Category: GFPS

 

________________________________________________________________________

The District’s Secret Stash

Does the Great Falls Public School District have a plan to grow the local economy and thereby grow the tax base to increase funding for the school district, and perhaps increase student population. How does the district’s do that?

New school board trustee, and Great Falls Development Authority employee, Teresa Schreiner made the following statement on behalf of the Great Falls Development Authority.

“We would like to thank Great Falls Public Schools for your investment ($7,000) this week, placing them at the Leadership Level of the GFDA Honor Roll. We are not donation based but rather our members proactively invest resources to build and strengthen the economic future of our community. Our investors track their resources through tangible, accountable measures and high economic performance. The beauty of economic development is that this investment – your investment – is most palpable and can be most transparent in the work that we do every day.”

“We are Hungry to Grow the Great Falls regional economy, create higher wage jobs, build our tax base, improve our market competitiveness, and enhance the quality of life and economic opportunity for residents of Great Falls, Cascade County, and the entire 13 – county Great Falls trade area.”

According to Jolene Schalper, Vice President, Business Development for GFDA, the school district’s donation did not come from district tax revenues. Schalper also pointed out that the school district has made lesser donations ($5,000) for the past several years.

The obvious questions to be asked are, if the money did not come from school district tax revenues, then where did it come from, and did the school board approve the GFDA donation? Additionally, is there a conflict of interest if Trustee Schreiner voted for or will in the future vote for a GFPS donation to an entity with which she is employed?

The obvious questions to be asked are, if the money did not come from school district tax revenues, then where did it come from, and did the school board approve the GFDA donation? Additionally, is there a conflict of interest if Trustee Schreiner voted for or will in the future vote for a GFPS donation to an entity with which she is employed?

It should also be noted that the City of Great Falls withdrew its annual support of $50,000 for GFDA several years ago. In my opinion the City of Great Falls should be the one supporting economic development efforts, not the school district. Any extra money the school district has, even if it is not from tax revenues, should go to the kids.

A portion of the Great Falls Public Schools Mission Statement:

“District resources and staff are public assets requiring responsible stewardship and community involvement.”

Briefly on another note, in the wake of Superintendent Lacey’s retirement announcement, some have reveled in her departure, while others have accused E-City Beat writers and commentators of a lack of respect and common decency.

Suggesting that critical language directed at Lacey, a public official on the taxpayers payroll, is a sign of deficient moral character is absurd. In fact it is insulting, rude and the epitome of virtue signalling aimed at shutting down legitimate criticism and shaming those with whom you disagree.

And that dog don’t hunt here.

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

Now that Great Falls Public Schools Superintendent Tammy Lacey has announced her retirement at the end of this school year we’d like to make a couple of observations and ask a couple of questions.

The success of our local public school system should be judged by the quality of educational outcomes for students, not how enthusiastic administrators are, how many community events they attend, how many school levies/bonds they “get passed” or how many raises and benefits they get for district employees.

The success of our local public school system should be judged by the quality of educational outcomes for students, not how enthusiastic administrators are, how many community events they attend, how many school levies/bonds they “get passed” or how many raises and benefits they get for district employees.

So in the coming months we will be focusing on measuring and evaluating the actual results GFPS administrators and our elected school board have achieved “for the kids”. Good intentions, big smiles and outgoing personalities are nice qualities but they don’t mean much if we are seeing poor test scores, declining enrollment, fewer learning opportunities for students and declining graduation rates.

We’ll be paying extra close attention to the GFPS school board and focusing on what they do and how they do it. What is the school boards mission? Is it to be a rubber stamp for the education union and the administration, or should they be more representative of the taxpayers?

It seems that Lacey, other district employees, and the school board have been living in a bubble of back-patters and sycophants so long that they’ve become out of touch and tone deaf to the taxpayers. How else does one explain comments from the superintendent like these recent ones from Lacey:

“Part of the reason why (the average income in Great Falls) is low is a lack of the will of so many people in our community…”

“Sorry Great Falls…the gap just got wider. By the way, Billings and Butte, the other AA districts, didn’t run levies. That makes us the only losers.”

