Long Range Plan Minutes December 13, 2006

Long Range Plan Review Committee
Minutes
December 13, 2006

Members in Attendance:
Harry Amend* Susan Clayton Russ Hansen David Miller Lori Smith
Rosie Astorquia* Jane Curtis Katie Harris Jill Neal Tami Stroud
Hazel Bauman* Mike DeLong Doug Jaworski Vern Newby* John Swallow
Jeff Bengtson Lana Hamilton Mary Larson Dave Patzer Dianna Walde
Steve Briggs* Chris Hammons Bryan Martin* Pam Pratt*

*Ex-officio members

Guests: Amy Evans, Teresa Runge, Roger Snyder & Sorensen teaching staff

Welcome:
Dave Patzer called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. The meeting was held at the Midtown Center meeting room.

Sorensen Elementary Discussion:
Dave stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to continue the Sorensen discussion that began at the last meeting. The District provided the committee with an informational packet dated December 11, 2006 which addresses questions that have been raised by the Board, parents, patrons and staff. A building student cost handout was also provided to the members.
Harry Amend proceeded to go over the handout and stated this same information will be presented to the Board on December 18th as a PowerPoint presentation. There will be a question and answer session tonight in order to get a comfort level on the concerns and issues. If the committee is ready at the end of the meeting, the voting members will take a written vote, the results will be announced and they will be presented to the Board on Monday night. If the committee is not ready to vote, another meeting will be scheduled.

Question & Answer Session:
The following comments, questions and answers were made by the committee, parents and District staff:
• Felt the sentence on Page 13 of the handout which states, “The variable of social economic status as measured by free and reduced lunch rates does not appear to be a critical factor in Coeur d’Alene schools performance” is an unsubstantiated statement. What are the other variables? Hazel responded that over the last decade there has been very little correlation between poverty rates and academic performance. Prior to educational reform, the highest performing schools were always the most affluent and the lowest performing schools were always the least affluent. This is no longer the case. There is an influence but not a direct correlation. There are a several different variables such as learning difficulties, family difficulties, teacher training, etc.
• In regards to the data regarding the declining enrollment in the southern schools, is this due to a declining student population or are students seeking education somewhere else because of the general state of the schools? Steve stated that in regards to the graph on Page 1, these are in zone numbers. In 2001 and 2006, the in zone numbers were very comparable to the enrollment numbers in both the south and north.
• Page 2, “In making a determination as to whether a school should be closed, a number of factors have be analyzed, demographics, facility issues, financial justification and educational programs”. How do Borah, Bryan and Winton compare to Sorensen? Why are we not looking at these other three schools? The Needs Assessment Subcommittee (20 people or more) of Long Range Planning toured the schools and then met over several months and used a matrix to score each of the buildings to determine the order of priority of each school for the S.P.F.L. Sorensen scored at the bottom of the list. Vern stated that the Board did not intend for this committee to go back through all the prior work that they have already done in assessing the facilities.

• Many of the people living in the southern portion of the District are retirees and the elderly. There could be a turnover in the south and there is potential for low cost housing. We need to look at the age demographics in the south and there may be a change in the student ratio. Harry responded that this was the District’s hope 5 years ago.
• The economic influences have not yet come into play in the last 5 years. The real estate cycle is 7-10 years.
• From November 2002 through November 2006, there was only a decrease of 33 students in the south. This is not very drastic. It is the goal of the City and LCDC to create, through the urban renewal, low income housing. This will help generate some people to the Sorensen area. Young families can afford $225,000 homes, don’t discount that.
• The City Council is in unanimous support of a resolution to keep Sorensen where it is. Sandy Bloem’s primary objective for the New Year is affordable housing. The chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission is going to go before the Board and express concerns regarding the closing of a downtown school. They are trying very hard to draw families into the downtown area. If the District continues to go down this road, they will butt heads with the City of Coeur d’Alene, business interests, elected officials and neighborhoods. On the other side of this argument is the tax sentiment (being fiscally responsible).
• Closing a school is not a fiscally responsible thing to do for the taxpayers. Sorensen can house 316 students. A sentence on Page 10 states, “If enrollment continues to increase in the North/Northwest there may be a need for additional facilities to follow the growth in the community.” So this is saying that you are going to close Sorensen and then possibly ask the taxpayers for a new school. Is this fiscally responsible? Hazel responded that at full capacity Sorensen can house 316 students. This will not help alleviate the projected growth in the north.
• It’s perception – If you close a school now and then turn around in 2 or 3 years and ask to build a new school, people will be wondering why a school was just closed. This would be hugely negative and is this something you really want to put out there in a climate where you want to get an M & O passed?
• Yes, schools are important for neighborhoods but there is also a balance on the other side of it.
• Here to do what is best for kids and to be fiscally responsible. This needs to happen to Sorensen eventually. We have closed schools in the past and built new schools. Need to build schools where they are needed. It’s getting harder and harder to adjust attendance zones especially trying to put more students in the southern schools.
• Are there market analyses on the sites? Property values? Harry responded that a real estate professional has given the District a bird’s eye view on the sites.
• Timing on the closing of Sorensen is way out of line. Need to identify a solution that would make everyone happy. Need to look at asking that voters to make Winton a larger school so that Winton and Sorensen could be blended. Making Winton a larger school was discussed at prior meetings. The public said no.
• Vern stated he would like to differentiate, from his prospective, property and programs. This is an on-going expense, every year. The District has recently cut over $2,000,000 out of the budget and will probably have to cut more next year. We need to be fair to the students (programs). Property issues are one-time events. Property and program issues are separate funds.
• Is Winton only 4.5 acres? Yes
• It was in the paper last week about the possibility of selling Hayden Lake Elementary. The City of Hayden is interested in the building. This would change the available space in the north.
• The best site in the south is Fernan Elementary. It is a fairly new school, has 12 acres, it is in great shape and A.D.A. accessible. Under our proposal, Fernan would receive the majority of students from Sorensen. It is a downtown school and should meet the requirements of the City for a downtown school. More downtown students would be able to attend this school if preschool was moved because it serves the entire district.
• Why not keep Hayden Lake open to possibly help with the overcrowding the north? Steve reminded the committee that it was recognized that Hayden Lake would not be a viable site into the future due to its location, safe walking, etc. It could be a contingency possibility.

