|
The
Neshaminy Board of School Directors met in public session on May 1,
2001 at Neshaminy High School.
The following persons were in attendance:
|
BOARD MEMBERS:
|
ADMINISTRATORS:
|
|
Mr.
Edward Stack, President
|
Dr.
Gary Bowman
|
|
Mr.
Steven Schoenstadt, Vice President
|
Dr.
Raymond Boccuti
|
|
Mrs.
June Bostwick
Mrs. Yvonne Butville |
Mr.
Harry Jones
Mr. Richard Marotto |
|
Mr.
Harry Dengler, Jr.
|
Mr.
Joseph Paradise
|
|
Ms.
Carol Drioli
|
Mr.
P. Howard Wilson
|
|
Dr.
Ruth Frank
George Mecleary, Jr., Esq. |
SOLICITOR:
|
|
|
Robert
R. Fleck, Esq.
|
|
BOARD MEMBER NOT PRESENT:
Mr. Richard Eccles
|
OTHERS:
Approximately 500 persons from the public,
staff and press. |
|
SECRETARY: Mrs.
Carol Calvello
|
|
1. Call to Order
Mr.
Stack called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Pledge of
Allegiance
Mr.
Stack requested those in attendance join in the salute to the flag.
3. Announcements
Mr.
Stack announced Mr. Eccles was absent from the meeting.
Dr.
Bowman announced a variety of letters addressed to the Board and
Superintendent have been received in the Superintendent�s Office.
Copies of the letters received have been placed in the Board
members� Board folders.
Mr.
Stack briefly reviewed the meeting agenda.
He noted the meeting was a special Work Session and the Board
will seek public input after reviewing the updated building
utilization data.
4. Items for
Discussion
a.
Building
Utilization Update/Timeline
Information
distributed prior to the meeting and Facility/Enrollment Data and
School Closing Scenarios Report dated May 1, 2001 distributed at the
meeting. Dr. Bowman
pointed out the Facility/Enrollment Data School Closing Scenarios
Report includes four critical questions that need to be answered.
The questions are as follows:
�
Will we continue to support the middle school program?
�
Will we continue to support grade 6 students in the middle
school program?
�
Will we continue to support the housing of 12 Bucks County
Intermediate Unit classes? (ten elementary,
two secondary)
�
Will we continue to utilize the modular classrooms?
Dr.
Bowman stated the four questions need to be addressed as the Board
focuses on the alternatives and how the facilities will be utilized.
Dr.
Bowman briefly reviewed the following information contained in the
report:
Projected
Five Year Building Enrollment Data
Elementary
enrollment will continue to decline over the next five years.
The enrollment will decline over 1,000 students compared to
the 1990 enrollment. Over
five years, the middle school enrollment will decline by almost 300
students. The high
school enrollment will increase by approximately 100 students from
2001-2002 to 2005-2006.
No
changes September 2001 Chart
Scenario
One: Close Neshaminy
Middle School 2001
The
percentages listed in the report are averages, because the entire
School District was not realigned nor were the enrollments balanced.
Students could be moved from one census grid to another and
enrollment reduced to reflect fewer students attending the Maple
Point Middle School and more students attending another middle
school. The charts
provide a sense of the high and low percentage and what the average
might be.
Scenario
Two: Transfer 6th
Graders to Elementary Schools and Close Neshaminy Middle School 2001
The
Intermediate Unit classes have 62 students and 41 students
(two-third) are Neshaminy students.
Nine of the students attend two Intermediate Unit classes at
the Maple Point Middle School and the rest of the students are
distributed throughout the elementary schools.
Scenario
Three: Close Hoover
Elementary 2001
Scenario
Four: Close Schweitzer
and Tawanka Elementary
Scenario
Five: Close Neshaminy
Middle School and Schweitzer Elementary
Intermediate
Unit Classes in Neshaminy - 2000-1001
Neshaminy
should be providing approximately 15 classrooms to the Intermediate
Unit. Currently, the
District is only providing 12 classrooms.
Therefore, Neshaminy must pay the other school districts that
provide the classroom space. The
fee for this service next year will be $13,500 per classroom and
$15,000 per classroom the following year.
Since there has been space available in the District’s
buildings, Intermediate Unit classes have been added the last
several years. This has
reduced the annual classroom usage fee paid to other school
districts.
Current
Utilization of Modular Classrooms
Chart
reflects location of 22 modular classrooms and specifically what the
modular classrooms are used for.
Cost
of Modulars
Chart
reflects the cost of the maintenance for the modular classrooms.
To maintain the 22 modular classrooms over a 15 year period
it will cost approximately $432,000. The costs are for electric and air conditioning replacements,
roof renovations, new carpeting, walkway maintenance, replacement of
heat pump, etc. There
have been modulars in the District since 1988.
An additional ten modulars were added to the District in
1990.
Revised
Secondary Schools - Building Program Capacities as of May 1, 2001
Data
updated as of May 1, 2001 to represent this year’s program.
The one major change was one additional special education
class at the Maple Point Middle School.
Total capacity in the secondary buildings has only changed
slightly, approximately 40 students.
At
the middle school level, each group of students in grades 6, 7 and 8
has a house. The
students go to four teachers. This
is their home while they are in the middle school.
They leave the house for special subjects or the lunch
program. The high school is almost at maximum capacity.
In
response to Mr. Schoenstadt’s questions regarding modular
classroom costs, Dr. Bowman explained the costs are not budgeted
every year. However, it
is believed over a 15 year period these are the kinds of things that
need to be done to keep the modular classrooms in condition for
educational purposes. If the modulars were shut down, there would still be a cost
associated with maintaining them.
The cost would not be for heating and air conditioning, but
for roofing to make sure it remains a dry facility.
Mr. Schoenstadt estimated it would cost $35,000 to $50,000 to
move a modular. Dr.
Bowman stated it would cost at least $50,000 to move a modular.
Even if a modular were moved to a location to be scraped, it
would still cost $50,000.
Dr.
Bowman explained the District has utilized modulars since 1988, and
the modulars have been well maintained.
