S h l Utili tiSchool Utilization

School Utilization CommitteeJ 20 2013June 20, 2013

Charge of the Committeeg

To research and present to the Board of Education specific

ti d d tioptions and recommendation for building configurations during a period of declining enrollment and fiscal constraints, to ensure the efficient use of resources and support student achievement and continuous improvement of school programs.

Committee MembersBoard of Education Chairperson Janet HarckhamBoard of Education Trustees Marjorie SchiffBoard of Education Trustees Marjorie Schiff

Stephanie Tobin

Superintendent of Schools Paul KreutzerAssistant Superintendent for Business Michael JumperAssistant Superintendent for Business Michael JumperAssistant Superintendent for Instruction Alice CroninAssistant Superintendent for Human Resources Scott Persampieri

Director of Special Services Connie HayesDirector of Operations & Maintenance Tom PsomasDirector of Transportation Patricia Kristoferson

Interim Principal, John Jay High School John GoetzPrincipal, John Jay Middle School Rich LeprinePrincipal, Increase Miller Elementary Kerry FordPrincipal Katonah Elementary Jessica GodinPrincipal, Katonah Elementary Jessica GodinPrincipal, Lewisboro Elementary Cristy HarrisPrincipal, Meadow Pond Elementary Carolann Castellano

Committee Members

KLAAS Member Gil CassKLAAS Member Gil CassKLDTA Member Sandy GrebinarKLSSA Member Jeani Granelli

Nurses Pamela Hagele, Karen GreenwoodSupport Staff Member Kathy DownzElementary Teachers Linda DiGregoria, Shari Robinson,

Christine SamuelsohnChristine Samuelsohn

Middle School Teacher Laura AtwellHigh School Teacher Linda BurkeSpecial Area Teachers Jean CapuanoSpecial Area Teachers Jean CapuanoSpecial Education Teacher Christine Ferrarone

PTO/PTA & Community Members John Goodman, Ashley Murphy, Leah Pizer, Nelson SalazarRobert Kesten

Our WorkOur WorkMeeting Dates:Meeting Dates:

February 26, 2013

March 12, 2013

April 3 2013April 3, 2013

April 22, 2013

May 13, 2013

May 28, 2013

June 10, 2013

United States 2011 Population p

Population Pyramid of Katonah CDPfrom 2010 Censusfrom 2010 Census

Population Pyramid of the Town of Lewisborofrom 2010 Censusfrom 2010 Census

Baseline Enrollment Projections j

Projected Kindergarten Replacementj g p

*Incoming Kindergarten minus prior year graduating class.

Projected Enrollments 2012-2022j

Projected Grade K‐12 Enrollments for 2012‐13 to 2021‐22Using Cohort‐Survival

Year K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Sp. Ed

K‐12 Total

2012 13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3 466

Projected Grade K 12 Enrollments for 2012 13 to 2021 22 Using Cohort Survival Ratios and 5 Years of Historical Data

2012‐13 191 200 226 282 270 254 264 304 274 283 302 309 285 22 3,4662013‐14 195 201 201 228 280 273 249 262 303 270 281 297 304 22 3,366  2014‐15 150 205 202 203 227 283 268 247 261 299 268 276 292 21 3,202  2015‐16 177 158 206 204 202 229 277 266 246 257 297 263 271 20 3,073  2016‐17 174 186 159 208 203 204 224 275 265 242 255 292 259 19 2,9652017‐18 157 183 187 161 207 205 200 222 274 261 241 251 287 18 2,854  2018‐19 157 165 184 189 160 209 201 199 221 270 259 237 247 17 2,715  2019‐20 157 165 166 186 188 162 205 200 198 218 268 255 233 17 2,618  2020‐21 157 165 166 168 185 190 159 204 199 195 217 263 251 16 2,535  2021‐22 157 165 166 168 167 187 186 158 203 196 194 213 259 15 2,434  Note 1:  Assumes birth rates and cohort survival ratios remain consistent with past trendsNote 2: Geocoded birth data was not yet available for 2011. This results in greater uncertainty in kindergarten projections for 2016Note 2:  Geocoded birth data was not yet available for 2011. This results in greater uncertainty in kindergarten projections for 2016Note 3:  The reliability of this data beyond 2016‐17 (CURRENTLY DRAFT DATA)  is diminished since birth data is not yet available.  

