Reconfiguration and Property values

What factors contribute to the value of your home?  A lot has been said about property values declining because we are closing schools.  How can you quantify that? Outside of the number of bedrooms and quality of the home construction, let’s examine some of the main factors in attracting perspective buyers:

• Low real estate taxes;
• Quality of the school district;
  • Breadth and depth of programs;
  • Innovative and progressive planning for the future;
• Neighborhoods, ease of commute.

I do not discredit the proximity of your home to a particular school, but in general, perspective buyers are buying a school district.  The quality of the entire district is the ultimate selling point.

So let’s look at Mineola:

• The school district has one of the lowest tax rates in Nassau County.  Much of that can be attributed to our large commercial tax base.  The reconfiguration plan seeks to stabilize the tax levy at or near 2.5% for a five year period.
• We are closing schools to preserve programs.  It is our full intention to continue to offer the programs we currently do AND enhance student learning with innovative programs.  A good example of that is our iPad initiative.  We are the first school district to implement a widespread distribution of interactive technology.  Other districts have already inquired how they can replicate it.  It is these types of programs that will attract parents to Mineola.  The same holds true for our implementation of NWEA, which will directly help individual student achievement.
• Neighborhoods will remain essentially unchanged.  If we rent a facility it will be to a school.  We will retain the use of the fields and playgrounds for residents.  The vacant schools will be used when your children are in school, and they will be available to your children when they come home from school.

The current bond proposal delivers the most streamlined cost effective school district possible.  It seeks to stabilize tax levies in the worst economy in decades. More importantly it preserves our current educational program and allows us to initiate new innovative programs for children. Please remember that all of our neighboring school districts will struggle with the same financial issues that we have and they will have fewer options to deal with it.  I believe all of these factors will make Mineola a very attractive community for perspective buyers.

“Research”

As we continue to debate the current bond proposition, many people turn to the internet to research topics and look for evidence that helps support their position.  When conducting research it is imperative to ask specific questions before you conclude an article appropriately supports your position.  I have done a lot of research on the topic of grade span and reconfiguration and I have found that the research is inconclusive.  For every article that supports one claim there is another that refutes it.  Lately many people have submitted blog posts citing research.  I have taken the time to read each article that has been mentioned and my comments appear below.  Please remember to ask the following questions when reading articles:

• What is the purpose of the study? 
• Does the author have a bias that he/she is trying to assert?
• Is the size, demographics and purpose of the study similar to Mineola?
• Is it a case study? (specific examination of one district)
• Are the sources valid and reliable?
• Is the study qualitative or quantitative?
• What is the methodology for collecting and analyzing data?

Grade Configuration in K-12 Schools

http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/poptopics/gradeconfig.html

This is a summary article that examines all of the recent research on grade configuration.  It cites pros and cons on the topic and concludes that there is not definitive answer to the question. It provides abstracts of each article cited at the end of the article.  The abstracts will provide some insight on the purpose of the study as well as the methodology of data collection.

Does Close Count? School Proximity, School Quality, and Residential Property Values http://econpapers.repec.org/article/agsjoaaec/6609.htm

I could not find the actual article only the abstract.  The abstract states:

“In general, there is positive value associated with closer proximity to schools of all levels, and negative value associated with a significantly longer than average distance to schools.”

On the surface this appears to support the bloggers claim.  But further examination unveils that the school district studied is Greenville South Carolina.  The Greenville school district is the 58^th largest school system in the country serviced over 60,000 students. It is not applicable to Mineola.
The interaction of School Size and Socio-Economic Statue in Student Performance  

www.soscanberra.com/file_download/2

This article is part of a movement in Canberra Australia entitled “Save our Schools”.  The article is specifically written to support a particular movement and therefore has a bias.  Nevertheless, the basic premise of the article is “The research findings on the interaction of school size and socio-economic status with school achievement clearly demonstrate that small school size facilitates higher academic achievement for students from low SES backgrounds. The more affluent the community, the larger the school can be without damaging achievement levels.”

