MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 2 February
2008
Fayetteville High
School: the saga continues
In
public policy matters we tend to put on blinders dictated by ideology, custom,
and emotion, and so we miss the obvious solutions. It's Jared Diamond's theme, in his wonderful book
"Collapse," that nations choose to fail or succeed depending on
whether they blind themselves in such ways.
In
the case of the local school board's decision about Fayetteville High School's
future, the blinders went on early.
The citizens' group appointed to make a recommendation to the school
board was told to consider only the questions of one school versus two schools,
whether the present school should be retained, and re-arrangements of the grade
structure. The committee was
designed to be blind to the critical question of where a new high school would
be located even though this question is entangled with the other questions
because a single school in the most likely new location--the northwest corner
of town out beyond I-540--would create a sprawling land-rush that would be
exactly opposite to what citizens envisioned in City Plan 2025.
Discussion
participants complained from the start that the process was biased in favor of
one new high school. The Northwest
Arkansas Times reported in December 2006
that "several participants Écomplained the overview by administrators
seemed slanted in favor of one all-new high school. The same overview has been made at other meetings."
This
tendency to tightly control the agenda continues today as crucial discussions
are closed to the public and the press.
But
the thickest blinders are the athletic ones. There is great moaning and gnashing of teeth over the
prospect that dividing the student population between two schools would lose
Fayetteville its 7A classification that is so coveted by athletic
supporters. In a lengthy
front-page article devoted to this topic, the Northwest Arkansas Times quoted several fans' concerns including an assistant
superintendent who claimed that "winning on the field helps contribute to
an atmosphere where success is expected in other areas, such as the
classroom" (I wonder then about the classroom expectations of those who
lose). Fans complained of the few
extra miles our athletes might have to travel under a 6A classification, but
uttered nary a peep about the millions of extra miles that would be logged
every year by parents, students, and teachers if a single high school were
built out beyond the bypass.
Any
culture that allows academics to be influenced in this way by athletics is
doomed to second class citizenship in today's world. I'm doubtless a voice in the wilderness here but folks,
football is just a game. It's not
your manhood or whatever else it is that makes you value athletics above
education. It's of no real
consequence whether the Bulldogs win or lose. 7A classification should have absolutely nothing to do with
this decision. What is of
consequence is whether our young people grow up thinking clearly, with brains packed
with significant knowledge about the real world. Athletics are fun, which is saying a lot, but that's all
they are. It's entertainment. Sports fans' cultural infatuation with
superficial symbolism is precisely what Jared Diamond is talking about when he
describes the many historic collapsed societies that "chose to
fail."
The
sports influence is so strong that the Northwest Arkansas Times devoted a January 2007 editorial to the subject,
describing sports as "a big factor" in the decision process. That decision arrived a few weeks later
in a strongly split 4-3 school board decision: There would be one high school comprising grades 9-12 rather
than the present high school's 10-12.
This
decision practically guaranteed that the existing FHS property would be ditched
and a new school built elsewhere, because one school covering four grades would
have to hold 3000 students and thus be an unwieldy fit on the existing
property. But the prospect of
getting rid of the existing school caused a ruckus: an outspoken public feedback session, a 6-1 vote by
the Fayetteville City Council, a new organization called Build Smart, and a
unanimous vote by the Council of Neighborhoods, all supported the present central
location. Thus the board appointed
another citizens' group to further consider this matter. But all parties realize that serious
consideration of the existing location implies re-opening the decision to
include grades 9-12; the superintendent recognized this in September by stating
that including only grades 10-12 is indeed an option.
But
if the 9-12 decision can be re-opened, why not remove the blinders and re-open
the one-school decision? That
decision was the decisive mistake in this entire mess. Hundreds of studies show smaller
schools for 500-900 students are best and larger schools over 2000 are
worst--see my four previous articles about FHS at http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/. Because an
election last September replaced a board member who had voted for a single
school with a new member who has declared her preference for two schools,
there's reason to think a board re-vote might yield a majority for two
schools.
A
recent Northwest Arkansas Times
editorial complained that a middle ground in this debate has yet to
develop. But one school on the
existing property is the middle ground, the compromise between (1) two schools
and (2) one school in the far reaches of town.
A
new high school for 1500, preferably more centrally located than the northwest
corner, and renovation of the present high school for another 1500, would be
best for students and best for Fayetteville. Second best would be one high school on the existing
property. A single humongous high
school far outside of town beyond I-540 would be absolutely the worst
choice.