Guilderland schools building capacity study (2014)

“Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future.”

2014

KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE PROGRAM DELIVERY STUDY:

ARE THERE OPTIONS THAT MIGHT

PROVIDE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS OR PATTERNS TO ORGANIZE HOW THE K-12

PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED/DELIVERED OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS?

for the

Guilderland Central School District

GUILDERLAND, NEW YORK



i

PREFACE A MATTER OF THE ECONOMY AND NOT POOR STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC RESOURCES The Guilderland Central School District officials have been and are concerned about the financial resources available to support a quality educational program for their students. The district, like many in New York State (as well as individuals and businesses), has had to reduce expenditures for staff, programs, and general operations to deal with the recession of 2008 and its continued fallout for the near future. With state aid revenues likely to remain ‘flat’ or slightly increasing for some districts, it is projected that school district expenditure decisions will need to be weighed carefully since the cost of commodities and human resources purchased will likely outpace State School Aid received. It is believed by the Board of Education that local community members may be unable to shoulder the burden of a transfer of the shortfall in state aid revenues to increased property taxes to raise revenue and maintain the existing opportunities of the current student programming that the community supports and expects. In addition, with the passage of the 2% property tax levy limit law by the NYS Legislature and Governor in June 2011, schools cannot go legislatively beyond that measure without over 60% of their voting residents agreeing to do so. For upstate school districts that typically receive much of their revenues from state aid, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain even the most basic of school programs. Indeed, for both the short and long term, the financial forecast for many upstate school districts is not good. THE DILEMMA FACING COMMUNITIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARDS OF EDUCATION ACROSS THE STATE

1. State aid to support local school districts may stay close to flat for the foreseeable future; And,

2. The capacity for local taxpayers of a school district to shoulder more revenue responsibility through property taxes may or may not be possible;

And, 3. School district communities, the State of New York, and the Federal perspective are expecting

higher measured achievement for all students; And,

4. School district communities, the State of New York, and the Federal perspective are requiring the delivery of an educational program to all students that will enable them to be productive citizens in the workforce, and to be competitive in the global economy, as well as have the basic skills to pursue post-high school specialized education opportunities.

EXAMPLES OF OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AT WORK AFFECTING THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION IN NEW YORK STATE

A. Declining community population and a declining school-age population, 2/3 of NYS population resides in 12 downstate counties;

B. Declining job market opportunities; C. Any new job market opportunities often help alleviate ‘underemployment’ and don’t

attract large new population growth to regions or communities; D. Growing federal budget deficit and ‘cautious’ economy;


ii

E. Rural NYS experiencing a 44% less growth in property values compared to metro areas of the State;

F. Increasing health insurance and employee pension costs; G. Unemployment rate in rural and upstate NYS is almost one fifth higher than the

unemployment rate in metro areas of the State; H. Global threats to the US economy by increases in international student measured

achievement; I. Unfunded mandates expected of school districts; J. Equity issues in how school funding by the state affects less wealthy school districts.

DUE DILIGENT PLANNING BY THE GUILDERLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THIS STUDY The Board of Education and the Superintendent engaged this study to help answer the question:

ARE THERE OPTIONS THAT MIGHT PROVIDE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS OR PATTERNS TO ORGANIZE HOW THE K-12 PROGRAM IS

IMPLEMENTED/DELIVERED OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS? At the time the study was commissioned the Board of Education and the leadership team had no pre-conceived notions about the findings of the study or a pre-conceived advocacy for what the findings should be. The Board recognizes that the financial and economic projections underscore that previously successful ways and decisions about serving pupils may not be viable solutions in ‘this new normal’ caused by economic conditions facing our region, the state and the nation. Because of the due diligence of the Board of Education and superintendent in exploring options, the information offered in this study provides a concrete way for the community and the Board of Education to engage public discussion in an open and transparent fashion about how best to serve the pupils in grades K through 12 in the future. The study ‘holds up a mirror’ to various kinds of data; organizes that data into a useable resource tool; and reports a list of scenario options for discussion and review by the community and the Board without bias or advocacy as to what decision, if any, the Board and community should or should not implement. It is hoped that the study will be a valuable tool to help local decision-making deal with the dilemma facing Guilderland as a public school district in an economy that likely will not provide increased financial support to deliver grades K through 12 public education. Thank you for inviting me to prepare the study as one tool to help with your on-going planning. Dr. Paul M. Seversky May 2014


Please note that the complete Pupil Capacity Analysis Study and the

Enrollment/Demographic Study are on the Guilderland School District Website.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i Purpose of the Study 1 Methodology of the Study 1 Findings of the K-12 Pupil Capacity Analysis

• Pupil Capacity of the School Buildings in Total 2 • Comparison of the 2013-2014 Building Enrollments with the Pupil Capacity of Each School Building 4 • Observations 5 • Grade Level Class Section Enrollments Grades K-5 in 2013-2014 13 • Observations 17

Findings of the Enrollment Projection Study 22

• Historical Perspective of Annual Grade Level Enrollments 22 • Historical Perspective of Live Births in Albany County and the Guilderland CSD 24 • Historical Perspective of Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollments in the Guilderland CSD 25 • Enrollment Projection Estimates as of January 2014 and School Building Pupil Capacities 30

Findings, Inferences and Observations Based on the Visits to each Guilderland School Building and the Interviews with the Administrative Team 34

• Enrollment Histories of each Elementary School Since 2007 34 • 2013-2014 Free and Reduced Lunch Breakfast Participation 37 • Service to Pupils with Special Needs 37 • The School Buildings and the Building Condition Survey Report 38 • Current Capital Debt by School Building 39 • The Current Elementary School Sites 40 • Distance Between Each School Building 40 • ‘Teacher Day’ and ‘Student Day’ Times 41 • Shared Staff Among the School Buildings 41 • Full Time Equivalent Cost for pre-K-12 Instructional Staff in 2013-2014 42


• FTE Numbers of Staff Who Have Left the District Not Including Reduction in Force 42 • Annual Professional Review Responsibilities by Building 43 • Distance of Students of One School to a Neighboring Attendance Zone School 43 • Inventory of Buses 44 • Bus Run Data for 2013-2014 44 • Inferences and Observations 45

Some Options to Explore in Delivering the Guilderland Central School District Pre-K-12 Program Over the Next Three to Five Years 56

Summary of Major Optional Program Delivery Scenarios for Discussion 60

Scenario A Rationale 61

Scenario A Opportunities and Challenges 61 Scenario B Rationale 62

Scenario B Opportunities and Challenges 63 Scenario C Rationale 64 Scenario C Opportunities and Challenges 65 Scenario D Rationale 66

Scenario D Opportunities and Challenges 67 Scenario E Rationale 68 Scenario E Opportunities and Challenges 69 Scenario F Rationale 70 Scenario F Opportunities and Challenges 71 Scenario G Rationale Worksheet 72 Scenario G Opportunities and Challenges Worksheet 72

Preliminary Financials of the Estimated Expenditure Savings Related to the Scenario Options if Implemented in 2014-2015 73

Copyright 2014 As to Original Text, Format, and Methodology.

All Rights Reserved.

Dr. Paul M. Seversky [email protected]

Authorized for the exclusive internal use for planning by the

Guilderland Central School District and its stakeholders.

mailto:[email protected]

1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The Guilderland Central School District Board of Education and the senior administration are

engaged in long range planning for the district. As part of their efforts, they have commissioned a

study to research data to help the school district answer the following planning question:

Are there options that might provide more cost-effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12 program is implemented/delivered over the next three years?

The goal of the analysis and study report is to provide substantiation for suggestions and insights

about the current organization and delivery of the K-12 program. The study report identifies

various options for action that the Board of Education, senior administration, and the community

may want to give further focus and consideration as they identify efficiencies to ensure the most

support of K-12 pupils in the delivery of the instructional program with the resources available.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

First, the study analyzes the use of space by the current program offering in the five

elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school of the district. The principals

provided detailed information about how the assets of each building are used in the 2013-

2014 school year to implement the grades K-12 program. The detailed space allocation data

are benchmarked to the NY State Education Department’s school building capacity

guidelines as well as to the class size guidelines endorsed by the school district to deliver the

program. The school buildings pupil capacity study data and findings are in the K-12 School

Building Capacity Study published in February 2014. The pupil capacity study is posted on

the Guilderland CSD website.

Second, the study estimates future enrollment trends of the district based on historical

enrollment data, historical live data, and patterns of enrollment at each of the grade levels K-

12. The enrollment projection calculations study data and findings are in the Enrollment

Projection/Demographic Study published in March 2014. The enrollment projection and

demographic study is posted on the Guilderland CSD website.

Third, the senior administration and the building principals of the district were interviewed

to learn as comprehensively as possible the short-range and long-range objectives of

delivery of the program in the existing facilities. The meeting also provided insights to

better understand local conditions and points of view that could affect the viability of

various suggestions and options to use the current facilities to the very maximum and meet

2

program expectations for pupils. The interview meeting helped to further the understandings

about the values and policies that guide the vision of the district and the long-range planning

efforts of the district.

Fourth, a visit was made to each school building hosted by each respective principal. The

principals provided data about the scheduling patterns and use of instructional and

instructional support staff resources that now exist in the schools to implement the program.

Following are findings of the School Building Capacity Analysis and the Enrollment Projection

Study that form the foundation for the rationale of each of the program delivery options suggested

by the study. In addition, findings and inferences made based on the visit to the district are also

discussed.

FINDINGS OF THE K-12 PUPIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

• Pupil Capacity of the Elementary School Buildings in Total

The combined pupil capacity of the elementary buildings is charted below. The pupil capacity is

benchmarked to how the buildings are used to implement the 2013-2014 school year program and to

the class size functional delivery guidelines and goals endorsed by the district. The functional class

size guidelines of the district are:

Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 18-23 pupils Grades 3, 4, 5 21-25 pupils Grades 6, 7, 8 24-26 pupils Grades 9-12 26-27 pupils

Flexibility is exercised on a case-by-case basis regarding class sizes for advanced course offerings at the high school.

The Guilderland Board of Education and Administration follow the district class size goals that are

outlined in the contract with the teachers to implement and deliver the program. The agreement

between Guilderland Central School District and the Guilderland Teachers’ Association contract

addresses ‘class size’ as quoted below:

ARTICLE 11 CLUSTERING, INTER-AGE GROUPINGS, CLASS SIZE 11.1 The present clustering and/or inter-age grouping projects may be extended. Teacher

involvement shall be on a voluntary basis. In no event shall the introduction of such projects result in the termination of a teacher.

11.2 Except in those classrooms where the above projects are underway, an attempt will be made to maintain class size as follows:

• Elementary (K-5) 20-30 students

3

• Middle School (6-8) 20-30 students • High School (9-12) 15-30 students • Secondary Physical Education Classes: no more than 35

students. The average class size for any individual teacher shall not exceed 32.

11.3 At such time as the average class size in a particular building, based upon enrollment as of the last Friday in September, exceeds 24 in Kindergarten, 25 in Grade 1, or 26 in each of Grades 2 and 3, a teaching assistant shall be employed to assist the teacher or teachers of the grade level in excess of such average on the basis of one (1) assistant for each two (2) classes and on the basis of two (2) hours availability in the forenoon and two (2) additional hours availability in the afternoon, the deployment of which teaching assistant(s) shall be with the concurrence of the teacher or teachers of the same grade level and the building principal, lacking such concurrence, shall be at the direction of the building principal.

Therefore, the class size operational goals of the district reflect a flexibility factor in the delivery of

instruction as follows:

Grades K-2, 18-20 pupils per class which reflects a 33% to 40% flexibility factor in implementing the program compared to the class size guideline

of 20 to 30 pupils in the teachers’ contract agreement. Grades 3-5, 21-25 pupils per class which reflects up to a 30% flexibility factor in

implementing the program compared to the class size guideline of 20-30 pupils in the teachers’ contract agreement.

Grades 6-8, 24-26 pupils per class which reflects up to a 20% flexibility factor in implementing the program compared to the class size guideline of 20-30 pupils in the teachers’ contract agreement.

Grades 9-12, 26-27 pupils per class which reflects up to a 13.3% flexibility factor in implementing the program compared to the class size guideline of 15-30 pupils in the teachers’ contract agreement.

Flexibility of program delivery is an important tool in serving pupils and supporting instruction.

Functional operating pupil capacity is calculated based on the class size goals of the district plus

the planning for about 5 to 8% unassigned pupil capacity. It is suggested that the functional

operating capacity estimates are best to use for planning for three main reasons. First, flexibility is

necessary on a case-by-case basis annually to ensure that the pupils of a given school year are

served with a focus on what is educationally sound for those pupils in that school year. Second,

flexibility is necessary to deal with unforeseen ebbs and flows of seasonal enrollment fluctuations.

Third, flexibility is necessary to accommodate program/curriculum improvement ideas of faculty

and staff; and new initiatives supported by grants, for example. Such initiatives and ideas often

need ‘more space’ instead of ‘more money’ to implement them. Class sizes for self-contained

special education classrooms are outlined by SED regulation.

4

The enrollment projections as of March 2014 suggest that Guilderland will likely have a stable K-6

enrollment over the next five years and 7-12 enrollment will likely decline. Therefore, it is

suggested that the concept of functional operating capacity be used to view the estimated use of

pupil capacity of the school buildings three to five years into the future.

Charted below is a summary of the pupil capacity of each Guilderland school building based on the

local class size guidelines and how the principals deploy the spaces to deliver the 2013-2014

program. Please see the complete Pupil Capacity Analysis Study of February 2014 posted on the

school district website for the pupil capacity details of each building.

Summary of the Pupil Capacity of Each Guilderland CSD School Building 2013-2014

School Building

2013-2014 Enrollment (October 1,

2013)

2013-2014 Pupil Capacity K-12 (Not including space rented to BOCES for

regional shared programs or to the Early

Childhood Center.)

Total Pupil Capacity Used in

2013-2014 As Per

Class Size Goals

Remaining Pupil Capacity

Available in 2013-2014

As Per Class Size Goals

Guilderland Grade Level

Pupil Capacity of

Space Currently Rented to BOCES or

the Pre-School Early

Childhood Center

Operating Capacity Given how the Program

is Implemented/Deployed in the Current School

Year Guided by the Local District Class Size Goals

Percentage

Estimated Additional

Pupil Enrollment

that Could be Served Now

% of Pupil

Capacity Not Now

Used Altamont Elementary

290 318-385 75.3%-91.2%

28 to 95 pupils 8.8%- to 24.7%

0

Guilderland Elementary

576 546-672 85.7%-105.5%

-30 to 96 pupils

above by 5.5% to

under by 14.3%

0

Lynnwood Elementary

404 396-476 84.9%-102%

-8 to 72 pupils above by 2% to

under by 15.1%

84-100

Pine Bush Elementary

396 417-509 77.8%-95% 21 to 113 pupils

5% to 22.2%

147-175

Westmere Elementary

445 468-576 77.3%-95.1%

23 to 131 pupils

4.9% to 22.7%

84-100

Total K-5: 2111 2145-2618 80.6%-

98.4% 34 to 507

pupils 1.6% to 19.4%

315 to 375 pupils

Farnsworth

Middle School Total 6-8:

1141 1527-1631 70%-75.7% 386 to 490 pupils

25.3% to 30%

24-26

High School

Total 9-12:

1736

2128-2179 79.7%-81.6%

392 to 443 pupils

18.4% to 20.3%

26-27

Total

K-12:

4988

5800-6428

77.6%-86% 812 to 1440

pupils 14% to 22.4%

365 to 458 pupils

FINDINGS

5

If one assumes that it is prudent to have at least 5% of unassigned pupil capacity to allow

flexibility in the delivery of the program, then the pupil capacity of the elementary schools is

under-utilized by about 14%; the Middle School is under-utilized by about 25%; and the High

School is under-used by about 17% given the current method of scheduling the use of

instructional spaces.

Grade level: Maximum Class Size as per Teachers’ Contract

Maximum Class Size as per School District Discretionary Goals Now Practices in 2013-2014

% of Pupil Capacity ‘Not Used’ in 2013-2014 as Measured by the Discretionary School District Class Size Goals

% of Pupil Capacity Not Used in 2013-2014 as per the Discretionary Class Size Goals and Accounting For a 5% Unassigned Pupil Capacity for Flexibility of Program Delivery

K,1,2 3,4,5

30 23 19.4% 14.4% 30 25

6,7,8 30 26 30% 25% 9, 10, 11, 12 30 27 22.4% 17.4%

OBSERVATIONS:

The pupil capacities available at each existing elementary school is a major element in identifying ‘doable’ scenario options that may possibly allow the district to organize and implement the Pre-K-5 program more efficiently. Other variables like the distances between each of the buildings and sets of buildings along with the historical number of elementary age level students who live in each geographic attendance zone will also have major influence on crafting ‘doable’ scenario options.

It is important to note that pupil capacity of a school building is directly related to class

size guidelines/goals of the district. Pupil capacity is also related to how many instructional spaces are used for direct instruction and how many spaces are assigned to instructional support programs which do not generate pupil capacity in an elementary or a secondary school. The delivery of the expected curriculum program is the overall driving factor that determines the pupil capacity of the building. The expected curriculum program is defined and approved by the Board of Education.

Guilderland rents space to programs provided on a shared basis to consortium school

districts of the region through the Capital Region BOCES. The best place to educate special needs pupils is their home district. However, when space or numbers of similar pupils with similar needs do not exist, the next best place to serve special needs pupils is in a public school setting in a program provided on a shared basis by a BOCES. Guilderland rents elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms to the Capital

FINDINGS

6

Region BOCES to enable the availability of quality and appropriate special needs pupil programming to Guilderland pupils as well as to pupils from member school districts of the Capital BOCES consortium. The willingness of Guilderland to host such shared special needs programs through BOCES suggests a strong district value and philosophy about serving all students in an integrated and inclusionary fashion. It also underscores school district commitment to the diligent and focused work necessary for implementing special needs integration and inclusion programming successfully by Guilderland faculty and staff. In addition, Pine Bush Elementary space is rented to the Early Childhood Center. The Center serves pre-school three to five year olds.