• Would not like to see students bused from the north to the south. You are taking space that is available at Ramsey and filling it up. The plan does not allow for growth in the north. This year, there was an increase in enrollment in the northern schools of 171 students. If we continue to see this growth next year, this will occupy 6 empty classrooms in the north.
• How many classrooms do the preschool students currently occupy at Fernan? They currently occupy 5 classrooms, they are 3-5 year olds, come from all areas of the District and many are bused. Some are on the bus for a very long time.

The committee took a break at 6:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 6:15 p.m. The committee continued their question and answer session.

• Please explain the sentence on Page 1 that reads “The flexibility we once had that allowed us to accept some inefficiencies in the hope that they could be eliminated over time, diminished”. This refers to a time when the District was seeing increased enrollment including a 5-year period when the District was creating high performance schools (Albertson’s Foundation grant). At that time, the District was able to staff at a much richer level being paid for through the grant including professional development, staff travel, etc. When the 5-year period ended, the dollars stopped and the enrollment flattened.
• What is the District’s overall financial goal? Is there a number that has been established? We do not know what that number is now because the overall tax climate is changing. There are many avenues of funding and it will be discussed in Boise over the next couple of months. We will know more in March.
• Is the District running at peak efficiency? The State funds the District on a per student basis for staffing (support unit) and for a certain number of students that attend school on a daily basis. Over and above these funds, the District can ask the voters for a Supplemental Maintenance & Operations Levy to add more dollars for staffing and programs.
• When is the Board going to make a decision on the Sorensen issue? As a first step, the Board would like a recommendation from this committee. The sooner this happens it will give people more preparation time but there is not a hard deadline and the Board will wait until it receives all the information needed.
• So far the discussions that have been held are avoiding the research. Why has the District chosen not to value research regarding consolidation and smaller schools? In the past, Long Range Planning has been given presentations regarding the advantages of small schools and their efficiencies and educating kids. There have been numerous discussions on this in Long Range Planning and are reflected in the minutes. There have been disasters in other states when they have consolidated and made schools larger and larger. It is not justified to make a decision without the people in this room being aware of this research on these issues as it pertains to both costs and educational effectiveness. Research has not been ignored. If it is felt that small schools are the way to go then we need to be prepared to do that across the District in order to equitable. If you study the academic numbers that were provided in the report then there is an argument that we do not necessarily need to have small schools to have success and we cannot afford small schools across the District. A decision could be made to keep a school open at a certain level under certain criteria. We have a District that values neighborhood schools, that values the educational process and quality education is being delivered. Not every lesson that comes from research nationwide or in rural or urban schools applies totally to the District.
• The District has received a lot of requests for information. Has all the information been prepared and offered? Steve responded that in terms of volume most of the questions have been addressed in the information that has been prepared and given out. We have been inundated with requests and, at this point in time, because the District does not have enough staffing, we are gathering the requests within the requirements of State Statute and providing it for people to come in and review.
• You need to prolong this decision until more information has been provided to you so an informed decision can made. There are requests in for information such as the costs involved with consolidation (crossing guards, extra playground aides). There have also been requests for rezoning and involuntary busing information that could help explain the spike in the north and the decline in the south. Title is federally funded and not funneled through the State so it does not come from the District’s budget. There is also a request in to find out how Special Education is funded. Steve responded that there is no such thing as money that comes to the District that is controlled outside the District. Everything that has been talked about is part of the District operation. Title 1 and Special Education have rules and regulations. All earmarked monies that come from the State have rules and regulations. The way those monies are allocated are based upon variables but are part of the District operation.
• If we lose this M & O in the spring, everyone in the District will feel it. We need to balance the total level of patron support on what their willingness is to shell out their hard earned dollars to our school district. We need ensure that we are as fiscally responsible and providing good solid academic programs as we possibly can.
• This is the last thing the District should be considering with the upcoming levy. It may not pass because people are upset about the closing of a school.
• Last year a new administrative position was created, Director of Elementary Education. Now we are affecting 230 kids as opposed to one administrative position. When the District Office was restructured and that position was added it was accomplished by combining the Advanced Learning position (2 positions). The net savings was $17,000 compared to last year.
