Board of Education newsletter leaves questions unanswered.

On July 20, 2005, the Board of Education distributed a newsletter that attempted to answer questions, describe the process that led to their proposed construction plan and provide other supporting information. In our view, fundamental and basic questions that have been asked by the community continue to go unanswered. Over the coming weeks, we will be conducting further analysis of the points raised in the newsletter, but we feel it is important to provide a timely response and reiterate the information the community needs to properly evaluate the $40 million bond referendum.

• The newsletter presents projections from only one demographic study, when there were two done with dramatically different conclusions. Why? An article appearing in the The Star Ledger on July 24, 2005 states "Superintendent Richard Brodow said he felt more comfortable with the accuracy of the first [higher] set of numbers and decided to base the district's building plans on that report." We would like him to substantiate this opinion in light of the information presented in our demographic report and reprinted in The Item on July 21, 2005) which shows that the trends actually support the lower set of projections. Also, does the entire Board support the Superintendent 's position on these projections?
  
• The newsletter does not provide the operating costs of this additional space which we calculate will drive the first year property tax impact on the average assessed value ($763,000) home in Millburn from $516* as reported to over $1,000. We would still like the Board to provide the necessary operating cost analysis that is essential for the community to evaluate the proposal. There are the costs of teachers and other maintenance costs for what we estimate will be approximately 35 to 40 new educational rooms and other facilities.
  
  We have estimated the total first year cost of the bond referendum to be $137 per $100,000 of assessed value**. For example:
  
  
  
  
• The newsletter does not explain why the Board feels it is so urgent to spend $24 million on the High School when both demographic studies show that the High School has enough capacity to handle projected enrollment through the end of the decade. Using the most aggressive assumptions, the High School is only expected to ultimately exceed its capacity by 100 students and that would not occur until 2014. Based on this data, why does the High School construction plan require more than 25 educational rooms, 72 new parking spaces and other improvements.
  
• The newsletter does not address why the Board is comfortable with the educational direction of Millburn's Middle School being one of only a very few middle schools in this part of New Jersey with over 1,000 students***. Within a 10 mile radius of Millburn Township, only 6 of 120 middle school programs are located in facilities that have more than 1,000 students. Aside from Millburn, the other 5 are in more urban areas with greater population and space demands. Of the middle school programs closest to Millburn (Summit, Chatham, Madison, Livingston, and Westfield), all have programs ranging in size from 350 - 800 students. Millburn's approach runs counter to research concluding that smaller middle schools better support academic excellence in young adolescents. Other surrounding towns have adopted this thinking through creative grade structuring and other means – why hasn't Millburn?



• The newsletter provides only limited alternatives and minimal details or analysis for those alternatives, and it also fails to discuss contingency plans in the event the bond referendum does not pass in its current form. The Board has said it would look into these alternatives and contingency plans during the summer – the time for those alternatives is now. The newsletter summarizes a number of alternatives that the Board dismissed, but lacks supporting details and analysis leading to those conclusions. It must further explore these alternatives, as well as develop new creative solutions such as those being implemented in other school systems.

Because the newsletter fails to adequately answer these questions and others, we would like the Board to come back to the community with additional analysis and specific answers to these questions. We respect the effort by the many people involved in the process. However, in light of the material unanswered questions, we believe the newsletter has failed to gain additional community support for the bond referendum.

WeLoveMillburn.com
July 25, 2005

---

** Notes: All historical data (except birth rates) reflect those provided in the Long Range Planning Study Update, dated January 2005. This study was conducted for the Millburn Township Board of Education by the Western Suffolk BOCES Office of School Planning and Research. Birth rates were provided by a demographic study that was done by former Board of Education member Noreen Brunini and presented to the Board on February 5, 2005.

Migration statistics were developed using only the historical data mentioned above. The migration statistics are calculated in two parts, first – children moving into the town's school system after birth but prior to kindergarten and second – children moving into the school system after kindergarten.

The first of these migration statistics is calculated by taking each year's kindergarten class and subtracting the births that occurred in town five years earlier. The result is the pre-kindergarten migration.

The post-kindergarten migration is calculated by taking the previous year's total enrollment, subtracting the previous year's senior class, adding the current year's kindergarten class, and finally subtracting the current year's total enrollment.

These two numbers are then added together to arrive at a total student migration into the Millburn/Short Hills school system.