The Neshaminy Board of School Directors met in public session on August 8, 2001 in the Board Room of the District Offices, Maple Point Middle School.  The following persons were in attendance:

1.   Call to Order

      Mr. Stack called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

2.   Flag Salute

      Mr. Stack requested those in attendance join in the salute to the flag.

3.   Announcements

Mr. Stack announced prior to the meeting, an Executive Session was held to discuss personnel and legal issues.

4.   Public Comment

There was a two minute time limit per speaker.  Mr. Peters, Langhorne, stated as a result of the last Board Meeting, the Lower Southampton Elementary School was included on the list of schools being considered for closure.  He pointed out the Lower Southampton Elementary School building is slightly larger than other buildings in the region.  The building includes a separate cafeteria and gymnasium.  He noted with the current enrollment projections, all the space may not be needed.  He pointed out the District still sends Neshaminy students to other school districts to attend Intermediate Unit classes.  Available Lower Southampton Elementary School space could be used for Intermediate Unit classes.  He said the Lower Southampton Elementary School is a good building to keep.

Mrs. Horton, Langhorne, expressed concern about the prospect of any school in the District being closed, specifically the Tawanka Elementary School.  She pointed out a good portion of the Tawanka School population walks to school.  Should the school be closed, those children would be bused to school, which would result in losing that neighborhood appeal at the Tawanka School.  Every school in the District is unique and special.  By closing any one of the schools, home away from home, the Board will change what makes Neshaminy, Neshaminy.  Removing just one piece diminishes the whole.

Mrs. Horton said her family decided to move to the Neshaminy School District because of the quality of the schools and staff and the stability of the District.  She thanked the Board for taking the time to think through the proposal to close the Neshaminy Middle School and deciding to keep it open.  She urged the Board to take its time before rushing to any decision.  She said be proactive and not reactive.  She asked the Board to consider the sense of community and security that elementary-age children need and currently have as a part of neighborhood schools.  She said keep Neshaminy whole.  Do not take away any of the pieces. 

5.   Items for Discussion

      a.  School Closing and Hearing Date

Close Heckman and Tawanka Chart distributed at the meeting.  In response to a question raised at a previous Board Meeting, Dr. Bowman reviewed the Close Heckman and Tawanka Chart.  He noted the chart reflects what the results would be if two elementary schools were closed.  The chart includes the smallest elementary school, Tawanka School, and the Heckman School, which has a program capacity of over 600 students.  If both schools were closed, the District�s elementary schools would be operating at 97 percent capacity.  The 97 percent capacity includes ten Intermediate Unit classes and using 18 modular classrooms currently in the District.  He cautioned the Board about maxing out capacity in the event there is a turn around in enrollment.

Dr. Bowman explained if the smallest elementary school is closed, the schools would be operating at  85 percent capacity, which would leave 15 percent for growth.  If the largest elementary school were closed, the schools would be at 91 percent capacity.  If all of the current elementary schools were open for September 2002, the usage level would be 76 percent.

Mr. Schoenstadt inquired if the data reviewed by the Board includes the contractual class size reductions effective September 2002.  Dr. Bowman stated the contractual obligation, reduced class size, can be accommodated.  The 85 percent capacity number is a comfortable number.  It provides for growth and the necessary movement as class size is reduced.  There is no question the contractual obligation will be met.

Mr. Schoenstadt noted closing the largest elementary school would reduce flexibility.  Closing the smallest elementary school would allow for the necessary flexibility to absorb the class size reductions.  Mr. Schoenstadt pointed out previously the Board had preliminarily discussed the impact of a full-day kindergarten program, which would require 22 additional classrooms.  Would a full-day kindergarten program be feasible under the close smallest elementary school scenario?

Dr. Bowman explained the elementary enrollment is projected to decrease to 3,762 students.  In 1993 the elementary enrollment was 4,800 students.  Therefore, there will be a 22 percent reduction in elementary enrollment over a ten year period.  With the reduction in enrollment and the amount of space available under the close the smallest elementary school scenario, the District would be able to accommodate the full-day kindergarten program.  The exception would be a sudden turn around in the student population.

Dr. Bowman explained normally, population cycles are ten years.  Currently, the live birth rate in the District is below 700.  At one time, it was over 1,200.  The local hospitals predict the live birth rate will not turn around at this point in time.  The enrollment projection method accounts for historical events that have occurred in the District.  Senior citizens moving out of the District and families with children moving into the District has been accommodated for in the projections.  The District is basically built out.  There is not much space available for the construction of new homes.  A sudden increase in enrollment is not foreseen. 

Mr. Eccles noted any school selected for closure would not be closed until 2002.  He stated from April the Board rushed to close a middle school and two elementary schools and now one elementary school.  He questioned if the Board really knows what it wants to do.  He urged the Board to delay the school closing decision until January and allow the new Board to make the decision.

Mr. Mecleary pointed out the Board has discussed numerous school closure scenarios.  He questioned why the decision needs to be made so quickly.  Ms. Drioli stated the Board has been discussing the school closure issue for awhile and has listened to community input.  The Board must be extremely fiscally responsible.  The schools should not be operated at only 75 percent capacity.  The closure of an elementary school will allow the schools to operate at 85 percent capacity. 

