Monday, January 10, 2011

2020 Committee Report & 2011-2012 Budget Impact

In the spring of 2010, Dr. Florio put together a community-based committee to evaluate the Cheshire Public Schools' facility needs for the next decade. The committee was designated the 2020 Committee and representatives to the committee included members of the Board of Education, Town Council, parent groups, school staff and the business community. The committee began its work in the Spring of 2010 and continued working through the Fall of 2010. The full report can, and should be, viewed here.

The reason this advisory committee was formed was to evaluate facility options for Cheshire Public Schools through 2020. Last year, there was talk about possibly closing Chapman School due to declining enrollment and potential for cost savings. The committee was tasked with researching three options:
  • Facility Consolidation (i.e. school closure)
  • Grade-Level Restructuring
  • Redistricting
Executive Summary:
  • There are no immediate (near-term 2-3 years) adjustments to school configuration, grade structure, redistricting that would be recommended at this time.
  • Closure of a facility is not an option in the near term.
  • The enrollment trend for the study period is downward over 10 years.
  • NESDC estimates for the next eight years project a drop of over 500 students (K-12) by the year 2018 compared to current enrollment.
  • Enrollment is declining in the course of the decade. While the decline is significant at theelementary level over 8-10 years, it is not significant in the near term to consider closure of a facility or restructuring.
  • The downward trend in enrollment does allow the opportunity to return elementary classsizes to pre-2008 levels and reverse a trend in increasing class size at many grade levels across the district. 
  • The 2020 Committee places high value on the instructional benefit of dedicated scienceclassrooms for instruction at the elementary level. While these rooms could be used as regular classrooms in a period of increasing enrollment, the rooms where not considered part of classroom inventory in the capacity analysis.
  • In the next decade, balancing elementary school enrollment could be required through redistricting. However based on current student distribution it appears that this would require movement of multiple district lines, not just the line between two schools.
  • Projected Middle School enrollment will not decline to a level that would allow an additional grade to be added to Dodd Middle School. There will be a modest amount of excess capacity at Dodd through the middle and latter part of the decade.
  • There are no options presented for change to the Cheshire High School program as it relates to the recommendations in this report. The Board of Education will however have to consider the implementation of the recently enacted Connecticut School Reform Law (PA111) including increased graduation requirements and its potential impact on the facilities requirements of Cheshire High School.
  • The committee did express the importance of technology in our schools and the need to provide an environment rich in opportunities for students to learn using current technology options available.
  • The committee also acknowledges that the rapid pace of technological change may impact school facilities in the coming years. The committee however was not charged with, nor had the time, to fully weigh the impact of technology on the educational process and the requirements technology may have on school space needs.
  • The 2020 Committee recommends that Cheshire Board of Education monitor and assess enrollment in the coming years as the steady decline could make some of the scenarios regarding restructure or closure of a facility educationally feasible and merit consideration.
  • The most viable option for closure would be to relocate Darcey early intervention program and restore the kindergarten program to neighborhood schools. This would however require a capital investment for the movement of the EIC program.
In summary, the committee recommended no near-term (2 year) solutions. However, Dr. Florio noted that a budget reduction of $1.5M could force a school closure to achieve that level of reduction.

Report is available in the budget library.

21 comments:

Breachway said...

Great....sounds like they want to increase spending instead of decrease it. It is obvious to everyone - I hope - that we need to cut education spending or increase taxes significantly. This says that we will get back to pre 2008 classroom size and didn't have any suggestions on the high school program. For the BOE to put forward a budget that is greater than last years is a big wasteof time. it is too easy for the BOE to pass a budget to the TC and let them be the bad guys.

Here is an idea for the high school: cut class offerings including some AP classes. It isn't the towns obligation to fund college level classes...ya I know it looks good etc but you have to start somewhere....

Tony Perugini said...

"For the BOE to put forward a budget that is greater than last years is a big wasteof time. it is too easy for the BOE to pass a budget to the TC and let them be the bad guys."

