FAQs
I.
The Alleged Current Overcrowding
1. Are we currently experiencing overcrowding at the
high school?
No. According to our analysis of documents provided by the
school administration, the high school is well managed and
has ample room for population growth. The overall average class
size at the high school is 19 (this excludes homeroom, special
education, basic skills, independent study, physical education,
performance groups, and health). Even with no construction,
the average class size would only go up modestly. There are
152 sections of under fifteen students, or 18% of the total
sections.
By track, average class size is eighteen in Advanced
Placement classes, 20 in Accelerated classes, 19 in College
Prep A classes, 16 in College Prep B classes,
and 15 in the few combined track classes.
By department, average class size is
21 in English, 20 in history, 20 in math, 19 in science, 17
in world language, and 16 in the combined fine & related
arts, business, and music category.
These are all excellent ratios, especially given that the district has highly
motivated students with few discipline problems, and they compare well to private
schools.
The high school further offers many choices, including a substantial
curriculum of advanced placement and accelerated courses with many multiple
classes at the
same level in the same subject area. For example, the high school currently
offers 42 AP classes in 22 subject areas.
When reviewing complaints
about the lack of access of particular students to accelerated
and AP courses, one must keep in mind that the high school
enhances
grades for accelerated and AP classes significantly, by restricting access
to many such classes on the basis of testing. There is no evidence that any
space
limitations are truly restricting access to any accelerated or AP classes.
In
addition, unlike at the middle school, there are no significant
pockets of circulatory congestion at the high school.
2. Are we currently experiencing overcrowding at the
middle school?
Not in classrooms. First, as one would expect given that an
addition was recently completed, there is no overcrowding in
the middle school classrooms. At the middle school overall
average class size, is a perfectly appropriate 20 (this excludes
homeroom, special education, basic skills, independent study,
physical education, performance groups, and health). Even with
no construction, the average class size would only go up modestly.
By subject, average class size is 20 in language arts, 20 in
math, 21 in science, 21 in social studies, 19 in world language,
and 21 in the cycle courses. These are excellent ratios for
a public school in a suburban area with no student discipline
issues of note. There are no academic classes with more than
twenty-six students at the middle school. Consistently, no
one seriously claims that overcrowded classrooms are a current
problem at the middle school.
Rather, the perceived current
problem is mainly hallway congestion in a certain area during
class changes. Bond proponents also prominently cite the
size of
the cafeteria, gym classes, and gym locker space.
WeLoveMillburn is not opposed
to reasonable construction at the middle school to alleviate
current congestion. We believe the current proposal presents
a
rush to judgment and that reasonable alternatives are likely to present better
solutions
than the current proposal. No rush to judgment is essential because the hallway
overcrowding at the middle school does not currently present a safety hazard.
The current snaking corridor design impedes the circulation of students only
within the school. Access from the corridors directly to the outside, however,
is not impeded. The Assistant Principal has publicly advised the Board of
Education that fire drills take less than two minutes for a
complete evacuation of the
school.
3. Could this construction take significantly longer
than expected and will it be disruptive to the educational
environment and
safety of my children?
Yes and Yes. Construction at the middle
school will be taking place on numerous sides of the building.
Interestingly, this
was not the case with the plans from the Long Range Planning
Committees but the architect made numerous changes that made
the construction considerably more invasive. The decision to
mover forward with construction that surrounds the entire middle
school creates two problems. First, it creates an environment
that is not conducive to high quality education and one in
which health, safety, and security are compromised. Second
it significantly increases the potential for construction delays.
West Orange has more than 500 children sitting in trailers
right now because the school district underestimated how long
it would take to build a new middle school. The architect that
made this mistake is the same one that it responsible for the
proposed construction in Millburn.
4. Does the school district
have plans for additional bond referendums in the future?
Unfortunately it appears that the answer to this may be yes.
