2vs4
High school options comparedBy STEPHANIE HAMM shamm@timesobserver.com
Article PDFs
DeJong comparison Chart
Everyone who attended the community dialogue session on possible high school consolidation left with some valuable information.
Documents created by school planning company DeJong included a chart summarizing various criteria for each high school option. The options discussed Tuesday evening included the current four high school scenario, Option A, which would utilize Warren Area High School and Youngsville High School and Option B, which would utilize Warren and a new high school.
In a breakdown of school size for grades nine through 12 under the four high school scenario, Eisenhower Middle/High would hold 350 students, Sheffield Middle/High School would hold 200 students, Youngsville would hold 350 students and Warren would hold 800 students.
Under both two high school options, Warren would hold between 900 and 1,000 students. Youngsville or the newly constructed high school would hold between 600 and 700 students.
According to DeJong, the current ninth to 12th grade enrollment is approximately 1,700 students, which is projected to decrease to approximately 1,500 students over the next 10 years.
The chart created by DeJong looked at the following categories:
Comprehensive high school
Four high schools: Negative, because smaller high schools have difficulty providing programs, sports and extracurricular activities.
Option A and B: Positive, because of an increase in program offerings.
The DeJong analysis noted that with the two high school options, program offerings increase because more students are concentrated at two locations rather than four.
Course Offerings
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change in the number of course offerings.
Option A and B: Positive, because each high school would be able to provide courses similar to what Warren provides now.
Courses with insufficient enrollment or need to be combined
Four high schools: Negative, because more courses are not held because of insufficient enrollment
Option A and B: Positive, because fewer courses are not held because of insufficient enrollment
AP Programs
Four High Schools: Negative, because of reduced opportunities at smaller high schools
Option A and B: Positive, because of increased AP opportunities.
Foreign Language
Four high schools: Negative, because it would be more difficult to provide multiple foreign language and advanced courses
Option A and B: Positive, due to more foreign language opportunities
Elective Courses
Four high schools: Negative, due to fewer elective course offerings
Option A and B: Positive, due to more elective course offerings
Career Tech
Four High Schools: Negative, because of limited opportunities at small high schools
Option A and B: Positive, because a career tech could be at each school, at the career center or a combination of both
Class Size
Four high schools: Negative, with the average size being between 10 and 16 students
Option A and B: Positive. with the average class size being between 16 and 20 students.
According to DeJong, with increased efficiency class size would be increased.
Special Education
Four high schools: Neutral, due to the fact there would be no change
Option A and B: Positive, because efficiency and effectiveness would increase.
According to DeJong, with special needs students in two locations rather than four, there can be better coordination of services and use of specialists.
Administrators
Four high schools: Neutral, with no change in the total number
Option A and B: Positive, because there would be a reduction in two 260-day principals and one 220-day principal
According to DeJong, in the two high school options, there would be a reduction in the total number of administrators in the district.
Teachers
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change in staffing
Option A and B: Positive, due to an increase in staffing efficiency, with 11 teacher positions
According to DeJong, fewer teachers are required under the two high school options because fewer undersized classes are taught.
Custodial and Support
Four high schools: Neutral, but there will be some efficiencies since there are fewer buildings
Option A and B: Positive, seeing the greatest increase in staffing efficiency
According to DeJong, fewer custodians, food service, secretaries and support personnel are needed based on fewer schools in operation.
Extracurricular
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change
Option A and B: Positive, due to the increased number of opportunities for students
According to DeJong, with the two high school options, extracurricular activities and clubs would be consolidated into the two schools, resulting in higher participation per activity at each school and the availability of more offerings.
Performing Arts
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change
Option A and B: Positive, because of the ability to have more and larger performances
Athletics/Sports Offerings
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change
Option A and B: Positive, because of increase number of opportunities for students
Sports Participation
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change
Option A and B: Positive, depending on the sport
Sports Competitiveness
Four high schools: Neutral, due to no change
Option A and B: Positive, depending on the sport
According to DeJong, all sports would be consolidated into the two schools, resulting in higher participation per sport at each school, and the availability of more offerings. This would increase the likeliness that there would be a sufficient number of students to field teams and have teams be competitive, resulting in moving up in the PIAA classes.