I don't have a problem being a "bad guy". But there's a difference between being a bad guy for the sake of talking/acting tough for political capital and the "bad guy" that has to stand up, make reduction recommendations and be able to explain them and how they will actually impact all stakeholders.

Looking at the Superintendent's budget recommendation, why is the budget going up?

- Contracted teacher salary increases.
- Contracted medical beneftis and cost increases
- Special Education placements by DCF.
- Pension liability catch up contributions.

Arguably, at the moment NONE of these items are under the BOE's control. Certainly, we can discuss the infinite wisdom of the last BOE to sign a 14% contract increase but without the ability to open the contract there's nothing we can do about the salary increases, medical insurance liability...let alone fighting DCF on state placements.

During the last budget process, I and others on the BOE, made the difficult choice of being fiscally responsible and did make reductions to the Superintendent's budget before it went to the TC. While the reductions were not very popular, our school district hasn't fallen apart.

Interestingly, part of last year's reduction included scaling back sports events/competitions and eliminating freshmen sports at CHS. Miraculously freshmen sports exists and the athletic director at CHS found a way to make sports work within the constraints of the budget afforded to him. This year, he may not be so lucky, we'll see what lies ahead for reductions.

Had the teacher's union agreed to concessions last time around, we would probably be looking at zero percent increase in salaries for 2010-2011 and possibly zero layoffs. Unfortunately, this did not happen so we have to look elsewhere for savings.

I will look into your idea of eliminating AP classes at CHS.

However, if you listened to Greg Florio last Thursday he stated that eliminating any courses at CHS would increase study halls because those students would not be abe to get into other courses which are already full. Well, I'm not sure I agree with this 100% but I will request a report that breaks down courses at CHS by # of participating students and max # of partticipating students allowed.

But..it will be interesting to see if we can actually eliminate an AP class and a corresponding teacher headcount. It could very well be that we have some AP courses taught by tenured teachers that also teach other courses. Thus, simply eliminating an AP may not save a headcount. But I would like to see the supporting detail on this before making such a recommendation.

You are correct in that the 2020 committee did not study CHS in any great detail...nor did they committee run through various redistricting scenarios. Something that may be put on the fast track very, very soon.

"you have to start somewhere...."

True but there will be those that will say "Why?" or how are I or anyone else on the BOE oppose Dr. Florio's budget proposal when we should be spending at all costs.

Well, I'd argue that we've spending at all costs and this is where are right now. Is it a good place to be?

And, Hartford is redefining the ECS cost formula so that those school districts with poor performing studets receives a bigger share of the prize while towns like Cheshire will receive a lesser prize. This will be the other $1.5M train wreck to hit us sometime during 2011-2012.

But I have no desire to make anyone look like a bad guy...it doesn't help anyone. But if there are going to be budget reductions I'd rather go about it in a surgical manner vs. wildly swinging axe to the budget.

I'll report back on your AP suggestion.

Tim White said...

there's a difference between being a bad guy for the sake of talking/acting tough for political capital and the "bad guy" that has to stand up, make reduction recommendations and be able to explain them and how they will actually impact all stakeholders.

Breachway has always been very fair IMO. I don't think he was suggesting you should simply act tough.

I think it's entirely appropriate that each of the seven board members start offering suggestions on where they would amend education services / spending... also noting the related tax impact.

As a board member, do you have any recommendations for changes at this point?

Tim White said...

he stated that eliminating any courses at CHS would increase study halls because those students would not be abe to get into other courses which are already full.

How does GF define "full?"

If the max # of students is set by the state or by union contract, I accept his statement at face value. But if full is set by either the BOE or the Sptd, then the BOE could easily change the number, making the "full" argument irrelevant... though that would be a legitimate policy debate among the 7 BOE members... with input from staff.

Do you know what / who governs the max # of students in a class?