In addition, there are pragmatic benefits to collaborating on a regional basis to provide quality instructional space for shared programming. First, any Guilderland pupils enrolled in consortium-shared programs receive an appropriate program and are served in their home district. Second, Guilderland receives an annual rental income for hosting the classrooms. In 2013-2014 the total rent revenue is about $529,000. Third, Guilderland staff benefit from daily instructional collaboration with instructional colleague specialists of the BOCES and the Early Childhood Center. Fourth, the operating capacity of the classrooms rented to BOCES to serve pupils from the region is counted in addition to the allowed capacity substantiated by the K-12 enrollments of the pupils who live in the Guilderland School District when capital/renovation projects are reviewed by the State Education Department. Therefore, the rooms rented to the BOCES to benefit children from the region generate additional building aid ceilings for the Guilderland buildings that host them when capital projects are undertaken by the Guilderland School District and its taxpayers.

A fifth benefit to Guilderland from renting ‘un-needed’ classroom space is that the district has been able to help justify keeping all five ‘neighborhood’ elementary schools open even though Guilderland CSD annual enrollments since at least 2008-2009 have been lower than the total pupil capacity available in the five elementary schools.

Pupil Capacity as per District Class Size Goals:

Minimum: 2145

Maximum: 2618

10% of pupil capacity undesignated for flexibility of program delivery:

Estimated excess pupil capacity in the five elementary schools:

Available ‘Unused’ Pupil

Capacity Year K-5

Enrollment

2008 2194 -49 424 43 381 2009 2191 -46 427 43 384 2010 2184 -39 434 44 390 2011 2088 57 530 53 477 2012 2090 55 528 53 475 2013 2111 34 507 51 455

The table on the next page identifies the rental spaces in the five elementary schools and the corresponding excess grade level classroom ‘pupil capacity’ represented by those spaces.

FINDINGS

7

2013-2014 Enrollment:

2011

Pupil Capacity as per District Goals:

2145-2618

‘Excess Pupil Capacity’ Less 10% Unassigned Capacity for Program Flexibility

2013 “ Excess Pupil Capacity” Rented: (see table below)

Altamont Elementary 290 318-385

345

0 Guilderland Elementary 576 546-672 0 Lynnwood Elementary 404 396-476 100 Pine Bush Elementary 396 417-509 175 Westmere Elementary 445 318-385 100

Total: 375

2013-2014 ELEMENTARY SPACE RENTED BY GUILDERLAND CSD

LYNNWOOD ELEMENTARY BOCES 12:1:3 153 770

Rented Pupil Capacity: 84-100

BOCES 12:1:3 152 770 BOCES 8:1:3 151 770 BOCES Instructional Support

158 720

PINE BUSH ELEMENTARY ECEC Rental 300 830

Rented Pupil Capacity: 147-175

ECEC Rental 301 820 ECEC Rental 302 820 ECEC Rental 304 820 ECEC Rental 305 830

WESTMERE ELEMENTARY BOCES 8:1:1 114 789 Rented Pupil Capacity:

84-100 BOCES 8:1:1 116 789 BOCES 12:1:1 152 802 BOCES 8:1:1 151 802

Rented ‘excess elementary pupil capacity’ in 2013-2014: 315 to 375 pupils If the rental opportunities were not available to Guilderland, or Guilderland decided to curtail renting, then the future enrollment K-5 estimates, given the pupil capacity available, suggest that one fewer elementary school is necessary to deliver the current Guilderland K-5 program. Re-drawing the five current elementary attendance zones to service by four elementary attendance zones would be necessary. The study does not provide a scenario option that ends renting space to the BOCES or the Early Childhood Education Center or for the Deaf/Hard of Hearing Program. Such a scenario option that does end the rental of space and is a viable option given the future enrollment projections for the district if the district wished to close a building. Currently, the district rents the equivalent of the Westmere Elementary School. Westmere’s pupil capacity is up to 385. The District rents pupil capacity equaling about 375. However, the renting of the space to partner educational agencies has long been part of the Guilderland culture as a school district and a regional educational partner with other school districts. It seems to be an intrinsic value of the district. If Guilderland made the

FINDINGS

8

value judgment to curtail renting, this section of the study gives Guilderland sufficient data to create and pursue a scenario ‘what if’ option as to how the Guilderland K-5 program could be served in fewer buildings with excess space not rented.

The Middle School architectural design includes the instructional delivery tool of 7

subject area teacher work-office rooms. The availability of such professional support spaces are a key element for buildings that deliver a middle school program. The teacher workrooms include adult desks with the purpose of providing professional space for teams of teachers to meet/work together/collaborate. Such a tool allows the classrooms to be utilized for classes throughout the day for instruction in a shared manner. For example, when an English teacher has an assigned preparation period, a Social Studies teacher of the team will be teaching in the classroom while the English teacher is in the Professional Work-Office Room working on preparation or collaboration with other colleagues. Because of declining enrollment in grades 6-8 in the recent past, the teacher team workrooms are not used as a main tool as they once were. Instead, classrooms tend to be assigned to one teacher. When that teacher is not with a class, the classroom is vacant. Team meetings and collaborative planning are held in classrooms instead of the Teacher Work Rooms.

To illustrate, here is a sample set of four rooms and how they are used in the school day this school year. Room HR

10 min.

Per. 1

40 min.

Per. 2

40 min.

Per. 3

40 min.

Per. 4

30 min.

Per. 5

10 min.

Per. 6

30 min.

Per. 7

10 min.

Per. 8

30 min.

Per. 9

10 min.

Per. 10

30

min.

Per. 11

40

min.

Per. 12

40 min.

Per. 13

40

min.

356 Collab. planning

Personal planning

Team Planning

Lunch duty 304 duty 357 duty 303 duty Faculty members each teach 5 class periods plus have one supervisory duty period either in a classroom or in the cafeteria or similar location. In addition, each faculty member is assigned one period for collaborative planning, one period for team planning, and one period for personal planning. All staff receive a 30 minute duty-free lunch.

In the example charted above, each room can accommodate nine 40 minute instructional classes for a total of 36 classes daily by the four classrooms. However, only 24 classes/duty periods are assigned daily in total to the four classrooms. Assume that a “personal planning” assignment is best located in the room a teacher instructs classes. Also, assume “collaborative planning” and “team planning” requires only one setting to accommodate a group/team of teachers. If the teacher professional workrooms were once again used as the work location for teaming and collaboration, then, in the example above, there are eight periods daily (four rooms x 2 periods) that could accommodate assigned instructional classes taught by other faculty members instead of remaining vacant.

FINDINGS

9

The Middle School serves four sets of middle school pupils in a teacher team structure to deliver the instruction. One ‘house’ serves elementary grade 6 and three ‘houses’ serve secondary grades 7 and 8. In 2013-2014, the Middle School serves 1141 pupils with the four ‘houses’. There are 375 grade 6 pupils and 766 grade 7 and 8 pupils enrolled. If the Professional Work-Office Rooms were again used and classes were scheduled for instructional use up to 8 periods a day, the Middle School conservatively can likely serve up to an additional 329 pupils in a teaming instructional delivery model.

Not assigning just one classroom to a teacher can allow the Middle School to serve more pupils without overcrowding. There are 59 classrooms at the Middle School. If fourteen classrooms per period, now vacant of instruction, are used to serve pupils, then about 329 additional pupils can be served at the Middle School keeping within class size guidelines and the facilities available for instruction. Therefore, there are scenario options listed in the study that use the alternative pupil capacity for the Middle School.

The Pupil Capacity Study is a useful tool to help judge if the current spaces assigned to

instructional support activities are equitable across the district. The instructional support space data of the elementary school buildings can aid in local discussion of some typical program discussion questions such as:

o What should be the reason for the availability of a unique instructional support space and program in an elementary building and not in other elementary buildings?

o What currently unique instructional support spaces and services should be in each elementary school consistently as district-wide elements of the Board-authorized elementary program?

o What instructional support spaces and services are appropriately unique to one or more elementary buildings and attendance zones?

o Are there other instructional support spaces or services that should be authorized as part of the program of each elementary school building? Each secondary school?

The chart on the next page identifies spaces assigned to instructional support activities in the elementary buildings in the current school year. In school districts with sharply declining elementary enrollment, it is common to find the assignment of instructional support services to rooms that are large enough to serve instructional grade level section classrooms. Such a practice is appropriate. When school building space is available because of decreasing enrollment, a typical guiding rule of good principalship is “when quality instructional space is available, do not turn the lights out, do not use it for storage, use it somehow to serve pupils.” For example, in a school building with falling enrollment, one might find speech services, that are delivered in an individual or 3 to 4 pupil group, assigned to a full sized classroom of 770 square feet or larger instead of a more appropriate space of 200 to 400 square feet. The Guilderland pupil capacity analysis finds the support services that are assigned to spaces, which are large enough to

FINDINGS

10

serve grade level sections, are based on pedagogical reasons. A prime example is the space assigned for Reading Support Services. All of the rooms assigned for Reading in all the elementary buildings are large enough to host grade level class sections. However, in Guilderland, two to four reading teachers team in an assigned classroom to serve pupils in two to four small groups simultaneously instead of serving pupils in smaller 200 to 400 square feet spaces as isolated individual teachers. In many cases, the reading instructional support classroom with a team of reading teachers is located adjacent and with internal access to the library of the school building. It seems to reinforce the theme of ‘literacy’ for all and not just an ‘extra help’ service. Instructional support space in an elementary building does not have ‘pupil capacity’ assigned to it. Only space that serves grade level sections generates ‘pupil capacity’. If an instructional support space is changed to serve a grade level section instead of a support service, then it does have a pupil capacity assigned to its use as a grade level classroom. A step in the study is to work with the principals to identify spaces that are large enough to serve instructional grade level section classrooms instead of instructional support service and/or could appropriately share with another instructional support service in a different location in the building without hindering the instructional support service to pupils. The study step is important to identify if a school could likely accommodate more class sections than it does now if enrollment increased for that building. The findings of the study do not suggest that there is a set of rooms that should be re-designated to grade level sections to increase pupil capacity. The school likely could accommodate more classes than the study is using for its analysis of pupil capacity. However, doing so would likely require changes to the current program offering. For example, the principals might possibly review the space currently assigned in some schools to ESL instruction, conference rooms, Occupational/Physical Therapy, and Special Education Resource. If these instructional support services were served in typically sized spaces for the service provided instead of in full-sized classrooms, then the pupil capacity of a respective building could be increased. The Reading instructional support rooms are another example. The instructional support service of Reading is assigned to spaces that are large enough to serve grade level class sections. Typically, Reading is assigned to spaces of about 400 to 500 square feet. However, at Guilderland, it is a team of two to four Reading specialists who serve pupils in small groups in the assigned Reading instructional support space of 770+ square feet.

FINDINGS

11

SUPPORT SERVICE

ALTAMONT ELEM.

GUILDERLAND ELEM.

LYNNWOOD ELEM.

PINE BUSH ELEM.

WESTMERE ELEM.

Library 1907 2320 2100 2000 2835 Computer Lab 820 763

Computer Lab and Speech

743 270/270

Music 780 Music 821 700 850 830 739

Instrumental music 806 700 310 830 364 Physical Education 2520 8000 4000 5845 3758 Physical Education 2400

Cafeteria 2413 3720 2000 2660 4760 Stage 680 900 1070 740 560 Nurse 300 445 350 308 374

Psychologist 119 230 137 246 96 Speech Shared 743 Speech 140 400 128 322 268

Social Worker 370 350 280 345 150 Remedial Services

(AIS)-Math 760 280 820 763

Reading Intervention 97 Reading Intervention 87

ESL Instruction 750 117 475 414 OT/PT 821 470 770 345 783

Art 1047 870 760 770 780 Faculty Workroom 730 870 588 840 763 Reading Teachers 784 720 840 1160 723 Reading Teachers 723 IST/Conference

Room 223 270 770 789

Special Needs Resource

730 750 730 830 763

Special Needs Resource

730 430 480 783

Copy room 277 163 88 BOCES RENTAL

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT

720 120

BOCES RENTAL INSTRUCTIONAL

SUPPORT

263 470

BOCES RENTAL INSTRUCTIONAL

SUPPORT

434

* Please note that a blank next to a support service/program indicates that this school building does not have a space assigned to the support service/program and that other elementary building(s) in the district do have assigned space.

FINDINGS

12

There are 106 grade level classrooms serving grades K-5 in 2013-2014. Fifty-six are

sized at or above the minimum 770 square feet suggested by the SED for elementary grade rooms. Fifty of the 106 are sized below the minimum suggested square footage. All of the elementary classrooms meet the square footage minimum suggested requirements to serve the class sizes defined by the school district class size goals; 18-23 for grades kindergarten through grade two, 21-25 for grades three through five. The buildings with classrooms below 770 square feet may be challenged as the district plans and possibly implements such example initiatives as: instructional technology teaching-learning opportunities; integration of ‘push-in’ services to the regular classroom for special needs pupils; science-technology-engineering-mathematics curriculum (STEM); team and consultant teaching techniques.

Classroom sizes Used to Deliver Grade Level Instruction in 2013-2014

Square Footage 900+ 800 to 899 770 to 799 700 to 769 550 to 699

SCHOOL BUILDING

Above or at standard classroom square footage.

Below standard classroom square footage.

Altamont 2 13 Guilderland 4 2 22 Lynnwood 3 10 5 Pine Bush 2 18 1 Westmere 4 4 6 10 The pupil capacities of the current elementary schools from smallest to largest are charted

below:

Elementary School: Pupil Capacity Based on the Minimum-Maximum Class Size Goals of the District and the Use of Existing Classroom Spaces in 2013-2014

Altamont 318-385 Lynnwood 396-476 Pine Bush 417-509 Westmere 468-576

Guilderland 546-672

Total: 2145-2618

2013-2014 K-5 Enrollment: 2111

Elementary Schools currently at 98.4% of pupil capacity based on the minimum district class size goals and 80.6% pupil capacity based on the maximum district class size goals

The Middle School in 2013-2014 is at 70 to 75.7% of operating capacity benchmarked to the

class size goals of the district. The High School in 2013-2014 is at 79.7 to 81.6%% of operating capacity benchmarked to the

class size goals of the district.

FINDINGS

13

• Grade Level Class Section Enrollments Grades K-5 in 2013-2014 The tables that follow list the grade level class section sizes at each of the elementary schools.

Also listed is the range in grade level class section sizes and the average grade level class section

size at each school. The data help demonstrate the connection among the class size goals of the

district; the number of pupil residents in a respective attendance zone; and the grade level class

section sizes in each current elementary attendance zone. The chart also illustrates any ‘equity

gaps’ in class section sizes among the five elementary attendance zones. The ‘equity gaps’ are a

result of the size of a particular age level cohort of students who live in a current attendance

zone. The lack of pupils of an age level in an attendance zone usually hinders the effective

delivery of the program as close to the class size goals of the district.

2013-2014 SCHOOL YEAR ELEMENTARY GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2013

( ) is the number of special needs pupils integrated in the class section

with either an Independent Education Program or a 504 Plan*

GRADE LEVEL ALTAMONT ELEM.

GUILDERLAND ELEM.

LYNNWOOD ELEM.

PINE BUSH ELEM.

WESTMERE ELEM.

KINDERGARTEN Class size goal:

18-23

14 20 (1) 24 19 (1) 20 17 (4) 22 23 20 (1) 19 (3)

21 (1) 19 (2) 19 22 (3) 20

K Range 14-17 20-22 23-24 19-20 19-20 K Average 15.5 21.3 23.5 19.3 19.5

GRADE 1

Class size goal: 18-23

19 18 (3) 20 21 23 18 18 20 21 (4) 22 (4)

19 (2) 19 19 23 (3) 19 18 (2)

GRADE 1 Range 18-19 18-19 19-20 21-21 22-23 GRADE 1 Average 18.7 18.4 19.7 21 22.7

GRADE 2


23 18 (1) 22 19 (3) 18 22 (3) 19 (5) 19 20 (1) 17

19 (1) 21 20 (1) 17 17 (3) 17 (3) 20 (1)

GRADE 2 Range 22-23 17-20 19-22 19-20 17-18 GRADE 2 Average 22.5 18.6 20.7 19.7 17.3

GRADE 3


22 (1) 24 (3) 16 22 (3) 19 22 (3) 22 (4) 19 21 (1) 19

24 18 21 18 (6) 22 (1) 20 (5) 19

GRADE 3 Range 22-22 22-24 16-19 20-22 18-19 GRADE 3 Average 22 23 17.7 21 18.8

FINDINGS

14

GRADE LEVEL ALTAMONT ELEM.

GUILDERLAND ELEM.

LYNNWOOD ELEM.

PINE BUSH ELEM.

WESTMERE ELEM.

GRADE 4 Class size goal:

21-25

17 18 26 23 (1) 20 20 (3) 20 (3) 22 22 (6) 19 16 (3) 20 (1) 25 23 (3) 18

20 (1) 19 (4) 20 (5)

GRADE 4 Range 16-20 18-20 22-26 22-23 18-20 GRADE 4 Average 17.7 19.6 24.3 22.7 19

GRADE 5


17 21 (5) 18 21 (2) 20 17 (3) 22 (5) 21 21 (7) 19 19 (3) 21 (5) 18 21 (5) 21 (3)

22 (1) 20 22 (3) 19 21 (4)

GRADE 5 Range 17-19 21-22 18-21 21-22 19-21 GRADE 5 Average 17.7 21.4 19.3 21.2 19.8

* An IEP is an Individualized Education Program plan for special needs pupils. A 504 plan is not an IEP, but a plan for moving a pupil from a special education to a regular education placement. If a child has a disability that does not adversely affect educational performance, then the child is not eligible for special education services. However, he/she will usually be entitled to service/accommodations defined by a 504 plan. The table below rank orders grade level class size average data for 2013-2014 building by building.

