|
|
pass the $21.3 million school bond referendum. |
||||||||||
 Source: Western Suffolk BOCES, Office of School Planning Research for Millburn Township Public Schools 2004/05; and http://www.millburn.org/lib/content2/listings/238.pdf |
3.
The Administration says the High School needs
additional facilities for higher projected enrollments:
The Administration projects that by 2009, it will need 15 additional classes as well as expansion of science prep rooms, special ed rooms and a guidance suite expansion. In the January 5th report, the Superintendent projected 1,500 students at the High School in 2009 (+221), compared to 2005 enrollment of 1,279. The February 21 report projects an enrollment peak in 2012 of 1,604 students (+325).
4.
The Administration identified other alternatives
but viewed them as educationally unsound:
In a February 21, 2006 report, the Administration considered a central sixth grade school, returning the sixth grade to the elementary schools and redistricting. Although these solutions were viable and less expensive, the Superintendent said they were educationally undesirable.
5.
Disclosure and additional fiscal control have improved:
The Board hired a “commissioning agent” to supervise both the construction and the District architect. The Board also instituted a website with information regarding the proposal, and the Administration has responded to questions from the community.
6.
The new plan addresses cost concerns while
maintaining
programs:
In his January 5 report, the Superintendent inferred that voters defeated the December 2005, $41 million referendum because it was “too ambitious and expensive.” Accordingly, the Administration devised a plan that would maintain educational excellence at half the cost. And, of the $21 million expense, $4 million will be offset by state aid.
7.
Here is a main reason to vote for the new bond:
It would be cheaper to build now than to try to add another addition later. For example, if a second floor had been added on to the previous Middle School addition, there would have been less space pressure today. Because projecting future enrollment growth is inexact, voters may wish to trust that our Board and Administration are doing the right thing.
1.
The Administration’s enrollment projections
do not
justify a $21 million plan:
The Superintendent’s January 5 recommendation to spend $21 million to house an additional 60 students at the Middle School and 221 students at the High School in 2009 is excessive. This is $75,000 per student for what may only be a one or two year peak in enrollment. The Middle School construction will be used at the expected enrollment peak level for only one year as student population is projected to decline beginning in 2010. A possible enrollment peak at the High School in 2012 does not justify any immediate response.
2.
The projected enrollment bulge will not
cause excessive class size:
In a February 15, 2006 memorandum,
High School Principal Neigel listed average class sizes
in 2005 as follows: grade
9 (20.1), grade 10 (23.2), grade 11 (23.1) and grade 12
(18.8). The overall average class size was 21.3.
Principal Cahill stated publicly that Middle School average
class size in 2005 was 20, with only one class having as
many as 24 students.
Class size ranges proposed by the Administration allow for additional growth as follows: grades 6–8: 22–27 students and grades 9–12: 18–27 students.
 Source: Western Suffolk BOCES, Office of School Planning Research for Millburn Township Public Schools 2004/05; and http://www.millburn.org/lib/content2/listings/238.pdf |
3.
The Administration announced it will
employ temporary portable
classrooms
during construction which alone might solve
the anticipated
overcrowding:
Beginning in 2008, the Administration intends to house students in 10 temporary portable classrooms during construction at the Middle and High School. With enrollment declines expected after 2009 at the Middle School, the portable classrooms could address the enrollment bulge with less disruption to all students at a fraction of the cost.
4.
The Administration did not seriously consider
other alternatives:
The Administration went through the motions of identifying a few alternatives, and its claims of educational insufficiency were unexplained and speculative. The Administration refuses to present the community with a choice. This “all or nothing” approach is irresponsible and places the interests of the children at risk.
5.
The proposed construction provides no refurbishing
of existing
facilities:
The aging Middle School requires refurbishment, but the proposed construction does not address this need.
6.
Unnecessary facility expansion will inevitably accelerate
school spending:
According to the NJ Department of Education's 2005 Report Card, Millburn’s administrative costs increased 13% — highest in Essex County. Between 1999 and 2004, school enrollments increased 17% (from 3,801 to 4,433) while school employees increased 44% (from 477 to 645). Furthermore, additional construction will allow the District to bypass State imposed caps on budget increases.
7.
Here is a main reason to vote against the new bond:
Educational excellence is and has been our District’s standard, but excellence can be maintained with less construction and lower spending. If increased enrollment is a temporary problem, history teaches that the Administration will not reduce spending when enrollment declines, debt service costs escalate, the number of employees increase, and the student/teacher ratio declines.
WeLoveMillburn.com
September 20, 2006
© 2005-2006 WeLoveMillburn.com |
 |
