Unanswered questions, concerns about MISD, bond proposal

I have many questions regarding the impending $1.4 billion bond proposal recently announced by the Midland Independent School District.

First, let me say that my family and I are strong supporters of our community. Midland is where I grew up. Midland is the community where my wife and I chose to live and to raise our four children. I graduated from Midland High, as did each of our four children. Midland is our home. We want the best for Midland.

Having said that, I must say that a bond package for MISD in the amount of $1.415 billion is an absolutely staggering amount to me. To better understand this amount, imagine 1,400 homeowners, each owing $1 million. MISD reported there are more than 28,000 students enrolled at the beginning of the year. $1.4 Billion is $50,000 per student. This is far and away the largest single bond proposal that this community has ever seen. So, my first question is, which parts of this bond proposal are “needs” and which parts are just “wants”?

With regard to “wants” and “needs,” why did the school board choose to include all of the components of the proposal in one “take it or leave it” package? Why didn’t MISD break the bond package up into several alternatives, such as putting safety and security in one package, the two indoor $20 million sports facilities in another package and so on? That certainly would have given the individual voter a better opportunity to have a real say in the decision of which facilities are best for our children and for our community. It is our money, after all. Shouldn’t we have the right to prioritize how we spend it?

As for the two indoor sports facilities that are proposed, why will MISD’s cost $20 million each, when the indoor sports facility that is currently on Ector County ISD’s bond proposal will only cost $3.75 million? Do our student-athletes really need indoor sports practice facilities? Will indoor practice facilities even be good for our student athletes or help them be game-ready when it’s time for outdoor interscholastic competition?

Why did the school board choose to place the proposed Midland High School in the current location of the Ranchland Hills golf course? Ranchland Hills is one of only two golf course facilities in Midland for people who choose not to belong, or who cannot afford to, belong to a country club to have golf as a recreation. Do we really want to take that away from our community?

Why are we being told that there is no tax increase when that is not the real truth? Why aren’t we being told that MISD is capitalizing on a long-deserved tax break that the Texas Legislature provided to the citizens of Texas this past legislative session?

Do we really want our high schools to be bigger and house more students than the ones that we have now? Is it really better to build two new larger facilities? Or, would it be preferable to remodel and refurbish the ones that we have and build a third high school for the growth that we anticipate in our community? I assume that most of us want our students to have an opportunity to participate in UIL activities. It goes without saying that more students would have a chance to participate in sports and extracurricular activities in three schools rather than in just two schools. We are going to have to build a third high school at some point. Shouldn’t we have the opportunity to choose that option, instead of two new larger High Schools?

The “Notice of Bond Election” published by MISD reveals the total amount of the bond proposal to be $1.415 billion, and the total amount of estimated interest on the bond over the 30-year payout period to be $1.506 billion (a combined $2.921 billion). The proposal also states, in general terms, the different ways that the bond funds will be used. Further research shows the estimated cost of a new Midland High School to be $492.6 million and the estimated cost of a new Legacy High School to be $492.6 million. Assuming 4,000 students per school, that’s over $120,000 per student for each new high school. Really?

What about the funds that MISD already has on hand? I understand that we have ample funds on hand to build a new elementary school. Why don’t we use a portion of those funds to build a new one without borrowing and burdening the Midland taxpayers with additional debt?

MISD has historically underperformed to our children’s detriment. With that track record, why the rush? Why all at once? Why not a step by step, school by school, process over a five- to 10-year period?

The “elephant in the room” is the question of whether any of these expenditures will do anything to educate our kids any better than they have been over the past decade. We passed a bond in 2012 ($163 million – the largest bond in MISD’s history) and built three new elementary schools. None of those new schools have performed at a satisfactory level. With a track record like that, why should we now believe that building more schools and more facilities will, in any way, resolve the problems that obviously exist in our school system?

We have a new school superintendent who has been here less than one year. I absolutely support her and wish her the best. Why not give her and her administration some time to show what they can do to bring about systemic change with the facilities we now have in place before we throw more money at the problem?

For me, the bottom line is that there are just too many unanswered questions about this bond proposal and the current state of MISD. I am voting “no” on this proposal. I hope that a majority of Midland voters agree with me and that the next Bond Proposal that MISD brings up for vote will be one that we can say “yes” to. Time will tell.

If you agree with me, I encourage you to go to the MoveMidland.org website and offer to help bring about positive, common-sense change for Midland schools and for Midland’s children.