Finally, in light of Superintendent Lacey’s retirement announcement we have a poll question:

[poll id=”14″]

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Do we really need a school board at all?

This Spring after the voters of Great Fall defeated the Great Falls Public Schools request for an operational levy totaling $1.4 million, our Superintendent of Schools, Tammy Lacey reacted by publicly stating:

“Congratulations to Bozeman, Helena, Kalispell, and Missoula school districts for passing their operational levies! Sorry Great Falls…the gap just got wider. By the way, Billings and Butte, the other AA districts, didn’t run levies. That makes us the only losers.”

Again, after the district administration recommendation to raise 48 administrator’s salaries by 2%, Lacey had these condescending remarks about the cause for the poor economic state of Great Falls and why many citizens opposed the raises:

“Part of the reason why (the average income in Great Falls) is low is a lack of the will of so many people in our community to go out and earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a master’s degree, let alone the plus-30 credits and the college time that these people have spent in classrooms learning to get better”.

Many of those commenting on E-City Beat have asked why Lacey still holds her superintendent position.

After Lacey’s disparaging comments one would wonder if the school board trustees had any admonishment for her. To the best of our knowledge the answer is ‘no’. Of course, we have no information about what happens on the Hill behind closed doors, but we can still ask the question: If no admonishment was given by the board for the out-of-line insults directed toward those who pay the bills then who pulls the strings at the District, and do we even need a school board?

This spring’s local school election recorded a 53% registered voter turnout, which is better than the 20% to 30% average for the rest of the country, and one might say, not bad for a purposely scheduled off-cycle election.

The following is from “Opinion: ‘Elected” School Boards and the dangerous Illusion of Democracy”, by Aaron Churchill, research director for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute:

“At the very least, why aren’t they clamoring to move school elections on cycle to ensure that more citizens’ voices are heard? The answer boils down to stone-cold self-interest. You see, low turnout elections protect interest groups deeply entrenched in the public education system.

Research by Stanford’s Terry Moe demonstrates that low turnout provides and opening for special interest groups – most prominently labor unions – to capture school boards. Moe observes that district employees – those with an occupational self-interest in the elections – tend to vote at higher rates the average citizens. Depending on the district, school employees were 2 to 7 times more likely to vote than the ordinary citizen.”

Using numbers from the May 2018 school election and drawing some likely valid assumptions, I think the following conclusions can be made. The total recorded vote was 17,704, with 8,056 for, and 9,648 against. The school district lists approximately 2,000 employees who reasonably have a spouse, or significant other, the resulting directly self-interested voters could easily total 4,000. Add to that number the other associated family members most likely voting in the affirmative, say another 2,000, which would bring the total self-interested voters to around 6,000, or more.

Churchill’s article further explains: “Capturing school boards is an important goal for unions, as they will ultimately negotiate a labor agreement with the board. Given a union-friendly board, unions should be able to win managerial concessions during the collective bargaining. These could include higher salaries and favorable benefits, or job protections such as rules around employee transfers, reductions-in-force, dismissal, class sizes and grievance procedures.”

I believe evidence supports that the illustrated symbiotic relationship between the elected board members and the local education public employees union exists here in River City. Money is the common denominator in the equation and the puppet-master is the union; it pulls the strings. Taxpayers, teachers and students are merely pawns in the game.

I believe evidence supports that the illustrated symbiotic relationship between the elected board members and the local education public employees union exists here in River City. Money is the common denominator in the equation and the puppet-master is the union; it pulls the strings. Taxpayers, teachers and students are merely pawns in the game.

Some will say that the union advocates for better working conditions for its members. Really? A few years ago, I warned the president of GFEA that higher than acceptable levels of CO2 due to a 50-year non-functioning ventilation system at Great Falls High School may have been tied to a chronic respiratory condition experienced by at least one long-time teacher. I forwarded him a form used by other school employee unions to report and evaluate work environments. The GFEA president never implemented the member reporting form.