Full Day Kindergarteny g

Full day Kindergarten wasFull day Kindergarten was considered in all models.

Options Explored and Eliminatedp p

Model 1 Notes/Why EliminatedModel 1 Notes/Why EliminatedK-1

Consensus was reached that this model: Required students to transition too many times

2-34-5

Could not be effectively realized due to district geography

56-89-12

Model 2 Notes/Why EliminatedK-2

Consensus was reached that this model: Required students to transition too many times Could not be effectively realized due to district

h

3-56-89-12

geography

Options Explored and Eliminatedp p

Model 3 Notes/Why EliminatedModel 3 Notes/Why EliminatedK-3

Consensus was reached that this model: Requires students to transition too many times

4-67-8 (7-12

Research suggests 2-year school configuration (7-8) should be avoided where possible

8 (campus)9-12

Model 4 Notes/Why EliminatedK-4

C h d th t thi d lConsensus was reached that this model: Requires students to transition too many times Research suggests 2-year school configuration

(5 6 or 7 8) should be avoided where possible

5-67-8 (7-12

campus)9-12(5-6 or 7-8) should be avoided where possible

Options Explored and Eliminatedp pModel 7 Notes/Why EliminatedK-6 Consensus was reached that:

Research suggests 2-year school configuration (7-8) should be avoided where possible

District would not be able to maximize or allocate space

7-89-12

effectively

Model 8 Notes/Why EliminatedK-8 Consensus was reached that:

District would not be able to maximize or allocate space effectively

District should not dismantle current middle school model

9-12

Model 9 Notes/Why EliminatedK-6 Consensus was reached that:

District would not be able to maximize or allocate space7 12 District would not be able to maximize or allocate space effectively

District should not dismantle current middle school model

7-12

Options Still ConsideredpModel 5 Notes/Why NOT eliminatedTwo K-4 BuildingsTwo K 4 Buildings

Consensus was reached that: This model could result in potential opportunities for

students as well as significant efficiencies and cost

5-89-12

savings This model warrants further study and analysis

(preliminary discussion of opportunities/issues d d)appended)

Model 6 Notes/Why NOT EliminatedThree K-5 Buildings

Consensus was reached that:Consensus was reached that: This model works well currently and could result in

efficiencies and costs savings, if modified This model warrants further study and analysis

6-89-12

This model warrants further study and analysis (preliminary discussion of opportunities/issues appended)

Two Options for further study: p y

Option 1 (F l M d l 6)Option 1: (Formerly Model 6)

Close one elementary buildingO t th K 5 l t h l• Operate three K-5 elementary schools

• Middle School and High School unaffected

Option 2: (Formerly Model 5)

Close two elementary buildingsClose two elementary buildings• Operate two K-4 elementary schools• Middle school enrolls grades 5-8g

Option 1– Opportunities/Issuesp pp

Opportunities/Issues Three K-5 Buildings Opportunities:6-8

1. Could result in cost savings, if delivered across five buildings rather than six

2. Less disruption across district: middle school is

9-12

unaffected and current elementary structure is maintained

3. Current model serves the district well and is aligned with organization of new Common Corealigned with organization of new Common Core learning standards

Option 1– Opportunities/Issuesp pp

Opportunities/IssuesThree K-5 Buildings Issues:6-8

1. Requires redistricting

2. Can accommodate shift to full-day Kindergarten

9-12

but with less flexibility

3. May be the preferred model of educational delivery but will not maximize infrastructuredelivery, but will not maximize infrastructure efficiency or maximize cost savings

Option 2– Opportunities/Issuesp ppOpportunities/Issues

Two K-4 Buildings Opportunities:

1. Results in greatest cost savings to district

2. Smoothes class size across elementary schools

5-8

9-12

y

3. Potential earlier access to departmentalization; World Languages; science labs; guidance counselors; clubs; and intramurals

