Schools are more than just buildings, and students more than just numbers
THIS ARTICLE IS COMMENTARY AND PUBLISHED IN OUR EDITORIAL SECTION.
PUBLISHER’s NOTE: While the focus of this piece reports on the Long-Term Facility Planning for Page County Public Schools and the comments made at the Page County School Board’s July 13 meeting at Luray High School, the writer also acknowledges and offers comments as a parent of a child in the school system, the spouse of a teacher in the division, and a tax-paying citizen and business owner of the county.
By Randy Arrington, publisher
When in the course of evaluating our economics, whether it be for a major corporation or simply managing a household budget, there are two key things to consider in spending — how much do we have, and what’s gonna cost the most?
For most incorporated small towns in America, that usually means spending millions building and maintaining the infrastructure to provide water and sewer. Most of these common utilities are set up as an enterprise funds, in which user fees cover all or most of the cost to operate the system and provide the service — not unlike, non-profit electric cooperatives.
However, for the next level of government — the county — that big ticket item is usually schools, and the cost is shared by all, not just those who utilize the service. That means paying for the faculty, support staff, administration, transportation, nutrition, athletics, and operations of nine schools locally, while also maintaining even more buildings, vehicles, equipment, fields, jerseys, books, computers, supplies and support services and vendors. But why should those not using the system have to pay for all of that? Because we are a democratic society that shares in the cost of things like schools, roads, emergency services, social services, law enforcement, courts, incarceration, animal control, snow removal, public parks, and other services that build a better community. There is no better investment in our community or endeavor to protect our future than efforts to create better schools — from the companies that vet the quality of education in a community before relocating, to the leaders of tomorrow we create in a variety of fields through better education and training. The value given to education needs to rise in our community — and if it does, we will all rise with it.
However, we acknowledge that neither more dollars nor new buildings necessarily correlate to academic success and true learning that raises a community up and inspires involvement and a shared sense of purpose. But just like planning to buy a new car or saving for a house, most public capital projects take time — time to save the money for that big-ticket item, or time to pay it off through financing. All economic decisions that could mean millions to a locality. With that in mind, the Page County Board of Supervisors was right in its effort to urge the Page County School Board to develop a comprehensive, long-term facilities plan. The consultant was not cheap, but the information provided will literally alter the course of education in our county, in one fashion or another, for decades to come. The supervisors were right to bring the issue to the forefront and put it under a microscope for the following reasons:
- No updated plan like this existed. While the local school division had a Capital Improvement Plan in place spread out over several years, it focused more on maintenance, repairs and replacing certain equipment or singular aspects of a building. There was no definitive look at division-wide facility needs versus aging structures — some a century old. For years, school officials have talked about the upcoming need to “do something” at Shenandoah Elementary, Springfield Elementary and Stanley Elementary, as well as upgrades needed at the middle schools. Past boards have “kicked the can down the road,” and now it seems the input and planning over the next six months could lead to a decision in January and action leading up to the 2027-28 school year. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, despite the daggers some school board members are throwing at the supervisors to simply divert accountability and responsibility. Taking a closer look is a good thing.
- Enrollment is dropping. Just like the overall population of Page County, school enrollment has been on a slight decline — down 15 percent over the last decade, and projected to decline another 8 percent over the next decade. Due to that drop, the school superintendent stated at Monday night’s school board meeting that the county was losing about $7 million in state funding every year due to lower enrollment. He even went as far as to project a loss of $173.5 million over the next 25 years under the current trend. Not only does lower enrollment mean less state funding, but some facilities become even more underutilized. While some schools are operating at more than 100 percent of their capacity, others are barely over 60 percent.
- The need to plan for big-ticket items. Of the 19 options reviewed by a committee charged with long-term school facilities planning, they have narrowed the list down to seven. The costs range from $106.5 million up to $207.3 million. Now some of that expense will be mitigated in savings — personnel, operations, etc. — but the majority would be financed with annual payments on debt service ranging from $1-4 million. Over the term of the debt, the difference in these options could literally be tens of millions of dollars. While the county has done a good job of building up its reserve funds, recent projects like the regional broadband project, have taken a bite out of it. Still the county has been building up reserve funds with the idea of a big-ticket item lingering like a new school, a new jail, expansion of the landfill….something.