GRADE LEVEL

SCHOOL AVERAGE GRADE LEVEL SECTION

SIZE RANK-ORDERED LOWEST TO

HIGHEST 2013-2014 School Year

NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST

GRADE LEVEL AVERAGE CLASS SIZE AMONG THE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

KINDERGARTEN Class size goal:

18-23

ALTAMONT 15.5 Grade Kindergarten Equity Gap:

8 pupils; 34% difference high to low

PINE BUSH 19.3 WESTMERE 19.5

GUILDERLAND 21.3 LYNNWOOD 23.5

GRADE 1


GUILDERLAND 18.4 Grade One Equity Gap:

4.3 pupils; 18.9% difference high to low

ALTAMONT 18.7 LYNNWOOD 19.7 PINE BUSH 21

WESTMERE 22.7


18-23

WESTMERE 17.3 Grade Two Equity Gap:

5.2 pupils 23.1% difference high to low

GUILDERLAND 18.6 PINE BUSH 19.7

LYNNWOOD 20.7 ALTAMONT 22.5

FINDINGS

15

GRADE LEVEL

SCHOOL AVERAGE GRADE LEVEL SECTION

SIZE RANK-ORDERED LOWEST TO

HIGHEST 2013-2014 School Year

NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST

GRADE LEVEL AVERAGE CLASS SIZE AMONG THE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS


21-25

LYNNWOOD 17.7 Grade Three Equity Gap:

5.3 pupils; 23% difference high to low

WESTMERE 18.8 PINE BUSH 21

ALTAMONT 22 GUILDERLAND 23

GRADE 4


ALTAMONT 17.7 Grade Four Equity Gap:


WESTMERE 19 GUILDERLAND 19.6

PINE BUSH 22.7 LYNNWOOD 24.3

GRADE 5


ALTAMONT 17.7 Grade Five Equity Gap:


LYNNWOOD 19.3 WESTMERE 19.8 PINE BUSH 21.2

GUILDERLAND 21.4

The table on the next page lists the on-average ‘efficient deployment’ of instructional staff skills

at each grade level K-5 for 2013-2014. The table is based on the premise that the local

Guilderland operational class size goals define the ‘efficient deployment’ of instructional staff.

That is, unless there is a clearly defined student need variable that requires a class size lower

than the class size goal of the district, an indicator of ‘financial efficiency’ in deploying staff is

how close the average of the class sections at each grade level in a school building approaches

the district class size goal for that grade level.

For example, at grade five 25 pupils is the class size maximum goal. If the average of all of the

class sections of grade five at a school equals 20, then the on-average collective utilization of

instructional staff assigned at grade five in that school is 20 divided by 25 resulting in a

‘deployment efficiency indicator’ of 80% as defined by the maximum district class size goal. If

the average of all of the class sections of grade five at a school equals 20, then the on-average

collective utilization of instructional staff assigned at grade five in that school is 20 divided by

21 resulting in a ‘deployment efficiency indicator’ of 95% as defined by the minimum district

class size goal. This approach of viewing and discussing ‘efficient deployment’ of instructional

staff is not an absolute measure nor should it be an absolute decision guide. Delivering

FINDINGS

16

instruction is a human enterprise and flexibility in the implementation of instruction because of

pre-defined variables cannot be ignored. At the same time, professional instructional human

resources are the backbone of the public school enterprise funded with public resources. The

study suggests that an on-average utilization of instructional staff as benchmarked to the district

grade level class section size goal between 90% and 100% is one reasonable criterion/objective

to help define the ‘efficient deployment of teaching staff’.

In addition, viewing the utilization of staff in this manner helps the local district discussion about

weighing the cost of implementing the program guided by the minimum district class size goal as

compared to the maximum class size goal for a grade level. In the grade five example on the

previous page, the additional cost of implementing the program at grade five using the minimum

class size goal requires on average 15% more of an FTE instructor as compared to implementing

the program at grade five using the maximum class size goal. The average 2013-2014 full time

equivalent cost (all inclusive of salary and all benefits) of a K through grade 6 teacher in

Guilderland is $93,698. Therefore, implementing the program at grade 5 using the minimum

district class size goal costs an additional $14,054 on average per grade five level class section.

Only the school district can decide if there are measureable value-added learning outcomes by

delivering grade 5 with an on-average class size at the minimum goal of 21, compared to the

maximum class size goal of 25 pupils at the additional on-average per class section cost of about

$14,000. One quality study to help the discussion is the research by the Brown Center on

Education Policy at Brookings, Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State

Policy, Published May 11, 2011. 2013-2014

GRADE LEVEL

SCHOOL

AVERAGE GRADE LEVEL

SECTION SIZE

On Average ‘Efficient Deployment’

of Instructional Staff Skill sets Benchmarked to District Class Size

MINIMUM Goal for the Grade Level

(average grade level class size at a school divided by the minimum

district class size goal for the grade level)



MAXIMUM Goal for the Grade Level

(average grade level class size at a school divided by the maximum


K Class

size goal: 18-23

ALTAMONT 15.5 86% 67% PINE BUSH 19.3 107% 84%

WESTMERE 19.5 108% 85% GUILDERLAND 21.3 118% 93%

LYNNWOOD 23.5 131% 102%

FINDINGS

17

GRADE LEVEL

SCHOOL

AVERAGE GRADE LEVEL

SECTION SIZE



MINIMUM Goal for the Grade Level

(average grade level class size at a school divided by the minimum




MAXIMUM Goal for the Grade Level

(average grade level class size at a school divided by the maximum


GRADE 1

Class size goal:

18-23

GUILDERLAND 18.4 102% 80% ALTAMONT 18.7 104% 81% LYNNWOOD 19.7 109% 86% PINE BUSH 21 117% 91%

WESTMERE 22.7 126% 99%

GRADE 2

Class size goal:

18-23

WESTMERE 17.3 96% 75% GUILDERLAND 18.6 103% 81%

PINE BUSH 19.7 109% 86% LYNNWOOD 20.7 115% 90% ALTAMONT 22.5 125* 98%

GRADE

3 Class

size goal: 21-25

LYNNWOOD 17.7 84% 71% WESTMERE 18.8 90% 75% PINE BUSH 21 100% 84%

ALTAMONT 22 105% 88% GUILDERLAND 23 110% 92%

GRADE

4 Class

size goal: 21-25

ALTAMONT 17.7 84% 71% WESTMERE 19 90% 76%

GUILDERLAND 19.6 93% 78% PINE BUSH 22.7 108% 91%

LYNNWOOD 24.3 116% 97%

GRADE 5

Class size goal:

21-25

ALTAMONT 17.7 84% 71% LYNNWOOD 19.3 92% 77% WESTMERE 19.8 94% 79% PINE BUSH 21.2 101% 85%

GUILDERLAND 21.4 102% 86%

OBSERVATIONS:

Out of the 103 class sections serving grades Kindergarten through grade 5 pupils in 2013-2014, the

number of grade level sections that are: Below the

minimum class size goals set by

the district

At the minimum class size goals

set by the district

At the maximum class size goals

set by the district

Above the maximum class size goals set by

the district

In between the minimum and

maximum class size goals by the district

35 15 5 1 47 34% 15% 4% 1% 46%

FINDINGS

18

Only five K-5 elementary sections are at or above the maximum class size goals of the district which substantiates that the district is not facing an overcrowding challenge in serving grades K-5. 46% (47) of the 103 class sections fall within the minimum-maximum class size goals of the district. Clearly, the class size goals of the district guide the implementation and delivery of the program.

49% or 50 of the 103 class sections are either below or at the minimum class size goals of

the district. It suggests that the present location of the current elementary school zones and the number of attendance zones may be inhibiting the achievement of class section size goals in grades kindergarten through grade 5. In addition, as a by-product, the equity of class section sizes among buildings with the same grade levels is not achieved in all grade levels.

The plurality of grades K-5 class sections falls in between the minimum and maximum

class size goals of the district and defines ‘a norm’ for the district. Therefore, the study will begin to use the following average of the class size district goals to develop/describe possible scenario options to deliver the program differently over the next three to five years.

Grade Levels Minimum Goal Maximum Goal Average of the Class Size Parameters K, 1, 2 18 23 21 3, 4, 5 21 25 23

If one applies the average of the class size district goals to the total pupils in each grade kindergarten through grade 5, then 90 grade level sections instead of 103 could serve all of the (2013-2014) K-5 pupils. It assumes a delivery pattern is configured that provides enough of a grade level population at a site(s) to meet the average of the grade level section class size goals of the district.

2013-2014

Enrollment Average of the Class Size Goals

Optimal Number of Sections Needed to Deliver the Program

K 300 23 13 1 328 23 15 2 345 23 15 3 349 25 14 4 379 25 16 5 409 25 17

Total: 90 It is important to point out that determining class size delivery is not just a mathematical

exercise of dividing the total population by the class size goal. A priority element is deciding how best to serve a specific set of pupils given their learning skill sets and the instructional goals for those pupils. Pedagogy and skill sets of the teacher are usually considered primary variables. Class size is also a variable. Therefore, having some flexibility by leaving a factor of unassigned pupil capacity for a building is a good planning step. Therefore, the study is not suggesting that 90 Kindergarten through grade

FINDINGS

19

5 class sections is ‘what ought to exist’ instead of the current 103 sections. The study is suggesting that there may be scenario options that may require fewer than the current 103 sections, serve pupils within the class size goals of the district, and support the expected program delivery standards.

Given that there are five elementary attendance zones with no ‘guarantee’ of pupil cohort

populations at a particular grade level, the district is achieving ‘equity’ (balance) of class sizes within grade levels within each building. However, there are some equity gaps in grade level class section sizes between and among the elementary school buildings and the attendance zones they serve.

The grade level section equity gaps are not a result of poor resource allocation or class

section assignment. Rather, the gaps occur simply because of the lack of pupils at a particular grade level who live within the various elementary attendance zones. Only the district can judge what is an acceptable difference in average grade level class sizes between and among the elementary schools.

In 2013-2014, the equity gaps between the lowest and highest grade level section class

sizes among the elementary buildings for grades kindergarten through grade five range from 3.7 pupils to 8 pupils. There is no one configuration or plan that can guarantee that there will be no equity gaps between grade level section class averages in one school compared to another. However, are there grade level building configurations and/or attendance zone change options that might reduce the equity gaps in average grade level section sizes between and among the elementary school buildings?

Kindergarten Class Size Equity Gap: 8 pupils

Altamont lowest average at 15.5

Lynnwood highest average at 23.5

34% difference

Grade Four Class Size Equity Gap: 6.6 pupils


Lynnwood highest average at 24.3

27.2% difference

Grade Two Class Size Equity Gap: 5.2 pupils

Westmere lowest average at 17.3

Altamont highest average at 22.5

23.1% difference

Grade Three Class Size Equity Gap: 5.3 pupils

Lynnwood lowest average at 17.7

Guilderland highest average at 23

23% difference

Grade One Size Equity Gap: 4.3 pupils

Guilderland lowest average at 18.4

Westmere highest average at 22.7

18.9% difference

Grade Five Size Equity Gap: 3.7 pupils


Guilderland highest average at 21.4

17.3% difference

The district may begin to experience ‘dilemma decision’ circumstances as enrollment in the

current five attendance zones decreases or increases. Such ‘dilemma decisions’ occur when the district must consider the best interest of children in deciding to increase or decrease the number of grade level class sections to implement and honor its values about the class size goals of the district. On the next page is an example using the current school year grade 4 and grade 5 enrollments at Altamont Elementary.

FINDINGS

20

Grade 4: average class size goal 23 Grade 5: average class size goal 23 Six Classroom Sections Currently at Altamont 17 17 20 17 16 19

106 pupils to serve An alternative method of delivering instruction: Multi-age Level Delivery Model

Five Classroom Sections Grade 4 Grade 5

22 22 22 22

Plus One Multi-age Level Classroom of 18 pupils 106 pupils served

When such enrollment circumstances occur, as illustrated above, at the same time at two or three other grade levels at multiple schools, the district is faced with deploying more staff than might be necessary to serve pupils within the class size goals of the district. The implementation of a multi-age level pedagogy to deliver instruction can help assign staff in a more cost-efficient manner without jeopardizing the commitment to the established class size goals of the district. Each elementary FTE at Guilderland CSD on average costs $93,698 inclusive of all costs for salary and benefits in 2013-2014. Other districts, when faced with the circumstances described above, often implement a multi-age level delivery model. Such a model enables a school district to adhere to its class size values and to deploy talented teaching staff efficiently. Guilderland CSD may wish to explore and consider the multi-age delivery concept as one method to deal with ‘dilemma decisions’ regarding the number of elementary grade level sections and meeting the class size average goals of the district. Article 11.1 of the Teachers’ Contract addresses clustering and/or inter-age grouping projects. It states: “The present clustering and/or inter-age grouping projects may be extended. Teacher involvement shall be on a voluntary basis. In no event shall the introduction of such projects result in the termination of a teacher.” The district may want to determine if a multi-age class section delivery model is a “project”. The implementation example above allows about $93,698 to reduce budget expenditures and/or to be used differently and reallocated to provide a different resource for pupils like an added reading teacher, for example. What is a multi-age level delivery model?

The multi-age instructional delivery technique uses a flexible age and curricular approach to instruction. Students within an age range of usually a two-year span are grouped together into classroom sections. The focus of curriculum delivery in a multi-age classroom is using varied learning opportunities such as learning centers that emphasize a ‘shared learning’ experience with other students and the teacher. The multi-age delivery method can help students more readily learn at their own pace with recognition of the

FINDINGS

21

varied learning styles of individual students. Recent research has shown that there are benefits to a wide range of learners in this type of instructional model. In addition to the potential for providing options for the instruction of students, the multi-age model can also better handle fluctuations in student enrollment. In a traditional class section model, a drop in students at one level can cause one classroom to end up with higher enrollment while another may have quite lower enrollment. With a multi-age model, student numbers that go up or down can more readily be absorbed without negatively affecting class size equity. The option may be a tool to help ensure class size equity among the elementary buildings of the district when the elementary enrollments in the separate attendance zones become out of balance by age/grade level of pupils.

It is a pedagogy that requires talented and skilled teachers and the support of those teachers with materials and in-service opportunities regarding differentiated instruction skills. Generally, a multi-age classroom teacher: is flexible; has skill sets to work with differentiated learning groups; is an effective communicator with students, staff, and parents; desires to grow professionally; demonstrates values and skills regarding adaption and change. Generally, a multi-age classroom pupil: possesses peer leadership skills; has the ability and desire to work independently at times; ‘naturally’ has cooperative learning skills and works well with other students; may be a student with an IEP (Individual Learning Program plan) and can benefit from a diverse class.

The study suggests that the ‘efficient deployment’ of instructional staff is defined by the local Guilderland class size goals of the district. An indicator of ‘financial efficiency’ in deploying staff is how close the average of the class sections at each grade level in a school building approaches the district average class size goal for that grade level. A reasonable exception is when there is a clearly pre-defined student need variable that requires a class size lower than the class size goal of the district at a particular grade level at a particular school in a given year.

There are 30 grade level class size averages in the five elementary schools collectively.

In thirteen instances (43.3%), the ‘efficient deployment’ of staff falls below 90%. In five instances (16.7%), the ‘efficient deployment’ of staff exceeds 100%. The data suggest that the lack of student population at various grade levels in various attendance zones is a challenge in implementing the program ‘efficiently’ as defined by district class size goals. Are there option scenarios that might enable a higher rate of ‘efficient deployment’ of staff?

Grade; Average Class Size District Goal

ALTAMONT GUILDERLAND

LYNNWOOD

PINE BUSH WESTMERE

Average grade level section size 2013-2014--On Average ‘Efficiency of Deployment’ K; 21 15.5 74% 21.3 101% 23.5 112% 19.3 92% 19.5 93% One; 21 18.7 89% 18.4 88% 19.7 94% 21 100% 22.7 108% Two; 21 22.5 107% 18.6 89% 20.7 99% 19.7 94% 17.3 82% Three; 23 22 96% 23 100% 17.7 77% 21 91% 18.8 82% Four; 23 17.7 77% 19.6 85% 24.3 106% 22.7 99% 19 83% Five; 23 17.7 77% 21.4 93% 19.3 84% 21.2 92% 19.8 86%

FINDINGS

22

FINDINGS OF THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS (The complete Enrollment Projection Study of March 2014 is posted on the website of the school district). Variables that can Influence Future School District Enrollments The six sources of current and projected school district enrollment are:

• live births within the school district and their eventual kindergarten enrollment in the district;

• new household population with children who move to the district; • new population who move to the district who are at child-bearing age and plan to begin a

family; • enrollment of students from non-public schools or from home schooling settings; • school program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the

school district in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation;

• a change by other public schools, if any, who tuition students to attend Guilderland School District.

If there are data to suggest that one or more of the variables listed above will not continue into

the near future of the next five years in the same historical pattern, then the baseline enrollment

projections results are modified to estimate the potential impact the variable(s) may have on

future school district enrollments. The enrollment projection calculations update estimates are

based on live births within the school district and the historical pattern of grade level enrollments

since 2008. The Enrollment Project Study of March 2014 discusses the above variables and the

Guilderland School District. Historical Perspective of Annual Grade Level Enrollments Total K-12 enrollment in the five enrollment years since 2008-2009 has changed from 5323

pupils to 4925 in the current school year. 398 fewer pupils equate to a -7.48% change over the

past six years. The six-year average is 5120 pupils and the median is 5137. The total enrollment

in grades K-5 changed from 2194 in 2008 to the current year total of 2110; a decrease of 84 or -

3.8%. The total enrollment in grades 6-8 changed from 1222 in 2008 to the current year total of

1128; a decrease of 94 or 7.7%. The total enrollment in grades 9-12 changed from 1907 in 2008

to the current year total of 1687; a decline of 232 or 14.6%.

