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