Other than that, it seems to me that the physical space in a classroom is the other obvious restraint. So maybe fire code could be a factor?

Tim White said...

And back to the original point of this thread... with regard to the 2020 report, do you agree with the recommendations? Do you strongly agree or disagree with any recommendations in particular?

The most viable option for closure would be to relocate Darcey early intervention program and restore the kindergarten program to neighborhood schools. This would however require a capital investment for the movement of the EIC program.

For clarity, is it fair to use the word "require" here? I understand that K-12 education is required, but EIC is not required. If so, it would be possible to return the kindergarten classes to the neighborhood schools and eliminate the EIC.

IMO, the movement / closure of EIC is a legitimate policy discussion that includes a whole bunch of concerns. But I think describing it as a "requirement" may inadvertently lead people into thinking EIC is a result of a state mandate.

If EIC is not required, as a BOE member, do you support maintaining the program? Do you have any sense as to where the BOE collectively stand on it?

Tony Perugini said...

"If EIC is not required, as a BOE member, do you support maintaining the program? Do you have any sense as to where the BOE collectively stand on it?"

Yes, I do support maintaining the program and so does the full BOE. The program is fully reimbursed by Hartford. Despite the benefits the program has for these students, not having it, would require that these children be sent to facilities outside the town of Cheshire.

The B-3 program is also fully reimbursed by Hartford. I think that closing it, for fiscal reasons, doesn't make economic sense.

However, I do understand that you (I think) believe that the B-3 program lures special needs students to Cheshire. Whether the B-3 program exists or not, Cheshire is required by Hartford to identify special needs students and provide them an education.

The EIC program is not mandated by Hartford but I support it as been positive both in terms of helping these students and econmically it's the only program in our school system that is being funding 100% by Hartford. Yes, the funding includes the overhead for the program i.e. electricity, etc. It's unclear if Hartford would fund the costs of moving the program to another education facility. This is something we'll be looking into.

Tony Perugini said...

"Other than that, it seems to me that the physical space in a classroom is the other obvious restraint. So maybe fire code could be a factor?"

More than anything else, physical space is the restriction in the elementary and middle schools. I've spent the majority of my time in the elementary schools and Dodd and can personall attest that we have a space problem.

And that's the challenge we have in front of us right now with consolidating classrooms within a school or closing another school and moving those students across the remaining schools. The problem with enrollment is that while it's projected to drop, it's dropping minimally in the immediate future. This school year, it was projected that we would be losing ~115 students, we lost 36 at the start of the school year. 36 students across K-12.

Regarding CHS, I have little data to support or reject the claim that classes at CHS are at or near capacity. I take the statement that classes at CHS are full at face value as well. But it's something we'll be digging into during this budget process. IMO, and this is the problem I have with 2020 report in general, is that the detailed analysis on redistricting/physical space was not done. We need this analysis right now.

"do you agree with the recommendations? Do you strongly agree or disagree with any recommendations in particular?"

I agree with most of the recommendations. The recommendations that I have issues with are CHS (nothing to be done there) and redistricting/grade restructuring. I also have an issue with the recommended class size of 20 students that was used in the report.

Regarding class size, I discussed this Tues night...for those classes that are too big for one teacher to handle we should consider adding a part-time instructional assistant. This is not an IAT, but like the parent volunteers we do have in place today, are teaching assistants that would help with (as-needed basis) with one-one instruction with the students. This assistant is inexpensive compared to a contracted teacher but just as effective. I base this on the fact that we use substitute teachers today that are graduate students. Not only have they been highly effective but they're cost-effective.

I'm preparing a seperate topic on class size so I'll post more detail there. I will publish the remaining budget account details this evening along with special ed costs which will be covered during this evening's review.

Tony Perugini said...

"I think it's entirely appropriate that each of the seven board members start offering suggestions on where they would amend education services / spending... also noting the related tax impact.

As a board member, do you have any recommendations for changes at this point?"