FINDINGS

23

CHART TWO-B: GUILDERLAND

HISTORICAL K-5, 6-8, 9-12 ENROLLMENT 2008-2013

19071844 1817

17211680 1687

21942088 21102090

21842191

1128115612281222 1239 1235

y = -23.4x + 2224.7

y = -20.743x + 1273.9

y = -48.229x + 1944.8

100010501100115012001250130013501400145015001550160016501700175018001850190019502000205021002150220022502300

08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

YEAR

EN

RO

LL

ME

NT

K-5 6-8 9-12

FINDINGS

24

Historical Perspective of Live Births in Albany County and the Guilderland CSD Figure One charts the live birth data for Albany County since 2002. The annual totals of live

births in Albany County have trended downward from 2002 to 2011; slope of -9.4. The range

over ten years is from a high of 3226 in 2002 and 2005 to a low of 3063 in 2004. Figure Two

charts the live birth data for the Guilderland School District enrollment area since 2002. Births

in the Guilderland School District enrollment area have also declined over the past eleven years,

but at slower rate than the total for the County. However, the pattern of live births in the

Guilderland School District over the recent past from 2007 through 2012, has begun to trend

upward to ‘stable’; slope of .62 as illustrated in Figure Two-A.

FIGURE ONE: ALBANY COUNTY LIVE BIRTHS 2002-2011

32203126

32183140 3176

31223074

32263063

3226

y = -9.4485x + 3211.1

2000207521502225230023752450252526002675275028252900297530503125320032753350342535003575365037253800

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

YEAR

LIVE

BIRT

HS

FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT

ENROLLMENT AREA2002-2012

319

353

285

303

281

316

266

294305

329

298

y = -4.0182x + 328.56

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012YEAR

LIVE

BIR

THS

Will the pattern of the last eleven years of live births in the district continue over the next five years?

FINDINGS

25

FIGURE TWO-A: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT

ENROLLMENT AREA2007-2012

316

298 294305

266281

y = 0.6286x + 291.13

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017YEAR

LIVE

BIR

THS

Will the pattern of the last six years of live births in the district continue over the next five years?

Historical Perspective of Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollments in the Guilderland CSD Figure Four charts the Guilderland School District kindergarten enrollment from 2004 through

2013. The data suggest a stable pattern of kindergarten enrollment over 10 years; +.09 slope.

Viewing kindergarten enrollment data over the past six years may provide a different perspective

about future kindergarten enrollments given the recent past. Figure Five charts the pattern of

kindergarten enrollment over the past six years. Since 2008, the pattern of kindergarten

enrollment is in decline (slope -4.5). Will the overall pattern of ten years of stable kindergarten

enrollment in the Guilderland District continue into the future? Will the decreasing pattern of

kindergarten enrollment growth since 2008 continue into the future?

FINDINGS

26

FIGURE FOUR: GUILDERLAND CSD KINDERGARTEN

ENROLLMENT 2004-2013

313

327

279

289

333

314307

300

313

318

y = 0.0909x + 308.8

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T

One way to suggest possible answers to the questions posed on the previous page is to compare

the pattern of kindergarten enrollments at Guilderland with the documented live births recorded

for the Guilderland School District enrollment area five years earlier each kindergarten

enrollment year. Figure Six on the next page illustrates the pattern of kindergarten enrollments

and the pattern of live births five years earlier each enrollment year.

FINDINGS

27

FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE

BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT

313

327

279

289

314307

313

266

294

305

318

333

300

316

353

285

303

281

298

319329

200

215

230

245

260

275

290

305

320

335

350

365

380

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR

NU

MB

ER O

F B

IRTH

S A

ND

PU

PILS

KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER

WILL THE RATIO BETWEEN K ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?

For, example, in 2010 there were 314 Guilderland kindergarten enrollees. Five years earlier in

2005 there were 285 live births recorded for the school district enrollment area. The resulting

live birth-kindergarten enrollment ratio is 1.101754 (110%). A limitation to the analysis is that

accurate, geocoded, annual live birth data for the school does not exist before 2002. Therefore,

comparing kindergarten enrollment numbers with births five years earlier in the district can only

reliably be done for six years; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Given the kindergarten-

live-birth ratios for 2007-2012, can the pattern of those ratios suggest what might be the

kindergarten enrollments in years 2013 through 2017? Note that from 2010 through 2012 there

are more Guilderland kindergarten enrollees than there were children born in the district five

years earlier. This suggests that new population to the district included children born elsewhere

and then enrolled at Guilderland for kindergarten. However, note also that in 2013, 300 pupils

enrolled in kindergarten, but 316 children were born five years earlier. After three years of

kindergarten-to-live-birth ratios of plus 100%, the kindergarten-to-live-birth ratio for 2013 is at

95% which is similar to the kindergarten-to-live-birth ratios for the years 2007 through 2009.

FINDINGS

28

The live birth data officially recorded by the NYS Health Department for Albany County, the

towns that make up the Guilderland School District, and for the school district enrollment area

do provide a documented population factor that can be charted and statistically used to forecast

estimated future kindergarten enrollments in the school district. There are no data to identify

specific kindergarten enrollments from 2007 through 2013 of children not born in the enrollment

area served by Guilderland and are from families who moved to the school district. Similarly,

there are no data to determine specifically how many children born in the school district

enrollment area in the years 2002-2008 moved from the area and, therefore, did not enroll in

Guilderland kindergarten classes for each year from 2007 through 2013. The study initially

assumes that the migration of students both into and out of the towns and the district will

continue in a similar manner as it has during the years since 2002.

Estimating future kindergarten enrollments is the most speculative aspect of projecting K-12

enrollments. However, analyzing historical annual kindergarten enrollments in concert with

historical annual live birth data and patterns do reveal a set of defendable estimates of future

kindergarten enrollments. These estimated future kindergarten enrollments then can be included

in the base cohort survival statistic application to project future K-12 enrollments.

Low, Mid, and High Kindergarten Enrollment Estimates

The historical kindergarten enrollments of the Guilderland School District and historical live

birth data are analyzed three ways. The three analyses form the basis for three kindergarten

enrollment forecasts. The three kindergarten forecasts are used to develop Low, Mid, and High

K-12 enrollment projection calculations. One forecast of future kindergarten enrollments

assumes that the live births in the school district enrollment area will continue in the same

pattern as it has for the past six years since 2007. It also assumes that the overall kindergarten

enrollment to live birth ratio for the years 2007 through 2013 (.994511) is a historically based

ratio that is possible to expect in the future. Forecast scenario one is the basis for the low range

enrollment projection calculations with a view of five years into the future.

A second forecast of estimated future kindergarten enrollments assumes that the live births in the

school district enrollment area will continue in the same pattern as it has for the past eleven years

FINDINGS

29

since 2002. It recognizes that the historical pattern since 2007 includes three years when the

number of kindergarteners enrolled at Guilderland exceeded the number of births recorded for

the school district five years earlier than the kindergarten enrollment year . The forecast assumes

that the historical pattern of kindergarten-to-live-birth ratios for the years 2007 through 2013 will

continue in the same pattern into the future. Forecast scenario two is the basis for the high range

enrollment projection calculations with a view of five years into the future.

A third forecast of kindergarten enrollments assumes that future kindergarten enrollments will

follow the historical pattern of kindergarten enrollments from 2004 through 2013 without

reference to historical live birth trends or kindergarten-to-live-birth ratio patterns. Forecast

scenario three is the basis for the mid range enrollment projection calculations with a view of

five years into the future.

The three methods of estimating possible future kindergarten enrollments along with the

historical grade level enrollment patterns K-12 since 2008 form the basis for low, mid and high

range Base Cohort Enrollment Projections.

Enrollment Projection Estimates and the Residential Housing Market

The residential development data from the Towns as of March 2014 suggest that there is the

potential for 160 single-family residential units, 8 apartments, plus 88 senior citizen apartments

to be built, sold, and/or rented in the Guilderland School District over the next four years, 2014-

2017.

Single Family Units

TOWN 2014 2015 2016 2017 Town of Guilderland Estimated existing family-sized residential properties added to the ‘for sale inventory’ due to Guilderland residents choosing to move to the Mill Hollow Senior Citizen Development

29

11

42

11

46

11

43

11

Single Rental Units

Town of Guilderland 4 4

FINDINGS

30

The study suggests that the estimated construction and marketing of new household units over

the next four years will add a potential of about 541 new residents to the Guilderland School

District. Of that possible new population, it is estimated that about 127 will be between the age

of 0 and 19. These 127 children may add to the public school district population over the eight

years from 2015 through 2022. It is estimated that each new housing unit on average will

include .623 school age children over the years 2015-2022. Currently, in 2013, each household

unit in the Guilderland School District has on average .337 public school pupils. Note that the

study conservatively assumes that all potential school age-pupils from the estimated residential

unit development will attend the public school and not a private setting. Actual new pupil

enrollment may be lower.

The base cohort K-12 low, mid, and high enrollment projections are recalculated by factoring the

estimated added annual pupil enrollment due to proposed housing unit housing market influences

as of March 2014.

Enrollment Projection Estimates as of January 2014 and Guilderland CSD School Building Pupil Capacity Base Cohort Projections:

o Grades K-5 enrollment may remain stable over the next five years per the most optimistic estimate. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 165 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades 6-8 enrollment may likely decrease up to 100 pupils over the next eight years. The most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about 40 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades 9-12 enrollment may likely decline up to 210 pupils over the next 10 years. The most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about 180 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades K-6 enrollment may likely remain stable over the next five years.

The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 175 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades 7-12 enrollment may likely decline by up to 200 pupils over the next ten years. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 300 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

FINDINGS

31

Baseline Enrollment Projections (shaded estimates used by SED for facility project submittals) Calculation Year Grades

K-5 Grades

6-8 Grades

9-12 Total K-12

CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2110 1128 1687 4925

Baseline Cohort Low Range

2016-2017 1963 1176 1560 4700 2018-2019 1942 1097 1576 4614 2021-2022 1970 1029 1520 4519 2023-2024 1967 1027 1476 4470

Baseline Cohort Mid Range

2016-2017 2045 1176 1560 4782 2018-2019 2053 1097 1576 4726 2021-2022 2068 1099 1520 4687 2023-2024 2070 1111 1493 4675

Baseline Cohort High Range

2016-2017 2051 1176 1560 4788 2018-2019 2108 1097 1576 4781 2021-2022 2181 1088 1520 4788 2023-2024 2160 1146 1506 4812

Year Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2481 2444

Baseline Cohort Low Range

2016-2017 2323 2377 2018-2019 2302 2312 2021-2022 2282 2236 2023-2024 2324 2145

Baseline Cohort Mid Range

2016-2017 2405 2377 2018-2019 2414 2312 2021-2022 2434 2253 2023-2024 2436 2239

Baseline Cohort High Range

2016-2017 2411 2377 2018-2019 2469 2312 2021-2022 2523 2265 2023-2024 2566 2246

Base Cohort Projections Plus Potential Influence of New Housing Units as of March 2014: o Grades K-5 enrollment may increase by about 30 pupils over the next five years per the

most optimistic estimate. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 135 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades 6-8 enrollment may likely decrease up to 80 pupils over the next eight years. The most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about 20 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades 9-12 enrollment may likely decline up to 185 pupils over the next 10 years. The most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about 155 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

FINDINGS

32

o Grades K-6 enrollment may increase by about 30 pupils over the next five years. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 135 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

o Grades 7-12 enrollment may likely decline by up to about 155 pupils over the next ten years. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 260 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

Baseline Enrollment Projections Plus the Estimated Influence of New Housing Units as of March 2014

(shaded estimates used by SED for facility project submittals) Calculation Year Grades

K-5 Grades

6-8 Grades

9-12 Total K-12

CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2110 1128 1687 4925

Baseline Cohort Plus Housing Low Range

2016-2017 1980 1186 1583 4750 2018-2019 1976 1117 1618 4712 2021-2022 1999 1048 1549 4596 2023-2024 1987 1046 1502 4535

Baseline Cohort Plus Housing Mid Range

2016-2017 2062 1186 1583 4832 2018-2019 2088 1117 1618 4824 2021-2022 2098 1118 1549 4765 2023-2024 2090 1130 1520 4740

Baseline Cohort Plus Housing High Range

2016-2017 2068 1186 1583 4837 2018-2019 2143 1117 1618 4879 2021-2022 2211 1106 1549 4866 2023-2024 2180 1165 1532 4877

Year Grades K-6

Grades 7-12

CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2481 2444

Baseline Cohort Plus Housing Low Range

2016-2017 2343 2407 2018-2019 2343 2369 2021-2022 2318 2278 2023-2024 2350 2185

Baseline Cohort Plus Housing Mid Range

2016-2017 2425 2407 2018-2019 2455 2369 2021-2022 2470 2295 2023-2024 2462 2278

Baseline Cohort Plus Housing High Range

2016-2017 2431 2407 2018-2019 2510 2369 2021-2022 2559 2307 2023-2024 2592 2286

The study applies the range of enrollment projections from the Base Cohort Low Range Estimate

to the High Range Plus Housing Estimate to benchmark suggested building and grade level

scenario options that the district may want to explore.

FINDINGS

33

BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR GUILDERLAND CSD

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K2014 2462 2401 4862 2476 2401 4876 2486 2401 48862015 2365 2408 4773 2425 2408 4833 2416 2408 48242016 2323 2377 4700 2405 2377 4782 2411 2377 47882017 2318 2343 4662 2411 2343 4754 2451 2343 47952018 2302 2312 4614 2414 2312 4726 2469 2312 47812019 2289 2322 4610 2420 2322 4742 2490 2322 48112020 2283 2304 4587 2433 2304 4737 2518 2304 48222021 2282 2236 4519 2434 2253 4687 2523 2265 47882022 2319 2162 4480 2435 2232 4668 2566 2221 47862023 2324 2145 4470 2436 2239 4675 2566 2246 4812

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-5 6-8 9-12 K-12 K-5 6-8 9-12 K-12 K-5 6-8 9-12 K-122014 2046 1150 1667 4862 2060 1150 1667 4876 2070 1150 1667 48862015 1980 1187 1607 4773 2040 1187 1607 4833 2030 1187 1607 48242016 1963 1176 1560 4700 2045 1176 1560 4782 2051 1176 1560 47882017 1955 1123 1584 4662 2048 1123 1584 4754 2088 1123 1584 47952018 1942 1097 1576 4614 2053 1097 1576 4726 2108 1097 1576 47812019 1935 1091 1585 4610 2066 1091 1585 4742 2136 1091 1585 48112020 1934 1077 1576 4587 2067 1094 1576 4737 2141 1106 1576 48222021 1970 1029 1520 4519 2068 1099 1520 4687 2181 1088 1520 47882022 1974 1019 1487 4480 2069 1111 1487 4668 2181 1118 1487 47862023 1967 1027 1476 4470 2070 1111 1493 4675 2160 1146 1506 4812

SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS INFLUENCED

BY ADDED NEW UNITS TO THE HOUSING MARKETGUILDERLAND CSD

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-5 6-8 9-12 TOTALS K-5 6-8 9-12 TOTALS K-5 6-8 9-12 TOTALS2014 2046 1150 1667 4862 2060 1150 1667 4876 2070 1150 1667 48862015 1987 1191 1617 4795 2047 1191 1617 4855 2038 1191 1617 48462016 1980 1186 1583 4750 2062 1186 1583 4832 2068 1186 1583 48372017 1981 1138 1617 4737 2074 1138 1617 4830 2114 1138 1617 48702018 1976 1117 1618 4712 2088 1117 1618 4824 2143 1117 1618 48792019 1969 1111 1622 4702 2100 1111 1622 4833 2170 1111 1622 49022020 1966 1096 1609 4671 2100 1113 1609 4821 2173 1125 1609 49072021 1999 1048 1549 4596 2098 1118 1549 4765 2211 1106 1549 48662022 1999 1038 1514 4552 2095 1130 1514 4739 2206 1137 1514 48582023 1987 1046 1502 4535 2090 1130 1520 4740 2180 1165 1532 4877

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-122014 2462 2401 4862 2476 2401 4876 2486 2401 48862015 2374 2421 4795 2434 2421 4855 2425 2421 48462016 2343 2407 4750 2425 2407 4832 2431 2407 48372017 2349 2388 4737 2442 2388 4830 2482 2388 48702018 2343 2369 4712 2455 2369 4824 2510 2369 48792019 2329 2372 4702 2460 2372 4833 2530 2372 49022020 2322 2350 4671 2471 2350 4821 2557 2350 49072021 2318 2278 4596 2470 2295 4765 2559 2307 48662022 2350 2202 4552 2467 2272 4739 2597 2261 48582023 2350 2185 4535 2462 2278 4740 2592 2286 4877

FINDINGS

34

Charted below are the pupil capacity data for each school compared to the estimated future enrollments by current grade level configurations.

The enrollment projection estimates suggest the following ranges of unused pupil capacity in the

current school buildings will likely exist into the future. (Note that it is assumed that the current

space rented to the BOCES will continue to be rented for regional programming.)

Pupil Capacity Range Based on Minimum to Maximum District Class Size Goals:

Pupil Capacity Based on

Average District Class Size Goals

(pupil capacity of the space currently

rented to the BOCES is not

included):

Estimated Enrollment in 2016-17

(low to high projections):

Estimated Unused Pupil Capacity in 2016-17 with

the current grade level and school building configurations:

K-5 PUPIL CAPACITY

2145-2618

2381

1963 to 2068

418 to 313; 17.6% to 13.1%

6-8 PUPIL CAPACITY

1527-1631

1579

1176 to 1186

403 to 393; 25.5% to 24.9%

9-12 PUPIL CAPACITY

2128-2179

2153

1560 to 1583

593 to 570; 27.5% to 26.5%

FINDINGS, INFERENCES AND OBSERVATIONS BASED ON THE VISITS TO EACH GUILDERLAND SCHOOL BUILDING AND THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE

ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM

o Below are the annual October enrollments of each of the five elementary buildings since 2008.

School Year:

ALTAMONT GUILDERLAND LYNNWOOD PINE BUSH

WESTMERE

2008 283 529 443 484 451 2009 293 537 435 479 445 2010 303 558 434 448 439 2011 294 548 405 435 414 2012 292 578 399 403 416 2013 290 586 405 396 446

Charted below are the enrollments of each elementary building from 2008-2013.