Marching Band
Four high schools: Neutral, the bands would be smaller
Option A and B: Positive, due to increased size of the bands
Facility Improvements
Four high schools: Positive, because Eisenhower would be new, Warren would be renovated and Youngsville and Sheffield would require no action.
Option A and B: Positive, with each of the two high schools being renovated or receiving an addition
Facility Adequacy
Four high schools: Neutral, because only Eisenhower would be state of the art. (Under the original masters facilities plan, Eisenhower would be replaced with a new $24.75 million facility). All other facilities would be classified as fair
Option A: Neutral, with renovations or additions there would be some improvements to Warren and Youngsville
Option B: Positive, because the new high school would be state of the art. Warren would be improved through renovations and additions
Facility Energy
All options: Neutral, because facility improvements can improve energy efficiency
Facility Utilization
Four high schools: Neutral, because fewer elementary schools would improve utilization
Option A and B: Positive, because fewer elementary, middle and high schools would improve utilization
According to DeJong, the configuration in the two high school options would improve overall utilization and efficiency.
Transportation
Four high schools: Neutral, a more route-specific analysis would be required
Option A and B: Negative, because transportation time would likely increase, but a more route-specific analysis would be required
Middle Level Attendance Boundaries
Four high schools: Positive, with no change in attendance boundaries
Option A and B: Neutral, with Russell and Sugar Grove elementary schools becoming grades K-8 to accommodate Eisenhower grade 7-8 students
High School Attendance Boundaries
Four high schools: Positive, with no change in attendance boundaries
Option A and B: Neutral, with either a new east or west, Youngsville or Eisenhower and Warren or Sheffield
Potential for New Charter School
Four high schools: Positive, with no change in boundaries and few school closures
Option A and B: Negative, with moderate potential due to the closure of Eisenhower
Facility Cost
Four high schools: Neutral, costing $85.6 million
Option A: Neutral, costing $82.8 million
Option B: Negative, costing $102.9 million
Transportation Cost
Four high schools: Neutral, with a district-wide increase of approximately $384, 561
Option A: Neutral, with a district-wide increase of approximately $421,174
Option B: Neutral, with a district-wide increase of approximately $437, 460
According to DeJong, the costs are based on the district changing from K-12 busing to K-9 busing.
Staffing Cost
Four high schools: Neutral, with a reduction of approximately $220,046
Option A and B: Positive, with a reduction of approximately $1.5 million
Utility Cost
Four high schools: Neutral, with a reduction of approximately $73,123
Option A and B: Positive, with a reduction of approximately $142,527
Athletics Cost
Four high schools: Neutral, with no change in cost
Option A and B: Positive, with a reduction of approximately $149,238
Overall Operating Cost
Four high schools: Neutral, with an overall reduction of approximately $293,169
Option A and B: Positive, with and overall reduction of approximately $1.8 million
Average Cost Per Student
Four high schools: Neutral, with a decrease of cost per student by approximately $56.18
Option A and B: Positive, with a decrease of cost per student by approximately$351.50
According to DeJong, the above amount is based on the 2008-09 enrollment of 5,218 students.
|
fivealive
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-14-09 9:23 PM
|
People need to think long-term. The district is shrinking at a somewhat alarming rate. It is going to have to happen. You can do it now and optimize the kids' educational opportunities starting now. Or, you can waste time (and insane amounts of money) and be forced into it in ten years. Make the most of the situation now or make do later. This is an opportunity for the district to improve on what it has. It is not a tragedy. It is not a negative. It is a chance to make some positive and necessary changes. I just can't comprehend why the WCSD doesn't seize the opportunity...