Grade -Span Configurations: What should we do with the Children?

http://www.dallasindicators.com/Portals/8/Reports/Reports_Internal/Grade-SpanConfigurations.pdf

This article speaks to the advantages of a K-8 school model over a Middle School model.  The article concludes “Kindergarten through eight grade schools have been outperforming middle schools, with higher academic achievement, better attendance, and fewer behavioral problems.  Parents seem to favor them.  There is a value in the middle school concept, but school transitions contribute to a loss of academic achievement”

If the blogger is suggesting we create K-8 buildings we would have an issue with the middle school.  Just like Willis a large majority of the last bond(s) went to repairing the HVAC systems, window and doors.  It could only be rented to Non profit 501 (c) (3) entities.  In addition a bond would have to be passed to add rooms on at least three of the buildings.

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration: New Evidence on Student Achievement, Achievement Equity and Cost Efficiency

This is a case study (examining one school district) of an Illinois school district that is K-8.  The district has 4 buildings each with a different grade span.  Some students go to a K-5 building while others go to a PreK-2 then a 3-5 before MS. Like the previous article it is written to assert a specific position, thereby creating a bias.

“How much is a Neighborhood Worth?”

http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/class/aede680/irwin/pdf/53.pdf

This study is a longitudinal case study of Shaker Heights school district in Ohio.  The study concludes that property value decreased after a school reconfiguration.  But, the reconfiguration that occurred in Shaker Heights was primarily for desegregation.  It bused children to different school to balance racial demographics. It also left several schools “as is” thereby radically altering some schools and not others which in turn changed some neighborhoods and not others.

 “The effect of the decrease in enrollment was that resources were strained as some schools remained near capacity and others were nearly empty. Further, the pattern of integration within the district was irregular, with some schools especially Moreland predominantly black and others such as (Fernway and Mercer) predominantly white.”

“In general, the redistricting disrupted many previously coherent neighborhood schools. Not all schools were disrupted, however. Students in Boulevard, Mercer, and most of Fernway remained in their original district.11 The plan also resulted in the desired racial balance in the elementary schools, as shown in Table 1

The Benefits of Clustering

There are many benefits in clustering for a district our size.  Of course, as with anything in life, there are cons as well.  The most obvious is that many children will have to travel a greater distance for their entire school career.  As you begin to formulate your decision on whether to support the October 26^th bond here are some clear advantages to clustering:

