Hickman Mills Needs Scrutiny
Tony’s KC reported on an article by Jodi Fortino of KCUR which compares student population in the Hickman Mills School District with that in the North Kansas City School District. It’s good that someone is now paying a bit of attention. For the last two years people in Hickman Mills have been trying to get the media to listen to issues plaguing the district, but to no avail. While those issues are much larger than these quotes from the superintendent, it’s easy to see, at least in part, the reason the district continues its downward spiral.
Some quotes from the article followed by my comments:
“Enrollment at Hickman Mills dropped by 15% in the last five years, from 5,565 students in 2018 to 4,758 this year.” In October Superintendent Obeng insisted enrollment was not declining and was currently at 6,000.
“Obeng says projections of continuing enrollment decline led the district to close two elementary school buildings and reconfigure grade levels in most of its buildings.” That was in 2019 when the district hired a consultant to perform a demography study which showed there would be continual decline in student population for the next 10 years. The superintendent now seems to contend that study was incorrect.
“Closing schools allowed the district to improve its financial picture even with fewer students in its seats, Obeng says.” Closing schools would certainly save in salary and maintenance costs, but there have been no figures to show if that amount offsets the amount the district has lost in per pupil funding from the state.
“Obeng said he hopes ongoing conversations with developers about adding more two- or three- bedroom housing units to the area will draw in more families.” While we’re not sure what developers the superintendent may be speaking with, there are currently 3 such housing developments proposed within the district, all in URD (urban redevelopment district) areas. That, in itself, means fewer tax dollars for the district. There was also a community meeting held this last Saturday hosted by Councilwomen Bough and Parks-Shaw to discuss the prospect of creating yet another rather large URD area within the district boundaries. The superintendent was invited but did not attend and did not send a representative. Also, the community would prefer to see single family housing, which would also more than likely add more stability to the current high student turnover district.
“Obeng said teachers coming to the district will bring their own children with them, further boosting enrollment.” I’m not sure why he believes new teacher hires will even move to this area when they are most likely established elsewhere. Also, why would teachers knowingly enroll their children in an unaccredited school district?
“He said the district is in the process of demolishing old buildings it had previously closed (currently still standing and blighting neighborhoods) and rebuilding them.” These schools have sat vacant since 2019 and with a lack of security they were often vandalized, including being set on fire. As of last March at least one was proposed to have a complete renovation. Any thought of rebuilding was never shared with the community.
Almost a year ago, a bond issue was passed in order for the district to renovate buildings and demolish vacant ones. None of that has occurred; possibly because plans keep changing. There has been talk of everything from a new 6th grade center to a second middle school. Ideas seem to keep changing even though there should have been a concrete plan prior to asking for a new bond issue. (Items from the previous bond haven’t been completed.)
Now, seemingly, the district wants to buy a new building (the former Pinnacle Career Institute) with bond money – even though purchasing property wasn’t part of the bond wording; using $22M of bond money and $26M of COVID money. It would house district administration and a real world learning center with no definite plans for the space administration now occupies. The district actually owns a building specifically built for administration but opted to move out of it several years ago. Rumor has it now that it has been or is in the process of being sold. (fodder for another blog)
The crux of this whole issue is that there seem to be no actual plans, simply whatever hits someone’s (the superintendent’s?) fancy on any given day. It certainly doesn’t help to have a nonfunctioning board; or at least one with its own priorities which are not necessarily those of the district or the community. What family in its right mind would move into such an unstable school district?
Reply