Eyeing construction cost increases, historic Orchard Prairie School District asks voters again to pass a bond
Apr. 11—The tiny and historic school district of Orchard Prairie is trying again at passing a bond to build a new school for its 79 students.
A November attempt fell short of the 60% voter support needed by 24 votes, racking up 53% support from the relatively small number of voters who live within the 6-square-mile school district's bounds.
The new proposal is on the April 22 ballot and would raise $6.2 million to be paid off over 30 years, plus $2.5 million in matching funds from the state. Those funds would be used to construct a new school on their two-school campus, replacing a cramped 1970s building where older students learn. Orchard Prairie's other building houses younger students; it's an updated one-room schoolhouse built in 1894, the oldest operating school in the state and would continue to be used. School officials plan to add the original schoolhouse to the Spokane County historic registry.
If passed, property owners in the school district would pay at an estimated yearly rate of $3.27 per $1,000 in assessed property value through the 30-year life of the bond. This rate includes the proposed bond and an existing local school tax levy. Property owners currently pay at a rate of $1.22 per thousand in local school taxes, constituting the district's educational programs and operations tax levy.
April's proposal is the same as the details from November, but school officials are hoping a better-communicated campaign will get this bond over the finish line.
"We've tried to express the need that we have because of the age of our facilities and the need for secure facilities and new safe space for our staff and our students," said Katelyn Schuler, school board chair and counselor at the school. "That need can only be met by building a new building."
Staff make use of just about every inch in the 1970s building, a front desk pushed against the wall in the hallway outside its two classrooms. Rather than a nurse's office, kids seek treatment in the corner of the intervention room behind a partition, next to two small rooms used for Superintendent and Principal Joseph Beckford's office and Schuler's private counseling room in the building's basement.
Staff and students make use of a general purpose room in their basement to dine, work on some school projects and other outside-the-classroom tasks.
The new building would be built behind the turn-of-the-century schoolhouse. It would be big enough for all classes and a nurse's office, front office, a single entrance for safety, a multipurpose room and an interventionist room all absent from the existing facility.
Their 1970s school isn't in compliance with seismic safety codes or accessibility measures outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act.
To get them up to code in their current building, Schuler said it would cost just about the same to do extensive renovating: installing an elevator, addressing the foundation and increasing bathroom size, among other updates.
"The entire building would essentially have to be gutted and reconfigured," Schuler said. "The quotes and the information we got, essentially, is it would cost almost the same to remodel the current building, and it wouldn't address all of the safety issues."
Though not an imminent threat, Schuler has worries about school district consolidation. If it's not able to provide a learning space that meets safety requirements and isn't fiscally sound, Orchard Prairie could be absorbed by a larger neighboring school district.
Schuler has some urgency in getting the bond passed sooner rather than later, as costs for construction and materials are on the rise. Already, the district will have to keep a close watch on its construction budget, Schuler said.
"It is going to be tight. We're going to have to be very, very conscious of our budget, just because building costs are continuing to increase, and so we're really hoping that it will pass this time, because if we have to put it on the ballot again in the fall, we will probably have to change the amount, and we really don't want to have to ask the voters for more."