- Recent problems with the school budget. While school officials say they started FY27 on July 1 with a “clean slate,” recent deficits between projected student populations (referred to sometimes as ADM) and actual student enrollment caused deficits in state support. What had previously been surpluses in the annual school budget became deficits that had to be reconciled in recent years. Whether it was an internal mistake by an individual, a gamble by administrators to get more funds, or simply victims of circumstance, it created additional doubt in a relationship that was already somewhat contentious between the boards.
The overall point is that looking at the issue — the supervisors making this request of the school board — was a positive step forward. Kicking the can down the road has to stop at some point, and a plan has to be developed to move forward in the most cost-effective way in the face of aging buildings and falling enrollment.
Monday night’s school board meeting felt reminiscent of the time Page County voters cast ballots on the high school question — one school or two schools? The only problem was the addition of a third option on the referendum — no school. The easy option won out — no school, no extra money spent, no decision made, can officially kicked down the road. But what has that decision actually cost us? Monday’s conversation was also reminiscent of discussions leading up to the construction of two high schools in 2008, and their opening in 2009. The newest buildings in the division.
But the public comment period on Monday was particularly reminiscent of the discussion years ago to close Grove Hill, previously the county’s fifth elementary school. A small, community school with small class sizes, good student-to-teacher ratios, solid scores on standardized tests, and a history of serving generations of local families.
“Springfield is more than just a school, it’s a part of our history,” said parent Kaitlyn Lafountain. “This issue is deeply personal.”
“It’s a family at Springfield, not just a school,” said Bella Smith, who taught at there for 30 years.
“To have this school taken away from us is a really bad idea,” said Stephanie Huffman, a third generation Cardinal. “You showed how Springfield has the most waivers…there’s a reason for that. It is one of the best schools in the county.”
All eight speakers at Monday night’s meeting addressed the potential closure of schools, specifically Springfield. All were against it. The county’s northern most elementary is the school most likely to be shuttered — if any schools are closed — with Shenandoah Elementary being the other location potentially on the chopping block among the consolidation plans being strongly considered. Some options call for shifting elementary students (fourth and/or fifth grade) to middle schools, and eight grade students to high schools. The county’s middle schools and high schools both have additional space and capacity for more students (up to 35 to 40 percent more), while many of the aging elementary schools are much closer to capacity, with Luray and Shenandoah actually already having slightly over 100 percent.
And while we wish for no school to close, despite the growing costs and recognizing the falling enrollment, we would specifically feel it misguided to shut down Springfield Elementary. While some believe it to be one of the best schools in the county, we believe it is THE best school in the local division — and we believe that the continuity of staff, high test scores year-after-year, and rave reviews from nearly every family that’s walked through its hallways, is more than enough to validate this claim. School officials within the division have even reached out to Springfield leaders over the years to see what they were doing right.
“Closing a high-performing school is hard to justify,” said Pamela Boyd, who also noted the impact of consolidating students and the perceived “overabundance of staff in the Central Office.”
However, in fairness to the consideration of closure, it should be noted that Springfield had only 205 students this school year — 77 percent of the building’s 265 capacity — and 47 students were attending on waiver, which means from outside the Springfield school district. While that does speak to parents wanting their kids to go to the best school, it also means an entire school is being operated for only 158 students in K through 5 who actually live within the school district.
It doesn’t look good for Springfield. Among the 19 options that were narrowed down to seven, two were specifically highlighted by the superintendent at this week’s school board meeting:
- Three elementary schools (close one), redraw school districts, eliminate waivers.
- Two elementary schools (close two), redraw school districts, eliminate waivers.
