of the public. Most important, has the public really had the opportunity to learn about and understand the recommendations in this report? 

Let’s start by looking at what the Rapid City Journal has done. When the study was first released in June, 2008 the paper provided some background prior to the unveiling at a meeting of the Board of Education. The day after the meeting, the paper highlighted key elements of the report  noting that the 10-year plan called for closing some elementary schools and one middle school, renovating other schools, changing boundaries and building new schools. The total ten-year budget was expected to be about $200 million.

There was no follow up by the Rapid City Journal and no public action by the District until August 14 when the paper informed the public that the Board “may decide whether to officially adopt the recommendations for the coming decade.” This article noted the price tag for Central, plans to close Dakota Middle School and Canyon Lake Elementary School, and consolidate students from Horace Mann and Wilson into a new school. Significantly, Superintendent Peter Wharton was quoted saying:

“We need to instigate a process where the community is not fearful of the changes. It’s not just us that needs to be ready, it’s the community.” – Superintendent Peter Wharton

The article noted that the Board had had a study session two weeks earlier to discuss the report, but apparently the Journal didn’t cover the study session. When the Board offered its “silent consent” to the plan on August 14, no one from the public offered a comment or asked a question.

Eleven days later, the Rapid City Journal editorial board acknowledged the District’s ambitious plan and expressed some skepticism. The editorial closed by urging the public to get involved.

“The last thing you should see a year or two down the road is change and not  have realized it was coming.”

The Board’s silent consent sparked concerns among some students and parents in Rapid City. Barbara Soderlin reported in the Rapid City Journal on September 8 that the plan to close Dakota Middle School “has some families worried.” The article reported that the District would create a committee, “which will include middle school and elementary school principals, staff and parents,” to study the consultants’ recommendations this year to decide if they make sense for the community.” In a recent conversation, however, Superintendent Wharton explained that no district-wide committee has or will be created. “Our point back in September is that as we begin to address specific elements of the plan, we will create local committees at the buildings that are specifically impacted by some of these recommendations.”

Board acceptance of the MGT report also accelerated efforts to begin planning the renovation of Central. In the fall, the Rapid City Journal offered a number of articles focusing on the overcrowding at Central. Freshman transfers approved by the administration and the Board were putting a an even greater strain on the facility, Kayla Gahagan reported. On October 7, Gahagan offered a long and insightful story detailing the effects of this overcrowding. Meanwhile, a separate story on the same day quoted Central High School Principal Mike Talley saying that Central had been putting Band-Aids on its facilities for too long. This article summarized the conversation at a second Board study session in which the Board focused on Central High School. Once again the idea of building a third high school was discussed. According to the article, the District could build a new full-service high school for $88.1 million or renovate Central and Stevens and develop a smaller, technology focused third high school for $67.7 million. 

From October to April, the Journal was generally silent on the facilities plan and the proposed renovation of Central High School. As Gahagan reports in her blog post the District was apparently holding a number of meetings that involved staff, parents and consultants, but she wasn’t invited according to one administrator who was ”just following orders.” Gahagan asked whether the public should have known about these meetings and been included in the conversation. These are legitimate and important questions.

Everyone could be doing more to help the public understand this 10-year, $200 million plan. Has the Journal done enough to get inside the MGT study and help the public understand its priorities, price tags and possibilities? Should the District be doing more than moving this process along with small committees that meet without public notice and board study sessions that are poorly attended? Finally, what can other constituencies, including PTAs, the Chamber, and service organizations who care about the future of education in this community do to engage the public with the plan? 

It’s not too late for all of us to step up to a more informed public dialogue, but everyone involved needs to shoulder some responsibility. If we don’t, as the Rapid City Journal’s editorial board warned, we will see changes we never knew were coming.

Note:  The Board of Education plans to hold a study session at CSAC on the afternoon or evening of April 30 to consider school area boundary changes and other recommendations in the MGT report. The public is encouraged to attend this meeting. Check with the District for details.