Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > April > 15 > Entry
The pitfalls of school construction
How outraged would Daytonians be right now if the city school board were asking for a 15.17-mill tax levy while one of its high schools under construction was a year and a half behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget?
As I listened to an education reporting colleague here in Michigan tell his story of covering a troubled, big money school building program, it made me wonder if Dayton doesn’t deserve more credit than it has gotten for running a scandal-free $600 million, 28-site construction program for five years?
I’ve been in Michigan the past couple of days to attend the Society of Professional Journalists region 4 conference for Midwestern states. Many of those in attendance were young journalists and college journalism students and on Saturday I was a presenter on a panel about education reporting.
The other panelists were David Jesse, who covers schools for the Ann Arbor News, and Judy Putnam, a statehouse bureau reporter who writes about education for the Booth Newspapers chain in Michigan. Our main message to these young and aspiring journalists was that education was a great beat to cover and one where you can do serious reporting and investigative projects. Education does not have to be the soft “featrey” beat that some young journalists believe it is.
In the course of the discussion, Jesse described some of his reporting on Ann Arbor Public Schools and its $93 million project to build a new high school as part of a $240 million construction program that will make improvements at several schools. Jesse has written about how the high school project is now $8 million over budget and 18 months behind schedule.
The high school project has been plagued by repeated problems. Most of the budget over runs were fueled, school officials say, by a spike in concrete and steel prices. There was a lawsuit filed (and later dropped) to stop the project to protect a salamander habitat. There was a raging debate over the name of the school after the school board picked Skyline High School over a chorus of pleas to name the school for recently deceased Michigan football coaching legend Bo Schembechler. Even the school’s sports nickname, Eagles, prompted some complaints that it was too boring.
(Somebody joked that the school should have been the Schembechler High School Fighting Salamanders.)
As Jesse told these stories, I thought about Dayton. The local tax share for Dayton’s project is $245 million, almost the same as Ann Arbor’s all locally-funded project. Ann Arbor’s school district is roughly the same size at 17,000 students (Dayton is closer to 16,000).
So far, Dayton’s project has not suffered these sorts of troubles. It has had help. Steel and concrete prices also hurt Dayton, but the district counteracted those higher costs, partly with investment strategies and partly due to a twisted sort of “luck.” When the state forced Dayton to build fewer schools because of an enrollment decline, it meant more money for the smaller number of remaining schools, which helped cover higher materials costs.
The biggest Dayton controversy has been the continuing inability of the district to deliver on its promise to spend most of its construction dollars with local companies and to include minority companies at a high percentage. Navigating the competitive bidding process while still hitting those goals has proven more elusive than promised.
But even though, as Jesse said Saturday, construction projects inevitably have change orders and other unexpected obstacles, Dayton’s program has had stumbles but largely has stayed on track and on budget.
What do you think? Should Dayton get more credit for managing school construction well? Could the district’s leaders fairly argue that through the project they’ve demonstrated a trustworthiness managing money that it can extend as a promise to do the same with the levy money?