Elena Perry's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amazon's Return-to-Office Mandate Sparks Disability Complaints
(Bloomberg) -- Inc.'s hard-line stance on getting disabled employees to return to the office has sparked a backlash, with workers alleging the company is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as their rights to collectively bargain. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire At least two employees have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, federal agencies that regulate working conditions. One of the workers said they provided the EEOC with a list of 18 'similarly situated' employees to emphasize that their experience isn't isolated and to help federal regulators with a possible investigation. Disabled workers frustrated with how Amazon is handling their requests for accommodations — including exemptions to a mandate that they report to the office five days a week — are also venting their displeasure on internal chat rooms and have encouraged colleagues to answer surveys about the policies. Amazon has been deleting such posts and warning that they violate rules governing internal communications. One employee said they were terminated and another said they were told to find a different position after advocating for disabled workers on employee message boards. Both filed complaints with the EEOC and NLRB. The company's use of artificial intelligence to help it manage employee requests for disability accommodations has also stirred internal opposition and could open the company to legal challenges. Company spokesperson Zoe Hoffmann said Amazon's Disability and Leave Services team ensures employees have access to the accommodations and adjustments they need to be effective and advance their careers. The process is empathetic, and the interactions aren't automated, she said. 'Amazon respects employees' rights to organize and doesn't interfere with these rights. We don't discriminate or retaliate against employees for engaging in organizing activities,' Hoffmann said in an emailed statement. 'We're committed to supporting our employees by providing effective accommodations that meet their individual needs and the needs of the business.' Bloomberg reported in November that Amazon was making it more difficult for staff with disabilities to win approval to work from home. The company implemented a more rigorous vetting process, both for new requests to work remotely and applications to extend existing arrangements. Affected employees had to participate in a 'multilevel leader review' and some were told monthlong trials would be used to determine if accommodations met their needs. Several employees told Bloomberg then that they believed the system was designed to deny work-from-home accommodations and prompt employees with disabilities to quit, which some have done. Amazon denied the system was designed to encourage people to resign. Since then, workers have mobilized against the policy. One employee repeatedly posted an online survey seeking colleagues' reactions, defying the company's demands to stop. The survey ultimately generated feedback from more than 200 workers even though Amazon kept deleting it, and the results reflected strong opposition to Amazon's treatment of disabled workers. More than 71% of disabled Amazon employees surveyed said the company had denied or failed to meet most of their accommodation requests, while half indicated they faced 'hostile' work environments after disclosing their disabilities and requesting accommodations. One respondent said they sought permission to work from home after suffering multiple strokes that prevented them from driving. Amazon suggested moving closer to the office and taking mass transit, the person said in the survey. Another respondent said they couldn't drive for longer than 15-minute intervals due to chronic pain. Amazon's recommendation was to pull over and stretch during their commute, which the employee said was unsafe since they drive on a busy freeway. Bloomberg couldn't verify the responses to the anonymous employee survey. Amazon didn't dispute the accounts and said it considered a range of solutions to disability accommodations, including changes to an employee's commute. Hoffmann, the spokesperson, said that when appropriate, Amazon adjusts schedules, lighting and desk assignments. It also offers job coaching. If warranted, the company might provide commuting adjustments. In rare circumstances, she said, employees with disabilities are allowed to work from home full time or part time. AI Risks Using AI to parse accommodation requests, read doctors' notes and make recommendations based on keywords has also generated internal opposition. Bloomberg reviewed screenshots from an in-house coding tool showing what appeared to be prompts designed to guide AI software through the process of evaluating and pulling data from documents filled out by employees and their physicians. The bots are given context — such as the fact that injuries can occur on one or both arms — suggestions of follow-up questions and a lengthy list of potential accommodations for employees with low vision. There's also extensive guidance that may be intended to keep the software from asking unnecessary questions or generating irrelevant data. Amazon has long used automation to more efficiently manage its enormous workforce. But deploying such tools for sensitive personnel matters risks missing nuances about an employee's situation that a human might spot and take into consideration. Doing so also could lead to legal complications should employees claim the software introduced errors into the process. And the use of AI risks further alienating employees, who are already expected to engage with chatbots and automated systems, rather than colleagues, for a wide range of workplace tasks. 'It's impossible to imagine that companies will not be using AI for any number of needs, including this one,' said Chai Feldblum, a former commissioner with the EEOC. But in the event of a legal challenge, she said, Amazon would have to prove that providing an accommodation to an employee placed an unreasonable burden on the company. 'I would not leave that final judgment to AI,' Feldblum said. Amazon's partly automated accommodation and internal job transfer processes are key elements of the employee complaints to the EEOC, with workers arguing that it is insufficiently interactive to provide a complete picture of a person's physical limitations and whether reasonable accommodations could help them do their jobs. 