Report on Board of Education meeting of June 5, 2006.

At its June 5, 2006 meeting, the Board of Education addressed questions from the community regarding its current plans for a $21 million bond referendum in September 2006. The Board, Administration and the District’s architect also engaged in a very informative discussion with members of the public. This article will set forth highlights from this meeting.

Videotaping of Meeting

For the first time, the Board authorized its meeting to be videotaped, for replay on a later date on Channel 36. Dr. Brodow described this as a “pilot” project to make more information available to the public regarding the Board’s proceedings. During the evening, members of the public complimented the Board on this initiative.

New BOE Web Site

Board Member Janet Landau discussed a new communications initiative by the Board to revamp its web site. Included in the new web site would be more information regarding the proposed bond referendum.

Architect’s Presentation

The bulk of the meeting involved discussion by Board members, members of the public and the District Architect of the September bond referendum. The architect began the discussions by making a presentation of the current plans for the proposed construction. He also disclosed that the current estimated cost for the High School construction is $11,644,864, and the estimated cost for the Middle School construction is $9,657,115, for a grand total of $21,301,979.

Rationale for added classroom space

One questioner asked the Board and Administration to explain why a projected increase of 100 to 125 students over current enrollment required construction of 10 more classrooms at the Middle School, and a projected increase of 222 students over current enrollment required construction of an additional 15 classrooms at the High School. These numbers were based on data disclosed in the Superintendent’s report dated January 5, 2006. The ratio of additional students per classroom at the Middle School is approximately 10 to 12 students per new classroom, while the ratio at the High School is approximately 15 students per new classroom. The questioner pointed out that current average class size at both schools was 21 students per classroom, and if that class size were to be maintained that 5 classrooms could be cut at the Middle School, and several more could be cut at the High School with millions of dollars in potential savings.

As to the Middle School, Principal Cahill and Vice Principal Gonnella stated that all 10 of the proposed new classrooms were needed to accommodate two additional “teams” at the Middle School. The 120 additional students would be spread across two grades, and could not be accommodated by the existing organization at the school because 40 students for each of the sixth and seventh grades (the grades which used a teaming concept) would require an entirely new team for each grade.

As to the high school, Principal Neigel and Board Member Debra Camitta explained that the High School was currently “crowded” with 33% of classes in core subjects at 25 students or more, and that the additional space was needed to alleviate current crowding as well as to address the additional student population growth.

[Editor’s Note: Principal Neigel and Board Member Camitta’s statements regarding the percentage of classes at the High School with 25 or more students are contrary to data WeLoveMillburn have obtained from the Administration for the first half of the 2005-2005 school year which shows that only 14.2% of classes as a whole have 25 or more students, and most of these large classes are in elective courses not in core courses. See http://www.welovemillburn.com/class_size_05_06.html. In addition, Vice Principal Gonnella’s comment that the Middle School is experiencing overcrowding in classrooms is contrary to Dr. Brodow’s report dated February 21, 2006 which states that average class size at the Middle School is currently 21. In addition, only one class at the Middle School has as many as 24 students.]

Dr. Brodow added that the proposed construction plan was fiscally responsible and educationally sound. He stated that it provided the educational space needed at both the High School and at the Middle School. Finally, he stated that the Administration would publish the information needed by the public to make an informed decision regarding this bond referendum.

In a later question, the same questioner asked that the Board put the explanations provided in response to these questions in writing, and make them available to the public because the answers to these basic questions were not contained in the written materials available on the Board’s web site. The questioner also noted that the community would do what was necessary to maintain educational quality in the district, but expected the Board to be fiscally responsible.

Quality of Board Minutes

The same individual commended the Board for improving its web site and for testing out the videotaping concept. However, that individual also pointed out that the Board’s minutes failed to provide a full and fair summary of what actually took place at prior meetings, and that it would be helpful to those members of the community who could not attend Board meetings to have more detail in the Board minutes. In response, Board member Kamber acknowledged that the minutes were not informative, but claimed that they were prepared solely to comply with legal requirements, and were not intended to provide a summary of what actually took place at the meeting.

Demographics and Kindergarten Size

Another individual asked what demographics provided the basis for the construction, and what the size of the incoming kindergarten class would be. In response, Dr. Brodow stated that he used the “most conservative” studies provided by Sara Weissman, and that the District had no current relationship with BOCES which previously had done a demographic study for the District. He said that he would have the numbers for kindergarten enrollments sometime in June.

Alternatives

Another member of the public asked the Board whether it had considered what it would do to address District needs if the proposed bond referendum did not pass. Dr. Brodow said he needed to give thought to that question and he would provide an answer in the future.

Use of Proceeds from 1999 and 2002 Bond Referenda

The Board was asked whether it was prepared to disclose information regarding how monies appropriated based on the 1999 and 2002 bond referenda were spent. Mr. Zeglarski responded that such information was available, and anyone could come to his office to review that information. The questioner noted that Mr. Zeglarski’s statements regarding whether he would present this information publicly at a Board meeting, or simply make documents available was contrary to what he stated in a previous meeting as reported by the Item.

Mr. Zeglarski also stated that projects included on both the 1999 and 2002 referenda were completed on time and under budget. Another member of the public disagreed with Mr. Zeglarski and pointed out that $4.2 million from the 1999 bond referendum had been allocated for three projects that were not then completed. These projects were for roofs, heating systems and windows. Rather, the $4.2 million was spent on other items. The member of the public pointed out that the same projects, including windows for the High School, were again included in the 2002 bond referendum, and the projects were finally accomplished using $4.2 million from 2002. Mr. Zeglarski responded to these points by noting that such “reallocation” was permitted in 1999, but that the rules were changed in 2002.

Educational Integrity

Another individual noted that a number of Board members frequently used the term “educational integrity.” He asked Board members to discuss what they meant by that term. Each Board member sought to answer this question in their own way. Dr. Brodow answered by referencing SAT scores, college admissions, number of merit scholars, and the percentage of students taking AP classes. Several Board members answered by stating that educational integrity could not be measured by any specific objective measure, but rather required maintenance of programs that allowed all children in the District to achieve their educational potential.