Permalink | Comments (16) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, My Favorite Posts, School Construction
Comments
By Scott Elliott
April 25, 2007 11:06 PM | Link to this
Ezman, it’s called American Democracy. Check it out. Everyone gets a vote. I think it works pretty well.By ezman
April 25, 2007 8:16 PM | Link to this
NON taxpayers should not be allowed to vote on money issues ( levies and taxes ) because they dont contribute so they shouldnt have a say in money matters.By wellwhynot
April 17, 2007 10:02 PM | Link to this
Mary, I do understand the “big” picture. I’m not sure you do, however. First, the comments in today’s paper are the same comments that have been on the Fairborn blog. Second, I don’t know why you think I thought the fee-to-pay covered the entire cost. It does, however, offset what the district pays. In my opinion, that was done in an effort to appease the people who resent anything but the 3 R’s being paid for. They are probably the ones who got cut from the team and have been carrying a grudge for 20 years. I take exception with your wording that “only small groups of students are encouraged to use”. ALL students are encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities. In addition, most facilities can be used by the general public during nonschool use; baseball fields, tennis courts, soccer fields. Regarding Title IX, bringing it into this discussion is really a stretch. I understand that some people struggle to make ends meet. I also know that some people simply have a “ME” mentality and don’t want to part with their money. Some people have made poor financial choices and as such have put themselves into a position that doing their fair share is difficult if not downright impossible. Everytime there is a levy request we seem to get the same stories. “I can hardly afford to pay by house payment.” Or, “I can’t afford the taxes and upkeep on my house”. Well, the other side of that is that a lot of people have moved out of Fairborn and other cities because the value of their home was continually falling. If the community won’t support it’s schools, the fact is that the value of the homes goes down. When my family moved to Fairborn more than 40 years ago, it was the choice of most military families because of the great schools. When I graduated in the 70’s that was still the case. The majority of kids were either military or their parents worked at the base. However, when my son started school, everyone asked us if we were going to move. As a teacher, I certainly would know if my child were getting a quality education. I have never entertained any thoughts to move or transfer him to a private school until recently. Not because of the quality of his education, but because I am afraid the state is going to take over and many of the fabulous teachers he has had will reluctantly leave for more secure positions. Because although an awful lot of people seem to think teachers should just work for the love of children, the reality is that they have families and bills to pay just like everyone else.By Mary
April 17, 2007 7:38 AM | Link to this
“wellwhynot”, the problem I see with your comments is you do not realize and take into account the big picture. Your previous comments on the Fairborn levy indicated you thought pay to play covered all expenses. Read today’s comments in the Speak up column about the Fairborn levy in the Dayton Daily News. There comes a point where adults need to take responsibility for priorities and costs of education. There is a lot of money tied up in construction, maintenance and upgrades of athletic facilities that only small groups of students are encouraged to use on a regular basis. Meanwhile, classroom needs, class sizes and educational services during the school day are underfunded and neglected. Also, Title IX which was enacted in the 1970s to open up academic opportunities for women has been bastardized into sports wars over resources for men and women. That has doubled the drain sports creates on academic resources.By dps teacher
April 16, 2007 11:54 PM | Link to this
Well said wellwhynot!By wellwhynot
April 16, 2007 10:12 PM | Link to this
Of course it would be a reasonable assumption to connect the good management of the building monies to the management of the levy monies but as usual, there has to be someone to add their negative thoughts to anything involving DPS. When the current elected board members came on board the public said let’s see them do something right. Now that they are, it sounds like some people don’t like it because they will have less to criticize. Concerning the comments about sports vs. academics why do some people think the kids don’t deserve both? When I was in school, many years ago, we had sports for anyone who chose to participate. I can understand wanting all kids to have an opportunity (as in PE classes) but quite honestly, not all kids want to participate. Kids have their own preferences. If some kids chose band or orchestra, art or sports why not? Then, the schools provided football fields and softball fields, etc. Why is it so ridiculous now? As the parent of a high school student who participates in music and sports, I have had the opportunity to travel all over the area. The quality of the playing areas varies drastically. It really is frustrating to see some of the awesome baseball diamonds and tennis courts that some schools have compared to others. To high school students, especially, these things matter. It makes them feel like no one cares about them. The interesting thing is that in the majority of cases I have seen, the schools that have great sports venues are the same schools who have great ratings on the state report card. I think it just comes down to a general level of pride in your community.By Mary
April 16, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
DPS teacher, one of my main goals today was to go to yogalates class this morning to practice my breathing, do stretching, etc. That and an afternooon nap have done wonders for my disposition, but it still does not change the facts about how sports is done or overdone or underdone in our schools. Also, I pay my gym dues, not the taxpayer.By dps teacher