FINDINGS

35

Altamont Elementary

283 293 303 294 292 290

y = 0.6571x + 290.2

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

YEAR

Enro

llmen

t

Guilderland Elementary

529 537558 548

578 586

y = 11.371x + 516.2

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

YEAR

Enro

llmen

t

Lynnwood Elementary

443 435 434

405 399 405

y = -9.3429x + 452.87

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

YEAR

Enro

llmen

t

FINDINGS

36


484 479

448435

403 396

y = -19.457x + 508.93

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

YEAR

Enro

llmen

t

Westmere Elementary

451 445 439414 416

446

y = -3.9143x + 448.87

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013YEAR

Enro

llmen

t

Below is a rank ordering of the slope of the trend line describing the annual enrollment pattern of each elementary school from 2008 to 2013. A negative slope signifies that over six years the pattern of annual enrollment in the school has decreased.

School: Slope of the pattern of six years of annual enrollments: Guilderland 11.4

Altamont .66 Westmere -3.9 Lynnwood -9.3 Pine Bush -19.5

The data illustrate that the decline in total district K-5 enrollment over the past six years has

occurred in three of the five elementary attendance zones. In such studies as this one,

researching to see if there is a large continuous decline or a large continuous increase in

enrollment over time in one or more attendance zones or geographic areas of a school district is a

FINDINGS

37

base step in the development of possible building use/program delivery scenario options for

school-community consideration. Guilderland Altamont Westmere Lynnwood Pine

Bush Enrollment change from 2008 to 2013 +57 +7 -5 -38 -92 Percentage change in enrollment ’08 to ’13

+10.8%

-2.5%

-1.1%

-8.6%

-19%

o 2013-2014 Free and Reduced Lunch

SCHOOL Enrollment 9/13

Free and reduced percentage

Number of free and reduced pupils enrolled

Altamont 291 20.27 59 Guild Elem 577 13.69 79 Lynnwood 426 13.85 58 Pine bush 414 7.73 32 Westmere 483 16.77 81 Middle School 1,136 10.83 123 High School 1,722 9.64 166

District 5049 11.8% 598 Elementary Buildings 2191 14.1% 309

O Service to Pupils with Special Needs:

Special Needs Program

2013-2014 8/19/13 2012-2013 10/3/12 2011-2012 10/5/11

#served in the home district by the home district

# served outside the home district (by others, not the home district)





15:1:1 22 19 22 12:1:2 12 4 10 6 8 6 9:1:3 17 32 12 40 17 37 6:1:1 12 14 17 6:1:2 9 8 14 Residential 12:1:4 and 6:1:1

4 4 4

autistic 84 23 86 9 76 17 Others not in a set nomenclature as identified above. (Including ‘504’ pupils)*

8/23/13 152

9/1/12 190

9/1/11 180

Emotionally, intellectually, learning, multiply disabled

342

2

334

6

333

9

CPSE pupils 47 32 38 *An IEP is an Individualized Education Program plan for special needs pupils. A 504 plan is not an IEP, but a plan for moving a pupil from a special education to a regular education placement. If a child has a disability that does not

FINDINGS

38

adversely affect educational performance, then the child is not eligible for special education services. However, he/she will usually be entitled to service/accommodations defined by a 504 plan.

o The School Buildings: A Building Condition Survey is a requirement of all New York State school districts. The last survey was completed and filed in 2010. The Building Condition Survey is developed by a licensed architect or engineer and filed with the State Education Department. It outlines possible building conditions that may need attention over the next five to ten years. It is a tool for long-range facility planning. All of the Guilderland CSD buildings received a satisfactory rating as per the SED Overall Building Rating Scale.

Excellent: System is in new or like-new condition and functioning optimally; only routine maintenance and repair is needed. Satisfactory: System functioning reliably; routine maintenance and repair needed. Unsatisfactory: System is functioning unreliably or has exceeded its useful life. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed. Non-Functioning: System is non-functioning, not functioning as designed, or is unreliable in ways that could

endanger occupant health and/or safety. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed.

Critical Failure: Same as ‘non-functioning’ with the addition that the condition of at least one component is so poor that at least part of the building or grounds should not be occupied pending needed repairs/replacement of some or all components is needed.

Below is a summary chart of the results of the latest (2010) Building Conditions Survey developed by CSArch of Albany, architect for the district. It summarizes the estimated minimal work in each of the buildings of the district based on the Conditions Survey. The Survey is a public document available from the District or the State Education Department.

Building Overall Rating

December, 2010

Est. Capital Construction

expenses anticipated

through ’15-‘16

Altamont Satisfactory $225,000 Guilderland Satisfactory $18,400 Lynnwood Satisfactory $611,000 Pine Bush Satisfactory $559,400 Westmere Satisfactory $61,650

Farnsworth MS Satisfactory $316,695 High School Satisfactory $837,000

In November 2013, the Guilderland CSD community supported a referendum for $17,324,650. Charted below are the priority items included in the capital project that address many of the items identified in the 2010 Building Conditions Survey and other priorities identified by the Board and administration with the help of the district’s architect.

FINDINGS

39

$14,032,950 for renovations to electrical, heating and ventilation, roofing, plumbing and site systems throughout the district’s seven school buildings. This facet of the project will address the following: -- Roof replacement -- Parking lot paving -- Ventilation systems -- Window rehabilitation -- Soffit replacement -- Traffic patterns and bus parking -- Doors and ADA-compliant door hardware -- Floor replacement -- Kitchen equipment -- Boiler replacement and upgrades -- Building temperature control systems -- Water main piping replacement -- Electrical panel and circuit upgrades • $1,483,000 devoted to safety and security improvements centered around effectively controlling visitor access and enhancing classroom security. This facet of the project will address the following: -- Lobby modifications at all school buildings, with extensive changes at Lynnwood Elementary

School and Guilderland High School -- Additional security cameras -- Additional door access swipe card readers -- Additional classroom and office locksets/keying -- Visitor management and tracking software -- Computer server upgrades • $1,808,700 for technology infrastructure and program upgrades to enhance instructional opportunities for students. This facet of the project will address the following: -- Additional mobile labs -- Upgrades to network switches -- Wireless access points for each classroom -- District-wide replacement of uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) with battery backup -- Classroom technology upgrades

o Current capital debt of the district:

ISSUED MATURITY DEBT AS OF 6/30/13 Farnsworth Middle School 2006 2020 $3,190,907 Farnsworth Middle School 2013 2020 $8,627,268

$11,818,175 District wide 2012 2023 $9,014,400

$9,014,400 District wide 2010 2025 $23,182,463

$23,182,463 District wide 2012 2032 $6,233,244

$6,233,244 TOTAL: $50,248,282

FINDINGS

40

o Charted below is information about the current school sites:

Altamont Guilderland Lynnwood Pine Bush

Westmere Middle School

High School

Year Built 1953 1955 1965 1994 1953 1970 1953 Square Footage 51,980 78,540 61,300 73,540 82,920 253,275 340,340 Total acres of the school building site:

11 42 31 16 18 64 69 (67

useable) Acres now used for playfields:

4 4.5 6 5 3 10 16

Acres not used currently: 4.8 34.2 22.1 7.5 11.1 38.2 29.2 Wetlands or Retention Ponds

2 6 2

Est. Number of acres that could support additional classrooms in the future if necessary.

4.8 34.2 22.1 3.5 11.1 26.2 25.2

o The mileages between the eight school buildings of the district are charted below. The

district boundaries serve 50.01 square miles.

Altamont Guilderland Lynnwood Pine Bush

Westmere Middle School

High School

and District Office

Bus Garage

3.9 3.8 4.5 5.5 6 5.1 .5

High School

and District Office

3.8

3.9

4.7

5.4

6.2

5.2

Middle School

8.5 2 4.4 5.5 2.2

Westmere 9.5 2.4 5.5 6.5

Pine Bush 7.6 4.1 2

Lynnwood 6.6 3.1

Guilderland 7.1

FINDINGS

41

o “Teacher day” and ‘student day’ times:

SCHOOL Teacher day begins

Teacher day ends

Student day begins

Student dismissal

Student buses depart

Student ‘late bus’

Altamont 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00 Guilderland 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00 Lynnwood 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00 Pine Bush 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00 Westmere 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00 Farnsworth MS M,T,Th: 8:30 4:15 8:45 3:25 4:05 W: 8:30 4:30 F; 8:00 3:30 High School M,T,Th; 7:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 3:20 W; 7:25 3:45 F; 7:25 2:25

School Length of

Teacher day Length of

Student Instructional Day Altamont 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min Guilderland 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min Lynnwood 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min Pine Bush 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min Westmere 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min Farnsworth MS 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 40 min High School 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 55 min

o Shared Staffing Among the Eight School Buildings:

SHARED POSITION Altamont Guilderland Lynnwood Pine Bush Westmere Middle School High School Music .8 .2 Music .4 .6 Music .5 .5 Music .2 .4 .4 Music .5 .5 Music .4 .4 .2 Speech .6 .4 PT Assistant .5 .5 OT Assistant .6 .4 OT .4 .4 .2 OT .5 .5 Reading .4 .6 Reading .6 .4 Social Worker .5 .5 Social Worker .5 .5 Social Worker .5 .5 Foreign Language .2 .4 Foreign Language .6 .4 Foreign Language .4 .6 ESOL .2 .8 ESOL .5 .5 Physical Ed. .4 .6 Physical Ed. .1 .3 .5 Physical Ed. .5 .5 Physical Ed. .2 .8 Art .3 .7 Art .2 .2 .2 Art .4 Art .3 .7

TOTAL: 2.6 3.6 5.3 3.4 2.7 3.8 6.1

FINDINGS

42

o Full Time Equivalent Cost for Instructional Staff in 2013-2014:

Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others): TOTAL

FTE TOTAL

SALARY TOTAL

FICA TOTAL

HEALTH INSURANCE

OTHER BENEFITS

TOTAL RETIREMENT

Total COST for ALL K-6 FTEs

2013-2014 193.4 $12,935,455 $989,562 $2,000,547 $93,685 $2,102,011 $18,121,260

7 through grade 12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others): TOTAL

FTE TOTAL

SALARY TOTAL

FICA TOTAL

HEALTH INSURANCE

OTHER BENEFITS

TOTAL RETIREMENT

Total COST for ALL 7-12 FTEs

2013-2014 243.25 $16,489,967 $1,261,482 $2,550,273 $119,161 $2,679,620 $23,100,503

Average Cost per Full Time Equivalent Kindergarten through grade 6 certified instructional staff in 2013-2014: $93,698 Average Cost per Full Time Equivalent grade 7 through grade 12 certified instructional staff in 2013-2014: $94,966 Average Cost per Full Time Equivalent Kindergarten through grade 12 certified building level administrative staff in 2013-2014: $151,235

o FTE Numbers of Staff Who Have Left the District for All Reasons Except Reduction in Force:

Guilderland CSD

TOTAL OVER 4 YEARS

2012-2013

2011-2012

2010-2011

2009-2010

STAFF SEGMENT Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others)

5 3 10 10 28

Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others):

10 7 13 13 42

Grades K-12: Teacher Assistants (certified) 14 12 7 19 52 Teacher Aides (civil service) 4 12 4 3 23 Grades K-12: OT/PT (civil service) 0 1 0 1 2 Social worker (civil service) 0 Nurse (civil service) 2 0 3 0 5 K-12 certified administrators: 3 2 5 3 13 Civil Service: Supervisors of any support function 1 2 0 1 4 Bus drivers 6 3 2 5 16 Bus aides 1 6 1 3 11 School lunch workers 6 8 8 6 28 Operations and Maintenance workers 4 4 5 3 16 Secretaries 2 4 4 5 15 Business Office not secretarial 0 Technology support staff 1 3 1 0 5

TOTAL: 255

FINDINGS

43

o Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Responsibilities by Building 2013-2014:

SCHOOL # TENURED

STAFF # NON-

TENURED STAFF

# OBSERVATIONS/ EVALUATIONS

# OF SUPPORT STAFF EVALS

Altamont 25 1 53 17 Guilderland 44 3 97 18 Lynnwood 34 3 77 17 Pine Bush 31 2 68 16 Westmere 34 3 77 17 Farnsworth 96 6 210 55 High School 138 5 291 67

o Charted below are the distances of the current students of various elementary schools who live farthest from other school buildings that serve other attendance zones.

Distance of the home of the

current student attending this school who lives the farthest from

the school…

Miles:

Altamont Elementary If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Altamont have to travel to get to…………

Guilderland Elementary 11 Miles of this student from his/her home to Altamont:4.12

Lynnwood Elementary 10.03 Pine Bush Elementary 10.89 Westmere Elementary 13.21 Farnsworth Middle School 11.94

Guilderland Elementary If the elementary school listed to the

left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Guilderland have to travel to get to…………

Altamont Elementary 10.06 Miles of this student from his/her home to Guilderland:3.05

Lynnwood Elementary 6.15 Pine Bush Elementary 7.28 Westmere Elementary 1.35 Farnsworth Middle School 2.51

Lynnwood Elementary If the elementary school listed to the

left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Lynnwood have to travel to get to…………

Altamont Elementary 4.20 Miles of this student from his/her home to Lynnwood:4.22

Guilderland Elementary 7.07 Pine Bush Elementary 6.82 Westmere Elementary 9.62 Farnsworth Middle School 8.34


Miles of this student from his/her home to Pine Bush:2.76

If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Pine Bush have to travel to get to…………

Altamont Elementary 9.04 Guilderland Elementary 3.10 Lynnwood Elementary 3.39 Westmere Elementary 4.59 Farnsworth Middle School 4.19

Westmere Elementary If the elementary school listed to the

left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Westmere have to travel to get to…………

Altamont Elementary 13.02 Miles of this student from his/her home to Westmere:3.73

Guilderland Elementary 6.07 Lynnwood Elementary 9.10 Pine Bush Elementary 10.25 Farnsworth Middle School 6.04

FINDINGS

44

o Inventory of Bus Equipment used for ‘regular’ to and from AM and PM pupil transportation (not counting spare vehicles):

Vehicle Size Number Number of Pupils on Each Bus for

Route Planning* Total Pupils Able to be

Served: 66 passenger 57 45 2565 48 passenger 32 34 passenger 28 30 passenger 20 20 400 28 passenger 20

Total:

77

Total:

( possible in a single district-wide bus ‘run’)

2965 *Typically these are the pupil ‘load’ numbers used for planning of routes. o Bus Run Data for 2013-2014:

Altamont Elementary Attendance Zone Earliest pick up 6:56 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 45 minutes Number of bus runs AM to school 8 Number of bus runs PM to home 10 Guilderland Elementary Attendance Zone Earliest pick up 7:15 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 24 minutes Number of bus runs AM to school 11 Number of bus runs PM to home 14 Lynnwood Attendance Zone Earliest pick up 6:52 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 47 minutes Number of bus runs AM to school 9 Number of bus runs PM to home 11 Pine Bush Attendance Zone Earliest pick up 7:15 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 28 minutes Number of bus runs AM to school 9 Number of bus runs PM to home 11 Westmere Attendance Zone Earliest pick up 7:04 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 35 minutes Number of bus runs AM to school 10 Number of bus runs PM to home 11 Middle School Earliest pick up 7:44 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 50 minutes Number of bus runs AM to school 30 Number of bus runs PM to home 30

FINDINGS

45

High School Earliest pick up 6:21 Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 44 Number of bus runs AM to school 30 Number of bus runs PM to home 31 Summary: Total number of ‘regular’ bus routes in the district in the AM (Not special ed or private school) 49 Total number of ‘regular’ bus routes in the district in the PM (Not special ed or private school) 49 Percentage of transportation aid expected as a revenue for 2013-2014 based on transportation expenses submitted for 2012-2013: (2013-2014 Trans. Aid divided by the expenditures submitted for 2012-2013 for aid payable in 2013-2014)

57.9%

Total 2013-2014 transportation budget minus cost for special runs, midday runs to the BOCES center, field trips, extracurricular and athletic trips, and other trips including any ‘late bus’ runs. (Result: total cost for am to school and pm home.)

$3,850,843

Estimated average cost per one way bus route for AM to school and PM to home transportation in 2013-2014:

$39,294 Estimated average local Guilderland taxpayer cost per one-way bus route: $16,543 Estimated average state support of each Guilderland one-way bus route: $22,751

Where the estimates come from: Take the total transportation budget NOT INCLUDING SPECIAL RUNS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS, FIELD TRIPS, VOCATIONAL CENTER RUNS, ATHLETIC AND CO-CURRICULAR RUNS which can vary yearly based on student programs and needs; divide that resulting expenditure number by the number of roundtrip bus runs to and from school in 2013-2014 Inferences and Observations: The condition of the school buildings is good. They are clean, look to be well maintained

overall, and there seems to be no obvious major infrastructure issues. To a guest observer there are areas in some of the schools whose exterior and interior finishes may have reached their life cycle.

The faculty, staff, and pupils of the buildings practice ‘good housekeeping’ as evidenced

by the overall neat, organized condition of the classrooms and instructional support spaces.

The Building Condition Survey Report data do not suggest that there are district school buildings with current building conditions that could present a danger to health and safety. In such studies as this one, researching to see if there is a building with immediate infrastructure issues that challenge the health and safety of pupils and staff is a first step in the development of possible building use/program delivery scenario options. Parenthetically, there were a few instructional support spaces observed during the visits that have doors without glass to allow one to view inside the space when pupils and adults are present together. (Examples: a health room, a psychologist office.) It is common practice in public schools to ensure that all spaces where pupils are served have a means of visibility from outside the space for the safety of pupils and staff.

FINDINGS

46

The total outstanding capital debt of the district as of June 30, 2013 is $50,248,282. The debt retirement timeline suggests good planning and an opportunity as the district plans its long-range facility plan. About 24% of existing debt is retired by 2018. The recent approval of a $17 million capital improvement project by the community is timed well, given that about $12 million of existing debt will be satisfied by June 30, 2020.

Debt retired in 2020 -$11,818,175

Debt retired in 2023 -$9,014,400 Debt retired in 2025 -$23,182463 Debt retired in 2032 -$6,233,244

Commissioner’s Regulations require that the daily sessions for students in full-day

kindergarten and grades 1-6 must be a minimum of five hours, exclusive of time for lunch. The daily sessions for grades 7-12 must be a minimum of five and one-half hours, exclusive of time for lunch. Guilderland elementary pupils receive 5 hours and 45 minutes of daily instruction exclusive of lunch; Guilderland secondary pupils receive at least 6 hours and 10 minutes of daily instruction exclusive of lunch.