The administration feels very comfortable with continuing to
use the modulars as instructional spaces. They must be maintained
like any other facility. Dr.
Bowman advised the Board when the District purchased the modulars in
1987, there was the option to purchase a cheap modular or a quality
modular. The District
purchased a quality modular that would last. There is a theory that once you bring in modular classrooms,
you keep them. The
District has kept and maintained its modulars.
Ms.
Drioli suggested consideration be given to moving everything out of
the Eisenhower facility and closing the facility.
Any equipment or other items stored in the Eisenhower
facility could be placed in the modulars.
Since the Maple Point Middle School is at only 52 percent
capacity, a portion of the Maple Point facility could be used for
storage. She noted
currently the modulars are being used for a PTO school store,
storage, after-school child care, etc.
She said when possible, the students should be brought into
the school facilities and the modulars used for storage.
Ms.
Drioli stated after reviewing the facility/enrollment data, it
appears the middle schools need to be redistricted.
Even if there are no changes made in the middle school
program, the middle schools need to be redistricted to utilize the
buildings to their capacity.
Mr.
Stack questioned the difference in the current and previous program
capacity for the Maple Point Middle School.
The current capacity is 1,788 students and previously it was
1,890 students. Dr. Bowman
explained all the secondary classrooms were reviewed and a complete
count was conducted. He
noted the following program capacities for each middle school:
Middle Schools
Current Previous
Maple Point
1,788
1,890
Neshaminy
1,062
1,062
Poquessing
878
830
Sandburg
1,060
1,035
Dr.
Bowman explained the difference between the previous and new program
usage data is a total of 32 fewer seats at all the middle schools.
Previously, the total was 4,817 students and the current
total is 4,785 students. The
review revealed that some special education classrooms were being
counted as though they would handle 15 students. However, in a substandard classroom the number of students is
between 9 and 12 students.
Mrs.
Bostwick referred to the issue of providing classrooms for the
Intermediate Unit classes. She
inquired about the fee the District would be required to pay for not
providing the Intermediate Unit with any classroom space and the
cost of maintaining the modulars.
Dr. Bowman explained the charge is $15,000 per Intermediate
Unit classroom or a total of $180,000 ($15,000 X 12 classrooms).
Additionally, the District would have to send 40 Neshaminy
special education students to another school district for their
Intermediate Unit classes.
Mrs.
Bostwick pointed out whatever changes are made, it will affect
everyone in the District. Due
to redistricting, every school will be affected in some way.
Whether schools are closed or not, there will be shifting of
students among the schools. Dr.
Bowman stated all the schools will be affected because the
attendance boundaries will need to be realigned as the result of
closing a school. Also, the enrollment will need to be balanced out in all of
the schools so the facilities and educational program specialists
will have an equal share of the load.
This will allow all students to receive equal services.
Even if a student’s building is not closed, the student may
attend another school next year.
Ms.
Drioli noted the Poquessing Middle School uses the auditorium for
three classes, the stage for instrumental instruction, and the ESL
teacher uses a closet. However,
the Maple Point Middle School has several locations where five to
ten students can be scheduled for special education.
The Maple Point facility is only being used at 52 percent
capacity. She pointed out this is an example why redistricting is
necessary.
Ms.
Drioli stated the Schweitzer School has a sign on the wall that
states, “It takes a village to raise a child.
Schweitzer is that village.”
She stated Neshaminy is a quality school district, not a
group of quality villages. She
urged parents to look at what is best for the overall quality of
education in the entire District and not just look at their schools
as private villages. She said she wants to save the District.
Mrs.
Butville inquired if it would be possible to hold Intermediate Unit
classes in the Schweitzer building without regular classes being
held in the building. If
there are empty classrooms, why isn’t the District filling the
building to capacity with Intermediate Unit classes?
Dr. Bowman explained there is case law and Pennsylvania
guidelines require special education students be included with
regular education students. There
would be legal ramifications if the special education students were
isolated. This is an
option that cannot be pursued.
Dr.
Bowman pointed out the questions number three (Will we continue to
support the housing of 12 Bucks County Intermediate Unit classes?)
and number four (Will we continue to utilize the modular
classrooms?) are very critical.
The issue of 10 to 12 Intermediate Unit classes and 22
modular classrooms will have a significant impact upon space and
building usage.
Mr.
Schoenstadt indicated he supports continuing the middle school
program, but it cannot be justified in four middle schools.
He pointed out the low percentage of building utilization at
the four middle schools. He
said he supports retaining the sixth graders in the middle school
program. If they are not included in the program, it is not a middle
school program. Without
the sixth graders it becomes a junior high school program.
Mr. Schoenstadt felt the District should find a way to extend
the Intermediate Unit classes in the District so Neshaminy students
are not sent to another school district for special education
classes. He said on a
cost justified basis, the District should continue to use the
modular classrooms in the way they are currently being used. Hopefully, the modulars currently being used for storage can
be used more efficiently.
Ms.
Drioli stated she supports continuing the middle school program,
because it is the best utilization of the District’s teaching
staff. She said she
supports retaining the sixth graders in the middle schools.
She was in favor of continuing to house the Intermediate Unit
classes in District schools, and suggested
perhaps the District should start its own program.
She felt it would be more costly to move the modulars than to
maintain and use them for storage.
She recommended the administration investigate the
feasibility of closing the Eisenhower facility by September 2001 and
using modulars to store the equipment currently in the Eisenhower
building. Dr. Bowman
explained part of the Eisenhower facility is used by the
District’s Facilities and Engineering Department. The other portion of the building is leased to a private
school. Ms. Drioli
suggested the administration ascertain if the private school is
ready to expand their program.
Dr.
Bowman explained the overwhelming majority of research indicates
that sixth graders are more like seventh graders than they are fifth
graders. The social,
emotional, biological and chemical changes in the child suggest the
middle school environment is much better equipped to provide for the
changing needs of the early adolescent.
Early adolescents need programs that provide opportunities
for exploration and programs that provide a home with a group of
teachers. The
programs are designed to meet the adolescent’s needs.
Many of the sixth and seventh grade teachers are elementary
trained so they bring the child centeredness to the middle school.