So, In this symbiotic relationship where the union is looking out for the administration and the administration is looking out for the union, and the union is looking out for the school board members who they help to get elected, and the school board members are looking out for the administration and the union, who is looking out for the taxpayers who all three see as a never ending money supply. And who is looking out for the teachers who have their positions cut in order to give administrators a raise, and who is looking out for the students who see programs eliminated?

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Who’s Hiding the Administrator Raises?

At the August 6, 2018 Great Falls Public School District’s school board meeting, the trustees decided to delay a scheduled vote on a listed action item which would give school administrators a blanket 2% raise. After receiving citizen push back, the meeting turned contentious with administrators and board members rallying together to chastise the public for suggesting that administrator salaries were already too high relative to the poor local economy and wages in Great Falls.

In what has become commonplace, Superintendent Lacey was quick to insult the average citizens of Great Falls who pay her salary by saying:

“Part of the reason why (the average income in Great Falls) is low is a lack of the will of so many people in our community to go out and earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a master’s degree, let alone the plus-30 credits and the college time that these people have spent in classrooms learning to get better”.

Is Superintendent Lacey really that arrogant? Are the taxpayers and citizens of Great Falls lazy, unmotivated good-for-nothings?

Trustee Jeff Gray gave his explanation of why a significant number of taxpaying citizens of Great Falls have voiced objections to the benevolent administrator raise offering:

“This is a misdirected animosity in this community against one particular group of folks that works very hard. Maybe they don’t work any harder than a crossing guard. In perspective, maybe they work equally as hard and they deserve that two percent raise equally as much as the teacher’s aid does.”

“This is a misdirected animosity in this community against one particular group of folks that works very hard. Maybe they don’t work any harder than a crossing guard. In perspective, maybe they work equally as hard and they deserve that two percent raise equally as much as the teacher’s aid does.” – GFPS Trustee Jeff Gray

For your information, trustee Gray, crossing guards, teacher’s aids and lot of other district employees make only a small fraction of what $100K administrators make. Maybe we should demand merit-based compensation. Maybe district administrators should be paid commensurate with measurable student results, and not because of time spent, or degrees accumulated.

Interestingly, you won’t find the continued Agenda Action Item for administrators salary raise on Monday’s agenda. You might think that the issued died, but you would be wrong. It is hidden in the Budget Action Item VII.I. for Monday’s meeting. According to a text message to a concerned citizen from Board of Trustees Chairman Jan Cahill:

Interestingly, you won’t find the continued Agenda Action Item for administrators salary raise on Monday’s agenda. You might think that the issued died, but you would be wrong. It is hidden in the Budget Action Item VII.I. for Monday’s meeting.

“The recommended 2018-2019 budget (on the agenda Monday night) contains all raises (2%) mentioned last week (the August 6th meeting), including administrators. Teachers receive a 2% raise as part of their negotiated contract from last year.”

Call it a dirty trick, or a slight-of-hand, or just a plain old flimflam, but remember it next spring when the district asks for another tax increase under the guise of, “It’s for the Kids”.

You can express your opinion on the district’s trickery by emailing the school board trustees, you know, the ones who are suppose to represent us, at schoolboard@gfps.k12.mt.us

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Today’s education industrial complex charged with educating our children is big business, costing an estimated $620 Billion a year. The Great Falls Public Schools District, with an annual budget of $91 million, is part of that bigger complex.

The taxpayers of Great Falls have supported our school system since 1886, and continue to provide the financial resources to give local children a good education.

This past spring, voters rejected a $1.4 million operational levy that by the district’s own admission, was solely for increases in personnel health insurance premiums and raises for district employees, not directly “for the kids”. Property tax increases resulting from the successful $98 million facilities bond, perceived mismanagement and a stagnant local economy were all probably what motivated voters to say “enough is enough already”.

The failure of the operational levy brought a harsh reaction from Superintendent Tammy Lacey, and at Monday night’s school board meeting she also had some disappointing comments concerning the public’s reaction to the administration’s recommendation to give 48 administrators 2% raises for the coming school year.