An atypical instructional resource not regularly available in this ‘new normal’ of public

school programming is that each elementary school in the Guilderland School District has a full-time professionally certified Library Media Specialist as part of the instructional faculty. Commissioner’s Regulation 91.2 requires school library media specialists for all secondary schools. There are no State Education Requirements to employ library media specialists for an elementary school.

Guilderland is commended for its values about school library media specialist services in the five elementary schools. At the present time, each elementary library media specialist is not assigned classes of elementary pupils to deliver a library skills curriculum. Instead, the majority of the service day for the library media specialist is available for teachers to arrange for pupils to use the library as a tool for pre-planned lessons with the help of the library media specialist. Library/Media skills are addressed when such visits are scheduled throughout the school year. For example: below is one elementary library media specialist’s service schedule. It is typical of the schedules of the four other elementary library/media specialists.

Library Schedule

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

7:45-8:15 Open library/book exchange

Open library/book exchange




8:15-9:00 9:00-10:00 10:00-11:00 11:00-12:00 Lunch/Planning Lunch/Planning Lunch/Planning Lunch/Planning 12:00-1:00 Lunch/Planning 1:00-2:00 2:00-3:25 Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning

There are 25 time slots (shaded) for the library/media specialist and teachers to serve pupils for pre-planned lesson plan delivery, collaboratively. There is no current year or

FINDINGS

47

historical data kept by building as to how many of the service time slots are actually scheduled for collaborative delivery of pre-planned lessons between the library/media specialist and elementary classroom teachers. Is collaboration occurring? Yes. In viewing one example of a weekly schedule, there were 9 time slots (or 36%) out of 25 available not yet scheduled for the week. Is it possible that the 9 were ultimately scheduled for collaborative lessons. Yes. However, there are no historical data to chart the pattern of service over time.

The question commissioned for the study is: Are there options that might provide more cost-effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12 program is implemented/delivered over the next three years? In keeping with the mission of the study, a germane question regarding library/media specialist services is: Can the outstanding resource of a full time library/media specialist in each elementary school building be deployed differently to serve pupils with more instructional/learning opportunities and enhance the curriculum/program even further? Given the current on average total cost per elementary full time equivalent instructional staff member, the five media specialists assigned to the current five elementary schools represents about $468,490 in public school resources. The next section below suggests one way the district might want to deploy the services of the five elementary media/library specialists. It is not the only way. Hopefully, it will encourage district discussion about possible new opportunities for pupils that can be made available from such a strong curriculum staff resource already in place. The suggestion is based on viewing the existing resource differently. For example: Current number of time slots designated for elementary open library/book exchange on a Monday through Friday:

Current number of time slots designated for collaborative use of the library by a classroom teacher and the media specialist Monday through Friday:

Sample number of time slots designated for elementary open library/book exchange on a six-day cycle pattern:

Number of grade level class sections currently in each elementary school:

Sample number of time slots designated for scheduled ‘library as a special for all pupils’ on a six-day cycle pattern given the current number of class sections in each building in ‘13-‘14:

Sample number of time slots available for teacher-librarian as-scheduled collaborative use of the library by a classroom teacher and the media or other purpose on a six-day cycle pattern:

5 25 30 Westmere- 24

24

6

Altamont-15 15 15 Guilderland-

28

28

2 Lynnwood-

18 18 12

Pine Bush-19

19

11

The middle and high school arrange instruction using an A, B, C, D day schedule (4-day

pattern). School days are designated A-D days instead of using the nomenclature Monday through Friday. Such an organization technique is very helpful in making sure that all pupils receive instruction in classes that do not meet every day (ex. physical

FINDINGS

48

education, science labs, music lessons) on a consistent basis. School vacations or emergency closings due to poor weather could cause pupils to miss instruction in such classes for multiple days. If a snow day occurs on an A day, then the day students return to school remains an A day.

The five elementary schools use a 5 day Monday through Friday nomenclature schedule pattern. Therefore, if a snow day occurs on a Tuesday and the pupils return to school the next day, Wednesday, then the students will have missed instructional services like library or physical education that may have been scheduled ‘on Tuesday’. They will not be served again until the next scheduled weekday for that subject thus interrupting the continuity of instruction. In addition, the elementary program ‘specials’—art, music, and physical education—can be delivered with existing staff resources and achieve more equity and consistency if a four or six-day nomenclature cycle is implemented. Presently, elementary pupils receive one art class of 40 minutes, two music classes of 30 minutes each, and three physical education classes of 30 minutes each in a five-day Monday through Friday schedule nomenclature. Typically, when pupils are in ‘specials’, the elementary classroom teacher is assigned to planning time. The contract with the Teachers’ Association requires that: “Each unit member will be assigned no fewer than 50 minutes of planning time on the required meeting day (i.e. general faculty meeting day) and no fewer than 110 minutes of planning time on each of the four non-meeting days of a typical school week. This planning time would include personal planning as well as other professional responsibilities as outlined in Article 10.1.3.” Article 10.1.3 states that:

“With regard to the time available after the close of the student day but before the close of the teacher day, one day each week will be designated the required meetings day by the building principal. The remainder of this time, with the exception of meetings and/or activities involving parents or students which shall be scheduled when needed, may be utilized for lesson preparation, unit planning, grading of papers, attending meetings which are voluntary* in nature, parent meetings, helping students, professional collaboration and/or other such activities at the discretion of the individual teacher. *Note: Meetings for which classroom teachers receive stipends are excepted from this provision.”

Therefore, 50 of the 110 minutes of planning time for elementary teachers is consistently available/scheduled at the end of the school day after the students are dismissed. Currently, however, the scheduling of the other 50 minutes of planning time is not consistent in length of time on any one day. For example, in one elementary school, the during the student day planning time of 50 minutes is scheduled for 30 minutes on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; 70 minutes on Wednesday, and three 10 minute segments at three times during the Monday-Friday.

FINDINGS

49

In addition, the physical education State requirement for the elementary curriculum is 120 minutes per week or over 36 weeks of school (177 days minimum) or 4320 minutes. Currently, 90 minutes of physical education are provided in a Monday through Friday week (3240 minutes potentially in a year). Changing to a six-day cycle (or even multiples of 2 or 4) schedule, for example, at the elementary buildings would allow 30 cycles to schedule 50 minute physical education and other ‘special classes” over the school year. The 50-minute suggestion is based on the need to provide 50 minutes of planning time during the student day for elementary instructional staff. In addition, the example below suggests a redeployment of the five library/media specialists to provide a scheduled ‘library special’ for all pupils in each elementary building on a consistent basis to allow a library/media skills curriculum to be implemented K-5. For example, a pattern to deploy the existing staff resources could be: Day A: Physical education Day D: Art Day B: Music Day E: Physical Education Day C: Physical education Day F: Library/Media Skills Such a pattern would provide 4500 minutes potentially for physical education in a school year which meets the Commissioner’s Regulation of 4320 minutes. There are no minutes required by the Commissioner for music, art, or library instruction. Currently, elementary art is provided for 40 minutes in a Monday through Friday schedule or 1440 minutes in a school year. With the example 6-day cycle pattern, pupils can receive 1500 minutes of ‘specials’ art instruction in a school year. Currently, elementary music is provided for 60 minutes (two 30 minute classes) in a Monday through Friday schedule or 2160 minutes in a school year. With the example 6-day cycle pattern, pupils can receive 1500 minutes of ‘specials’ music instruction in a school year. The 6-day cycle example (with library becoming a ‘specials’), has fewer minutes in a school year for the music ‘specials’ offering. One consideration for the district to analyze is the instructional value of two classes of only 30 minutes each compared to a block of 50 minutes to deliver the expected music curriculum. It is suggested that the district could gain efficiencies and more for pupils with the existing staff resources if all the school buildings were on the same day cycle and/or on day cycles that were multiples of each other. (Example: 2, 4, 6-day cycle; or 3 or 6-day cycle.) One efficiency achieved is the continuity of instruction for elementary pupils when there is a vacation or emergency school closing. Special areas like library, physical education, art, music, and remedial services which normally do not meet every day will be provided uninterrupted.

The district implements the efficient practice of shared staffing among the buildings to help ensure breadth of program offerings for all pupils in a cost-effective manner across the district. In the current 2013-2014 school year, 27.5 full time equivalent staff members are shared among the seven school buildings. Another possible major efficiency with a common day cycle (or multiples thereof) in all the school buildings should make the scheduling of such shared staff easier and more understandable. A common day schedule across the district could allow even more opportunities in sharing

FINDINGS

50

of staff to meet instructional needs of each respective building. A common day schedule likely will drive more flexibility since the scheduling of such staff now must deal with an elementary Monday through Friday pattern and a middle/secondary 4-day cycle pattern that are incongruent.

Also, a common day cycle pattern (or multiples thereof) among the schools should make it easier for families with elementary and secondary children in the same household to ‘keep track of’ the school day’s offerings and expectations for their children. On-average each full time equivalent instructional position that serves the K through

grade 6 program in the current school year equates to a total expenditure of $93,698; grades 7-12 instructional FTE, $94,966; building level administrator, $151,235.

From 2009 through the 2012 school year, 135 certified instructional staff and 120 civil

service support staff have left the district for all reasons (example: retirement, relocation) except reduction in force. The on-average annual total of 63-64 FTE suggests that normal attrition might mitigate some or all reductions in force that may come about from organizing the program and use of buildings differently.

The district has developed a pupil transportation service delivery model such that no

pupil rides on a bus longer than about 50 minutes. The 2013-2014 average cost per one-way bus route for AM to school and PM to home

transportation is $95,540. The average state support of each Guilderland one-way bus route is $55,320. The local taxpayer average cost for each Guilderland one-way bus route is $40,220.

Instructional technology is present and used by the teaching staff in the buildings. It is

recommended that the district continue its long-standing on-going practice of analyzing its technology plan and revising it as necessary to reflect the future goals of the district in supporting instruction with technology.

The use of technology to deliver learning is often a prime variable in school building planning and use. Bandwidth (size of data lines), types of equipment, staff training, and pedagogical impact on learning outcomes given the investment are important topics that once decided usually translate into ‘brick and mortar’ decisions. The technology plan of the district will give insights as to the provision of computers for student instruction and video enhanced instructional tools for teachers in the future. The technology plan is often a major part of a district’s blueprint in defining the vision and the instructional goals of infusing technology in the curriculum. It also can give direction as to what are the program delivery roles of all the instructional spaces in each school building including the classrooms, library and computer labs as they interrelate with technology to support learning and instruction. Over the past three school years, Guilderland has served 84% -87 % of all special needs

students in the home district by Guilderland staff.

FINDINGS

51

The concept of ‘neighborhood schools’ is valued by the community and the school

district community.

Out of the seven school sites, five have ample property over 11 acres each for potential expansion in the future. Generally, site guidelines require elementary schools (K-6) to have at least three acres plus one acre for each one hundred pupils, or fraction thereof. Altamont and Pine Bush have an estimated 4.8 and 5.5 acres available for future new construction respectively. The other three elementary schools have between 11 and 34 acres available. Secondary schools (7-12) are required to have at least ten acres plus one acre for each one hundred pupils, or fraction thereof. Both secondary school sites have over 27 acres of available land for possible facility needs in future generations.

In a move to strengthen teaching and to have a positive impact on student learning, New York State has mandated a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals. “The 2010 Education Law 3012-c requires each classroom teacher and building principal to receive an Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) resulting in a single composite effectiveness score and a rating of 'highly effective,' 'effective,' 'developing' or 'ineffective.'”

It requires that all evaluators must be trained and an appeals process must be locally developed between the district and the respective bargaining unit. These new Regulations have tight timelines and have placed considerable pressure on school districts to integrate them into their evaluations systems. This new mandate has an impact on the classroom teachers. It also significantly affects the building level administrator who is responsible for the evaluations of his/her staff. It requires the supervisor to observe each teacher two times, use newly-designed teacher practice rubrics, conference with the teacher, monitor the collection of student test data, help teachers develop Student Learning Objectives for courses that do not end with state assessments, write a comprehensive and detailed assessment report on each teacher, develop and create individualized improvement plans for struggling teachers and manage all appeals if they were to occur. The decision about the number of staff a single building supervisor should evaluate in a given year is a local determination. Initial training sessions sponsored by the State Education Department suggested that the number of staff a single supervisor should evaluate in a given year is 12. Generally, one finds 25 to 45 staff assigned to a building supervisor (principal) with a common assignment of 25 to 35.

FINDINGS

52

The APPR supervisor-evaluations ratios in 2013-2014 in the Guilderland District are:

School Number of Building

Supervisors Assigned

Number of Staff

Number of APPR

Evaluations

APPR STAFF TO SUPERVISOR

RATIO

Plus number of support staff

annual evaluations

Altamont 1 26 53 1:26 17 Guilderland 1 47 97 1:47 18 Lynnwood 1 37 77 1:37 17 Pine Bush 1 33 68 1:33 16 Westmere 1 37 77 1:37 17 Farnsworth 6 102 210 1:17 55 High School 7 143 291 1:20 67

District-Wide Administrators 2013-2014 APPR Responsibilities Spec. Ed., PE/Health/Athletics, Music, Art, WLC/ESL

Staff Tenured staff

Non-Tenured

Staff

Number of APPR

Evaluations

Plus number of support staff annual evaluations

Special Education 7 1 8 16 PE/Health/Athletics 20 3 49 1.5 Music 24 48 .5 Art 10 1 22 .5 WLC/ESL 22 4 56 .5

It is suggested that the APPR Staff-to-Supervisor Ratio be addressed with any scenario option the district may choose to implement to organize and deliver the program differently. The research of best teaching-learning practices suggests that contact time with teachers

is a prime ingredient for pupil learning success. Charted below is the elementary and secondary teacher contact time with pupils currently in 2013-2014. Generally, 85 to 90% of assigned instructional time in a teacher workday is viewed as reasonable student instructional contact time.

Time before student day begins (students not present):

Preparation Time: 110 minutes per day

Total Possible Elementary Student Classroom Teacher Daily Contact Time

Elementary Student Classroom Teacher Daily

Contact Time; % of Contractual Work Day

Once Pupils Arrive Until They Depart the School

Elementary Teacher Day

7 hours and 45 minutes less 30 minutes for lunch; 7 hours and 15 minutes (435 minutes)

10 minutes 35 minutes (on average) per day during the student day

6 hours and 15 minutes – 30

minutes for lunch + 5

minutes for PM bus dismissal supervision

(350 minutes)

90%

(315 minutes/350 minutes)

75 minutes after pupil buses leave at 2:10

% of Teacher Total Work Day (435 minutes) with

Direct Instructional Contact with Pupils

80.5% (350/435)

Elementary Pupil School Day

6 hours and 15 minutes – 30

minutes for lunch + 5 minutes for PM bus

dismissal (350 minutes)

FINDINGS

53

Time

before student day begins (students not present):

Preparation Time

Total Possible Middle School Student Classroom Teacher Daily Contact Time Including the District ‘Assigned’ Activity Period (as per contract)

Middle School Student Classroom Teacher Daily Contact Time % of Contractual Work Day Once Pupils Arrive

6-8 Middle School Teacher Day


5 minutes 80 minutes per day

6 hours and 10 minutes plus may have an

assigned activity period of 40 minutes

(410 minutes)

86.6%

(355 minutes/410 minutes)

6-8 Middle School Pupil School Day

6 hours and 40 minutes less 30 minutes for lunch (370 minutes); 6 hours and 10 minutes plus may participate in an activity period of 40 minutes (410 minutes)

Time

before student day begins (students not present):

Preparation Time

Total Possible High School Student Classroom Teacher Daily Contact Time District ‘Assigned’ Activity Period is not a contractual obligation

High School Student Classroom Teacher Daily Contact Time % of Contractual Work Day Once Pupils Arrive

9-12 High School Teacher Day


0 86 minutes per day

5 hours and 49 minutes – 50 minute

optional activity period

(299 minutes)

77.7% (299 minutes/385 minutes)

80.2% (349 minutes/435 minutes)

With pupils who take part in the optional ‘academic period’

9-12 High School Pupil School Day

6 hours and 55 minutes less 30 minutes for lunch; 6 hours and 25 minutes (385 minutes) 7 hours and 45 minutes less 30 minutes for lunch plus 50 minutes optional activity period (435 minutes)

The nearest clusters of schools to each other are charted below:

Westmere, Guilderland Within 2.4 miles of each other Pine Bush, Lynnwood Within 2 miles of each other Altamont, Lynnwood Within 6.6 miles of each other Pine Bush, Lynnwood, Altamont Within 2 to 7.6 miles of each other Middle School and:

Guilderland 2 miles Westmere 2.2 miles

Lynnwood 4.4 miles Pine Bush 5.5 miles Altamont 8.5 miles

FINDINGS

54

An assumption of the study is that ‘doable’ scenario options might be suggested by looking at adjacent sets of elementary attendance zones. The assumption is based on the value of ‘least change impact’ with regard to the geographic region students would attend in a scenario option compared to where they attend now. The ‘least change impact’ with regard to the transportation of students in a scenario option is usually a major consideration. Other variables like pupil capacities of each of the buildings and the historical number of elementary age level students who live in each geographic attendance zone also have major influence on designing ‘doable’ scenario options.

As discussed above, the distances between existing elementary school buildings is a basic

and major criterion to develop possible ‘doable’ scenario options to deliver the K-5 program in possibly more efficient ways or patterns with a focus on ‘least change impact’ especially with regard to pupil transportation. Charted on the next page are the distances that the students who live the farthest from their current (2013-2014) attendance zone school travel to their school. Also listed is the additional distance these same students would travel to attend another current elementary school building in the district.