The eighth and ninth grade teachers bring the content
centeredness. Those
combined provide the opportunity for a very strong program.
Across the country, a large percentage of school districts
are changing from a junior high environment to a middle school
environment. Neshaminy
has had the middle school program since 1993.
The District’s test scores are up, the PSSA scores are
above the state averages and all the indicators suggest the District
is doing something right with the middle school students.
Universities that are providing some of the leadership on
middle school education continue to say the research supports the
middle school structure and educational program. Middle schools are a little more costly than a traditional
junior high school. Junior
high schools are mini high schools.
Middle schools provide a place for nurturing, counseling,
advising and opportunity for every child to be connected in the
school. The middle
school teaching teams work with and mentor 120 students on a
day-to-day basis. It is
a slow, gradual process that over time makes a difference in the
quality of life with the quality instruction of the students.
The middle school program provides opportunities for sixth
graders to explore activities in a non-restricted environment
compared to what was available in the middle school program.
The middle school program is a quality program that is good
for students.
Mrs.
Bostwick stated a number of parents have told her they believe sixth
graders are too young for middle school.
Mr.
Dengler stated he supports continuing the middle school program,
sixth grade students in the middle school program, housing the 12
Intermediate Unit classes and utilizing the modular classrooms.
He said at this point he cannot support closing a school in
September. He noted the
Board is facing a very difficult budget and implored the
administration to review the budget for expenditures that could be
delayed a year. He
recommended all the schools remain open for September 2001, the
facility issue be discussed in August and by the end of 2001 a
decision be made as to which school/s will be closed by September
2002. Mr. Dengler
explained how his family was disrupted when the Maple Point High
School was closed. He
said he cannot support closing a school for September 2001 or a
budget increase of 25, 30 or 35 mills.
Mr.
Mecleary stated he supported continuing the middle school program,
sixth graders in the middle school program, housing of 12
Intermediate Unit classes and utilizing the modular classrooms.
He said it is too quick to close any schools this year.
He noted the Pennsylvania School Code includes a guideline
for closing a school and he was not sure that the Board could meet
the School Code guidelines at this time.
Mr.
Stack referred to the four critical questions being answered by the
Board members and cautioned the Board members that answering yes to
some of the questions may result in certain options no longer being
an option that Board members may have previously supported.
Support of the questions has an impact on certain options.
Dr.
Frank stated she supported continuing the middle school program,
sixth graders in the middle school program, housing of 12
Intermediate Unit classes and utilizing the modular classrooms.
Dr. Frank felt the Board has no business making snap
decisions. She noted
there was no Board consensus to close a school or schools.
She suggested the Board put all of its emphasis on a good
budget that will save the District money.
Mrs.
Butville stated she supported continuing the middle school program
and sixth graders in the middle school program.
She inquired how many houses will comfortably fit in each
middle school. She stated she supported continuing to house the
Intermediate Unit classes. If
space is available, more Intermediate Unit classes should be held in
the District. Mrs. Butville
stated she was unsure how she felt about the modular classrooms
issue. She inquired if
there was any information available on the resale value of the
modular classrooms or if anyone was interested in purchasing the
modular classrooms.
Mrs.
Butville noted there was a rumor circulating that the Board had
already made a decision on the building utilization issue and public
input was just a formality. She
stated the Board has not reached a decision and is very interested
in the public’s opinion. She
pointed out there is a severe declining enrollment situation in the
District that must be addressed.
The Board wants to make sure the issue is addressed in the
best way possible. The
Board is taking the time to gather all the information pertinent to
the issue so it can make the very best decision for the District,
taxpayers and students. Neshaminy
has some fantastic programs. The
programs cost money and are worth it.
However, there is a point where money is spent for some
things that are not worth it. Having half filled schools is not fiscally responsible and
action needs to be taken to correct the situation.
Mrs. Butville said whatever action is taken she wants it all
done at once so the students will not have their education
interrupted again because of a school closing, opening, etc.
for the rest of their educational years.
Mr.
Stack stated he supports the middle school program, sixth graders in
the middle school program and continued use of the modular
classrooms. He
indicated he is not necessarily committed to housing the
Intermediate Unit classes. It
would depend on the impact at the remaining elementary schools.
Mr.
Stack referred to scenario 5 (close Neshaminy Middle School and
Schweitzer Elementary School).
He noted this option would allow the Sandburg School to
expand its capacity. If
Neshaminy Middle School were to be closed, there could be a more
reasonable distribution of students at the remaining three middle
schools. He said it was
his hope that the capacity would be kept at an optimal level of 80
percent at the middle school facilities.
Dr.
Bowman explained if scenario 5 were to be put into place, the
enrollment in the remaining three middle schools would need to be
balanced out. It is not
feasible to run a middle school with 1,500 students.
It would be necessary to flex into the Schweitzer Elementary
School with sixth grade teams.
It is most likely some remodeling would be necessary and some
special subject classrooms (family living, technology, art, music
and computer lab) would need to be built in the Schweitzer School.
The facilities at the Sandburg School would be fully
utilized. He estimated
the renovation cost may be $500,000.
The cost for a computer lab would be $60,000 to $80,000.
The administration is still investigating what would be
necessary to implement scenario 5.
The changes would only be made after being assured full
utilization is being made of the special facilities at the Sandburg
School and all of the students can be scheduled.
The administration will continue to investigate this option.
Mr.
Stack urged the administration to continue to earnestly investigate
scenario 5. He stated
one of things gained by closing a middle school is a lot of
furniture, computers, equipment, etc. could be used at the remaining
middle schools, which would help defray the cost.
Mr.
Schoenstadt requested the administration’s continued review of
scenario 5 include such things as raising the water fountains, any
necessary adjustments to lavatory equipment, etc. and the cost of
these adjustments be included in the cost analysis.
Mr. Stack questioned whether such changes/adjustments would
be warranted.
Mr.
Stack explained Section 780 of the School Code requires once the
School Board targets a school or schools for closure and it has been
advertised 15 days later, there must be a public hearing on the
issue. Three months from that point in time, there would be a vote
or resolution to approve the closure.