'If there's an indication that Amazon is using some rote artificial intelligence process to manage these requests, that's not interactive,' said David Hutt, legal director of the National Disability Rights Network. 'Courts are pretty skeptical of these kind of boilerplate accommodations that aren't specifically tailored around the person's disability and their job function.' Two employees said Amazon cited its 'solicitation' policy when deleting their posts from employee communication channels. The policy prohibits personnel from asking others for financial contributions, disseminating advertising materials or gathering signatures on petitions unless they have permission from the company, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg. Preventing employees from discussing the workplace could backfire if the NLRB determines that doing so interferes with their protected rights to organize and debate working conditions, said Kate Bronfenbrenner, the director of labor education research at Cornell University. 'If two or more people are in any way penalized or coerced against exercising their rights, it's a violation,' Bronfenbrenner said. 'Whether this gets enforced is another question,' she added, citing budget cuts to various federal agencies. With internal communication channels being scrutinized, Amazon employees posted a petition to calling on the company to reform its policies. The dispute could affect thousands of Amazon workers. An internal Slack channel for employees with disabilities has 13,000 members, one of the people said. Amazon said it doesn't track the total number of disabled workers since employee disclosure is voluntary. The rise of remote work during the pandemic helped boost the number of disabled people with jobs to almost 23% last year, close to a record high since the US Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking the metric in 2008. Working from home can benefit people with a range of disabilities, including chronic allergies, limited mobility and anxiety disorders. Amazon employees have lodged complaints about workplace conditions in the past. The EEOC as recently as last year was investigating allegations that the company discriminated against pregnant warehouse workers in California, Connecticut, New Jersey and North Carolina by denying their accommodation requests. An agency spokesperson declined to provide an update regarding the status of the investigation. In 2021, Amazon settled a dispute with two workers at its Seattle headquarters who alleged they were fired in retaliation for their workplace activism regarding climate change and working conditions, which included inviting colleagues to a virtual event meant to connect tech employees with warehouse employees. Their allegations led to a labor board complaint accusing Amazon of unfair labor practices. American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
One Supreme Court Justice Just Keeps Sliding Further to the Right
The Supreme Court delivered an important victory to disabled children on Thursday, unanimously affirming their right to reasonable accommodations in public education. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion for the court reiterated that schools engage in unlawful discrimination when they deny these accommodations to kids, even if officials are not acting in bad faith. His ruling provides a lifeline to schoolchildren throughout the country who are wrongly denied equal access to learning opportunities because of a disability. Yet this victory comes with an asterisk: In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas—joined, alarmingly, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—launched an assault on civil rights law that would devastate disabled Americans' ability to receive an education and participate in all aspects of public life. Thomas and Kavanaugh suggested that the long-standing interpretation of disability law is, in fact, unconstitutional, arguing that states should have far more leeway to discriminate against those with disabilities. We should expect such callous radicalism from Thomas. But Kavanaugh's endorsement of this position is yet another ominous sign that the justice is drifting toward the hard-right flank of the court. It is difficult to know exactly what to make of Kavanaugh's drift to the right because he remains an intellectual lightweight who struggles to articulate and defend his views with any coherence. Is he just another MAGA-pilled jurist eager to promote Trump's agenda? Did his bruising confirmation battle leave him with a lifelong grudge against Democrats that he acts upon by trashing progressive priorities from the bench? Has he fallen under the influence of Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, who spurn centrism as craven capitulation to their perceived enemies on the left? Whatever the cause of his transformation, it is by now an undeniable fact that he has abandoned the middle of the court, sliding to the right of Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and sometimes even Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thursday's case, A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, shows exactly why robust federal protections for disabled Americans remain so vital. The plaintiff, Ava Tharpe, 'suffers from a rare form of epilepsy that severely limits her physical and cognitive functioning,' as Roberts put it. Her seizures are worst in the morning, leaving her able to learn only after about 12 p.m. each day. When Tharpe transferred to a new school district in 2015, officials refused to provide her with special evening instruction, leaving her with far fewer hours of instruction than her peers. Eventually, Tharpe's parents sued under several laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, which broadly bar discrimination on the basis of disability. But the federal courts tossed out their suit. These courts acknowledged that Tharpe was denied equal access to education because of her disability. But they held that Tharpe was not entitled to an injunction or damages under the relevant statutes because she had not proven that school officials 'acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment.' Mere 'non-compliance' with the law, the courts concluded, was not enough to justify judicial intervention. This holding was, Roberts wrote, flatly wrong. The widespread adoption of this approach, however, has allowed rampant discrimination against disabled children to fester for decades, despite Congress' clear effort to stamp it out. 