Distance of the home of the

current student attending this

school who lives the farthest from

the school…

Miles:

Miles now traveled by the student to current home school:

ADDITIONAL TRAVEL DISTANCE in Miles for this student to the alternative building:

Altamont If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Altamont have to travel to get to…………

Guilderland 11 Altamont: 4.12

6.88 Miles of this student from his/her home to Altamont:4.12

Lynnwood 10.03 5.91 Pine Bush 10.89 6.77 Westmere 13.21 9.09 Middle School

11.94 7.82

Guilderland If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Guilderland have to travel to get to…………

Altamont 10.06 Guilderland: 3.05

7.01 Miles of this student from his/her home to Guilderland:3.05

Lynnwood 6.15 3.1 Pine Bush 7.28 4.23 Westmere 1.35 -1.7 Middle School

2.51 -0.54

Lynnwood If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Lynnwood have to travel to get to…………

Altamont 4.20 Lynnwood: 4.22

-0.02 Miles of this student from his/her home to Lynnwood:4.22

Guilderland 7.07 2.85 Pine Bush 6.82 2.6 Westmere 9.62 5.4 Middle School

8.34 4.12

Pine Bush If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Pine Bush have to travel to get to…………

Altamont 9.04 Pine Bush: 2.76

6.28 Miles of this student from his/her home to Pine Bush:2.76

Guilderland 3.10 0.34 Lynnwood 3.39 0.63 Westmere 4.59 1.83 Middle School

4.19 1.43

FINDINGS

55

Westmere If the elementary school listed to the left is closed, how many miles would the current student who lives the farthest from Westmere have to travel to get to…………

Altamont 13.02 Westmere: 3.73

9.29 Miles of this student from his/her home to Westmere:3.73

Guilderland 6.07 2.34 Lynnwood 9.10 5.37 Pine Bush 10.25 6.52 Middle School

6.04 2.31

The chart is a handy tool to discuss ‘least impact’ issues related to the various scenario

options suggested by the study for review and discussion by the Board, school leadership and the community. The data charted are about the current students of each current attendance zone who live the farthest from the neighboring schools in other attendance zones. Therefore, all other students in a given attendance zone would travel less than the mileage listed in the ADDITIONAL MILEAGE column to a neighboring attendance zone school.

Within the past two years, the district has implemented a ‘swing zone’ attendance area

between Guilderland Elementary and Westmere Elementary to help mitigate school building overcrowding that might result from unexpected new resident enrollment. Once the district decides on a reconfiguration option, if any, for the schools, it is suggested that the district explore establishing ‘swing’ or ’buffer’ zones for all elementary buildings that allow the school district to assign students to either of two elementary schools depending on enrollment numbers. The district may not necessarily have to implement the policy regularly. However, establishing such a district-wide policy before it is absolutely needed helps inform the community and becomes a tool if pupil populations shift 5 to 10 years after a reconfiguration of attendance zones takes place.

A ‘buffer-swing’ zone is a residence geographical area that may be served by two or more elementary buildings depending upon the yearly enrollment who live in each of the schools attendance zones. The district creates policy that allows “buffer zones” to help achieve equity of school population sizes to enable adherence to class size goals as much as is possible. Because of possible overloading of grade levels in elementary buildings, it is necessary to have flexibility with student placement. The creation of ‘buffer zones’ allows for flexibility and still maintains a reasonable transportation pattern. Typically, the following considerations are reviewed when it may be necessary to reassign ‘buffer- zone’ pupils.

o Special program needs of the pupil o Any previous reassignment o Length of residence in the district o Siblings in School ( Normally siblings are not split between buildings

unless there are extenuating circumstances relating to special program needs or parents and the school agree on the appropriateness of such an arrangement.

FINDINGS

56

SOME POSSIBLE OPTIONS TO EXPLORE IN DELIVERING THE GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Pre-K-12 PROGRAM

OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS

An important asset to the district in engaging an outside guest consultant is that the district

receives a perspective not influenced by the history of the district, or by knowledge of the

preferences of various school district community stakeholders. This study ‘holds up a mirror’ in

an unbiased manner to: collect and analyze the pupil capacity data of the existing school

buildings; inventory and review the program deployment in those facilities; and estimate future

pupil enrollments. The results of the analyses provide for a data driven rationale in looking at

other ways to organize the delivery of the Pre-K-12 program. The purpose of the study is to

offer suggestions that could answer:

Are there options that might provide more cost-effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12 program is implemented/delivered over the next three years?

The Board of Education and senior administration do have knowledge of the district’s history, its

culture, and the preferences held by school district stakeholders. They are ultimately responsible

and are most able to determine, with engagement of the district community, which delivery

option, adapted delivery option, or set of options for the future will be best--as judged by local

values-- to deliver instruction to the children of the district.

The charts that follow list and describe various scenarios that singly or in combination with

others listed or not listed may define the best option to implement in order to deliver the pre-K

through grade 12 program in the future. The baseline variables that guide the identification of

the scenarios are the current pupil capacity assets of the Guilderland school buildings; the current

class size goals of the district; the current educational program; and the estimated future

enrollments of the district over the next three to five years. Other related example variables

analyzed to suggest the ‘doable’ scenario options for community/Board review include: equity

gaps in grade level section class sizes currently; the condition of the buildings; historical annual

enrollment changes in each of the elementary schools; the school sites; distances between each

school building; the culture of sharing instructional staff among the schools; the values of the

district regarding pupil transportation time; the values of the district and community about

neighborhood schools. Even though it is not cited specifically in each scenario, the district may

FINDINGS

57

wish to explore the possible benefits of implementing a multi-age instruction delivery model

when appropriate. Combined grade level classes can help decrease the equity gap in average

class sizes among the elementary schools. The pedagogy can provide learning opportunities for

various pupils, and at the same time, help ensure that there is full use of instructional staff talent

as benchmarked to the class size goals of the district.

In addition, it is recommended that Guilderland continue its practice of reviewing the

instructional opportunities and efficiencies that can be realized with various sharing

arrangements between and among the school districts in the BOCES through the BOCES

delivery model. It is suggested that there very well may be instructional opportunities for all

pupils and cost-efficiency benefits to be gained through collaborative sharing with other districts

through BOCES on a year-to-year basis depending upon yearly enrollments and the parameters

of the program offered by Guilderland.

Each of the scenario options B through F inherently allow the program to be delivered with

reduced costs. Each of the scenarios identifies school buildings that would not be used or used

differently to serve Guilderland students. Potential facility cost savings for each scenario with

fewer buildings is estimated at the end of the study. Such facility expenditure savings usually

include: operation and maintenance staffing, cafeteria staffing, utilities, building supplies, and

insurance. These savings are offset by resources necessary to protect the building as an asset to

the district. Such necessary resources usually include those needed for: keeping the building at

about 40-45 degrees; ongoing boiler inspections; systems functional upkeep; daily security; play

fields upkeep; parking lot upkeep (no grass growing in parking lots); and ongoing insurance

coverage.

None of the scenario options suggests using the high school differently. The high school

currently is at about 80% capacity, but there is not enough available capacity to host the 8th grade

and allow flexibility with including unassigned pupil capacity, for example. It is estimated that

in three years, grade 8 enrollment may be about 426 pupils and grade 9-12 enrollment may be

1618 pupils (totaling 2044 possible pupils 8-12). The pupil capacity of the high school is

between 2128 and 2179 depending upon the implementation of district class size guidelines and

FINDINGS

58

goals. If 9-12 enrollments decrease more than expected over the next 5 to 8 years, hosting the 8th

grade might be a consideration in the future.

Each of the scenario options B through F identifies an estimated range of instructional Full Time

Equivalents that might not be needed based on the enrollment projections for the district, the

minimum class size goals of the district, and how the grade level configurations would be served

in various buildings. The potential personnel savings of each scenario option are estimated by

multiplying the estimated fewer building supervisory FTE positions times the average cost

including benefits of $151,235, and multiplying the estimated fewer elementary instructional

positions times the average cost including benefits of $93,698 and $94,966 for fewer secondary

instructional FTEs. Note that average FTE costs are all inclusive of salary, FICA, health

insurance, other benefits if any, and retirement system payments. The same method is applied

regarding potentially fewer secretarial (FTE = $53,236 all-inclusive), and nursing (FTE =

$66,497 all-inclusive) staff positions. Not until an option, if any, is chosen to implement can the

estimate of personnel savings be refined. Even when an option is chosen, personnel savings will

not necessarily reflect actual savings. Only after factoring in the normal retirement of personnel

and/or the normal exiting of district employment for other reasons will personnel savings be

accurate.

All of the options focus primarily on using facility resources already in place. Common to each

scenario is the assumption that the district wishes to continue the district class size goals in place

for grades kindergarten through grade 12. The study does not take the liberty of ignoring those

values in the analyses or in the suggestions for program delivery options. The development of

the scenarios uses the average class size goal for the various grade levels as charted below.

Grade Levels Minimum Goal Maximum Goal Average of the Class Size Parameters K, 1, 2 18 23 21 3, 4, 5 21 25 23 6, 7, 8 24 26 25 9-12 26 27 26

All of the options assume the current location of classrooms rented to BOCES remain where they

are located. Often rented classrooms for BOCES shared programming can be moved from one

similar building to another without jeopardizing the quality of the program delivery. Therefore,

FINDINGS

59

such movement is a flexibility factor for the home district if in a given year a given attendance

zone may need to use rented classrooms to serve resident pupils. The total space currently rented

to the BOCES across the district is equivalent to the pupil capacity of one stand-alone school

building. In addition, the current assignment of spaces to instructional support services is

assumed unchanged. The re-assignment of such instructional spaces to other appropriately sized

spaces within a building is another flexibility factor if in a given year a given attendance zone or

grade configuration may need to add a class section to serve resident pupils.

The following chart of scenarios reflects those options the study suggests to be educationally

sound and cost-effective avenues to pursue given the data and inferences gained throughout the

research for the study. The local perspective is the only perspective that is important in the final

balance of determining what is ‘educationally sound’ and ‘cost-effective’ for Guilderland. The

scenarios are not listed in any priority order or advocacy order. The value judgment that

balances how the scenario options might ‘best’ serve the pupils of Guilderland and how the

scenario options might ‘best’ reduce operating expenditures must rest with the local Board and

the community it serves and not with a guest consultant. The study is a tool and a ‘roadmap’ to

help the local public policy discussion necessary to identify/develop an option, if any, to

implement.

The scenario option charts are provided in a format such that this document can be used as a tool

to analyze and add to each possible scenario as the school community ponders what actions

should be taken, if any. Local school district community discussion and analysis of the

perceived instructional impact of each scenario will likely identify additional ‘Opportunities and

Challenges’ not listed in the charts. Some elements of one scenario can be combined logistically

with elements of another to produce another scenario option.

FINDINGS

60

All of the Scenario Options listed: Adhere and reflect the class size goals currently followed by the Guilderland School

District. Reflect the low to high future enrollment projections for 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. Reflect the pupil capacities of the current school buildings and the current programs

provided.

SCENARIOS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION: Are there options that might provide more cost-

effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12 program is implemented/delivered over the next

three years?

AL

TA

MO

NT

GU

ILD

ER

LA

ND

LY

NN

WO

OD

PIN

E B

USH

WE

STM

ER

E

FAR

NSW

OR

TH

M

IDD

LE

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L

Scenario A: Continue the current pattern of delivery.

K-5

K-5

K-5

K-5

K-5

6-8

9-12

Scenario B: Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

K-5

K-5

K-5

K-5

6-8

9-12

Scenario C: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

K-4

K-4

K-4

K-4

5-8

9-12

Scenario D: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Lynnwood for pupils.

K-4

K-4

K-4

K-4

5-8

9-12

Scenario E: Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

3-5

K-2

3-5

K-2

6-8

9-12

Scenario F: Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland. Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

K-2

3-4

K-2

3-4

5-8

9-12

Scenario G: Worksheet….other?

FINDINGS

61

SCENARIO A: Continue the current pattern of delivery.

RATIONALE: • No change from current practice.

Pupil Capacity Available (Benchmarked to local class size average of the minimum and maximum goals and the instructional program

offerings of 2013-2014) Location

(Total K-5 current

enrollment: 2111)

Pupil Operating

Capacity Based on Average of the Min and Max Class Size Goals

of the District

Estimated K-5

Enrollment In 2016-17

Estimated Pupil Capacity Use with this Scenario in

2016-17

Estimated K-5 Enrollment In 2018-2019

Estimated Pupil Capacity Use with this Scenario in 2018-2019

Altamont (290)

351

1980 - 2068

83.1% - 86.8%

1976 - 2143

83% - 90%

Guilderland (576)

610

Lynnwood (404)

436

Pine Bush (396)

463

Westmere (445)

522

Total K-5: 2382

Middle School 6-8 (current enrollment:

1141)

1579 1186

75.1% 1117

70.7%

High School 9-12 (current enrollment:

1736)

2153 1583 73.5% 1618 75.2%

SCENARIO A: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Continue the current pattern of program delivery. OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:

No changes. Many grade level class sizes will

continue to be below the district class size goals.

Continue value of ‘neighborhood schools’.

About 20 to 25% unused middle school capacity over the next three years. Therefore, there is pupil capacity space to add new programs or special ed programs not now in the district.

There is instructional space available to rent to BOCES for regional programs.

Difficulty in maintaining equity of grade level class sizes among the elementary buildings.

Many grade level class sizes may continue to be below district class size goals.

Not fully using available instructional talent because the total of a particular grade level enrollment in a respective attendance zone is not adequate to meet efficiently and academically the class size goals of the district.

Increased cost of grade level delivery of instruction due to staffing levels serving fewer pupils than the number defined by the class size goals of the district.

Resource allocation; affordability. Upkeep of 7 instructional buildings. The Middle School

will have about 25% unused pupil capacity in three years.

FINDINGS

62

SCENARIO B: Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

RATIONALE: • Estimated future enrollments in three to five years suggest that fewer than five elementary

buildings may be necessary to serve the expected K through grade 5 population. • The centralization of what are currently five attendance zones to four attendance zones will

help diminish the current class size inequity in class section sizes at K-5 grade levels without jeopardizing district standards of quality.

• The district can probably reduce fixed budget expenditures and help keep the tax levy at a moderate acceptable level.

• The district can use existing resources to add program elements that may now be missing without asking for more revenue from taxpayers.

“Why Altamont?” • Altamont is the smallest pupil capacity school. • Its attendance zone has the smallest K-5 enrollment. • Geographically, it is the most outlying school building from the others.

Pupil Capacity Available (Benchmarked to local class size goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014)

Location (Total K-5

current enrollment:

2111)

Pupil Operating

Capacity Based on Average of

the Min and Max Class Size Goals

of the District

Estimated K-5


Est. Pupil Capacity Use with this Scenario in

2016-17

Estimated K-5


Est. Pupil Capacity

Use with this Scenario in 2018-2019

Altamont (290)

0

1980 - 2068

97.5% - 101.8%

1976 - 2143

97.3% - 105.5%

Guilderland (576)

610

Lynnwood (404)

436

Pine Bush (396)

463

Westmere (445)

522

Total K-5: 2031

Middle School 6-8 (current

enrollment: 1141)

1579 1186

75.1% 1117

70.7%

FINDINGS

63

SCENARIO B: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES: Continue value of ‘neighborhood schools’, but with

larger ‘neighborhoods’. Lower the expense of operating one existing

building. Equity of grade level class sizes and ‘efficient use

deployment of staff’ addressed with ‘more pupils’ available to be served by four attendance zones instead of five. Ample room to rent to the BOCES at the Middle

School. Revenue from selling or renting a building. In 2013-2014, there are103 grade level classes

serving pupils in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this scenario option will likely require: o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2016-

2017: 94 to 98. An estimated five to nine fewer FTEs may be needed with four attendance zones instead of five.

o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2018-2019: 94 to 101. An estimated two to nine fewer FTEs may be needed with four attendance zones instead of five.

The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school building and the potential of four to eleven fewer instructional FTE’s including one principal and library media specialist may allow:

◊ existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide increased instructional support services for pupils; and/or

◊ a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school district without changing current class size goals.

The closing of one school building for use by students. Re-draw attendance areas to be served by 4

elementary schools. Re-design the existing transportation routes

to meet the expectations the district has for pupil transportation. The middle school has about 25% unused

pupil capacity. If the high enrollment projections in three

years are achieved, the elementary schools may be close to or at pupil capacity unless fewer classrooms are rented to BOCES. Market a building to the private or

government sectors. ‘Moth balling’ one potentially unused

building. Part of savings will be needed to properly take care of the asset even though it is not being used.

FINDINGS

64

SCENARIO C: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.

Do not use Altamont for pupils. RATIONALE:

• Estimated future enrollments in three to five years suggest that fewer than five elementary buildings may be necessary to serve the expected K through grade 5 population.

• The centralization of what are currently five attendance zones to four K-4 attendance zones and centralizing the service to grade 5 pupils will help diminish the current class size inequity in class section sizes at K-5 grade levels without jeopardizing district standards of quality.

• The Middle School Building has significant unused pupil capacity. Guilderland CSD did serve grade 5 pupils at the Middle School Building in the past.



“Why Altamont?” Altamont is the smallest pupil capacity school. Its attendance zone has the smallest K-5 enrollment. Geographically, it is the most outlying school building from the others.

Pupil Capacity Available (Benchmarked to local class size goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014)

Location (Total K-5

current enrollment:

2111)

Pupil Operating



of the District

Estimated K-4



2016-17

Estimated K-4


Est. Pupil Capacity Use with this Scenario in 2018-2019

Altamont (290)

0

1606 - 1694

79.1% - 83.4%

1593 - 1760

78.4% - 86.7%

Guilderland (576)

610

Lynnwood (404)

436

Pine Bush (396)

463

Westmere (445)

522

Total K-4: 2031

Middle School 5-8 (current enrollment

6-8: 1141)

1579

Estimated 5-8


1533 - 1524

97.1 - 96.5%

Estimated 5-8


1445

91.5%

FINDINGS

65

SCENARIO C: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.