Given the current time frame, it is possible to take action
for this year. The
action would have to take place the end of August.
Under Regulation 524, the Board is required to provide 60
days notice before furloughing teachers.
This would have to occur at the time the final resolution is
passed. If the resolution is passed in August, there would not be 60
days before the start of the new school year.
Therefore, the District would be liable for wages to the
displaced staff members.
Mr.
Stack explained Act 16 for the year 2000 allows the School Board to
petition the Pennsylvania Department of Education for a waiver of
regulations 780 and 524. Mr.
Fleck explained the Pennsylvania Department of Education would have
to grant the waiver. The
Pennsylvania Department of Education has 60 days to respond to the
petition, but could respond earlier, grant the waiver and a hearing
be held in 30 days. Mr.
Stack stated he does not propose the Board request a waiver.
Consequently, the Board should not be seeking closure of a
school for September 2001. He noted over the past year, the Board has accumulated a lot
of information and involved the PTO’s.
It is in the Board’s interest to continue to involve the
community and seek out additional information.
The enrollment figures are such that the District is facing a
school closure. Considering
the timeline outlined in regulations 780 and 524, the decision the
Board must make is whether the current Board or the next Board will
act upon the issue. If
the current Board is going to act upon the issue and have the
resolution in effect for September 2002, a school or schools need to
be identified by no later than the first week of August, a Public
Meeting held the last week of August and a resolution voted on at
the scheduled November Public Meeting.
If the current Board were not to act upon the issue, it would
be necessary for the next Board to make a decision on the school or
schools by the first week of February, hold a public hearing the
last week of February and vote on the final resolution the last week
of June 2002. Mr. Stack
expressed concern with newly elected Board members being seated on
the Board in December and having their first meeting in January
whether a matter of a few weeks will be adequate time for the new
Board to make such an important decision.
Considering the amount of time and effort the current Board
has put into the process, the input received, and the input the
Board will continue to receive, Mr. Stack recommended the current
Board make a decision by the August time frame to identify a
specific school or schools and by end of November adopt the
resolution.
Ms.
Drioli noted the Board did not select which particular schools were
candidates for closure. The
Board requested the administration select the schools for closure,
but the Board did insist on a middle school being named.
She stated there is a perception in the community that the
Board knows which school it is going to close and it is keeping the
information from the public. This
is not true. In an effort to keep faith with the community, the Board
decided to move forward with the issue and name the schools. She expressed concern if the Board selects a school for
closure in August 2001 and the school is not closed until September
2002, the teachers, students and parents in that school will be
living with a death knell. It
will not be a healthy environment.
She said she is not willing to subject the students, teachers
and parents to such a situation.
Mr.
Stack pointed out he did not present a motion but a recommendation,
which the Board needs to discuss and reach a decision on at an
upcoming Board Meeting.
Mr.
Schoenstadt pointed out there are a multitude of options.
Currently, there is no consensus to take any specific action
or adhere to a particular timetable. He recommended the options be pared down to the
following three options:
·
Scenario Five: Close
Neshaminy Middle School and Schweitzer Elementary
·
Scenario Three: Close
Hoover Elementary
·
Scenario No Change
Mr.
Schoenstadt recommended the Board’s future discussions focus on
the three above options. He
noted there has been nine months of discussion on the issue between
the community, Facilities and Enrollment Committee and public input
meetings. Another meeting is scheduled for public input.
By the end of the summer, a decision should be reached on the
options so the administration will have adequate time to prepare the
facility, if necessary. He
recommended the Board reach a decision by September or October.
Mr.
Dengler referred to Ms. Drioli’s concern about announcing too
early which school or schools will be closed.
He said conversely it could be changed around.
If you know your school is going to be closed, you could make
it the best year you ever had.
Mrs.
Butville stated either the community will know too long ahead of
time or will not know far enough in advance that their school is
going to be closed. Since
the Board is still collecting information, Mrs. Butville recommended
the Board not establish a timeline until next week (Board Meeting
scheduled for May 8). Mr.
Stack said he is asking whether the current Board or the next Board
should decide the facility issue.
Mrs. Butville felt the current Board should decide the issue.
Mrs.
Bostwick felt the current Board should decide the issue.
She noted the current Board has done the work and it is the
current Board’s responsibility to hand on to the next Board a
School District that is in good shape financially and educationally.
Dr.
Frank pointed out it will not be binding for the next Board to
accept the current Board’s recommendation.
Mr. Stack stated if the current Board passes a resolution to
close a school building, a future Board could make a decision to
reverse the decision. If
the decision is not reversed, it will take place.
Mr.
Mecleary stated perhaps giving the decision to the next Board, will
give the public more of an opportunity to influence what actually
does occur given the election.
Mr.
Stack questioned how many meetings must be held to proceed to make a
decision. He
recommended at the next Work Session (May 8) the Board decide on a
time frame, dates for further information hearings and when all the
information needs to be received from the administration.
He suggested Mr. Schoenstadt’s recommendation to possibly
eliminate some of the options also be discussed at the Work Session.
Mr.
Stack noted facility options were presented earlier in the meeting
by Dr. Bowman and the Board is not obligated to review only those
options. If any Board
member has another scenario they would like to propose, they need to
make the Board and administration aware of it as soon as possible.
Dr. Frank suggested the District be realigned without the
closing of any schools. It
would not be necessary to wait until 2002 to realign the District.
Mr. Schoenstadt stated if the realignment is done for the
2001-2002 school year and there are other options implemented, a
second realignment would be necessary.
A realignment is not justified if it does not last
five to seven years. Dr.
Frank said historically speaking, the District has made mistakes in
the past because school populations do change.
The Board cannot make a rule now to last for seven years. She said we cannot tell when people are going to have
children.
Mr.
Dengler stated in 21 days the Board must pass a preliminary budget.
At this point, the Board does not even know what the revenue
side of the budget looks like. He said he would rather spend time reviewing the budget and
postpone the school closing issue until next year.
5.
Public Comment
There
was a two minute time limit per speaker.
Public comment was limited to one hour.
