Here’s a good way to make sure that dropout rates at area schools
remain high and that kids become even less engaged with education than
they are now: Follow the advice of the Santa Fe Public Schools’ district
budget advisory subcommittee and consolidate small schools into big
ones.
Last year, SFPS had a go at closing Alvord Elementary despite evidence
that doing so would not result in net savings. Last-minute action by
Gov. Bill Richardson prevented the closure and Alvord has since become a
magnet school—offering its progressive pedagogy to students throughout
the district.
That’s all well and good, argues the budget advisory subcommittee, but
SFPS is staring down the barrel of a $7.3 million shortfall next year.
The conclusion from SFPS Superintendent Bobbie Gutierrez: “There will be
unpopular decisions.”
Bad economy, slim funding, tough times—we get it. But is setting in
motion a plan to wipe out all the small schools (except, probably, tony
east-side ones such as Acequia Madre Elementary School)—a plan that will
just become the way it is for the foreseeable future—really the smart
way to get through a temporary budget crisis?
Umm, no.
Think New Mexico, the applied-solutions think tank that rescued New
Mexico from the food tax the first time around (and lobbied hard to save
us again during the recent “tortilla tax” fiasco), is in a full-court
press to get the state to mandate more small schools, not fewer small
schools. Why? Because, according to Think New Mexico literature, “smaller
schools have higher graduation rates, higher student achievement, lower
levels of student alienation and violence, and higher levels of
satisfaction among students, parents, principals, and teachers. Small
schools also dramatically improve the performance of low-income
children, which helps to narrow the persistent achievement gap.”
Larger schools also tend to be less efficient than small schools, so any
financial savings based on consolidation may be temporary.
We do need long-term solutions to better public school funding so that
short-term hatchet jobs can be avoided. For starters, Santa Fe is going
to have to wake up to the reality that property taxes are too low.
Tackling that would be an appropriate, if “unpopular,” decision.
Another unpopular decision in the ether is the City Council’s recent
thumbs-up to the demolition of part of a Railyard building. Santa Fe
Clay is vacating its lease—it doesn’t care for the price or the parking
at the Railyard—and moving to a new location. But someone—probably John
and Rose Utton, who have developed several other properties on the
Railyard—has to take over the lease. If the Uttons do so, they’ll want a
new building that can attract rents that make it worthwhile.
The argument against tearing down the building says that it will bring
increasingly expensive rents to an area that public planning designated
as an arts corridor. Additional arguments cite the movie theater
hole-in-the-ground debacle—as a warning against creating a new hole
where a perfectly good building sits—as well as the lackluster sales and
tenancy at the ArtYard adjacent to the Railyard Park.
It’s true that the city and, by extension, the Railyard Community
Corporation have an obligation to maintain the character and use of the
Railyard as stipulated in the publicly influenced master plan. It’s also
true that every Santa Fean should be grateful to the Uttons—if they
hadn’t engaged the development of the Railyard as energetically as they
did, much of the area would be an ill-defined ruin and we’d still be
waiting around for a Railyard district. The Uttons have proven
themselves to be thoughtful developers and engaged, responsible,
well-liked landlords. In the event they do build a new building on the
Santa Fe Clay site, I do have a request however: please not another
Devendra Narayan Contractor building. Contractor, the architect for many
of the buildings in the Railyard, is a perfectly fine architect and
he’s mostly done a great job (sorry, not a fan of the LewAllen Galleries
building), but it’s time for more architectural variation.
It’s also time for complainers of the “you can’t tear that down because
you can’t” variety to quit moaning and engage the process. We need
solutions, not loggerheads. How about getting a developer to commit to a
perimeter of kiosk-type spaces surrounding any new
building—microgalleries designed so that rents can actually be
affordable, built-in food-cart-style operations with foldout counters
and stools? All the law offices and high rents can be stuffed in the
belly of the beast, and the Railyard can contain actual character.
Or, I suppose we can keep arguing about fantasy versus commercialism.
The good news is that the Rail Runner is set to launch its free public
Wi-fi this month. Oh, wait, that’s controversial around here as well,
isn’t it?
The city is about to launch a series of town hall meetings (beginning at
7 pm Thursday, April 8 at the Mary Esther Gonzales Senior Center at
1121 Alto St.) because in the last six years staff has been unable to
draft a simple telecommunications ordinance. No matter what happens, the
ultimate decision is going to be unpopular with someone: Wi-fi
opponents, preservationists, or people who want increased connectivity
and economic opportunity.
Sometimes, you just can’t win.
Follow Zane’s World on Twitter: @Zanes_World
Santa Fe Reporter