As reported by the Great Falls Tribune, Lacey had this to say;

“Part of the reason why (the average income in Great Falls) is low is a lack of the will of so many people in our community to go out and earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a master’s degree, let alone the plus-30 credits and the college time that these people have spent in classrooms learning to get better”.

“Part of the reason why (the average income in Great Falls) is low is a lack of the will of so many people in our community to go out and earn a bachelor’s degree, let alone a master’s degree, let alone the plus-30 credits and the college time that these people have spent in classrooms learning to get better”. – GFPS Superintendent Tammy Lacey

Wow! Is she seriously telling the taxpayers of Great Falls that they are under-educated and lazy? Sure seems like the Chairman of the school board needs to have a little talk with Ms. Lacey about her insulting manner.

“Lacey was more vehement in her answer and said some community members are treating administrators as scapegoats for larger economic and social issues within the community.” As reported by the Tribune, “Lacey didn’t hold back her feelings as she addressed the board and the full room of community members and GFPS staff”.

I would ask, who the heck does she think she is, and who does she think she works for?

Keep in mind that 12 of the 48 administrators currently make over $100,000 per year and 9 would make over $95,000 with the intended raises. Compare that to the $43,374 as reported by the Department of labor, as the median Great Falls income. The average, as opposed to median, annual income in Great Falls is even lower, around $24,000.

Keep in mind that 12 of the 48 administrators currently make over $100,000 per year and 9 would make over $95,000 with the intended raises. Compare that to the $43,374 as reported by the Department of labor, as the median Great Falls income. The average, as opposed to median, annual income in Great Falls is even lower, around $24,000.

Superintendent Lacey can place the blame for what she thinks is a lack of support for our public schools on Montana legislators, the under-educated, weak willed citizens of Great Falls, and her critics, but it’s the administrators on the “Hill” who are calling the shots and should be held accountable for making one bad judgement call after another. Ultimately the buck stops at the superintendent’s desk.

We have learned, without a doubt, it is not wise to try and take away a dog’s food, and that includes saying no to a 2% raise. However, Superintendent Lacey should also remember that it is never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you, or you might need to find a new home.

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

The Great Falls Public School District Just Doesn’t Learn

We all understand that the GFPS District offices are located at a higher geographic elevation than the rest of Great Falls, but is the air so much more rarified that the administration’s judgement is clouded?

Monday night the school board will consider, and likely approve, the administration’s recommendation to raise administrator’s salaries by 2% for the upcoming school year. If you read the action item from the published agenda below, it may appear their math is a little fuzzy.

The action item lists that the pay raises will affect 48 administrative positions with a total before raise salary of approximately $4,100,000. 2% of the base amount equals $82,000. Subtract from that the $12,000 in savings realized from a position shift stated, and you are left with $70,000, which would seem to be enough to add an actual classroom teacher, with something left to spare. The agenda item reports a net increase of $21,340, but fails to explain how the figure is determined.

Keep in mind that several of these administrative salaries are currently more than $100,000 per year. Add to the raise the existing 1% annual annuity contribution, and you are talking some serious dinero. Most people in Great Falls would love to be beneficiaries of such great employment. You can reach all of the school board members at schoolboard@gfps.k12.mt.us to let them know that learning from past failures is a necessary part of life, and should be a necessary part of government as well.

“MEETING DATE: August 6, 2018 CATEGORY: Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: IX. I. page 72

The 2018-2019 administrator and supervisor compensation budget unit is comprised of 48 employees.

DISCUSSION These employees are critical to the mission of the District. They set the climate, implement the Board’s goals, provide instructional leadership, and maintain the safety and discipline that allows Great Falls Public Schools to continually perform at high levels.