Mr. Macht, Langhorne, explained he is 79 years old and
does not consider himself a senior citizen.
He stated he has lived in Langhorne Borough since 1950 and
has gladly paid municipal, county and school taxes since then.
His house is assessed at $9,100.
If a 40 mill tax increase were approved, his taxes would
increase $1.00 per day. He
said he has paid more than that in an increase in gasoline.
He noted the taxes on a house with the average assessment of
$6,600 would increase 72 cents per day.
He said the children in the District are the future of the
District. He stated he does not like big middle schools because they
are not fair to the children.
Mr.
Sweeney, Levittown, stated enhancing the children’s educational
experience should be the top priority of both the community and
School Board. He felt
budget concerns cannot be allowed to down grade the level of
education provided to the children.
Each of the proposed school closures would accomplish this
downgrade in educational experience for some, if not all, of the
students in the District. Initially
he felt in order to be fiscally responsible to all Neshaminy
residents, it was probably necessary to close a facility.
After researching the financial facts, he has changed his
opinion. He noted the
residents of the schools marked for closing have formed a community
around their schools even if their
homes are not geographically close.
These communities and support are essential to the
educational well being of the children and should not be
disassembled lightly. Mr.
Sweeney referred to the April 26 Courier Times article
stating a tax savings due to school closings for the average
homeowner in the District will be between $40 and $75 annually.
He said after years of unprecedented prosperity in the
country and communities, how can we consider disrupting the
children’s education for this small investment?
He said everyone benefits from a strong school district
through creating better citizens and through higher property values.
The Board and community should be apologetic to no one for
demanding the best for the children.
He said how can we explain, as a community, that the
children’s education and emotional health is not even worth $100
per year.
Mrs.
Baldwin, Intermediate Unit special educator, stated she is concerned
about what would happen to the Intermediate Unit and special
education students that are in Neshaminy’s special education
classes. There are 42
special education students at the Schweitzer School, and 24 of those
students are Neshaminy students.
She said it is her understanding that none of the 42 students
were included in the 63 percent building use calculation, which
makes the number suspect. She
thanked the Board for putting to rest the idea of a special
education center. She
pointed out about 30 of the 42 special education students at this
time have mandated mainstreaming in their IEPs.
The services included in an IEP are mandated and the parents
can request a due process hearing and disputes can lead to costly
litigation. If the
Board would decide not to continue with the Intermediate Unit
Program, it would not only need to pay a neighboring district for
classroom rental, but also would be billed for a different district
providing mainstream services to Neshaminy students.
This would be an additional expense.
She urged the Board to slow down.
She said she does not sense any sort of tax revolt and has
spoken to a number of people who are willing to pay for good
programs. She said she
agrees closing a school would save money.
If that is the mission, the choice is very easy.
She said I hope that is not the mission.
Ms.
Jones, Penndel, explained in 1996 her husband received an honorable
discharge from the United States Navy so their children would have
stability in their lives and not have to change schools year after
year. Last year they purchased a home in the neighborhood of the
Hoover Elementary School. The
home purchase decision was based on the school the children would be
attending. She said 25
years ago she was affected by the closing of the Hoover School and
her parents placed her in parochial school.
She said the Neshaminy School District is an excellent school
district. She urged the
Board to not force residents to face the decision families had to
face 25 years ago. She
noted 1,000 homes are being built in the Village of Flowers Mill
housing development with each homeowner paying between $3,000 and
$3,500 in school taxes. This
generates revenue of over $3,500,000 per year for the District.
She questioned why there are so many financial concerns now
when this money has recently become available to the School
District.
Mr.
Manzo, Langhorne, stated as residents of this community and the
School District, we freely choose to live here and fund the cost of
education excellence. He
indicated he is sensitive to the financial difficulties of older
residents. He stated
however, the primary concern must be for the children who represent
the future. The
psychological aspects of moving children to other schools and
limiting their opportunities to participate in music programs or
sports must be considered. Parents
work very hard to provide their children with the finest possible
and most rounded educational experience.
Neshaminy enjoys an excellent repetition, which has been
earned through hard work and dedication.
The Blue Ribbon designation is now a significant part of our
District. Neshaminy
Middle should remain open and be a model of education excellence for
the rest of the District’s schools. To consider closing the cream of the crop is incredulous.
Decisions based on declining enrollment and increasing taxes
must be cautiously approached. If the educational structure is weakened or the middle school
concept dismantled, the enrollment decline may actually accelerate.
Larger student/teacher ratios may discourage families who may
be contemplating moving into the District.
The taxpayers should decide whether or not they are willing
to absorb higher taxes to keep the schools open.
Mr. Manzo asked if every option (wage taxes, tax freeze,
reduced tax rate for older residents or budget review for savings)
has been carefully considered.
Has a creative plan to reduce, eliminate or consolidate
educational programs within the District over a period of years been
consider? Has
consideration of all options been exhausted?
He urged the Board to consider every alternative before
making any decision to close any school.
Closing any school should be the last resort.
Ms.
Pulanillo, Tawanka School instructional assistant and Neshaminy
resident, urged the Board to slow down, allow time to decide, plan,
adjust and implement. She
noted in 1975 the Maple Point facility was opened, closed in 1983
and reopened in 1993. After the tenant moved out of the Maple Point facility, it
cost the District $16,000,000 to renovate and reopen the facility as
a school when it only cost approximately $9,000,000 to build the
facility. She
questioned the savings related to the Maple Point facility.
She pointed out the Hoover facility was closed in 1976 and
reopened in 1986. She
said if it is going to cost her $75 a year to close a school, what
is it going to cost to reopen the school?
If it is more than $75, then it does not make sense to close
the school. She
noted she does not have any children attending District schools.
However, if she sells her house, there is a nine to ten
chance a young family with school age children will purchase her
home.
Mrs.
Lescher, Langhorne, explained her husband and her are retired and
have been Neshaminy residents for 40 years.
She pointed out when someone purchases a house, they know how
much the taxes will be when they make settlement on their house.
She said she believes good schools make a good community so
she has not complained about her taxes increasing over the years. Possibly a lot of young families who pay social security
taxes might be annoyed when she picks up her check each month.