First, the program funded by the bond does not appear intended
to be a complete solution. In addition
to the actual construction, part of the $40 million bond will provide funding
for investigations into "the possibility of improving the circulation pattern
throughout the entire building." The bond also funds investigations into "the
possibility of constructing an addition in front to tie together the original
building and the annex addition." The proponents of the bond therefore expect
a future bond issue for additional construction at the middle school. We believe
all such investigations should have been completed prior to seeking approval
for the present bond. The failure to complete them enhances the possibility that
the current construction program will not address the well-publicized current
circulation issues.
Second, it is not clear that the construction funded by the
bond will alleviate
even the well-publicized congestion at the "hub" area between the
old school, the addition, and the annex. Although the new construction has
been advertised
as a significant part of a solution to alleviate this overcrowding, the schematic
plans show that in the area of most traffic (the "hub") another gymnasium
and additional classrooms will be built, and traffic will be routed around
these additional areas with hallways sized like the current hallways. The new
facilities
in the hub, especially the gymnasium, are likely to draw additional students
to the hub area, offsetting benefits from an additional hallway.
Third, WeLoveMillburn
is not opposed to reasonable construction at the middle school to alleviate
current congestion. Rather, we believe the current proposal
presents a rush to judgment and that there are reasonable alternatives which
are likely to be better solutions. After ten years of construction, the community
deserves a complete solution. We should be confident that there will be no
need for future construction once the proposed projects are completed. Furthermore,
a complete solution can achieved for far less than $40 million.
5. Did enrollment
projections cause previous school building programs to be insufficient?
Absolutely
not. First, the school construction programs over the past
several years were certainly not insufficient and
in number of cases our district
built more capacity than was actually needed. Second, in justifying passage
of the
2002 school construction bond, the district used enrollment projections which
were far higher than the enrollments that actually occurred. In fact, since
that time the administration has lowered its enrollment projections by roughly
600
students. Our school administration has a history of significantly overestimating
enrollment. More concerning is that based on current New Jersey Department
of Education demographic guidelines, the administration’s current projections
are still far too high. If these NJDOE demographic projections prove correct,
our school administration will have overestimated student enrollment by almost
1,000 students.
II.
The Alleged Future Overcrowding
1. Didn’t our school district
make a mistake in the past by underestimating future enrollment?
Are we repeating the mistake?
No. The Board justified the 2002
bond using much HIGHER enrollment projections than those currently
at issue. Furthermore, that
bond referendum was supposed
to be the last bond referendum. Why was the 2002 bond referendum marketed
to the community as a complete solution but now after enrollment projections
have
only declined substantially since 2002 (by 600 or more students), it is not
considered enough. In addition, it is important to point out that the many
mistakes made
in the past (including the significant overestimation of enrollment) were
the result of five of the six current Board members that voted for this bond
referendum.
The three current Board members opposing the bond are the three newest board
members and are not responsible for the numerous erroneous decisions that
have been made over the past five years.
2. Have the administration's enrollment
projections recently proven accurate?
No. BOCES (the school
district’s primary demographic consultant for enrollment
projections) has substantially over-predicted enrollment for three years
straight. In September, 2005, the Item erroneously reported
the BOCES projections "held
up" in light of fall, 2005 enrolled students, but the Item mistakenly
reported pre-enrollment information provided to it by the administration.
Pre-enrolled
numbers proved higher than those who actually enrolled, as is typically the
case because families often fail to advise the district when they move and
when children
enroll in private school.
The projections have probably proven wrong because
BOCES modified its standard prediction techniques in order to make “judgment” corrections,
all of which favored increased enrollment predictions. In doing so, it
relied on
Essex County data. As we in Millburn intuitively understand, Newark does
not have the same demographic patterns as Millburn. A New York demographer
should
not flippantly be accused of “just not getting it,” but when
its own supporting analysis demonstrates it doesn’t understand Essex
County, it probably doesn’t.
3. Weren’t the New Jersey Department
of Education and Sara Weissman’s
(a local demographer also hired by the school district) 2005 projections
inaccurate?
No. The New Jersey Department of Education and Ms. Weissman,
using New Jersey State approved demographic methodology, appears to
have accurately
predicted
the total number of students within the district for fall, 2005. More
significantly, Ms. Weissman actually overestimated the number of students
that would enroll
in both the middle and high schools.