Do not use Altamont for pupils. OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:

Continue value of ‘neighborhood schools’, but with larger ‘neighborhoods’. Lower the expense of operating an existing building. Equity of grade level class sizes and ‘efficient use

deployment of staff’ addressed with ‘more pupils’ available to be served by four attendance zones instead of five. In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving

pupils in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this scenario option will likely require: o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2016-2017: 78-

82 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 92-96. An estimated seven to eleven fewer FTEs may be needed with four K-4 attendance zones and grade 5 served at the middle school building.

o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2018-2019: 78 to 85 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; a total of 92-99. An estimated four to eleven fewer FTEs may be needed with four K-4 attendance zones and grade 5 served at the middle school building.

The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school building along with the potential of six to thirteen fewer instructional FTE’s including one principal and one media library specialist may allow: ◊ existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide

increased instructional support services for pupils; and/or ◊ a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school

district to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school district without changing current class size goals.

The middle school would have more options of how best to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example: ◊ Grade 5 served in self-contained classrooms in a

dedicated wing of the middle school. ◊ Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle

school. ◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject

teachers serve the same set of pupils in grades 5 and 6. ◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject

teachers serve the same set of pupils in grades 7 and 8. Revenue from selling or renting a building. Students would have four transitions instead of three in

thirteen years.

The closing of one school building for use by students.

Re-draw attendance areas to be served by 4 elementary schools.

Re-design the existing transportation routes to meet the expectations the district has for pupil transportation. If the high enrollment projections in

three years are achieved, the elementary schools will be ‘comfortable’ at 87-90% capacity. Market a building to the private or


building. Part of savings will be needed to properly take care of the asset even though it is not being used. More instructional space available to

rent to BOCES for regional programming. Students would have four transitions

instead of three in thirteen years. The middle school would have more

options of how best to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example: ◊ Grade 5 served in self-contained

classrooms in a dedicated wing of the middle school.

◊ Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle school.

◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject teachers serve the same set of pupils in grades 5 and 6.


FINDINGS

66

SCENARIO D: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.

Do not use Lynnwood for pupils. RATIONALE:



• The centralization of what are currently five attendance zones to four K-4 attendance zones and centralizing the service to grade 5 pupils will help diminish the current class size inequity in class section sizes at K-5 grade levels without jeopardizing district standards of quality.



“Why Lynnwood?” • Lynnwood is located only two miles from Pine Bush Elementary. • Both Lynnwood and Pine Bush have decreasing enrollments over the past six years. • Pine Bush has a larger pupil capacity than Lynnwood.

Pupil Capacity Available (Benchmarked to local class size goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014) Location

(Total K-5 current

enrollment: 2111)

Pupil Operating



of the District

Estimated K-4



2016-17

Estimated K-4



Altamont (290)

351

1606 - 1694

82.5% - 87.1%

1593 - 1760

81.8% - 90.4%

Guilderland (576)

610

Lynnwood (404)

0

Pine Bush (396)

463

Westmere (445)

522

Total K-4: 1946

Middle School 5-8 (current

enrollment 6-8: 1141)

1579

Estimated 5-8


1533 - 1524

97.1 - 96.5%

Estimated 5-8


1445

91.5%

FINDINGS

67

SCENARIO D: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.

Do not use Lynnwood for pupils. OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:

Continue value of ‘neighborhood schools’, but with larger ‘neighborhoods’. Lower the expense of operating an existing building. Equity of grade level class sizes and ‘efficient use

deployment of staff’ addressed with ‘more pupils’ available to be served by four attendance zones instead of five. In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving

pupils in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this scenario option will likely require: o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2016-2017: 78-

82 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 92-96. An estimated seven to eleven fewer FTEs may be needed with four K-4 attendance zones and grade 5 served at the middle school building.

o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2018-2019: 78 to 85 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; a total of 92-99. An estimated four to eleven fewer FTEs may be needed with four K-4 attendance zones and grade 5 served at the middle school building.

The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school building along with the potential of six to thirteen fewer instructional FTE’s including one principal and one media library specialist may allow: ◊ existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide

increased instructional support services for pupils; and/or ◊ a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district

to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school district without changing current class size goals.

The middle school would have more options of how best to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example: ◊ Grade 5 served self-contained classrooms in a dedicated

wing of the middle school. ◊ Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle

school. ◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject

teachers serve the same set of pupils in grades 5 and 6. ◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject

teachers serve the same set of pupils in grades 7 and 8. Revenue from selling or renting a building. Students would have four transitions instead of three in

thirteen years.

The closing of one school building for use by students.

Re-draw attendance areas to be served by 4 elementary schools.

Re-design the existing transportation routes to meet the expectations the district has for pupil transportation. If the high enrollment projections in

three years are achieved, the elementary schools will be ‘comfortable’ at 87-90% capacity. Market a building to the private or


building. Part of savings will be needed to properly take care of the asset even though it is not being used. More instructional space available to

rent to BOCES for regional programming. Students would have four transitions

instead of three in thirteen years The middle school would have more

options of how best to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example: ◊ Grade 5 served in self-contained

classrooms in a dedicated wing of the middle school.




FINDINGS

68

SCENARIO E: Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland.

Do not use Altamont for pupils. RATIONALE:


• The centralization of grades K,1,2 at two sites and grades 3,4,5 at two sites will help mitigate class size equity gaps. Such a grade configuration model also provides pedagogical opportunities. (‘Princeton Model’)



“Why Altamont?” Altamont is the smallest pupil capacity school. Its attendance zone has the smallest K-5 enrollment. Geographically, it is the most outlying school building from the others. Westmere and Guilderland are within 2.4 miles of each other. Pine Bush and Lynnwood are

within 2 miles of each other. Pupil Capacity Available

(Benchmarked to local class size goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014) Location (Total K-5 current enrollment: 2111)

Pupil Operating Capacity Based on Average of the Min and Max Class Size Goals of the District

Estimated Enrollment In 2016-17




Altamont (290)

0

Lynnwood (404) Westmere (445)

436

958

K-2

909 - 996

94.9% - 104%

K-2

947 - 1057

99% - 110% 522

Pine Bush (396) Guilderland (576)

463

1073

3-5

1055

98.3%

3-5

995 - 1051

92.7% - 97.9% 610

Total K-5: 2031 Middle School 6-8 (current enrollment: 1141)

1579 1186

75.1% 1117

70.7%

FINDINGS

69

SCENARIO E: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland.

Do not use Altamont for pupils. OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:

Continue value of ‘neighborhood schools’, but with larger ‘neighborhoods’. Lower the expense of operating an existing building. Equity of grade level class sizes and ‘efficient deployment of

staff’ addressed with ‘more pupils’ available to be served by two K-2 and two 3-5 attendance zones instead of five K-5 zones. Assignment of instructional staff as teams to buildings based

on skill sets focused on early childhood education or intermediate elementary education.

Revenue from selling or renting a building. In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving pupils

in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this scenario option will likely require: o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2016-2017: 89-93.

An estimated ten to fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed with a K-5 ‘Princeton Model’ of grade configuration.

o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2018-2019: 89 to 96. An estimated seven to fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed with a K-5 ‘Princeton Model’ of grade configuration.

The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school building along with the potential of nine to sixteen fewer instructional FTEs including one principal and one media library specialist may allow: ◊ existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide

increased instructional support services for pupils; and/or ◊ A reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district

to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school district without changing current class size goals.

The middle school has ample space to rent to the BOCES for regional shared programming.

The closing of one school building for use by students. Re-draw attendance areas to be

served by 4 elementary schools configured with the Princeton Model of delivery. Re-design the existing transportation

routes to meet the expectations the district has for pupil transportation. The middle school has about 25%

unused pupil capacity. If the high enrollment projections in

three years are achieved, the elementary schools may be close to or at pupil capacity unless fewer rooms are rented to BOCES. Market a building to the private or

government sectors. ‘Moth balling’ one potentially

unused building. Part of savings will be needed to properly take care of the asset even though it is not being used. It is likely that classrooms rented to

BOCES may have to be relocated to other elementary settings in the school district.

FINDINGS

70

SCENARIO F: Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland.

Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils. RATIONALE:



• The centralization of grades K,1,2 at two sites and grades 3,4 at two sites and grade 5 at the Middle School Building will help mitigate class size equity gaps. Such a grade configuration model also provides pedagogical opportunities. (‘Princeton Model’)



“Why Altamont?” Altamont is the smallest pupil capacity school. Its attendance zone has the smallest K-5 enrollment. Geographically, it is the most outlying school building from the others. Westmere and Guilderland are within 2.4 miles of each other. Pine Bush and Lynnwood are

within 2 miles of each other. Pupil Capacity Available

(Benchmarked to local class size goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014) Location (Total K-5 current enrollment: 2111)

Pupil Operating Capacity Based on Average of the Min and Max Class Size Goals of the District





Altamont (290)

0

Pine Bush (396) Guilderland (576)

463

1073

K-2

909 - 996

84.7% - 92.8%

K-2

947 - 1057

88.3% - 98.6% 610

Lynnwood (404) Westmere (445)

436

958

3-4

707

73.8%

3-4

647 - 703

67.5% - 73.4% 522

Total K-4: 2031 Middle School 5-

8 (current enrollment 6-8:

1141)

1579

Estimated 5-8


1533 - 1524

97.1 - 96.5%

Estimated 5-8


1445

91.5%

FINDINGS

71

SCENARIO F: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland.

Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils. OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:

Continue value of ‘neighborhood schools’, but with larger ‘neighborhoods’. Lower the expense of operating an existing building. Equity of grade level class sizes and ‘efficient deployment of staff’

addressed with ‘more pupils’ available to be served by two K-2 and two 3-4 attendance zones and grade 5 served at one central school building instead of five K-5 zones. Assignment of instructional staff as teams to buildings based on skill

sets focused on early childhood education or intermediate elementary education.

Revenue from selling or renting a building. In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving pupils in

grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this scenario option will likely require: o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2016-2017: 75 to79 plus

14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 89-93. An estimated ten to fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed with a K-4 ‘Princeton Model’ of grade configuration, and grade 5 served at the middle school building.

o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2018-2019: 75 to 81 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 89-95. An estimated eight to fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed with a K-4 ‘Princeton Model’ of grade configuration and grade 5 served at the middle school building.

The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school building along with the potential of ten to sixteen fewer instructional FTE’s including one principal and one media specialist may allow: ◊ existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide increased

instructional support services for pupils; and/or ◊ a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district to deal

with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school district without changing current class size goals.

The middle school would have more options of how best to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example: ◊ Grade 5 served in self-contained classrooms in a dedicated wing of

the middle school. ◊ Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle school. ◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject teachers

serve the same set of pupils in grades 5 and 6. ◊ Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject teachers

serve the same set of pupils in grades 7 and 8. Students would have four transitions instead of three in thirteen

years. More space available to rent to BOCES for regional programming

The closing of one school building for use by students. Re-draw attendance areas to be

served by 4 elementary schools configured with the Princeton Model of delivery. Re-design the existing

transportation routes to meet the expectations the district has for pupil transportation. Market a building to the

private or government sectors. ‘Moth balling’ one potentially

unused buildings. Part of savings will be needed to properly take care of the asset even though it is not being used. Students would have four

transitions instead of three in thirteen years. The middle school would have

more options of how best to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example: ◊ Grade 5 served in self-

contained classrooms in a dedicated wing of the middle school.




FINDINGS

72

WORKSHEET SCENARIO G:

RATIONALE:

• Pupil Capacity Available

(Benchmarked to local class size average of the minimum and maximum goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014)

Location (Total K-5

current enrollment:

2111)

Pupil Operating

Capacity Based on Average of the Min and Max Class Size Goals

of the District

Estimated K-5


Estimated Pupil Capacity Use with this Scenario in

2016-17

Estimated K-5 Enrollment In 2018-2019

Estimated Pupil Capacity Use with this Scenario in 2018-2019

Altamont (290)

351

1980 - 2068

1976 - 2143

Guilderland (576)

610

Lynnwood (404)

436

Pine Bush (396)

463

Westmere (445)

522

Total K-5: 2382

Middle School 6-8 (current enrollment:

1141)

1579 1186

1117

High School 9-12 (current enrollment:

1736)

2153 1583 1618

OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:

FINDINGS

73

PRELIMINARY FINANCIALS FOR EACH SCENARIO OPTION IDENTIFIED IN THE PROGRAM/FACILITY USE STUDY. Please note: At this juncture of the process by Guilderland CSD in deciding how best to serve the pupils of the community within the next three to five years, it is recommended that a careful, thoughtful analysis be focused first on what the vision is for the student program. Once the six scenario options are narrowed to a prime set, then further analysis of potential annual cost savings should be undertaken. At that time, specific affected staff FTEs following seniority and other guidelines will be identified along with the specific costs associated with those FTEs. Another potential savings is ‘cost avoidance’ of planned capital improvements for a building that is identified to close in the respective scenario options. It is suggested that planned capital expenses that do not directly maintain the integrity of the structure, parking lots, or infrastructure systems can likely be ‘avoided’. Estimated ‘avoidance’ capital expenses are best identified by the architect of the district in collaboration with the district leadership.

SCENARIOS FOR DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION BY THE GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO

ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Are there options to the current practice that might provide more efficient ways or patterns to organize how the grades K-12 program is implemented/delivered over

the next three years?

(Not listed in priority or advocacy order.)

ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS TO THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET

STAFFING BASED ON THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM CLASS SIZE DISTRICT GOALS

Estimated Staffing Expenditure Changes

(Estimated as of January 2014—subject to district enrollment at the time of implementation-

benchmarked to 2016-2017 enrollment estimates)

BUILDING OPERATION EXPENSES

Estimated cost savings do not include potential local costs, if any, for adaptations/renovations, if any, to

re-configure the schools to serve the pupils as outlined in each scenario.

Estimated Building Operations

Expenditure Changes SCENARIO A: Continue the current pattern of program delivery.

$0

$0

SCENARIO B: Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use Altamont for pupils. Estimated reduction of current expenditures: $1,160,227 to $1,524,893

Staff: Average Cost/FTE:

Est. Expenditure Reduction:

Operations and Maintenance Staffing:

$201,045

1 principal $151,235 $151,235 School Lunch Staffing: $28,250 1 media specialist

$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100

1 secretary $53,236 $53,236 Building Supplies: $55,000 1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $360,395 Grade level teachers:

$93,698 Less Cost to Maintain the Closed Building:

-$43,450

5 teachers/ high enrollment est. $468,490 : 9 teachers/low enrollment est. $843,282 Estimated Building Operation

Savings:

$316,945 Estimated Staffing Savings: $833,156-$1,207,948

FINDINGS

74




the next three years? (Not listed in priority or advocacy order.)











Expenditure Changes

SCENARIO C: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils. Estimated reduction of current expenditures: $1,337,497 to $1,712,289




$201,045


$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100



-$43,450

7 teachers/high enrollment est. $655,886 11 teachers/low enrollment est. $1,030,678

Estimated Building Operation Savings:

$316,945 Estimated Staffing Savings: $1,020,552-$1,395,344

SCENARIO D: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Lynnwood for pupils. Estimated reduction of current expenditures: $1,397,097 to $1,771,889




$231,490

1 principal $151,235 $151,235 School Lunch Staffing: $40,605

1 media specialist

$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $98,900

1 secretary $53,236 $53,236 Building Supplies: $57,000

1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $427,995

Grade level teachers:


-$51,450

7 teachers/high enrollment est. $655,886 11 teachers/low enrollment est. $1,030,678 Estimated Building Operation

Savings:

$376,545 Estimated Staffing Savings: $1,020,552-$1,395,344

FINDINGS

75




the next three years? (Not listed in priority or advocacy order.)











Expenditure Changes

SCENARIO E: Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland. Do not use Altamont for pupils. Estimated reduction of current expenditures: $ 1,618,591 to $1,993,383




$201,045


$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100



-$43,450


Savings: $316,945

Estimated Staffing Savings: $1,301,646-$1,676,438 SCENARIO F: Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland. Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils. Estimated reduction of current expenditures: $ 1,618,591 to $1,993,383




$201,045


$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100



-$43,450


Savings: $316,945 Estimated Staffing Savings: $1,301,646-$1,676,438

FINDINGS

76

Potential Impact of the Scenarios on the Current Cost of Pupil Transportation Currently, it takes 82 ‘regular’ bus routes in the morning to transport pupils to school. It takes 82 ‘regular’ bus routes to transport pupils home in the

afternoon. It is possible that the resource now in the school budget that supports the total 164 ‘regular’ bus routes will be sufficient to implement the

transportation plan for the various school building configuration options.

The 2013-2014 transportation costs to provide the 164 single bus routes for AM and PM transportation to school and home totals $5,851,256. The

average cost per single bus route is $35,678, all inclusive. In 2013-2014, Guilderland receives 86% of the transportation expenditures made in 2012-

2013 as State transportation aid. The local cost per regular bus route on average is $4,995; the State support of each regular bus route on average is

$30,683.

The scenarios require new attendance zones and/or fewer attendance zones to be determined. Until the Board focuses on one or two scenarios, the

study cannot state that it will take fewer, the same or more bus routes to implement the scenarios. For example, some of the scenario options

centralize grade levels district-wide. This may allow fewer student-day time schedules among the grade levels and buildings. The study is cautious

about estimating savings or any added expenditures to the transportation program at this time. Where grade levels are served, and where the

attendance zone lines are drawn, will define the pupil transportation plan. When and if the Board focuses on one or two scenarios for possible

implementation, then the district transportation staff can implement the routing software to suggest safe and economical routes after a preliminary

determination is made about possible attendance zone boundaries. Even at that point, the Board has options.

For example, if there are savings with a configuration scenario compared to the current transportation expenditures, the district and community may

wish to use those savings to reduce travel time on buses with more routes or use the savings to add to the academic program. Each fewer route

equals about $4,995 in less revenue needed annually from the local tax levy. Similarly, any added route to serve pupils safer, or in a more timely

way adds about $4,995 annually in expenditure that is covered by the local tax levy.

Elementary School Attendance Zones of Guilderland Central School District 2013-2014

Gray: Altamont; Green: Lynnwood; Red: Pine Bush; Moss: Guilderland; Blue: Westmere

Documents

Guilderland schools building capacity study (2014)