So, maybe it is fair for her to give back and pay the school
tax. It could be called
a social contract. Mrs.
Lescher explained she has enjoyed a lot of events at the Neshaminy
Middle School and was opposed to the school being closed.
She felt children in the middle school age group should be
given more opportunities and opportunities should not be taken away
from them. She said I
hope the School Board does not close any schools.
Mr.
Knowles, Neshaminy Federation of Teachers President, stated the
building utilization percentages presented by the administration and
discussions with teachers and building representatives seem to
conflict. He noted the
Maple Point School is said to be at 52 percent capacity.
However, virtually all of the rooms have a teacher in them,
maybe not all seven periods. The
Neshaminy Middle School is rated at 81 percent capacity right now,
but every room is used and in some cases closets and former storage
rooms. He questioned
what beyond 81 percent would mean.
The Sandburg School’s capacity is well above 80 percent.
He noted the Heckman School is stated to be at 65 percent
capacity, but in fact the six modulars, which are used to store
furniture, are included in the calculation.
Mr. Knowles stated the Federation supports either taking the
modulars off line and using them for storage or selling them.
He acknowledged this would not save the District a tremendous
amount of money. However, it will increase the elementary schools’ capacity
up to 75 percent to 80 percent.
It would also eliminate a security issue of students leaving
a building and going out to a modular.
The Federation is willing to sit down with the Board at any
time in the near future to discuss how the buildings are being used
as far as efficiency. He
said the Federation can provide real bodies and real counts.
Mr.
Knowles noted the history in Neshaminy shows buildings open,
buildings close. The
Maple Point building was opened and then in 1983 closed.
It was vacant for two years and rented for six years.
The building was rented to Educational Testing Services for
$7,800,000. However, it
cost $16,500,000 to reopen the building in 1993, and a $20,000,000
bond issue was floated. He
urged the Board to take this under consideration.
He also urged the Board to review capacities again and
determine what in the long run is fiscally responsible.
Ms.
Finsen, Levittown, questioned if all senior citizens in the District
support closing a school to save money on a tax increase. She explained she discussed the fact that the taxes will
increase whether or not any schools are closed with the senior
citizens at the Middletown Township building today.
She stated according to the information provided, if all
schools are left open the most the taxes will increase is
approximately $200 a year, which translates to approximately $3.84 a
week, the price of a Big Mac and fries.
She said many of the senior citizens she spoke with today did
not support closing any schools for relatively small savings.
Many of the senior citizens spoke of raising children in the
District and remembered past school closings and reopenings.
The senior citizens’ own children had been through school
closings and they did not approve of traveling that route again.
They were leery of any potential savings that would
negatively affect their grandchildren or neighbors’ children some
of whom attend the Schweitzer Elementary School, Hoover Elementary
School and Neshaminy Middle School. She explained the senior citizens’ comments validated her
instincts that not all senior citizens agree with the senior citizen
from the Village of Flowers Mill who spoke at the April 24 Board
Meeting. She urged the
Board to learn from the wisdom of the senior citizens and not make
the mistake of compromising the children’s educational experience
for a tax increase that amounts to not much more than change in our
pockets.
Mr.
Nemeroff, Langhorne, questioned why the Board is considering the
closure of the Neshaminy Middle School.
He felt no explanation for why a school that received
national recognition for academic excellence and a school that may
have the best music program of any middle school in the country is
being considered for closure. He
said it is a course of action that is subject to a lot of questions.
He stated the Board needs to find a creative solution to the
situation. Closing a
school is not a creative solution.
Closing a school is a cop out.
Ms.
Kellogg, Hoover Elementary School teacher and Neshaminy resident,
stated community can be defined as people living together and
sharing common interests. The
Neshaminy community shares many interests and goals.
We all want a safe community, which is well maintained. We want responsible and responsive government.
In short, we want the best.
In this quest for excellence, the most important goal should
and must be the education of the children.
This is the most important obligation of any society.
It is a debt that we owe to the future.
Our democracy depends on an educated citizenry and it is the
public school system that delivers it.
Ms.
Kellogg noted this is not simply a lofty and altruistic goal.
It is also very practical and to a certain extent
self-serving, for it is the School District which is the very
backbone of property value. Most
people choose to buy a home based on the quality and reputation of
the local school district. Property
values are either enhanced or weakened by the school district.
A district which responds to issues such as declining
enrollment in a well thought out and carefully planned manner, a
manner which protects educationally sound and proven grade
configurations and practices, as well as being responsible to the
taxpayers, is a district which serves the needs of the entire
community. A strong,
well planned and cohesive school district is an investment not only
in the children, but also in maintaining property values.
She urged the Board to look at the big picture, and be sure
not to shoot itself in the foot by saving some tax dollars short
term and losing property value long term.
Ms. Kellogg said education is our top priority.
It is a win-win situation for everyone.
We will not only have an educated generation, we will also be
protecting our property values.
Ms.
Royer, Langhorne, asked what the community members can say to the
Board to make a difference in the Board’s decision.
She stated every parent in attendance has wonderful reasons
why their school should stay open.
Everyone wants the same thing for their children.
The Neshaminy School District has a great educational system.
She felt anything the residents say will not influence the
Board’s decision, because it will all come down to economics.
The Board needs suggestions from the community members and
the community members need answers from the Board.
She noted a suggestion was made to close the modular
classrooms, but such action would not be efficient enough.
She stated she does not want anyone losing their home due to
taxes. She suggested
consideration be given to putting a freeze on taxes for senior
citizens who meet a certain financial criteria.
Ms.
Royer explained her family recently moved from Cobalt Ridge to
Langhorne, because they wanted to stay in the Neshaminy School
District. She felt it
was not fair for the children to have to learn they are changing
schools at the last minute. The
adjustment could be traumatic for some children. She explained after
moving, it took her daughter awhile to adjust to a new school.
She said why are things moving so rapidly?
When will the children know where they will be attending
school next year?
Ms.
DeMatto, Levittown, explained she has been a Neshaminy taxpayer for
43 years. She stated an
excellent education is priceless.