4. What did the New York BOCES enrollment
projections cost, and were they worth the expense?
The School
Administration spent well over $40,000 for enrollment projections
from an out of state consultant. The consultant
they chose was from
New York school district encompassing Somers, New York, the town where
our
Superintendent
worked prior to arriving here. The BOCES enrollment projections were
questioned by the State of New Jersey because they did not use state
approved methodology.
In contrast, the 2005 demographic study conducted by widely used New
Jersey demographer Sara Weissman, using New Jersey state approved methodology,
cost less than $500.
Why did the school district feel the need to spend so much money on
projections that now appear to have overestimated enrollment by almost
1,000 students
by 2010.
5. Is the timing of construction critical in light
of enrollment projections?
No. Statistics and class capacity figures show that the
schools, particularly the high school, can handle the most
aggressive enrollment projected
for the next five years. Projections beyond five years are inherently
unreliable,
as
New Jersey state‘s requirement that five year projections be
used recognizes. In addition, the proposed construction will be completed
at best in three years,
at which time the short-term enrollment bulge will be starting to diminish
at the middle school. Given these issues there certainly is no need
to move hastily
now.
III.
The Construction, and Alternative Solutions
1. Are there solutions
for congestion at the middle school that will address the current
bulge in student enrollment
sooner than three years
and at
a lower cost?
Yes. The Board has identified a number of alternatives,
and summarily dismissed them with no in-depth analysis. It
has stated that specific
alternatives
are feasible, but that they are “not educationally viable.” However,
it has refused to explain in any detail exactly why. WeLoveMillburn
asked the Superintendent to supply such details to the community in
a letter dated September
20, and he flatly refused. It appears to WeLoveMillburn that the reason
for the Superintendent’s refusal to supply such details is that
he can’t.
WeLoveMillburn calls upon the Board to go back to the
drawing board, and do the work it should have done in the very beginning.
It should
direct
the Administration
to conduct in-depth analyses, including costs of various solutions
to the specific problems presented. The Board also should direct the
Administration
to explain
its findings to the entire community in detail.
2. Has the Board provided
any in-depth analysis explaining its reasons for rejecting
less expensive solutions that continue to maintain Millburn’s
traditions of academic excellence?
No. A presentation by the Superintendent
dated January 18, 2005 and a newsletter dated July 20, 2005
are the only documents available on
the
BOE website
addressing why the BOE rejected various alternatives to the proposed
bond. In response
to Open Public Records Act requests, the Board made available to WeLoveMillburn
numerous non-public documents. These documents do not contain in-depth
reasoning explaining why various alternatives were rejected or any
cost analysis of
alternatives
Some claim the Board explained why it rejected various
alternatives orally at public meetings. Such purported, oral
and unrecorded explanations — assuming they occurred at all — could not have been received
by the
99%
of Millburn’s
12,000 registered voters that do not go to the Board of Education meetings.
3. Did
the Long Range Facility Planning Committees provide in-depth analysis
explaining its reasons for rejecting less expensive and academically
equivalent
solutions?
No. Although the LRFPC reports are lengthy, they contain
virtually no in-depth analysis, or cost analysis of viable
alternatives. In fact,
it was reported
that the LRFPC’s were told they should not consider costs at
all, but rather to set forth every possible improvement that would
enhance the educational experience
of students without regard to whether such enhancements were needed
to maintain Millburn’s tradition of academic excellence.
Most
significantly, there is no evidence the LRFPC solicited public opinions
or other data regarding construction and enrollment issues.
Public opinion
and other surveys are typically performed by “citizen’s
groups." Given
the size of the bond, the omission is inconceivable.
4. Was it appropriate
for the Board to delegate its core, fiduciary duty to the Long Range
Facility Planning Committees?
No. Members of the LRFPC’s are neither
elected nor equipped to make decisions regarding our childrens’ educations.