Mr. Stack explained the process is a part of long range planning, which involves reviewing what the District has, the projections and working out various scenarios to best support the educational programs of the District.  Mr. Mecleary stated long range planning does not have to take place in a two or three month period.  He said the meeting was called so the current Board can make a decision on the school closure issue and vote on the decision in November.  He noted the number of community members present at the meeting was minimal compared to the number of community members present at meetings held during the school year months.  Mr. Stack pointed out at the June Board Meeting no public comment was presented on the school closure issue.

Dr. Frank said how committed is the Board to exploring further an all-day kindergarten program?  Mr. Stack stated he was not in a position to support it at this time.  However, some of the decisions the Board makes may better position the Board for reviewing the issue in the future.  If a larger elementary school is closed, there may not be sufficient capacity available to support a full-day kindergarten program.

Dr. Bowman explained if all of the buildings are kept open and the same program in place now is provided next year, the capacity will be 5,141 students.  The projected enrollment is 3,932 students.  If the smallest elementary school is closed, adequate space will be available.  With the closing of the smallest elementary school, there will be a 4,650 program capacity with an enrollment of 3,932 students or 85 percent capacity.  This includes maintaining the Intermediate Unit classes in the District and using the District’s modular classrooms.  There is no question the Board would be able to provide the same educational program it has provided over the years in the nine elementary schools.

Dr. Bowman informed the Board in 1976 two elementary schools, Hoover and Eisenhower Elementary Schools, were closed and the community was not happy about the process.  The Hoover Elementary School was reopened in 1986.  It has become a very strong elementary school with a very committed parent/teacher organization.  History has proven a building can be closed and the District can continue to provide a quality program.  It is not an issue of crowding schools by closing a facility.  It is an issue of how to make the best use of the District’s resources.  He pointed out Neshaminy’s curriculum is consistent in all nine elementary schools.  The programs are the same in all of the elementary schools.  Dr. Bowman said he believed a quality program will continue in the District with quality teachers providing quality instruction.  It is a matter of how to best use the District’s facilities. 

Mrs. Butville  noted the Board has reviewed many different options.  She felt when reviewing such an issue, all the possible options must be reviewed.  She pointed out after review by the Board, some of the options were eliminated.  The Board has been progressing to what will be the best solution to the problem.  She indicated she was in favor of continuing to move forward and not delay the process until the new Board members are seated on the Board.

Mr. Schoenstadt stated whatever the decision is, it will not be arbitrary or capricious.  The Board has been reviewing the issue for a year and a half, public and Board committees have reviewed the issue, public meetings have been held and the Board has listened to the public’s input.  If the Board takes action tonight, it will not be anything that is not deliberate and considered.  He felt it would be inappropriate and not fiscally responsible to wait five months for the new Board members to be seated on the Board and make a decision. 

Mr. Stack proposed the Board take the first step, which is to identify a potential school for closure.  If the Board takes the first step, a public hearing on the potential closing would be held on August 28.  If the decision is to follow that course of action, a final vote would take place no earlier than the end of November.

Mr. Eccles noted earlier in the process a few Board members slowed down the school closing process.  He felt if the process had not been slowed down, a middle school and two elementary schools may have been closed.  He said the process needs to be slowed down.

Mrs. Butville felt the process was not previously slowed down.  She stated the Board has been reviewing carefully each scenario and some of the scenarios are not possible at this point.  They would educationally harm the students.  Mr. Eccles urged the Board to slow down the process and delay reaching a decision for four to five months.

Mr. Stack explained at the last Board Meeting, Mrs. Butville had requested information be provided on the possibility of closing two elementary schools.  Mr. Stack stated two elementary schools could be closed.  While still providing space for the current Intermediate Unit classes, the closing of two elementary schools would result in a 97 percent program capacity.  He felt it is important that there be a plan for continued use of the closed facility within the District.  He noted the Board has discussed using a closed facility as an alternative school, which would save the District money and provide a quality program.  Mr. Stack recommended the Board pursue closing one facility and possibly consider closing a second facility in two or three years.  In accordance with the projections, possibly a middle school should be considered for closure in two or three years. 

Dr. Frank felt the Board is not listening to the people, and cannot make the decision on its own.  She urged the Board to listen to the people.  Mr. Stack stated the Board has exhausted the public comment route.  No one presented public comment at the June Public Board Meeting.

In response to Ms. Drioli’s question regarding an alternative school, Dr. Bowman explained the following:

·         The alternative school would first be for Neshaminy students who are having difficulty in the regular classroom setting.

·         Currently, approximately 52 students are attending other alternative schools at a cost of over $750,000.

·         The alternative school would be primarily for secondary students.

·         An alternative school could be extended to special education placements and other school districts could be invited to send their students to the District’s alternative school.

·         Attendance of out-of-district students at the alternative school would provide an alternative revenue source.  Money could be recouped by the District operating its own alternative school.