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-14-09 9:16 PM
|
How many students are in those AP classes at EHS? Are they offered AT Eisenhower or via webcast? And how long do you think they can continue to offer those classes, given the rate of decline at EHS? I tend to agree with DeJong on the extra-curricular opportunities. At a larger school, you can offer more clubs, sports, etc. You field a larger football team. Keep four schools and the district is going to have to start cutting programs...beginning with extra-curriculars. You may have a drama now but you won't in the near future. I highly doubt DeJong pulled those class size numbers out of thin air. IF there are core classes of 25-30 now, my guess is those numbers would actually decline w/ consolidation, as you would have more sections of the course available. Optimum class size is around 20, according to most educational studies. There is such a thing as too small. Especially when 'small' means the course can no longer be offered.
|
|
tealdahlia
|
|
|
11-14-09 7:30 PM
|
"Ignorant Hillbilly"? I beg your pardon. Ignorant is definitely nonapplicable. You were the one with the incorrect facts. I corrected you. Ignorant? No, I think that applies to you, as you did not even check the facts before you dared critize me. And hillbilly is inaccurate as well, as I was raised in the suburbs of a city much larger than Warren. And I also resent your refering to me as a 4schooler. Is this what I support? Yes, but not simply for the name of four schools, but rather what is best for the students. You demanded that I face facts: I would like to challenge you to do the same. Class Sizes. Percentage of Individual Participation. Travel time. Student Opportunities. All point towards the FACT that, for students, consolidation would be a damaging and negative choice.
|
|
tealdahlia
|
|
|
11-14-09 1:23 PM
|
Good thought with the signs, tothe"wrong"; so original. It's a *wonder* that no one else thought of that method before.... Oh wait, they did. What would yours say? "Consolidation: Great Idea. Expensive. Bad for Students. Damaging to the Community. Call Idiots-R-Us to show your support".
|
|
tealdahlia
|
|
|
11-14-09 1:18 PM
|
Dear totheright (whose name makes me laugh at the absurdity of their comments): I happen to attend Eisenhower, and know this for a fact. If you had attended the High School Feasibility Study, you would have heard the school board state: AP classses: at EHS: 10. At WAHS: 10. At YHS:5. At SAHS: 1. Please refer to the Draft plan(which was released by the district), page 12, and actually get the facts before you make anymore foolish and false staements.
|
|
tealdahlia
|
|
|
11-14-09 1:14 PM
|
I nearly laughed when I read that the chart claims that a consolidated school system would offer more student oppurtunities in extracurricular activities. Take any sport team around the county. If consolidation occurs, less than half of those that participate would be still play. Would the teams win more? Probably. But I was raised with the saying "it's not about whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game". The life skills learned by students participating in sports, performing arts, and other clubs are the main reason these activities are offered, and those are what will matter in 20 years, not how many titles are won. Currently, in my school's drama program, everyone gets the chance to have several large parts. Yet, in a larger school, many of these students would not even have the chance to be an extra. Again: thinking about the benefit or harm to the students should be the main reasoning behind what the school board does, and no monetary reason can outweigh that
|
|
tealdahlia
|
|
|
11-14-09 1:04 PM
|
Much of the information in the chart is misleading. It claims that smaller schools cannot offer as many AP classes as a larger one, yet Eisenhower and Warren offer the same amount of AP courses. DeJong claimed in his presentation that smaller schools are limited in elective course offerings, yet then contradicted himself and said the district schools all have roughly the same elective course offereings. Career tech opportunities are not limited at a small school, and would not be expanded at a large school, because ALL career tech opportunities take place at the WCCC, where they will remain no matter what. Average class size is claimed to be 10-16 currently, yet it is not unusual to walk into a core classroom and find 25 to 30 students. How many more would be in these classes in a consolidated school? Smaller classes are more conducive to student learning than larger classes.
|
|
Bailey
|
|
|
11-13-09 9:55 PM
|
Fivealive, I agree wholeheartedly. Spec Ed would be a lot better with the two school option. The way things are spread out now, it's no supprise that there are so many TSS, and MT's in the school settings now. I forgot about the 3.7 mills that the district got. Then again, I wasn't aware of job openings in the district either. I know for a fact that Ike does NOT have an ES classroom setting like Youngsville. If they did, my oldest two would be in the same school. And then my youngest next year. It seems like after you go through something like IU 5, things go downhill a bit. Lots of questions, with very few answers. I've had to push rather hard to get answers sometimes in the school setting, but have had much beter luck outside the school arena. Advocating is easy. Getting them to listen is another. But back on subject, I'm really wondering now about that 3.7 mill. Good question. Wasn't on Kleenek, and pencils.