As a senior citizen, she is aware taxes are a consideration
in the family budget. However,
they should not be the first or only consideration.
She stated as a senior citizen, I support the school taxes
that are needed to provide a high quality education for all of the
children in the School District.
She pointed out the School District and Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania offer a tax forgiveness program for seniors with a low
income who are truly in need. She
stated she would not like to see real estate values erode because of
a less than excellent school district.
Realtors have a way of selling school districts to young
families. A nationally
recognized Blue Ribbon School, such as Neshaminy Middle School, is a
prestigious honor and should not be treated lightly.
She said school closings have a detrimental affect on the
students’ learning. Such
disruptions cause parents to seek out alternatives such as charter
schools, which will drain funds from Neshaminy.
Over the years, the Neshaminy School Board has always been
diligent, hardworking and thoughtful about the education and welfare
of the students.
Ms.
McGuckin, Langhorne, felt the Neshaminy Middle School should not be
under consideration for closure, because it would make class size
larger even if the sixth graders are moved back to the elementary
schools. She indicated
she was opposed to the sixth graders being moved back to the
elementary schools. She felt it would be much more difficult for the middle
school children to adjust than those children in the elementary
schools.
Ms.
McGuckin noted the Hoover Elementary School has a student enrollment
of 672 with a staff of 34. The
Tawanka Elementary School has a student enrollment of 341 with a
staff of 27 and the Schweitzer Elementary School has a student
enrollment of 350 with a staff of 24.
She felt since the Hoover Elementary School is run more
economically efficient compared to the two other schools, it saves
the District money on a daily basis.
She stated statistics show that closing the Hoover School
will only save the District $1,000,000 as opposed to closing two of
Neshaminy’s mid-sized elementary schools, which will save
$2,000,000. She
recommended the Board close either two mid-sized elementary schools
or close one mid-sized
elementary school and sell all of the modular units.
She requested more information be provided on Ms. Drioli’s
recommendation to close the Eisenhower building and realign the
middle schools.
Ms.
McGuckin stated many people in the Hoover School community have
become emotionally attached to the school and its staff. She explained how through the help and support of the Hoover
School’s staff her
son overcame his school phobia and is now a Maple Point Middle
School honor student. Ms.
McGuckin said the bottom line is that Neshaminy’s Herbert Hoover
Elementary School is a well established community school and would
be sorely missed if forced to close its doors.
Ms.
Geddes, Feasterville, questioned if parents who have had their
children attend sixth grade in the middle schools would say they
would have preferred their children were retained in the elementary
school. She felt the parents may not be ready for the children to
move on to the middle schools but the students are ready. She emphasized that an elementary school is full at 80
percent capacity. The
Ferderbar School is at 80 percent capacity.
The school does not have a PTO room or school store room.
The school’s two modular classrooms are being fully
utilized. There is no
space available at 80 percent capacity.
Ms.
Geddes stated everyone needs to contact their state and federal
officials and ask them to fund the mandated programs at the level
they are suppose to fund them.
She felt senior citizens and Home and School Association
members would be active in such an effort.
What is needed is a leader from the School District to
organize everyone in this effort.
If the state and federal governments funded the programs in
the manner they are suppose to, funding would not be an issue for
next year. The budget
would not be as much of a concern as it is now.
She noted Senator Santorium has helped write a Bill, which
asks the federal government over the next seven years to fund the
schools at the level they are suppose to, 40 percent of the mandated
program. If the Bill is
supported, there would not have to be a tax increase next year.
Ms.
Bullick, Levittown, explained her one child, like the majority of
students at the Schweitzer School, walks to school.
Her other child attends an Intermediate Unit class at the
Hoover School. She
stated while the Intermediate Unit has an alternative program, not
all Intermediate Unit classes are alternative classes.
The Schweitzer and Hoover Schools do not have any alternative
classes. Her son is not
an alternative child. He
is an autistic child. If
all of the Intermediate Unit classes were located in the Schweitzer
School, the District would be in violation of the LRE clause in an
IEP which is protected under IDEA 97.
It also states the special education child needs to be in a
regular education setting. Ms.
Bullick stated along with her Highland Park neighbors, she was
opposed to an alternative school being located in the Schweitzer
School. She pointed out
over 50 percent of the Schweitzer School students walk to school,
and it would be costly to bus them to another school.
She noted the District is already in need of bus drivers.
She stated she realizes taxes will increase and she is
willing to pay the extra $50 to $75 a year to keep all of her
children in their present schools.
She said she does not want any school closed.
She urged the Board to slow down the process, stop and think
before taking any action.
Ms.
Hipple, Lower Southampton, noted that parents are devoted to their
children’s schools. She
expressed concern about the affects of closing the Neshaminy Middle
School. She indicated she favors the sixth graders remaining in the
middle schools. She
questioned how the school closing options will affect class size.
She pointed out the Poquessing Middle School is a small
school and every child has a chance to be recognized and participate
in extra-curricular activities.
If the Neshaminy Middle School is closed this is an advantage
that will be lost. She
urged the Board to not make any decisions that will compromise the
education of all middle school students.
Ms. Hipple stated the PTO’s of the four middle schools
(Neshaminy Middle, Sandburg Middle, Poquessing Middle and Maple
Point Middle), Heckman Elementary, Lower Southampton Elementary and
Ferderbar Elementary Schools agree to the following:
·
Keeping the teams in the middle schools
·
Keeping sixth graders in the middle schools
·
Keeping all four buildings open
Mr.
Rowan, Langhorne, explained he is a senior citizen and he does not
like paying any taxes. He
inquired if the District had a comprehensive five year plan and cost
analysis report available for review.
He suggested since Neshaminy High School needs a number of
repairs and would be costly to renovate, the Maple Point building be
made the new high school. It is a newer school and is air conditioned.
He estimated the Maple Point building could be expanded for a
cost of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. An addition could be added to the remaining middle schools
for a cost of $2,000,000. The
Neshaminy High School could be sold for at least $50,000,000.
Another option would be to rent out the Neshaminy High School
facility and retain it for future needs.
