Advocating for Equity in PSD School Consolidation Process

[Anne Nelsen]

Dear Commissioner Kefalas,

I am reaching out to you as a concerned member of the public and a resident of District 1 who deeply appreciates your life-long commitment to equity and social justice. As we consider the Poudre School District school consolidation options that were made public on March 19, I believe it’s important that we ask ourselves as a community if we believe access to high quality education is a right that everyone deserves or a privilege for only some in our district.

After having attended several listening sessions facilitated by the Poudre School District and their Facilities Planning Steering Committee, a more direct question for many of the parents involved might be “Do I want what’s best for my child, even if it means disadvantaging other children?  Or do I want the most equitable solution for all children?”

It’s unfortunate that we even have to have this conversation as a community.  Regrettably, due to insufficient funding for education and a lack of affordable housing, families with young children are priced out of the boundaries of many of these schools and instead of fixing the root causes, we’re forced to decide which schools in our community we have to close.

I am concerned that the loudest voices in this process will end up being the most privileged ones, weakening the efforts of the Facilities Planning Steering Committee to provide truly equitable solutions.

When more moneyed families in our community allow prioritization of their own children to trump their commitment to equity by leaving neighborhood schools, their priorities should come into question.  White flight and wealth flight are still very much present in PSD, and often woven into the school choice process.

There are families who outwardly say they’re committed to diversity and the community as a whole, but take their kids out of their more diverse neighborhood schools because of dubious claims of not wanting their kids to be exposed to other children who have had severe traumatic events in their life— as if higher income is some guarantee that abuse, addiction, or unexpected loss won’t reach a school or impact its students.

These families also leave because of test scores, an outdated statistic that serves to identify the income makeup of the children who attend the school rather than the quality of the education they will receive there.  It’s a logical fallacy to assume that an individual child will score higher on a standardized test if they attend a school with higher test scores.  I have urged PSD and the community at large to emphasize academic growth over test scores. 

By leaving these neighborhood schools, families leave behind vibrant communities and smaller classrooms where students are met at their level, regardless of what that level might be.  Leave the chance for kids of differing abilities to learn together.  Leave first hand experience of diversity on all levels, including socioeconomic diversity; a true cross-section of our district.  But most of all, they leave behind the chance to understand that their child’s experience is in most ways no different at their neighborhood school than it would be at a school across town.  Because regardless of background, regardless of income, regardless of everything else, kids are kids.  They become friends with their classmates.  They play together.  They are taught by the exceptional educators that are at every school in our district.  The families who leave these schools because of unfounded concerns only drive home to their kids the concept that othering and exclusion are acceptable behaviors when it is deemed to be self-serving and in the meantime, they drain financial resources from schools that need it. 

In addition to the risk of this process being disproportionately influenced by affluent parents, I have reservations that the Steering Committee and, ultimately, the School Board, are being asked to make decisions about the quality of the actual facilities using data that has a high degree of nuance which may be lost on the decision makers.  As a practicing architect, I have reviewed the McKinstry air conditioning feasibility report and facility condition assessment and have concerns about the quality of the data and the recommendations within both reports.  Historically, capital needs do not appear to have been addressed equally among the schools in the district.  It seems unfair to penalize and consolidate schools based on the district’s decision to defer maintenance or, conversely, to keep a school open due to out of sequence upgrades that reward lobbying efforts made by school administrations with more resources.  

The air conditioning assessment in particular lacks a range of options that would typically be considered in a design process, giving only “a single, fully functional AC system option” per school.  For example, at my son’s elementary school, the report suggested not only adding air-conditioning to the school, but also simultaneously upgrading the school’s heating plant and making major renovations to the entire HVAC system, an effort that would “require significant repiping” of underground ductwork.  The end result would be “one of the most efficient systems available,” something that would “(lower) carbon emissions and (provide) fuel flexibility to react to changing utility costs,” but would require “high capital cost for (the) new mechanical system retrofit.”  

Although the report clarifies that “the preferred system type can be developed further once PSD decides on the direction to move forward,” I am deeply concerned that the decision will be made to consolidate schools based on the sticker shock reaction to the initial bottom-line costs in these reports by those without the technical knowledge to understand that there are other, less costly, options.  Furthermore, these recommendations vary in complexity and approach, ranging “from budget-aware to ‘best case scenario’ options,” removing the ability to make an “apples-to-apples” comparison between improvements recommended for individual schools.  

While I appreciate PDS’s professed dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion, I am apprehensive that these principles might be sidelined in favor of a strict adherence to budgetary constraints.  This is particularly troubling if there isn’t an accurate picture of the true costs of addressing capital needs to begin with.  Moreover, I am deeply concerned that the imperative to maintain the status quo from those who prioritize their own interests or are in positions of advantage could overshadow PSD’s obligation to address the significant achievement gaps within our district.  PSD is in a position to continue its work to close those gaps— but only if they prioritize equity in their long range planning.  