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-13-09 7:31 PM
|
Wasn't that $3.7million in stimulus money for SPED? If so, that is where it had to be spent. WCSD had no choice in that matter.
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-13-09 7:29 PM
|
Bailey, the SPED will improve with consolidation according to the DeJong report. It stays 'neutral' with 4 schools because they will keep what they have. SPED, as you know, can't decline because of state/fed regulation. I also have kids in SPED programs and really feel that the effeciency in consolidating would greatly improve the quality of programs. The district has a set amount of SPED funding. If that were to be spread over two schools, it would save moeny and teacher time. I think the SPED teachers would have a better feel for the kids and more contact with teachers, enabling them to better gauge needs. Spreading SPED dollars and resources over four schools is such a waste. Making sure these kids don't get lost in the shuffle is what I usually do. I think they would actually gain, for once, under consolidation.
|
|
faulby
|
|
|
11-13-09 6:10 PM
|
Brian Hagberg, I agree there is a need to determine the number of teachers now vs. potential consolidation. That's why I filed a request through the freedom of information act to get this info. At the same time, I also filed a request to know where the 3.7 million dollars in stimulus money was spent. Are any of you aware that the school district is adding 5 or 6 new jobs as stated in the paper a few days ago. Look at the school district website and you'll see they are already posted openings. Why are we still adding with declining enrollment? Look the company we're partnering with up and you'll see UPMC website and near as I can tell, jobs that the state already takes care of so why 5 or 6 more? As for class sizes I often wonder why a college freshman can be in a class size of 60+ while a high school seniors class size is 16-20. Is there really that much of a difference between a hign school senior and college freshman?
|
|
Bailey
|
|
|
11-13-09 6:06 PM
|
I find a lot of facts in the Dejong report...can't deny that, but I also see a lot of crap in it too. Will these schools close, well, yes they will...period. Have to face that fact. That has god points, and bad of course. Enrollment down, loss of tax base. Going to say pending unemployment for staff, and travel time are also issues that should be checked into before we all go off all*****bent for one side or another. I hate to see people loose jobs now the way things are, but I would still like to see how many this will affect. I'm going to stay on the fence still, and see what way everything drops. All I want to see happen here is a decent education for my kids. Doesn't matter to me wether it's two schools, 4 schools, or 1 and a half schools. Don't care really. Safety, education have to come first. Would love to see more on the special ed side though instead of neutral. I think we can do better than that
|
|
Bailey
|
|
|
11-13-09 5:41 PM
|
Fivealive, I agree with you 100%. It is a necessary evil to loose some of the teachers we have around here. Just for the record here everyone, I have kids in 3 schools. Youngsville, Ike, and SG Elementary. So thats why I am on the fence, and could go either way on the whole thing. In reality, it would be easier toy see all of my kids go to Youngsville, because the drivetime would be a lot quicker. The reason my kids are scatered, is because of special Needs. I have one with Aspergers Syndrome, and one with emotional distress, and PTSD, and also ADHD. So in our case spec Ed is a major thing with us here. Thats why my 2 oldest don't even go to the same school. Now why would special Ed stay neutral with the consolidatin? I would expect it to IMPROVE.
|
|
Morrison
|
|
|
11-13-09 5:23 PM
|
Excuse me. I didn't know saving teachers' jobs was part of the plan for good schools for the price.
|
|
garypayton
|
|
|
11-13-09 2:02 PM
|
Totheright is RIGHT! Consolidate NOW!
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:59 PM
|
Keep in mind, Bailey, that it is very possible for these teachers to lose their jobs with four schools, too. IF the district keeps four schools, things are going to have to be cut to keep the district afloat. First thing will be to combine or eliminate classes in buildings. The band director you mention as an example will be on the block, too, as arts/music are often the next thing to go. Consolidation is not the root of all evil. The declining enrollment and tax base are the root of the problem.