• Class size
  • The variance in class size will no longer exist. When all of the students in the same grade are in one place you can equalize class size.  There will no longer be some classes at 16 while others are at 22.  Over the last few years the Board of Education has been stead fast in adhering to the class size guidelines and there is no indication this commitment will change going forward.  In fact it makes it easier since it streamlines staffing.
• Facilities
  • Currently all of our buildings are not equal.  Some have new Library media centers while other do not.  Some have proper electricity and wiring for technologies while others don’t.  Clustering provides the same facility for all of the children.
  • Any work done on a specific building benefits all of the children in the district.  It is not necessary to spend more money to replicate the same project in multiple places
• Heterogeneity
  • There is a better ratio of heterogeneity in classes  where there are more students-mixing ESL and special needs students within an overall larger number of students allows for more of a balance between different needs of students.  This is especially noteworthy in inclusion classes, where the proportion of disabled and non-disabled students is critical to the overall learning needs in the class
• Professional Development
  • Having a greater number of classes and teachers at a grade level provides more opportunity for teacher’s to collaborate, share ideas and work together as a team.  Students are the beneficiaries of teacher collaboration and teaming.
  • Training and collaboration for new initiatives and program is easier to implement
• Staffing
  • Combining schools would reduce or eliminate most or all of the shared staff and duplication of services.  Shared staff imposes many challenges, not only on the staff, but on the schedule and the accessibility of the staff members and services for students. Staff travel time would be completely avoided providing for more time for instruction in the classrooms
  •  Students would have better access to teachers and more supports and services.  The positions that are currently shared in the smaller schools are: library, computer, music and art, ESL, reading, gifted and special education. 
  • AIS, reading teachers, ESL teachers would be dedicated to a grade, thereby allowing for on-going collaboration and efficient and flexible scheduling to meet the NYS mandates and the needs of each student.  Math teachers would be dedicated to each school. 
• Curriculum
  • With more classes, teachers and students in fewer buildings, it is easier and more efficient to implement new programs and new teacher positions. For example, it took us four years to phase in the literacy collaborative and reading recovery.  These are excellent, but costly programs that could have been phased in more quickly if we had fewer schools. 
  • Often times the high cost of program implementation and hiring new teachers and staff in small schools are an imposition on the school district, and therefore, we aren’t able to bring certain programs, services and/or positions to fruition-programs and positions the students would greatly benefit from.   
  • There are differences in the specific options presented, i.e., which grades are in which buildings.  Specific to the 8th grade moving to the high school there are programmatic and academic benefits-more 8th graders would be able to participate in accelerated classes.  We currently offer two sections in accelerated science and two sections of accelerated math in 8th grade.  These opportunities could operate more as an open enrollment option.  
  • There are great benefits to creating buildings dedicated to developmentally appropriate teaching and learning. An early childhood PreK-1 building allows for a complete focus on reading development and social interaction.  A Grade 2-4 building reinforces reading readiness and prepares student for state assessments.  A grade 5-7 building actually extends elementary school. It allows for an extended transition to departmentalization. Finally an 8-12 High School will allow for an extended elective program that will benefit all of the students.  
  • Assembly programs, parent workshops, professional development activities and resources/ materials would be specifically selected and dedicated to students at specific grade levels. 

Propaganda

A group of parents handed out flyers at Sunday’s Williston Park fair instructing people to vote no for the bond. The “facts” listed in the flyer are misleading and clearly state an opinion of a group of people.  It prompted me to look up the definition of propaganda.  Wikipedia defines

 “Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.  As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.”

To answer some of the “facts” listed:

“No guaranteed tax decrease” No one ever guaranteed a tax decrease.  The goal is to maintain a tax levy at or near 2.5% over a five year period.  Closing schools will allow this to be achieved.

“Your house value will decrease due to the closing of three neighborhood schools” What evidence supports this claim?  Mineola consistently has one of the lowest tax rates on Long Island.  By controlling the tax levy it will remain that way.  Aren’t low taxes attractive to perspective buyers?  Moreover, this plan insures that we keep programs for children- wouldn’t that be attractive to perspective buyers?

“Your children will be out of school and you will still be paying off the bond”

The savings generated from closing three schools will clearly offset the debt.  An independent finance committee projects the savings of 42 million AFTER the initial outlay of 6.7 million.  In addition the revenue generated from rent will offset the debt of the bond.  Currently we have interest in Meadow Drive that will generate at least half of the bond costs.

 “Academic performance decreases in a larger school with larger class size.”

What evidence supports this claim?  The converse isn’t necessarily true either.  Have we witnessed higher academic performance with 3 schools less than 200 students? The amount of money we spend trying to service these buildings hinders our ability to provide services. If all of the students were in the same place we could increase services and still decrease cost.

“Cost per pupil will increase due to loss of enrollment”

I am not sure what this means?  It implies that people will leave if the bond is passed.  I don’t know what evidence supports that claim

This flyer reminds me of the old Syms slogan “An educated consumer is our best customer” There is plenty of information about this bond.  Know the facts and vote accordingly.

A 34 year cycle of closing schools

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

-         George Santayana

The issue of closing schools is not new for Mineola.  In fact for the last 34 years the district has closed, reopened, built extensions and a new building all WITHOUT an increase in student enrollment. While we cannot change the past, we should be able to learn from it.  Here are some observations:

- Trying to rezone a dwindling student population doesn’t work.