He urged the Board to review the options he suggested.
Ms.
Pepper, Langhorne, Hoover Elementary School reading specialist,
stated the Hoover, Schweitzer and Tawanka Elementary Schools
constitute three of the District’s five Read To Succeed (RTS)
schools. She explained
it was recently announced the state will fund the program at the
same level of funding provided this year, which is slightly over
$75,000 for the three schools.
The money follows the identified students if they go to
another RTS school. If the students are transferred to one of the four schools
that are not RTS schools that percentage of the money is lost.
The students in the Hoover and Schweitzer Schools are
currently in the Hundred Book Challenge Program and would need to
attend one of these two schools to continue the program that was
identified as suitable to their needs.
The Tawanka students would need to attend the Everitt School
or Ferderbar School to continue in their program.
At the Hoover School, 73 at-risk students were identified. Since all children in the class may use the program,
currently 151 students are being served.
It is anticipated next year 120 more children will be added
to the program. Since
January the 151 children have read a combined total of 38,115 books.
The program is well received by parents.
A family has donated books the past two years and the PTO has
contributed $1,200 to supplement the program.
She urged the Board to not sacrifice the integrity of the
programs.
Mr.
Champine, Neshaminy teacher and resident, stated when the District
goes through school closings, it cripples the School District for a
minimum of three years. One
of the future problems is curriculum continuity.
It will be lost. If
schools are closed, teachers will be moved between grade levels.
Therefore, the District will have to invest a tremendous
amount of money to train teachers to use the new programs that have
been purchased over the past two years.
The District will have invested over $1,250,000 in new
programs.
Mr.
Champine stated another issue to be considered is program integrity.
There is no program integrity by just taking a teacher, who
may have been a third grade teacher in one building and may now be a
kindergarten teacher in another building.
He pointed out teachers have to be trained, not to teach, but
in the programs purchased and the Board wants taught.
He said Neshaminy’s scores are more than respectable.
Those scores will be lost for a minimum of two to three years
while the District gets itself back together.
Mr. Champine urged the Board to come up with creative ideas
and not close anything, but open the District to better programming.
Ms.
Norton spoke on behalf of Mr. Stemme, Levittown.
Ms. North stated a decision needs to be made as a community
and School District on what to do with the schools, children and
money problem. The main
issue is the money problem. No
one seems to have any answers.
It will be very difficult for the children to understand and
cope with the changes. She
indicated she was opposed to the Schweitzer School being used as an
alternative school. She
urged the Board to take its time and reach a decision that the Board
and community can agree upon.
Ms.
Deal, Langhorne, stated she has lived in the District for 50 years,
and as a senior citizen supports the Board not closing any Neshaminy
school. She noted over
the years she has seen many changes in the District, and any changes
based mostly on financial considerations were not always the best
decisions for the children. Ms.
Deal stated many senior citizens are living in upscale, over 55
retirement communities and a large portion of these people never had
children attend Neshaminy schools. She said new people to the District now want to tell us how
to educate our children. Over
the years, parents and senior citizens scarified to make the
Neshaminy School District a better school district.
She said she resents that what has been put together could
possibly now be dismantled. She
said her taxes helped pay for the construction of the schools.
The schools are not just schools but a combination of
teachers who work well together to educate the children who have
pride in the schools. She
said as a senior she has pride in the schools.
She asked the Board to consider some type of tax freeze for
senior citizens who are experiencing financial difficulties.
She urged the Board not to rush to a decision, to keep all
the schools open and do what is best for the children.
Mr.
Stack thanked everyone for presenting their comments. He noted the members of the community will have an
opportunity to present comments at the May 8 Board Meeting.
On May 8 there will be a staff recognition ceremony, public
input and budget discussion.
6. Items for
Discussion
a.
Radio Program -
“Speak Your Piece” - May 9, 2001, noon,
Styer Orchards
Dr.
Bowman noted the radio program is scheduled for May 9 at noon. The Board needs to determine the Board members who will
participate in the program. Messrs.
Eccles and Mecleary plan to participate in the program.
He inquired if another Board member would be interested in
participating in the program on May 9. Dr. Frank indicated she would be available to participate in
the program.
Mr.
Stack noted there is an expense (approximately $300) associated with
the program. He
proposed the Board participate in the program on a trial basis.
He pointed out the radio program will take place after the
May 8 Work Session. Hopefully
at the May 8 Work Session the Board will establish a building
utilization timeline and possibly isolate some of the options.
Dr.
Frank felt the topic of the program needs to be changed.
The Board is no longer planning to close a school/s as of
September 2001. Dr.
Bowman explained the topic could be open ended.
Residents will probably call in to ask questions about the
building utilization issue and the new timeline.
The Board will be able to fine tune the program at the May 8
Work Session.
Ms.
Drioli felt the building utilization topic is still a pertinent
topic and there are still a number of misconceptions about the issue
that need to clarified. The
topic is the schools. Dr.
Frank stated people call in to “Speak Your Piece” and ask all
types of questions about the schools.
She said she did not know if the Board members are in the
position to provide valuable information and data.
Mrs.
Butville pointed out Mr. Eccles had originally wanted to participate
in the program to get information out to the community on whatever
the Board is involved in at that time.
She felt the program will be a good venue for providing
information on any issues pertaining to the School District.
Mr.
Stack recommended the Board participate in the program one time and
then decide if it wants to proceed with any further programs.
There was Board consensus for Mr. Stack’s recommendation.
A
petition from the Schweitzer/Sandburg School community was submitted
to Mr. Stack. The
petition stated, “We, the Albert Schweitzer/Carl Sandburg
community, oppose the closing of Schweitzer as an elementary school.
We want our children schooled in our neighborhood, not bused
to another location.”
Mr.
Stack noted there will be a Public Input Meeting on May 8 at 8:00
p.m. There will not be
any Board comment at the Public Input Meeting.
Mr.
Schoenstadt moved the meeting be adjourned and Mrs. Butville
seconded the motion. The Board approved the motion with eight ayes.
Mr. Stack adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol A. Calvello
Board Secretary
|