The base salaries for the employees listed below in this unit are adjusted by 2%. Positions include: 2 Assistant Superintendents, 1 Director of Business Operations, 1 Human Resources Director, 1 Director of Student Services, 1 Director of Technology, 2 Co-Coordinators of Curriculum and Instruction, 1 Coordinator of Athletics, 1 Coordinator of Music w/Art, 1 Coordinator of Indian Education, 2 Coordinators of Student Services, 1 Coordinator of Student Services Title I, 1 Coordinator of Early Childhood, 2 High School Principals, 6 High School Associate Principals, 1 Alternative High School Principal, 2 Middle School Principals, 2 Middle School Associate Principals, 15 Elementary Principals, 1 Director of Buildings & Grounds, 1 Assistant Director of Building & Grounds, 1 Supervisor of Data Processing, 1 Supervisor of Food Services, and 1 Field Supervisor of Food Services.

Comparing this list to last year’s list, the Supervisor of the Reception and the Print Center position was changed to a Business Office Lead, with an annual cost savings of $12,042. Also of note, the Superintendent is not included in the above listed group and fiscal implications as the parameters for that contract were previously settled. See attached salary schedule structures for the three (3) groups of administrators and supervisors: district level administrators, principals, and supervisors.

72 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS The 2% increase in base salaries will result in an approximate base salary budget for this group of $4,099,581. This is approximately an increase of $21,340. This will be within the 2018-2019 budget proposal allotted for salaries. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

The District Board is requested to approve the District Budget for 2018-2019 which authorizes expenditures associated with this item. For more information about this item, please contact Superintendent Lacey at (406) 268-6001 or Human Resource Director Kerry Dattilo at (406) 268-6010.”

____________________________________________ ____________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

Are you just plain stumped about the bad decisions made by the Great Falls Public Schools?

Have you ever wondered why so many bad decisions have been made by the Great Falls Public School District? The school district administration seems to step in it every chance they get. These people are supposedly highly educated, and yet they seem devoid of even a modicum of common sense.

We have seen the district cut down 80+ year old trees at Great Falls High School and the now demolished Lowell School to make room for a large portion of the $98 million the taxpayers of Great Falls so generously gave them to resolve, in many cases, their failure to maintain our schools.

Prior to the bond levy election, the school district reminded us repeatedly that the district hadn’t built a new school, or a substantial addition, in more than fifty years. What that tells us pretty clearly is that none of the current administrators have the necessary expertise to embark upon the largest construction projects in Great Falls school district history.

If you are stumped, a short history lesson may provide some clues to the district’s seemingly bad judgements, which include the following:

• Removal of trees, grass and shrubs at the northeast corner of the historic original Great Falls High School campus against the advice of John Boughton the State Historic Preservation Office. “Many times, when a project occurs in a National Register-listed district, the project’s proponent often doesn’t recognize that impacts to the district go beyond changes or modifications to the major standing building(s) but also affect other resources of the district, such as the landscape”.
• The school district’s purchase of the Campfire property, without specifically identifying it in the bond levy ballot, which in my opinion was illegal, in order to demolish the historic structure and build a small, expensive (estimated $22,000 per space) parking lot for 9 cars if the City development standards are followed.
• Failure to include a fire-sprinkler system in the historic Great Falls High School resulting in higher costs to install additional hydrants and utilities, fire lanes and other fire suppression features.
• In my opinion, dictating an architectural design that insults the north and south GFHS campuses.

• Building the new Giant Springs Elementary School on a site (2.5A) that by all standards is half the minimum size recommended for compact elementary schools (5.0A), and is an affront to the existing neighborhood.

 

• Removing the City boulevard on 20th Street for parking buses after City staff advised against it.