-simply closing a building and rezoning the students will not create an ideal situation.  Each time it was tried it was ultimately reverted.

- The sizes of the buildings limit the reconfiguration possibilities. 

-Closing Cross in 1982 without modifying a building was problematic.  Within 6 years an extension was necessary on Meadow, even though the enrollment was smaller 6 years later.

-Opening Cross without an increase in enrollment was costly.  There was a demonstrated need for space, but instead of modifying existing buildings through a capital expenditure, the district incurred the costs of staffing and operating an additional building.

-Opening Willis Avenue provided a full day Kindergarten program as well as Administrative office space. More importantly it addressed a long standing issue of a dilapidated and dangerous building.  In hindsight modifying the existing buildings may have proved to be more cost effective.

-New mandates and enhanced programs required additional space in buildings

-Computer labs, special education mandates, ESL mandates all required dedicated space in order to deliver the service correctly

- No one wants their school to close

            -In the absence of any significant change in the structure of the district, I don’t see this 30 year cycle changing.  In the past when finances were tight the district closed schools.  When finances got better schools were reopened.  There were valid reasons behind all of the previous decisions, but one thing has not changed- we continue to have a decrease in student population.

1976 – Willis Avenue school closed, the 323 students were rezoned into 4 elementary schools Meadow 344, Cross 352, Jackson 638, and Hampton 375.  Total district population 3,941

1982 -Cross Street school closed.  Meadow 367, Jackson 491, Hampton 283.  Total district population 2,732.  A lot of controversy surrounded the decision on which school to close- Cross or Meadow. At the time a consultant recommended closing Meadow b/c it had fewer classrooms (19 vs. 16).  The superintendent cited the vast discrepancy in the condition of the buildings and closed Cross. 

1988 – A bond was passed for 2,000,000 to build a bus garage, elevators at the MS and HS and 6 additional classrooms for Meadow because the building proved to be too small.  Enrollment- Meadow 370, Jackson 510, Hampton 276. Total district enrollment 2,634. (includes ½ Kindergarten)  Note -there was a decrease in enrollment of 98 students.

1994- A 2,500,000 bond failed which was intended to reopen Cross, renovate Willis Avenue. 

1995 –Monies were allocated in the budget to reopen Cross and fix Willis.  In May the budget failed.  When the budget went back out in June Willis was removed, Cross remained in and the budget passed   Enrollment figures- Meadow 455, Jackson 481 and Hampton309.  Total district enrollment 2,682 (includes ½ Kindergarten) 

1996- Cross reopens.  

2000 – Bond passed to demo and build a new school on the Willis Avenue site.

2003 Willis Avenue Opens

The Dilemma of class size

There has been a lot of discussion about class size under the new configurations. In both proposed configurations (North South and a full cluster model) the discrepancies in class size will diminish.  By discrepancy I mean the fact that one school may have a class size of 14 while another may have 20 in a class. The North/South configuration typically generates an additional teacher, but not always. In both configurations the total number of teachers per grade is reduced. I have depicted two illustrations below.

                                                Grade Two 2010-2011

Class size guideline = 22

In a full cluster configuration 220 divided by 22 equals 10 teachers and all of the classes have 22 students

In a North/South configuration (using Cross and Meadow combined NOT north of Jericho turnpike)

North   90 students divided by 22 equals 5 teachers at 18 per class

South 130 students divided by 22 equals 6 teachers at 22 (4 classes) and 21(2 classes)

North South configuration generates 1 additional teacher and a class size range of 18-22.  Of course we could exceed the guidelines and have 10 teachers that would equate to the North school having 2 classes of 23 and 2 classes of 22 instead of 18 in 4 classes

                                                Grade Four 2010-2011

Class size guideline = 24

In a full cluster configuration 179 divided by 24 equals 8 teachers with a class size of 22 (5 classes) and 3 classes of 23

In a North/South configuration (using Cross and Meadow combined NOT north of Jericho turnpike)

North   65 students divided by 24 equals 3 teachers at 22 (2 classes) and 21 (1 class)

South 114 students divided by 24 equals 5 teachers at 23 (5 classes) and 22 (2 class)

This example shows the same number of teachers with a range 21-23

Let’s not forget what is driving the bus.

