State Sen. Bill Stanley, R-Moneta, wants to know if the deteriorating physical condition of many Virginia schools violates the U.S. Brown vs. Board of Education ruling against “separate but equal” schools for whites and blacks, reports the Roanoke Times.
It’s not remotely clear from the article what that landmark ruling might have to to with the situation in Virginia today other than the superficial parallel between physically deteriorated inner-city schools and better-maintained structures in suburban counties. But Stanley is determined to do something about the physical condition of Virginia’s schools, and he has been stumping the state to raise $3 billion to $4 billion for modernization.
“This isn’t merely an infrastructure issue: it’s a moral issue too,” Stanley wrote in a letter Thursday asking Attorney General Mark Herring to look into the constitutional issues arising from Virginia’s deplorable schools.
The family’s role in education may be paramount, and he can’t fix that, he said. But repairing the physical condition of Virginia’s schools, he told the Roanoke Times, is something that government can fix.
Nearly half of the state’s schools are close to 50 years old, and some are even old enough to be considered historic buildings under federal and state law.
In rural and urban schools, there are trash cans positioned to collect water from leaky ceilings, tiles falling from the ceiling, children burned on exposed pipes, rats scampering through hallways.
In Floyd and Pulaski counties, students have been dismissed early multiple times since the school year started because they don’t have air conditioning.
Stanley would solve the problem by dedicating the anticipated $250 million to $300 million windfall revenue stream from the sales tax on Internet to paying off some $3 billion to $4 billion in bonds issued to pay for the modernization program.
Bacon’s bottom line: Before I start my critique of Stanley’s atrocious proposal, let me first affirm that the condition of certain schools is an embarrassment to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Children should never be forced to use squalid rest rooms, be exposed to falling ceiling tiles, or burn themselves on exposed pipes. These are Third World conditions that have no place in Virginia.
The issue isn’t whether we should address these problems — I dare say that there is near unanimity that the conditions are disgraceful — but how we address them. First, do schools really need $3 billion to $4 billion to deal with the problem? Second, should the state take on responsibility for a local responsibility. And third, are old schools really what’s holding Virginia school children back?
Is this a $3-$4 billion problem? First, I’d like to know how Stanley came up with a price tag of $3-$4 billion. A previous Roanoke Times article attributed that number to a “a school facility modernization subcommittee ” formed this spring. I can find references online to the subcommittee agenda but none pointing to any reports or studies. I suspect that the figure encompasses a much more expansive program than simply fixing exposed pipes, rehabbing bathrooms, getting rid of rats, and installing air conditioning.
If that’s true, fixing scandalous conditions highlighted in hearings and news articles account for only a fraction of total expenditures under the proposal. Perhaps my suspicions are wrong — it wouldn’t be the first time. But if Virginians are to support the issuance of billions of dollars in bonds, they need total transparency on what the money would be used for.
Rewarding the profligate and punishing the responsible. The maintenance of school facilities is a local responsibility. Some local governments have done a good job of maintaining facilities and modernizing schools, and some have done a lousy job. For instance, in 2016 Henrico County voters approved the issue of $276 million in school bonds, more than $10 million of which was to be devoted to the repair and modernization of old school buildings. Now Stanley proposes having the state take over that responsibility for cities and counties that have been less diligent with their finances.
If the state intervenes in the way Stanley proposes, why would any locality issue school modernization bonds ever again? The City of Richmond spends significantly more money per student than Henrico County, yet the city’s schools are among the most deplorable in the state because the city has failed to allocate proper sums for routine maintenance. If school buildings now require major capital outlays, why can’t Richmond issue its own bonds? Oh, yeah, that’s because it’s tapped out its bonding capacity on other projects (some of dubious value) and any additional debt would make it difficult to maintain its AA bond rating.
What difference does it make? While all schools should be required to maintain basic standards of habitability, is there any evidence that new schools make a difference in academic achievement? Writes the Roanoke Times:
Stanley cites the research of Carol Cash, an educational leadership professor at Virginia Tech, who gave the subcommittee a presentation last month on how children can learn more effectively and succeed with improved building conditions, such as minimizing background noise, controlling heat and air conditioning, and having spacious classrooms. She said research shows that deficient schools conditions contribute to poor academic performance.
If she’s saying that it hurts academic performance when students sitting in a classroom have roof tiles fall on their heads, well, I’d have to agree with her. But does her research provide justification for $3-$4 billion in outlays? Let’s just say I’d like to see that research.
Here’s what I’d also like to see, and it shouldn’t be especially hard for researchers to get the data. Richmond Public Schools has built four new schools in the last two to five years. What were the SOL trends lines for students at the old, dilapidated schools, and what were the SOL scores for students in the new schools? Did the trend trajectories change? How do the trends compare for students at older schools? Did the newness of the schools make a discernible difference between the two groups?
Before we run off and spend $3-$4 billion on a state bond issue relieving local government of their responsibilities, let’s see (1) a breakdown of how the money would be spent and (2) evidence that the money (beyond repairs affecting health and safety) would improve student performance.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.