A chronology of events leading to a bite too big to swallow:

• In 2009, then school superintendent Cheryl Crawley formed a committee of district employees and local design and engineering professionals to inventory the needs and wants of our less than stellar school infrastructure. Committee members were not invited at large, but hand-picked. A little crony music if you please?
• In 2010,The Facilities Committee reported that our schools had issues, many of which involved existing mechanical and electrical systems. The district then entered into to an $8M non-bid performance engineering contract through a State Board of Investments loan to be paid back out of the energy savings the project achieved. Were the retrofit projects successful? As a district employee critically affirmed, the $8M contract took advantage of “the low hanging fruit”.
• The Facilities Committee also recommended that Great Falls High School not be considered in the mix since it required much more work.
• In 2012, the district commissioned a $150K Great Falls High School Master Plan by a local architectural firm. A citizen Task Force was appointed to provide stakeholder input, and in conclusion arrived at a construction estimate of nearly $70M. At this point, the administration cautioned that Bond voters would probably not approve such a large amount just for GFHS, so they advised throwing a bone to electors vested in CMR and the elementary schools. That brought the price for taxpayers to $98M. Did the district reason, that with a higher cost than GFHS alone, the more ingredients in the stew, the more people out of self interest would vote in favor of the bond levy? And the only losers in the district’s plan would be the property tax payers.
• In 2016, and prior to the 2016 bond election, the district administrators realized they needed help to develop a winning strategy for bond passage, so they secured a Billings firm who had been successful with a similar large school bond project in Missoula. By their own admission, the Billings firm is a construction company that “specializes in general contracting services including commercial general construction, interior and exterior renovations, building additions and construction management”. None of the firm’s 5 principals are licensed engineers, architects, or professional planners, but it would seem that they are acting as the ring master for the district’s projects.

So yes, some of us are a little stumped, because this doesn’t seem like the most efficient or honest way to conduct public business and serve the taxpaying public.

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

Fire Sprinkler Follow-up

In my previous article, “Fire Sprinklers at Great Falls High School”, I posed the following question; Why has the school district ignored the urging of City of Great Falls building officials and the Great Falls Fire Rescue Department to include a fire sprinkler system in the plans for the historic portion of Great Falls High School which currently has no such system?

Several of our E-City Beat commenters have asked if other GFPS schools are equipped with fire sprinklers, and if not, why aren’t they? The answer is, some of our schools are wholly protected by fire sprinkler system, others are only partially protected, and most are not protected. Here is the list of our schools that are not protected by fire sprinkler systems, and those which are:

Loy Elementary – None

North Middle School – Fully sprinklered

Valley View Elementary – None

Roosevelt Elementary – Fully sprinklered

Mountain View Elementary – None

Giant Springs – Planned fully sprinklered

Lewis and Clark Elementary – None

GFHS South Campus – Fully sprinklered

Sunnyside Elementary – None

GFPS Warehouse – Fully sprinklered

Longfellow Elementary – None

Paris Gibson – Halls and Common areas

Lincoln Elementary – None

CMR – Stage only sprinklered (Main classroom building – None)

Meadowlark Elementary – None 

Sacajawea Elementary – None

Whittier Elementary – None

West Elementary – None

Chief Joseph Elementary – None

Riverview Elementary – None

East Middle School – None

GFHS Original Building – None

Skyline Elementary School – None

Morningside Elementary School – None

The City of Great Falls Office of Building and Permitting currently operates under the 2012 IBC, (International Building Code), and the 2012 IFC, (International Fire Code), which require the installation of fire sprinkler systems as follows:

IBC [F] 903.2.3 Group E (Education) (IFC similar)

An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for Group E occupancies as follows: 1. Throughout all Group E fire areas greater than 12,000 square feet (1115 m2) in area.

2. Throughout every portion of educational buildings below the lowest level of exit discharge serving that portion of the building. Exception: An automatic sprinkler system is not required in existing educational buildings unless 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building is being remodeled.

So even with construction costs of approximately $21M to be spent remodeling the Great Falls High School original historic building, the District’s consultants are apparently arguing that the area being remodeled comprises less than 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building and taking advantage of the exception.

In addition to the important role of protecting life and property, the following preamble of the IBC points to another aspect of fire protection systems; that of providing safety for fire fighters and emergency responders.

[A] 101.3 Intent

The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. (Emphasis added)

During the fire at Helena High School, fire fighters needed hundreds of feet of hose lines to provide for rapid intervention teams and to extinguish the fire. Hose lines had to extend to each of the ten classrooms that were not protected with a fire sprinkler system.