Both options stated that no changes would be made for the upcoming school year, with public input and planning through the end of the year and possibly a decision by the school board in January. The plan would be implemented for the 2027-28 school year. The three-school option would move fifth graders to middle school and eighth graders to high school. The two-school option would shift fourth and fifth graders to middle school and eighth graders to high school.
Among the six plans being considered as “finalists”, a few are easy to dispense with. Three options call for the construction of one new consolidated high school. Been there, tried that. Despite obvious long-term cost savings, the potential to offer more academic courses and activities, the potential for better athletic teams, the opportunity to bury old rivalries and bring the county closer together, the bad blood between Bulldogs and Panthers that seems to keep some people going will likely not allow those options to evolve.
The option to close two elementary schools also seems to create as many problems as it solves. The move would put Stanley Elementary (another aging structure) at 114 percent of its capacity, as well as moving fourth graders to middle school with seventh graders. Several speakers mentioned concerns over the age gap at that stage of a child’s development.
One of the most expensive options involves building two new pre-K through sixth grade schools and renovating both high schools. However, that option actually costs among the least over a 20-year investment of about $38 million. One option involving a consolidated high school and a consolidated middle school would only be a $22.6 million investment over 20 years. Investment figures include projected savings from closures.
The final decision will not be easy, but residents need to let their voice be heard. Be involved. Keep up with the most recent options being presented and updated, as many changes and adjustments are expected along the way. Be open minded to consider long-term costs versus heartfelt sentiment. We understand the love for Springfield (personally), but we also understand what the numbers are saying. That’s why there’s a conversation.
But local officials also need to seriously weigh the true value of education…not what they think people want them to say, but what does it truly really mean to them…what does it truly mean for our community? We’re tired of supervisors starting budget negotiations by asking, “What is the minimum required for us to fund the schools?” That’s not putting a priority on education. They may say they support our schools, but actions speak louder than words. This has happened through several eras of the board, and been asked by several different supervisors over the years. Local funding for schools has long been nitpicked by many outside of education, from a citizen committee years ago that spent many weeks just to produce a four-page report that said very little, to an obvious red flag when a former school superintendent wanted to have people camp in the school parking lots for an ill-conceived large countywide festival (glad recent similar plans were halted as well), to finally efforts for line-item approval of the school budget that ended with the supervisors giving themselves departmental approval over school operations.
We do not endorse a particular option for future facilities planning, but strongly urge everyone to weigh in on the issue. Schools are more than just buildings, and students are more than just numbers. Ask yourself, what value do you place on education? Maybe we need to stop asking which building we should replace first, and start asking how a student who flunks English, a required course, is simply pushed through the system and advanced to the next grade level. Is it because we want to protect our great gaduation rate, or is it because we don’t have solutions to help that student. Perhaps we should be asking why we have such a hard time retaining staff, and why the number of properly licensed and endorsed teachers in the division has dropped from 97 percent down to 84 percent in the past decade.
In closing, perhaps the issues are even bigger than our schools, as mentioned by Rebecca Secrist in her remarks to the school board on Monday night. Maybe problems within our community are driving down overall population, and thus student population, by not providing what working families need. We leave the final word, and the final perspective with Ms. Secrist from her comments during Monday’s citizen comment period:
“We can not go on talking about declining school enrollment without also talking about affordable housing, responsible growth, economic development, and creating opportunities for young families to actually build a life here. If we want stronger schools, we need families. If we want families, we need homes…housing they can afford, jobs they can build a future on, and a county that makes long-term residents a priority,” Secrist said. “Closing schools may reduce expenses on paper, but it does not solve the underlying problem…in fact, we should be asking whether Page County looks more attractive or less to the very families we desperately need.
“Before we just dismantle schools that have served our community for generations of families, I think what we should be asking what every part of our local government is doing to invest in the future of Page County, not just manage its decline.”
For more information about the options being considered,
•••
RELATED ARTICLES
Class of 2026 set to graduate 238 locally during two ceremonies Saturday
Home sale prices rise another 6.5% and average $373K
Reassessment reveals more than 50 percent increase in values of most Page County homes
Be the first to comment