'In other disability discrimination contexts,' Roberts wrote, courts do not force plaintiffs to prove that state officials acted with malign intent. And there is no reason why this rule should apply to 'the educational services context' alone. 'In imposing a higher bar for discrimination claims based on educational services as compared to other sorts of disability discrimination claims,' the chief justice declared, the lower courts bungled 'the unambiguous directive' of the law. So Tharpe's suit can move forward. And now all disabled children denied accommodations by school officials will have an easier time establishing illegal discrimination and securing judicial relief. But Thomas and Kavanaugh were not content to let Roberts deliver a clean victory for civil rights law. Instead, Thomas chose to write a concurrence, joined by only Kavanaugh, that aimed an arrow at the heart of disability law. He argued that courts have been misinterpreting these statutes for decades, granting overly generous protections to disabled people. And he warned that this prevailing understanding of civil rights law may actually violate the Constitution in several different (and dubious) ways. Thomas' central gripe is that, as Roberts wrote on Thursday, federal courts do not typically need proof of intentional discrimination to rule in favor of disabled plaintiffs. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—two closely related statutes that cover much the same ground—disability discrimination can occur even when government officials are not actively seeking to inflict harm. For instance, a school district might not intend to injure wheelchair users when it installs a stairway with no ramp. This refusal to consider the needs of mobility-impaired students has long been seen as discrimination nonetheless. Both the school district and a coalition of red states, however, argued that federal law does not clearly prohibit 'unintentional' discrimination against disabled people. In his concurrence, Thomas embraced that argument. And he wrote that Congress must use clearer language under the Constitution's spending clause if it wishes to outlaw such unintentional discrimination. This solution, though, turns out to be a mirage—because Thomas then declared that even if Congress clarified the statute, his view is that it would violate the Constitution in at least three different ways. First, he wrote that Congress has no general power to 'protect the learning environment in schools' under the commerce clause. Second, he wrote that Congress has no authority to mandate 'special accommodations for the disabled' under the 14th Amendment. Third, he wrote that Congress cannot compel states to provide such accommodations without violating the anti-commandeering doctrine rooted in the 10th Amendment. If the Supreme Court adopted these views, it would effectively eviscerate all disability rights law—not just public education requirements, but the entire framework prohibiting discrimination against disabled children and adults alike. Thomas did hedge by noting that he expressed 'no definitive views' on these theories. But he urged the lower courts to 'carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution.' And caveats aside, the justice left no room for doubt that he believes all three of these constitutional objections to disability law have serious merit. It is hard to know where to start with this hodgepodge of grievances, because none of them are plausible under a fair reading of the law as it stands today. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissected Thomas' gripe about 'unintentional discrimination' in her own deft concurrence. Sotomayor explained that existing statutes apply whether or not officials show 'any invidious animus or purpose.' At bottom, these laws do not simply outlaw state bigotry toward disabled people; they also 'impose an affirmative obligation' to accommodate disabilities. Their expansive language clearly applies 'even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present.' So the Constitution's spending clause does not require Congress to speak any more clearly than it already has. Thomas' deeper constitutional objections are equally specious. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the commerce clause empowers Congress to address noneconomic conduct as part of a broader regulatory scheme. Disability laws are a key part of Congress' efforts to grant all children equal access to education, a universal public service on which the federal government spends billions each year. If these statutes exceed the commerce clause, then much (perhaps all) federal rules and regulations in this area must fall, too. But disability laws like the ADA do not even need a foundation in the commerce clause to survive constitutional assault, because they are—contrary to Thomas' claim—deeply rooted in the 14th Amendment, a standalone basis for their enactment. It is true that the Supreme Court has never held that the 14th Amendment, on its own, always requires states to accommodate disabled people. But SCOTUS has held that this amendment empowers Congress to go beyond what the Constitution requires in order to 'prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.' The court has, in fact, expressly upheld some of the ADA's mandates under congressional authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. The court has also wielded the 14th Amendment to invalidate discriminatory policies in public education. It seems obvious that, under this precedent, Congress may rely upon the amendment to impose expansive nondiscrimination policies on state education systems. And when Congress acts pursuant to its enumerated powers, it cannot run afoul of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Of course, Thomas has long taken a hostile view of Congress' right to protect individual freedoms, particularly when it does so by limiting state authority. It is no surprise that the justice sounds eager to tear down the whole edifice of disability law. What is jarring, and portentous, is that Kavanaugh signed onto Thomas' opinion in full, further solidifying the justice's spot on the court's ultraconservative bloc. Earlier in his tenure, Kavanaugh often posed as a moderate, siding with the chief justice nearly 100 percent of the time. Over the past few years, though, he has shifted to the right, making bedfellows with Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito more and more often. Just in recent weeks, Kavanaugh has argued that the Second Amendment protects AR-15s, and—alone among the justices—argued for a ruinous assault on class actions. (The class-action case involved blind people denied an accommodation, a hint of the animosity toward disabled people he displayed in Thursday's case.) The list goes on. In March, when the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in foreign aid, Kavanaugh joined Alito's bilious dissent, which smeared the lower court judge as a power-drunk hack. Last year, Kavanaugh sided with the hardcore conservatives in voting to let Texas nullify the Biden administration's authority over immigration enforcement. In other cases, the justice has staked out a far-right position, as when he suggested that a landmark federal law protecting Native children is, in fact, unconstitutional discrimination. And he pressed the court to consider striking down laws restricting 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ minors before some of his conservative colleagues were ready to do so. 