In all of the discussions about how we reconfigure, let’s not lose sight about why we need to reconfigure. Although it is very early to calculate these numbers, here is what the 2011-2012 budget looks like now.

• Loss of ARRA aid monies in 2011- 650,000
• Loss of ARRA special aid monies in 2011- 480,000
• Reduction of state aid- 2010-2011 amount is $600,000 less than year before
• No assurances that State aid will not be reduced further
• Most recent pension notification states 2011-12 will be a  “significant increase over 8.62”
• Health costs expected to increase in January 1, 2011 NYS Empire plan predicts as much as a 13% increase.
• Contractual obligations to pay accrued sick days when staff retire
• GASB 45- eventual requirement to accrue for post employment benefits
• Possible property tax cap

If we rolled over our current budget at 5.5% next year’s proposed budget would be 84,535,644.  Right now our revenue would be approximately 6,400,000, making our levy $78,135,644.  That is a 6.9% tax levy increase.  In order to get the levy to 2.5% we would need to make reductions of $3,244,939.  Even with closing a school in 2011 this number will be a challenge to achieve.

Passing the proposed bond will NOT affect the tax levy next year.  In fact by the time we borrow the money we will have paid off the current $10,045,000 bond.  This will allow the new payments to take the place of the old bond payments.  More important, this bond will add a revenue source (renting Meadow) to help offset the loss of Federal monies, thereby reducing the levy and the amount we would need to reduce.

Board Decides to Pursue a Bond

“The Cluster Option” 

Last night the Board of Education voted to put a Bond referendum before the voters on October 26^th for $6.7 Million dollars.  The community will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want the reconfiguration of the school system to be in a “cluster model”.  Since construction is needed to achieve this model if the bond fails the school district will be configured in a North/South model. I will try to answer some of the most prominent questions that I have heard.

• How can you ask the community to spend money on a bond when you are closing schools to save money?

In this case the old adage, “It takes money to make money” is appropriate.  The savings generated from closing 3 buildings will far outweigh the cost of the bond.  (The finance committee agrees with this statement, you can view their presentation on the district website.)  This bond will insure the district is operating the most efficiently by streamlining all of the staffing and operating costs of the district into the minimum number of buildings.

• Why can’t you have one vote and have the public pick the option they like?

Legally the Board of Education cannot abdicate its right to decide on how the district is configured.  Therefore, it cannot ask the public via a bond vote to choose a cluster or North/South configuration.  The board must decide first and then ask the public to support the decision by passing a bond to make it a reality.

• Why 3 schools?

While it appears extremely radical, it is actually easier and more cost effective to achieve a cluster model in 4 schools rather than 5 schools.  Assuming we want to leave the current 6-8 and 9-12 configuration, how would we arrange grades pre-k-5 in three buildings? Six and ½ grades in three buildings would mean transitions every two years, something that the community expressed great opposition to. Moreover, the construction costs to place these same 61/2 grades into two buildings would be cost prohibitive, that is why the current proposal moves 5^th and 8^th grade.

• Why a roof top playground?

One of the many ‘knocks” on Willis is the amount of available outdoor play space for children.  The current playground is considered too small.  To help alleviate this problem we propose adding an additional open play space on the roof of the cafeteria. While this seems unusual, it is a fairly common practice when space is limited. This proposal solves a problem of keeping the current parking spaces on the property and also finding additional outdoor space.  Two large lots across the street from the school are currently for sale.  The price to buy this land and convert it into a 50 space parking lot parking (so the current parking lot can become a playground) is well over 3 million dollars. The rooftop playground will cost approximately $500,000

• Why not use Hampton it has plenty of space?