April 16, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
David, I wasn’t pointing out that there was a greater potential for misuse of funds. I was saying that because of the state’s facilities commission’s guidelines, there is less of a chance for mismanagement. The state has a tight hold on the funds used for these buildings, with its guidelines and restrictions. I think that Taft did do a decent job of ensuring that there wasn’t misuse of funds. I think Scott can speak better on this.By dps teacher
April 16, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
Well, it seems that I struck a nerve. I did not play sports in high school although I was a bandoid and absolutley loved it. But I was in National Honor Society and in seveal drama productions. All of those advisors were paid through supplemental contracts. And plus I worked after school jobs, did family chores, and went to church with friends and students who played sports in the Northmont area. I look back at my high school days with fondness not the hatred and jealously that you routinely exhibit through these postings. Let it go, Mary. And breathe. By the way, the lights at Stivers? Would you rather have the buildings stipped of metal by our friendly neighborhood scoundrels looking for metal to sell?By David
April 16, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this
Dpsteacher’s post points out that state funding of the construction may be even more open to misuse and mishandling. The farther from the source the more likely the money and employment techniques will be misused by those with power. The taxpayers lose both ways. The Taft’s administraction’s involvement makes it even more likely to have improprieties with the big-business construction companies and constracts. Check recent history for a school lesson in politics that are dirty in Columbus. As for sports being used as a reason to build expensive stadiums and gyms that aren’t needed for educating the student, I’ve been around the block several times on that one (and Mary probably has been too but she seems much younger than myself); I’ve learned that administrators typically are excoaches or wannabes and the public thinks sports is the best thing about schools, so they get what they want while the kids’ educations suffer. I recall one district in Darke county where I heard someone say, “The schools doing a great job. The football team’s 6 and 0!” Kind of backwards for a city school district out there to face that attitude.By Mary
April 16, 2007 7:51 AM | Link to this
“DPS teacher”, I know this might be a surprise, but schools did not have varsity “tiddly winks” when I went to school. Now today is another story. We were too busy for after school programs when I was growing up. I did not have time or inclination to try out for any varsity team. Babysitting, cooking meals for our large family, and farm work was on my agenda. Those taught me responsibility a lot more than being entertained by the school at taxpayer’s expense. For the gazillionth time, wanting the facts out on school spending, including sports, facilities, and supplemental contracts, does not make me anti-sports. When I had the opportunity and time to play sports it was full court basketball and softball with the guys. “DPS teacher” perhaps you are biased and over compensated from the status quo on how sports is currently done - maybe a supplemnetal contract for you or your spouse, a full “athletic scholarship” for your children while other students and families subsidize the sports and get inferior education and large class sizes. So what is your bias? What do you think is more important, maintaining reasonable class sizes and academic and physical fitness opportunites for students in general, or providing special services for small numbers of elite athletes? Are you a teacher or are you a coach?By Eve
April 16, 2007 6:07 AM | Link to this
Drive by the Stivers site on E. 5th sometime. Dozens of overhead lights in this uninhabited building have been on 24/7 since construction began, what, almost two years ago? Bet the electric bill for a weekend matches what they want to raise my annual taxes by.By dps teacher
April 15, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
I would guess the main difference between the Ann Arbor district building and renovations projects and Dayton is that Ann Arbor’s is locally financed and Dayton’s is not, the state is contributing more than $.60 per dollar spent in construction funding for DPS and it has put tight constraints on how that money can be spent. I guess the Taft administration did something right after all. Mary, I don’t understand why you assume that somehow everything wrong with education is due to sports. It sounds like someone didn’t make the varsity tiddly winks team and they have an axe to grind.By Terri
April 15, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
Boy are we a cynical group.By Mary
April 15, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this
Maybe we should hold our collective breath for a few years or decades before we assume local construction was well managed. Sometimes it takes a while for mistakes in mortar or on paper to surface. Enron, Worldcom, etc. looked like good investments at one time and their leadership was praised for their brilliance. People used to think the Iraq war was a good idea and gave our leaders high approval ratings. The passage of time can be a real learning experience. However, I am glad the school board decided not to name the school after a “football hero”. I wonder if gymnasiums and football stadiums were driving up the school construction costs. Meanwhile, China has been scarfing up a lot of our raw materials and recycling them. I wonder if our own construction and manufacturing firms tried such practices to control costs. Many of these businesses seem to be very wasteful, especially when they can just stick it to taxpayers.By David
April 15, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
The construction here probably has some scandals and mishandling that just hasn’t come out, yet.