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:55 PM
|
Bailey, DeJong says 11 teachers in the study above. (Unless I am reading it wrong.) It is possible that a band teacher will lost his/her job in consolidation. The district will try to eliminate positions thru retirement first. There will likely be a loss of jobs in the custodial/service staff. You simply don't need as many in fewer buildings. It is unfortunate but a necessary evil. Would you really consider it responsible to keep four schools solely to preserve these jobs?
|
|
brianhagberg
|
|
|
11-13-09 12:03 PM
|
faulby: I have to disagree with your thinking a little here. You need to look at the current number of teachers in the district and figure that with consolidation that number stays the same, and most likely shrinks. Those would be the numbers you need to look at for staffing costs.
|
|
Bailey
|
|
|
11-13-09 11:45 AM
|
So let me get this straight.... Nobody is going to loose their jobs if they go from the 4 to the 2. Retirement, you loose a few here and there. Not all at once. If nobody is going to loose their jobs, that mneans we have more teaches, more custodial staff, more food service workers, and office staff to find work for then. How many band directors do you need when you have 4 schools, and how many if you have 2? Sounds like simple math to me. What I really want to see, like I have said before is how many people are going to loose their jobs. Not hearsay, but a study on that from the district. Bet they all aren't retiring. And it's not the public thats giving them jobs, it's the district. It it was the public, wouldn't we be deciding who gets hired and fired?
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-13-09 10:27 AM
|
The argument from the 4 Schools folks will be that there is a job for those teachers because there are kids in the classes now with the 4 schools set-up. Problem is, you are paying teachers to teach classes that are too small. Money could be better utilized by combining some classes and making them "big", ie 16-20. With the current student enrollment, those small classes are unnecessary. Given the trend of declining enrollment, they will become obsolete in the near future. Or, we could continue to pay the teachers to teach those classes and end up with a Scandia-type situation.
|
|
writer10
|
|
|
11-13-09 10:15 AM
|
the population of the area is shrinking. Those in the public industries are going to lose their jobs. That's just how it works. You can't just keep paying people when there is no job available to pay them for. Public or private, you have to make cuts in a shrinking environment.
|
|
Morrison
|
|
|
11-13-09 9:34 AM
|
If a person retires and the job isn't filled....at what point was that job unnecessary and that person still getting paid for "doing" it?
|
|
PleasantMan
|
|
|
11-13-09 8:26 AM
|
Bailey No one is going to lose their job. People retire every year and those positions are just not refilled. The public has no obligation to give a person a job if they are not needed.
|
|
fivealive
|
|
|
11-13-09 8:00 AM
|
DeJong says 11 teacher positions lost with consolidation. While it does say "neutral" w/ the 4 schools plan, that is not taking into consideration the future of those jobs, which will likely be lost because of declining enrollment and courses accordingly being cut down the road. While cutting teacher jobs is not ideal, it is a necessary evil. You don't hold up what is best for the district in the long-run over eleven jobs. Harsh but the reality. Keep in mind, also, that this is happening to teachers all over the country. School money is tight and districts have to cope the best they can.
|
|
faulby
|
|
|
11-13-09 6:28 AM
|
Food for thought:in the "class size" heading the article indicates class size of 10 to 16 changing to 16 to 20. In doing the math, I used 13 vs 18 (middle ground for each) and then divided that number by the total student population and I get a value of 401 vs 290. This could be 401 teachers needed to teach daily classes vs. 290 teachers needed. The difference is 111 and if each was paid 50,000 per year with benefits and retirement included you get an annual savings of 5.5 million dollars. Transportation adds 429 thousand back, utilities save 140 thousand, staff saves 1.5 million. This articles analysis shows an overall operating saves 1.8 million. I show 5.35 million in savings if my number is reasonable and it doesn't include "administration costs. If you borrow 90 million dollars with 3% interest you pay back more per year in interest than you save. Based on the articles numbers you spend 3 million in interest to save 1.8 million? Doesn't make sense to proceed.
|