In response to Mrs. Bostwick’s questions regarding alternative school staffing and renovation costs, Dr. Bowman explained no extensive renovations are anticipated.  The first year the alternative school would result in a break-even situation.  Instead of sending Neshaminy students to other alternative schools and paying tuition, the funds would be used to staff the District’s own school.  It is anticipated the second year additional revenue of over $250,000 could be generated by making seats available to other school districts’ students.  It is believed the combination of the retirement programs and opening an alternative school would be enough to prevent any layoffs.  However, the administration cannot make that commitment. 

Dr. Bowman explained when students are moved out of one building and into another building, additional classrooms need to be opened.  Therefore, there will be a movement of teachers from one building to another building.  There may be excess staff.  Hopefully, retirements and the new staff needed for the alternative school will offset the need for any layoffs.  A commitment to attrition could be made to deal with the staff issue.

Mrs. Butville inquired if the facility is closed in June, will the facility be opened as an alternative school that September.  Dr. Bowman stated if that is the Board’s decision, that timeline could be followed.  Mr. Stack pointed out an advantage of taking action now is that it will allow the Board to put the pieces in place in the appropriate time frame. 

Dr. Bowman advised the Board whatever facility the Board elects to close would be available to the community in the evening.  If the facility is used by the community during the summer months, accommodations will be made available to the community at that facility or another facility.  If the facility is used as an alternative school, technically the Board would not be closing a school but changing the use of the school.

Mrs. Butville noted if two elementary schools were closed and the current Intermediate Unit classes retained, the capacity percentage would be 97 percent.  If two elementary schools were closed, would the District be able to implement a full-day kindergarten program in one or two years?  Dr. Bowman felt with the closing of two elementary schools, it would be difficult to implement a full-day kindergarten program.  He said he would feel uncomfortable with that kind of decision.

Mr. Schoenstadt recommended the Board close the smallest elementary school, the Tawanka School.  Mr. Stack inquired if the Tawanka School could be used as an alternative school.  Dr. Bowman stated it has a 425 student program capacity and could be used as an alternative school.  The Schweitzer School’s capacity is 446 students and the Lower Southampton School’s capacity is 515 students.

Dr. Bowman advised the Board if a school is not closed, in September 2002 there would be two schools being used at the 60 percent level.  Including three Intermediate Unit classes, the Schweitzer School would be at 60 percent utilization and the Tawanka School’s utilization level would be 81 percent including two Intermediate Unit classes.  Mr. Stack stated even if no school closure action is taken, the attendance boundaries would probably have to be changed.  Ms. Drioli recommended the Schweitzer School be closed.

Mrs. Butville inquired how serious is the Board about implementing a full-day kindergarten program within a year or two.  Mr. Schoenstadt and Dr. Frank indicated they favored a full-day kindergarten program.  Mr. Schoenstadt suggested the Educational Development Committee review the full-day kindergarten program issue.  Mrs. Butville felt the Board’s position on the full-day kindergarten program could have an impact upon the decision whether to close one or two schools.  She would prefer to take all actions at one time and not make any further changes (redistricting, closing schools, etc.) for five to eight years.

Ms. Drioli stated if one school were closed in 2002 and another school closed in a year or two, the realignment would not be impacted that greatly.  The schools being closed would be located at opposite ends of the District.  Ms. Drioli suggested the Board close one school at a time.  She felt it is unlikely the same students would be affected by both school closings.  Mrs. Butville expressed concern that not closing two schools at the same time could result in the District being realigned twice and some of the same children being affected twice by the realignments.

Dr. Bowman stated if two schools are closed, the District will be in the position to accommodate an additional 115 students.  He felt it would be too tight of a fit.  Mr. Stack stated if only one elementary school is closed, there would be the opportunity to redeploy the modular classrooms for other uses and provide the District with more flexibility.  In two or three years the Board may decide to close another school.  Mr. Stack stated he supported Mr. Schoenstadt’s recommendation to close the Tawanka Elementary School.

There was Board consensus to designate the Tawanka Elementary School as the school be closed in the year 2002 and reused as an alternative school.  Mrs. Bostwick, Mrs. Butville, Mr. Dengler, Mr. Schoenstadt and Mr. Stack indicated they supported the closure of the Tawanka School.  Ms. Drioli recommended the Schweitzer School be closed.  Mr. Eccles, Dr. Frank and Mr. Mecleary indicated they were opposed to closing a school. 

Mrs. Butville announced in September the District will be renting to the Technical School’s Nursing Program four modular classrooms currently located at the Heckman School.  This will generate income for the District.

Mrs. Butville requested if the Tawanka School is closed, modular classrooms not be used for regular classroom instruction.  Dr. Bowman stated it would not be possible to not use any modular classrooms for regular classroom instruction.  The use of modular classrooms for regular classroom instruction will be kept to a minimum.

6.   Other Board Business

      No other board business was discussed.

Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.  Following the meeting, a Public Board Meeting was held.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol A. Calvello
Board Secretary

Copyright ^© 1998- 2007 Neshaminy School District, Langhorne, PA  19047. 215-809-6000. All rights reserved. 
 Contact Us: Email  Webmaster  with questions or comments. Last modified: August 17, 2007.