'You sowed the wind,' Kavanaugh warned Democratic senators during his confirmation battle, and now 'the country will reap the whirlwind.' That threat now reads less like a warning than a mission statement.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Disabled Student in Lawsuit vs. District
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the family of Ava Tharpe, a teen with a rare form of epilepsy whose suburban Minneapolis district denied her request for a modified school day. The decision, A.J.T. vs. Osseo Area Schools, means K-12 students do not have to meet a higher standard of proof than others suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the justices had agreed with the district's longstanding argument, children with disabilities would have had to prove their school system intentionally acted in bad faith in denying them in-school accommodations. In 'friend of the court' briefs, numerous advocacy groups had warned that holding special education students to a different — and extraordinarily strict — definition of discrimination would have made it virtually impossible for families to assert their rights. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter The court agreed, saying everyone who files suit under the ADA should have to meet the same standard of 'deliberate indifference,' or disregard for an individual's need for accommodations. 'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import for A.J.T. and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,' ' Roberts wrote, citing language from a lower court decision. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.' In a concurring opinion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson elaborated, citing examples of discrimination that, intent notwithstanding, must still be addressed. 'Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a dead person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff or the ballot designer.' Related 'Today's decision is a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country,' said Roman Martinez, a lead attorney on the case. 'This outcome gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all.' In a statement to The 74, a district spokesperson said the high court 'declined to decide what the particular intent standard is for such claims,' noting that 'the case will now return to the trial court for next steps consistent with the court's ruling.' In 2015, when Ava was in fourth grade, her family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota. Because her severe form of epilepsy causes frequent seizures during the morning, she had been allowed to attend school in the afternoon and early evening. Initially, the Osseo district agreed to a modified schedule, but reneged after the family moved, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. The state administrative law judge who heard the family's initial complaint called the district's arguments 'pretextual,' saying it was more concerned with 'the need to safeguard the ordinary end-of-the-workday departure times for its faculty and staff' than with outside evaluators' assessments of Ava's needs. As the case made its way to the Supreme Court, the district had consistently argued Ava had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent — a standard that would have applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before oral arguments, Osseo widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. The April 28 hearing erupted in rare verbal fireworks when Justice Neil Gorsuch took exception to a statement by the district's attorney that lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, who sided with the family, were 'lying' when they said the district had changed its argument. Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' while Jackson questioned whether the district was saying the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. In their concurring opinion, Sotomayor and Jackson noted that when they wrote the act, lawmakers addressed the question at the heart of the case head-on: 'Congress was not naïve to the insidious nature of disability discrimination when it enacted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It understood full well that discrimination against those with disabilities derives principally from 'apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.' ' The decision comes at a time when disability protections have come under fire from the second Trump administration and a number of Republican governors. In October, motivated by new rules that said gender dysphoria could be considered a disability, 17 states sued the federal government. Gender dysphoria is the clinical term for distress caused when a person's gender does not match their sex assigned at birth. That suit, Texas vs. Kennedy, originally sought to have Section 504, the portion of the ADA that outlaws in-school discrimination, declared unconstitutional. The states have since dropped that demand from the suit but are still asking courts to overturn rules prohibiting discrimination in a wide array of public settings. Whether the states will continue to press the new, broader case in the face of Thursday's decision remains to be seen. For their part, disability advocates were quick to celebrate. The district's position was 'flatly inconsistent with the law and would have stripped millions of people with disabilities of the protections Congress put in place to prevent systemic discrimination,' said Shira Wakschlag, senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel for The Arc of the United States, which submitted a brief on the issues. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.'
