|
|
Donate via PayPal.
Use the button above. It's a secure
and easy way to donate to this
important town non-profit, grassroots,
informational organization.
Donations, unfortunately, are
not tax deductible. Thank you
for your support.
Or send a personal check.
If you prefer, send a check made out to WeLoveMillburn, Inc., Treasurer, 25 Stewart Road, Short Hills, NJ 07078.
Your local United Way serves needs right here in Millburn/Short Hills. Give today. www.unitedwayofmillburn.org.
WeLoveMillburn.com supports the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. Specify "2008 Hurricane Season Relief". Contribute at our local American Red Cross chapter, 389 Millburn Ave., Short Hills, NJ 07078 (973-379-4198) or the American Red Cross, P. O. Box 37243, Washington, DC 20013 (1-800-RED-CROSS). Text "Give" to 2Help (24357) to donate $5. Internet users can make a secure online contribution at www.redcross.org.
|
|
|
New Jersey Department of Education Model Projects Significant Excess Capacity
in Millburn
Millburn-Short Hills — August 19, 2005 — Last
week we brought to the public's attention a request by
the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) for the Millburn
Board of Education to supply the historical data supporting
the demographic projections submitted by the Board in connection
with the proposed $40 million bond referendum. Our Board
of Education's actions had previously raised concern by
not discussing the more realistic set of demographic projections
(Weissman) in its recent newsletter.
This concern is now exacerbated given that the Board of
Education (BOE) has decided not to use the State DOE's
recommended projection model.
In a recent article published in The Independent Press on August
10, 2005 titled, State wants more data on enrollment, the school
district's Assistant Superintendent for Business, Robert Zeglarski stated, "The
BOCES report contains more information than required by the template, and
avoids the time consuming effort of retyping the information into a spreadsheet".
Mr. Zeglarski went on to say "that, if required, the numbers would be retyped
into the state format". We believe the school administration needs to clarify
these statements given that we were able to complete the DOE1 model
in less than 15 minutes, and more importantly, we are focused on the results
of the model and not the format. Furthermore, the DOE guidelines state that
the standard model is to be used unless a school district can demonstrate
that the results of the model would be misleading, typically due to significant
changes in local demographics such as those seen when rural areas go through
rapid development. This clearly does not apply to Millburn/Short Hills. Why
has the Board been trying to steer the community and the State away from
two sets of realistic enrollment projections and toward its own inflated
set of projections done by BOCES, an out of state agency? The answer is simple — if
it used the realistic projections, it would not be able to justify the proposed
building plans.
This report compares these three sets of projections and the dramatically
different results they produce. Although the construction plans focus on
the middle and high schools, most of the report will focus on the elementary
schools because they provide an extremely reliable leading indicator demonstrating
the short-term nature of the student population bulge. Also, as a grade moves
into middle school and high school, class size becomes very stable and much
easier to project.
Two Demographic Studies Refute the Board of Education's
Demographic Projections
The chart below compares the Board's projections
with the State DOE model and the Weissman demographic study.
These projections are compared to the Functional Capacity2 in
the elementary schools.
The DOE model corroborates the earlier Weissman study and in our view, makes
the Board's projections even more questionable. Notice that although all
the projections suggest that the elementary school population will continue
to grow modestly over the next two years, (which appears to be confirmed
by current 2005 enrollments) both the DOE model and the Weissman projections
show a significant and sustained decline starting in 2007. This decline will
come about as the
previously analyzed trend of declining birthrates reaches school age.
School Facilities are not Being Efficiently Utilized
and Excess Capacity Already Exists
Regardless of which demographic projection
eventually comes to light, the table below shows that the
elementary schools had excess capacity of at least 330
students last year, mostly as the result of earlier construction
programs. Even under the Board's aggressive assumptions,
excess capacity in the elementary schools will remain at
over 220 students for the foreseeable future. Specifically,
Wyoming, South Mountain, Deerfield, and the High School
all have meaningful extra capacity. There is also the potential
of using the Board of Education building as extra capacity.
The table also shows that capacity across the entire school
system is not being used efficiently.
Will the Board of Education be Forced to Close an Elementary
School Just as these Building Projects are Completed?
Looking back over the last 35 years of Millburn
Township enrollment data, it may be surprising to many
that total enrollment in 1971/72 was the same as the level
in 2004/05. Also interesting is that between these two
peaks, enrollment declined 50% and bottomed in 1989/90.
The enrollment patterns are repeating themselves — it
will peak in the next two years and then start to fall
dramatically just like in the early to mid 1970's. What
decision will the Board of Education make this time when
faced with excess capacity of 600+ students in the elementary
school system? This amount of excess capacity is comparable
to the size of our largest elementary school. The
last time this community was faced with such an issue,
it chose to close and tear down the Old Short Hills elementary
school on Hobart Avenue, sell the Washington School and
close South Mountain School. Will similar decisions be
made several years from now just after the proposed construction
program is completed? The Board should not be allowed to
burden the community with two expensive problems simultaneously:
first, the cost of maintaining an entire school's worth
of excess capacity and second, having to repay a $40 million
bond for construction at the middle school and high school
that will not be needed as the smaller sized classes move
into the upper grades.
More Efficient and Flexible Alternatives are Needed
We now have two sets of projections that
support the view that enrollment is peaking and will soon
decline. The Board of Education chooses to not show the
community or the State DOE these projections as mandated
under the State DOE guidelines. Although all the projections
and preliminary data suggest that this year's elementary
enrollment will be higher than last year3, it
does not signal any change in the declining trend that
will follow. Spending $40 million is not the right solution
when the Board should be embracing other, more efficient
and flexible alternatives in anticipation of the dramatic
changes to come.
2Functional Capacity is defined as 90% of
the maximum capacity for an elementary school or the
middle school and 85% of the maximum capacity at the
high school. Functional Capacity considers classroom
space only and excludes support rooms such as those dedicated
for art, music and computer.
3Elementary enrollment should be higher
this year than last based on the fact that (1) a small
fifth grade class has left the elementary schools while
a larger kindergarten class will be entering, (2) migration
rates for the last two years have been lower than average,
and (3) the most significant impact of declining birth
rates has yet to be seen in the kindergarten enrollment.
|