Members of the LRFPC’s have stated publicly that membership
in those committees was open to anyone who wished to participate,
and
that those who chose not to
participate have no right to express objections to their work. These
views are contrary to our country’s democratic traditions. In
our democracy, elected members of our legislative and quasi-legislative
boards make policy decisions,
not voluntary groups. Moreover, when these groups were formed, no one
knew or could have known that the recommendations of these groups were
going to be rubber
stamped, and that all of the costs would be born by Millburn’s
taxpayers. Finally, there is no public record as to the affiliations
of members of the Long
Range Planning Committees have with members of the Administration or
specific members of the Board. It is inappropriate to have important
governmental decisions
made by such unaccountable committees without full disclosure of their
backgrounds and potential conflicts.
5. Have the Board and Administration
refused to answer legitimate questions from the voters about its proposed
construction?
Yes. On September 13, a member of the Board invited WeLoveMillburn
to submit to the Superintendent a list of written questions for response.
On September
20, WeLoveMillburn submitted 15 basic questions to the Superintendent.
The Superintendent flatly refused to answer those questions, claiming
that he
already had answered
many of the questions, that he would need to conduct research to answer
other questions, and that he simply did not believe it was his job
to
devote such
time to answering these basic questions. Voters are invited to review
these questions, and ask the Superintendent by email
to answer the questions so that voters can make an informed decision.
6. Has the
Board and Administration acted irresponsibly in failing to
provide for a contingency plan in the event the ill-conceived
bond
referendum
is
not passed by Millburn’s voters?
Yes. The Board has voted to offer
an all or nothing approach to the construction bond. It has stated
publicly that it refuses to offer
any alternatives
or even contingency plans in the event the the bond fails to pass.
IV.
The Alleged Financial Implications Of
Defeating The Bond
1. Isn’t
it necessary to approve the bond to maintain our property values?
No,
quite the opposite. There will be no impact on property values
from defeating the unprecedented $40.2 million bond.
Proponents like
to say
that the building
expenditures are necessary to maintain property values, but this makes
no sense given the school district's long-standing reputation for excellence.
Indeed,
a $37 million bond referendum failed in 1994, and property values soared
thereafter. Realtors agree: demand for housing is significantly affected
by property taxes.
Property taxes will increase significantly if this bond passes, and
any such
increase will threaten real estate values.
2. If the $40.2 million construction
referendum is passed by the voters, how will that affect property
taxes in Millburn?
The yearly tax increase, per average priced
home (assessed value of $763,000), is roughly $1,200 including
operating costs,
not the less
than $400 per
year the Board would lead you to believe. This is an 8% increase to
the average
homeowner’s
property taxes and that is before the school’s standard budget
increase, not to mention those increases coming from the town and county
as well.
V.
WeLoveMillburn's
Motivations
1. Isn't WeLoveMillburn comprised of people whose
only interest is in saving their own money?
Absolutely Not, we are residents of Millburn who uniformly
support educational excellence in our public schools. However,
we are united in believing that the $40+ million bond referendum
is largely wasteful, unnecessary, ill-conceived in a rush to
qualify for dwindling state funding, will overly burden citizens
for years to come, and, especially in the absence of state
funding is likely to jeopardize future educational expenditures.
WeLoveMillburn's 25 advisors have more than forty children
and grandchildren in all the grammar schools, the middle
school, the high school, preschool and local private schools. Two of
our members are former members of the Millburn Board of Education.
One member is a PTO President. Many of our members hold advanced
degrees and have attended prestigious institutions of learning.
We care deeply about our own education and we obviously hope
to provide the same educational opportunities to our children.
Our future is our children.
We want nothing but the best in education. However, we strongly
believe that educational excellence can be achieved without
unnecessary wasteful spending, which is what much of this bond
represents.
WeLoveMillburn supports excellence in education but also responsible
education. That means spending the right amount, not any amount.
WeLoveMillburn.com is a non-profit, grassroots, informational
group. The mission, as we have stated on our website, is
to help all the residents to be better informed about the
issues that affect our community. We do this in a positive
spirit of informing one another about what is happening,
what is not happening and what is possible. We are all neighbors
and this is our town.
WeLoveMillburn.com
November 6, 2005
| Back to top | To
section dedicated only to Dec. 13th bond referendum |