As of right now Tim, I'm the only BOE member looking into potential changes to the budget. I doubt, at this point, the BOE will make any reductions to the budget but that's just my perception. I'm sure as the BOE gets closer to a budget vote, things may change.

I'll detail and list my specific, recommended changes over the next few days before the BOE votes on a budget.

Anonymous said...

"Here is an idea for the high school: cut class offerings including some AP classes. It isn't the towns obligation to fund college level classes...ya I know it looks good etc but you have to start somewhere...." What a stupendously foolish idea. Let's get all the highly educated (and high income) parents to move to a town that cares about education. Step one to turn Cheshire into a slum. It doesn't just "look good" to offer these courses, it helps Cheshire students get accepted to competitive colleges over students from other CT towns.

Anonymous said...

I agree with that 11:01 post. Take a drive up the Berlin Trpk. You will see what the future holds for the Cheshire if the enemies of education get their way. Get rid of AP classes, bring on the strip clubs and bars.

Anonymous said...

Cutting education in the name of "fiscal responsibility" actually hurts the town economy in the long run. Families support the tax base and local businesses (who support the tax base). Do you honestly think the town can survive on retirees and rentors taxes?

Anonymous said...

" it is too easy for the BOE to pass a budget to the TC and let them be the bad guys." Guess what, they ARE the bad guys. They don't want to use the rainy day fund because they want to settle some political score instead of helping the families in this town.
Their days are numbered. Dump Schrump!

Anonymous said...

People like Breachway will drive our town into the ground. What we need is for the TC to recognize that's it's RAINING it's POURING. The town should not be a for profit business at the expense of it's citizens. Use the fund to prevent further erosion of our schools.

Anonymous said...

Of all the ideas put forth, eliminating AP courses (Breachway) is by far the worst. That only penalizes the best and brightest students and puts the accreditation of the high school at risk. Even the failing schools in our neighboring towns haven't taken that drastic a measure. Instead, let's take a look at the elective courses taken by our worst and laziest students. To be clear, I'm NOT talking about students who have special needs and receive special ed services. I'm talking about the students who spend more time in detention than doing homework, who think high school is just a time filler before they go home to play video games, chat online, or loiter. I'm sure the administrators can identify those classes to eliminate, then maybe those students will be forced to take classes that require more effort to graduate and their diploma might mean something.

Anonymous said...

I agree with that last post 100%. In my day the flunkees all took wood shop because they heard the teacher would pass them for just showing up. Maybe if those kids had to take social studies or spanish instead they might learn something. This business of taking the minimum credits to graduate and taking multiple study halls and phys eds has got to stop.

Anonymous said...

Are students allowed to take more than one phys ed each semester? If so, what a waste of the tax payers money. I'm all for physical fitness, but allowing them to take phys ed to avoid taking other classes is just crazy.

Anonymous said...

In this even more competitive world, students need every advantage possible to succeed. Eliminating courses will only hurt their chances down the road. It's one thing to increase fees for after school activities, but to take an axe to our curriculum to save money is just thoughtless and ill-conceived.

Anonymous said...

I take it that Dr. Florio and the BOE are planning on the looming cuts that the TC will impose on the budget. It's just a matter of how much they will cut. I also get the impression that the TC will not listen to parents no matter what they say. My only hope is that at least the BOE will listen to parents and Dr. Florio. One can hope.

Anonymous said...

Don't dumb down our schools to save money. I realize the TC has painted you into a corner, but you can't let that be a reason to gut the education system.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I would not be heartbroken if the marching band lost funding. I do think music education is important, but I think the in school band program is enough.

Anonymous said...

"Eliminating courses will only hurt their chances down the road. It's one thing to increase fees for after school activities, but to take an axe to our curriculum to save money is just thoughtless and ill-conceived."

Yes...it seems ill-conceived to eliminate something that can't be paid for...such as Jewelry Enamleing 101.