Hampton’s play area is obviously better than Willis, but to make Hampton a 32 classroom building it would require a 13 classroom addition.  So whereas the Willis project is estimated to cost 2.3 million for 14 classrooms and a playground to create the same space at Hampton would cost approx. 5.5 million, making the total bond almost 10 million dollars.

• Wasn’t the greatest feedback from the public to keep the 5^th grade and 8^th grade in the elementary and middle schools?

Yes- As I mentioned previously- in order to create a full cluster model leaving the HS and MS as they are and minimize transitions, it would require two buildings that could hold approximately 600 and 700 students.  Converting our largest elementary (Jackson) to hold 600 students is what is currently proposed.  The cost to convert any other elementary into a building for 700 students outweighs the savings that would be generated. If the bond proposal fails bond option 1 addresses the 5^th and 8^th grade.  However, that option generates the least amount of savings of the three options

• What are we doing with the empty schools?

We do have rental interest from several parties as well as an offer on the table to rent Meadow. One of the buildings will need to be used to house Central Office if the bond passes.  That building can also be used to house the 3 year old program, Board of Education and an alternative High school.  The alternative high school would house students that are having difficulties excelling in a traditional high school setting but would flourish under different structures and scheduling.  We have had great success with our current academy program and an alternative HS would expand on this program

• What happens if the bond fails?

My recommendation to the Board of Education would be to pursue bond option 1 as quickly as possible.  A bond defeat would be a clear indication that the community doesn’t want a cluster option; therefore the community should have the option to vote on whether or not they want the current configuration of the Middle and high school.

Giving the Community Options

At last night’s Board of Education meeting I outlined several options for the future grade configuration.  The presentation can be found on the district homepage.  I have tried very hard to devise a way for the community to have input without abrogating the legal authority of the Board.  To that end I have presented two different bond proposals.  One bond addresses two different North-South configurations and the other bond addresses a full cluster option that closes 3 buildings.  The board will have to choose which bond they want to pursue.  Bond 1 calls for an extension on Jackson avenue that will enable the 3, 4, and 5^th grade to occupy Jackson Ave thereby keeping the Middle School and High school the same. In addition that bond will have a contingent option. A contingent bond allows the public to expand the bond IF the first part passes.  In bond one, the contingent option would ask for a 4 classroom extension on Hampton thereby changing the Pre-K-2 south school to Hampton rather than Willis. The additional work on Hampton cannot happen if the first part (work on Jackson) doesn’t pass.   Bond 2 calls for closing three buildings in a full cluster model.  The work involves an 8 classroom extension on Jackson Avenue as well as creating 14 classrooms on the second floor of Willis Avenue and a roof top playground.  I am still awaiting a legal opinion on whether I can offer a contingent proposal on this bond. As I stated last night, everyone has an opinion on the way the district should be configured, these bond proposals allow the community to voice their opinions. Once the board makes the decision on which bond to put forward, voters will have the option to say yes or no.  At the July 22 Board of Education meeting (please note the date change), at the high school, I will be presenting all of the facts and information for each option.

The same- but different

The budget vote is less than a week away and we still haven’t decided the reconfiguration plan.  Should that affect your vote?  I think not. We began this journey in October by discussing the financial future of Mineola.  Ultimately the Board voted to close schools so we are better equipped to handle the decreases in revenue and still maintain the programs we currently enjoy.  Closing schools will allow us to offset the loss of Federal stimulus money as well as combat mandated increases in contracts, pension and health costs.  It will also enable us to maintain a stable tax levy at or below 2.5%. This budget achieves that goal, and more importantly it establishes the foundation of future budgets to continue to deliver the targeted 2.5% levies.  So what about the configuration? There is no advantage in rushing to implement something that isn’t fully discussed and researched.  That is what we are currently doing.  I urge everyone to complete the exit poll after you vote.  Please express your opinion about the reconfiguration through the exit poll rather than the budget vote.