Everyone has the right to an excellent education, and that is absolutely something they can receive in the Poudre School District.  Consolidating the poorest, most diverse schools in our district would have a disproportionate impact on children who are already at a disadvantage, and the initial draft scenarios presented by the Steering Committee recognize that.  

I’d like to ask you to help be an advocate for the students who have traditionally been left out of these conversations.  Can you please do everything you can to keep PSD accountable to their stated values?   

Thanks again for everything you’ve done for our community.  Please reach out to me if you’d like to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Anne Nelsen, AIA NOMA NCARB

Putnam Elementary Parent

230 N McKinley Ave, Fort Collins CO

[John Kefalas]

Dear Anne,

Thank you for taking the time to share your kind words and detailed and informed input.regarding our current PSD school situation - the various scenarios presented about potential school consolidations and closures. Our two sons (who are now grown up) went to Irish, Lincoln and PHS and benefited greatly in a learning environment with diverse student populations. Our six year old granddaughter, who is very smart, empathetic and she attends Harris Bilingual School as a first grader. I have a good understanding of the value of neighborhood schools and diversity as critical to learning and building community based on fairness and equity. At the moment, I am focused on supporting the Laporte community and we are having a Laporte Community Conversation (see details below) on Saturday, and I am considering my role and presence at theApril 16th BoE listening session. I am also planning to complete the survey that has been provided by PSD and the facilities long-range planning steering committee.

Larimer County Commissioner John Kefalas will host a Community Conversation from 8:30 a.m. - 10 a.m., Saturday, April 13, at American Legion Post 4, 2124 CR 54G, Fort Collins, 80524. *Note location change*

Featured Topic: Conversation about Laporte schools with Commissioner Kefalas

The location has been changed to a larger venue to accommodate the many community members who have reached out with concerns about possible school consolidations or closures. Commissioner Kefalas looks forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback.  

Please note that this is not a Poudre School District (PSD)- functioned event. PSD decision makers will not be present to hear feedback expressed at this Community Conversation; however, you can learn more about official feedback opportunities on the PSD long-range planning community outreach webpage. 

	John Kefalas County Commissioner, District 1
	Commissioners' Office 200 W Oak St | 2nd Floor PO Box 1190, Fort Collins, CO 80522-1190 W: (970) 498-7001 Cell:  (720) 254-7598 jkef...@larimer.org | www.larimer.org

[Anne Nelsen]

Dear Commissioner Kefalas,

Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful response.  It means a lot that you took the time from your schedule to return my email, and I appreciate you sharing the ways your children and grandchild have benefited from their neighborhood schools in Poudre School District.  Your voice is important in the questionnaire the Steering Committee has put together and I’m glad to know that you are planning on filling it out.

Unfortunately, I’m out of town through the weekend and thus was not able to attend the conversation you hosted.  Hopefully it was a productive and successful meeting.  I have also advocated for the Laporte community in this process; the elementary and middle schools play such a central role there.  

Overall, I’m relieved to hear this is an important issue to you and I would ask you to please continue to advocate for those who have been historically underserved in our community. 

I’m curious to hear your thoughts about the facilities data that I mentioned in my last email, as I believe this is also an equity issue, and something that could have a tremendous impact on the outcome of this process.  If there is anything else I can do to help or discuss further with you, please let me know.  

Sincerely,

Anne Nelsen, AIA NOMA NCARB

Putnam Elementary Parent

[Anne Nelsen]

Hi John,

Thank you so much for your email.  It was great to see you at the listening session; thank you for taking the time to attend.  I stayed at the listening session until a little before 8 and thought the overwhelming message during the time I was there was essentially that many families believe the district should not close any schools.  There were quite a few who also advocated for equity in the process, which was heartening.

I think the primary purpose in sending along my concerns regarding the facilities data is just to make sure you’re aware that there’s considerable nuance in the reports and more cost-effective options beyond their primary recommendations.  Unfortunately, this may come up much further down the line in this process when the Board of Education makes their final decision.  

I’m interested to see what the next round of scenarios looks like when the Steering Committee releases them in early May.

Thanks for sending the CLP PTO document; I appreciated having the chance to read it.  When you have time, I’d love to know more about the urban-rural divide socio-economic equity issue in our community, as I am of course familiar with the basics but feel like I don’t have enough specific data on this issue to advocate effectively.

All the best,

Anne Nelsen

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 20:57 John Kefalas <kefa...@co.larimer.co.us> wrote:

Hello Anne, 

It was nice to connect with you earlier this evening. How did the listening session go? I do not have the time and bandwidth to review the facilities data and will have to trust that others are fully scrutinizing the data and the analysis. Yes, I believe this is an equity issue and one of my highlights that I did not have time to articulate was about the urban-rural divide socio-economic equity issue. I have attached the CLP PTO document for your review, and thank you.