4. Consolidation of students potentially facilitates delivery of special education services

5. Begin developing district-wide identity earlierg p g y

6. Possible opportunities for student partnerships and mentoring

7. Can easily accommodate shift to full-day Kindergarteny y g

Option 2– Opportunities/Issuesp ppOpportunities/Issues

Two K-4 Buildings Issues:5 8 1. New Common Core Learning Standards organized K-5; 6-8

2. How to structure 5th and 6th grade logistically, contractually, and from a scheduling standpoint

A. To what extent would 5th grade “look more like 6th grade” or would 6th

5-89-12

g ggrade “look more like 5th grade”

1. (5, 6-8)2. (5-6)

(7-8)( )3. (5-8)

3. How to ensure that district is meeting the emotional, social, and developmental needs of 10 year oldsA. How to create opportunity for parent involvement and pp y p

communication, as currently exists for 5th grade in the elementary schools

4. Impact on lunch, recess, infrastructure, e.g. construction of playground at the middle school

5. Requires redistricting6. Impact on transportation7. Alignment of grading practice for 5th and 6th grade

Peak vs. Projected EnrollmentjPeak

Enrollment Peak *Projected

EnrollmentProjected

EnrollmentProjected

EnrollmentSchool Gr. Year Enrollment 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Increase Miller Elementary K-5 1997 629 307 285 271

Katonah Elementary K-5 1999 518 364 352 350

Lewisboro Elementary K-5 1998 537 316 280 265

Meadow Pond Elementary K-5 2005 446 289 265 259

John Jay Middle School 6-8 2001 1,042** 779 792 766

John Jay High School 9-12 2007 1,311 1,144 1,096 1,056

District K-12 2006 4,041 3,202 3,073 2,965, , , ,

*Peak ≠ Capacity** Achieved prior to building addition

Projected EnrollmentProjected Enrollment

YK-5

3 El tK-4

2 El t G d 5 8Year 3 Elementary Schools

2 Elementary Schools

Grade 5-8

2014 423 494 10592014 423 494 10592015 392 474 10182016 378 465 9682016 378 465 968

Cost AssumptionsCost Assumptions 70% reduction in utilities 70% reduction in utilities

Class size at current levels for “low savings”

Cl i t ½ b t “ l” d “ ” f “hi h Class size at ½ way between “goal” and “max” for “highsavings”

Renovations and transportation not included Renovations and transportation not included

Assumes buildings will not be sold

Assumes no revenue from buildings

Expenses attached to labor reductions were assumedb d 2013 tbased on 2013 costs

Assumes full-day Kindergarten at ten (10) sections

2014 – 2015 Financial Impact Verses 2013 – 2014 Program *2013 2014 Program

ModelLow Savings/(Cost)

High Savings/(Cost)Model Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost)

Current Model ($324,061) $26,298Cu e t ode ($3 ,06 ) $ 6, 98

Option 1Option 1 Three (K-5) $1,215,705 $1,916,422

Option 2Two (K-4) $2,823,774 $2,823,774

* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1 000 000/year* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1,000,000/year

2016 – 2017 Financial Impact Verses 2013 – 2014 Program*2013 2014 Program

ModelLow Savings/(Cost)

High Savings/(Cost)Model Savings/(Cost) Savings/(Cost)

Current Model $960,586 $960,586Cu e t ode $960,586 $960,586

Option 1Option 1 Three (K-5) $2,266,780 $2,266,780

Option 2Two (K-4) $3,407,704 $3,874,849

* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1 000 000/year* Assumes Full Day K ≈ $1,000,000/year

Procedures for Closing a Schoolg

New York Education Law New York Education Law

Article 9 Article 9 -- §§ 402402--AA

Procedures for Closing a School BuildingProcedures for Closing a School Building

Next Stepsp

The School Utilization Committee d th B d f Ed tirecommends the Board of Education

create a School Closure Task Force per State statute to further and appropriately study the two options.app op ate y study t e t o opt o s