Even if strict enforcement of the City’s building and fire codes do not require fire sprinkler systems in our older schools, that doesn’t mean there are not distinct advantages to having them. With fire sprinklers installed in Great Falls High School money can be saved in the construction of fire lanes and utility work. Additionally, an alternative fire-mist systems can be used, which have been shown to be as effective as deluge systems, use less water, extinguish fire more rapidly, cause less water damage and are easier to install.

With $98M dollars of District taxpayers money, should we expect more from our District administrators and their consultants?

With $98M dollars of District taxpayers money, should we expect more from our District administrators and their consultants?

If you haven’t taken on our poll on whether our local schools should have sprinkler systems please click here to weigh in.

________________________________________________________________________

 

       

______________________________________________________________________

School District says ‘No’ to fire sprinkler system at Great Falls High School.

Why has the school district ignored the urging of City of Great Falls building officials and the Great Falls Fire Rescue Department to include a fire sprinkler system in the plans for the historic portion of Great Falls High School which currently has no such system? Is it the cost? The school district is spending $38M of taxpayer’s money, but protection of lives and property is not a priority?

FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administration National Fire Data Center in a 2014 reported through their NFIRS (National Fire Incident Reporting System) that:

“An estimated 4,000 school building fires were reported by United States fire departments each year and caused an estimated 75 injuries and $66.1 million in property loss.”

Closer to home, In January of 2017, Helena High School suffered $2M in damage to ten classrooms from an intentionally caused fire. According to the Helena Independent Record, “It was nearly three months before classes were resumed in the damaged wing of the school.” Helena High did not have a complete fire sprinkler system.

In 2012 and again in 2014, a student, who said he had been drinking and felt he had suffered mistreatment by the school, intentionally set fires at the Heritage Christian School in Bozeman, in the area of the gymnasium.

Fires do happen in our schools, and approximately 1/3 are intentionally set. Virtually every fire professional in this country is a strong advocate for fire sprinkler systems in almost all occupancy types, and especially in schools.

“Fires do happen in our schools, and approximately 1/3 are intentionally set. Virtually every fire professional in this country is a strong advocate for fire sprinkler systems in almost all occupancy types, and especially in schools.”

David Kurasz, executive director of the New Jersey Fire Sprinkler Advisory Board reported this year; “at Lacey Township Middle School in Ocean County, NJ, a fire recently broke out in a second-floor classroom. The building’s fire sprinkler system contained the fire within minutes, preventing serious property damage (and potentially saving lives). The school was closed for three days due to minor water damage. In 2014, a fire ripped through James Monroe Elementary School in Edison, NJ, destroying the building. Three years and $26 million later, students at James Monroe were finally able to set foot in their new school. The difference between the results of the two fires is clear: one contained by fire sprinklers closed for three days, while the other closed for three years.”

Can schools really be prepared for an actual fire emergency by conducting fire drills alone?

Mr. Kurasz also notes: “Monthly fire drills highlight the importance, but do not consider smoke, and students do not know how to react in low visibility situations.”

The argument that fire sprinkler systems are too expensive simply does not hold water. Cost saving can be realized on the GFHS project by installing a fire sprinkler system. A 75% reduction in required fire flow (standard available water supply), fire lanes and the required 3-hour fire separation (fire-resistant construction materials that can sustain 3 hours of fire exposure) between the historic school and the new addition would result in substantial savings.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the $2 million that I have estimated the District will need to spend to acquire and develop 100 parking spaces at approximately $20,000 per space, on a fire sprinkler system for the historic GFH original structure?

Calls to GFPS administrators inquiring about whether any, or none, of the District’s other 18 schools are equipped with fire sprinkler systems, have not been returned.

The good news is, if you are a student at GFHS who happens to be spending some time in the new administrative offices if a fire breaks out, you are probably safe because those offices will be protected by a required fire sprinkler system but the historic 1930 school building and classrooms will not be.

Please vote in our poll:

[poll id=”13″]

________________________________________________________________________