• It is important to have exact figures and they need to be clear. Quoted Steve Briggs as saying that the numbers that were provided were speculative. Speculative numbers and savings is not acceptable when you are preparing to close a school. This is going to be detrimental to the levy. How are taxpayers going to feel when they are given speculative numbers? The District shouldn’t ignore what the City is recommending. Steve responded that you have to start from a position of making some assumptions and in the report provided there are some assumptions in terms of the budget that have been identified. At the end of Page 7 there is a disclaimer that we have to live with and that is that we have done our best and made every effort to have the right information. We certainly have not analyzed everything. A very small part of my job is going back after these things are put in place and doing the accounting. This is the measurement and it happens every year (budget). This is well after all the weight of the decisions. We operate in an environment where we have to operate speculatively. Our Finance Department has operated credibly over the years. The bottom line is if you go through and you pick out every one of those items that we absolute control over, you still get above $250,000 in savings. It is not as much as the total listed but it is still a significant amount.
• Has the District looked at the impacts of moving these students in other elementary schools in regards to the costs for special services (extra aides and personnel)? If you don’t provide the support these students need, they will act out and it will impact the teachers and impact the quality of learning in those schools. You will probably not have savings in these areas.
• The Sorensen School area has been the top area for voting for all the levies. The average voter does not realize the impact it will have on the District if the levy does not pass. There will be a backlash on this. Every student with an individualized education plan (IEP) has a transition plan as they move from teacher to teacher and grade to grade. It is part of the Special Education planning.
• It is inarguable that the voters of Sorensen feel it is important to keep Sorensen open. Voters are already asking the question of what type of fiscal management are you using when you even think about spending $400,000 to keep a school open when you have slots for those kids. This is one of the issues that the Board is going to have to grapple with. With either decision, you are going to make voters angry.
• Directed to Roger Snyder, what is your definition of consolidation? Going from 10 to 9 elementary schools. This is how it is defined in the literature.
• The Board feels they have a mandate. They feel there is a real need to convince the taxpayer that there is a stewardship of the money. All the taxpayer cares about is how it impacts their wallet. It is all about the money. No matter what the research tells you, it is all about the money.
• Every time we upset parents due to attendance zone changes, this issue, etc. we are told that they will vote against the levy. All this does is harm the kids. Amy Evans responded on behalf of herself, Teresa Runge and Roger Snyder that they would never vote against a school levy.
• The information that was provided to the committee is research. This is based on facts and specific to our school district. For everyone that does a study, you will find someone that does the exact opposite.
• What Steve has done has gone back and researched his previous IRS tax returns. Where Roger is coming from is research where other school districts have consolidated and what has happened as a result of it. This District has closed schools before.
• Neighborhoods in the old part of town see this closure as an attack on their community. People will vote for the levy if they feel the District is consistent and having credibility.
• During the last levy, we gave every group a reason to vote no and this gives them another reason.
• By removing a building, you remove the a lot of the support that is needed (staff). There is an economy of scale here.
• It has been pointed out that in the last 3 years the District has been wrong in their projections. This is going to play against us. So does every other school district.
• People that live in the Sorensen district but do not have children are concerned about their property values in the event of a closure.
• What if the next S.P.F.L. does not pass, we do not get any money to build a new school and Sorensen has been closed? What are the other alternatives?
• The climate of this area has changed a lot. It is not a small area that we are focusing on; these children are going in big groups and staying with their neighborhoods.
• We need to decide whether we are going to be reactionary or visionary.
• Meridian School District builds a new school approximately every year. Two years ago they were budgeting $500,000, in addition to the staff numbers, for the start of another elementary school, $750,000 for a middle school and $2,000,000 for a high school. Those are the cost savings or cost adders that are necessary for building an administration. We need to make sure we are prudent with those dollars. In other years, we have budgeted extremely tightly to cover those as we added new schools.
• Meridian is facing the same problems as we are. Declining at some elementary schools and increase in others. They gave the school a chance to become a magnet. It brought a little bit more money from the State and they filled the school to capacity. Now approximately 20% of the students came from home schools, private schools or charters. It’s a win-win for everyone and it is thriving. There is more information about this on www.meridianschools.org
• Please refer to Page 10, where the Sorensen students would go. Yes, it is true that 161 students would move together in one group to Fernan. Smaller groups of students would move to Winton and Bryan. By doing this, you are filling schools to capacity. What will you do if you have more students in the south than anticipated? Will you bus them to the north? This plan does not look to the future.

Sorensen Magnet School Presentation:
David Miller provided the committee with a “Magnet School” presentation script that was intended to provide a snapshot of who Sorensen is, where they are and where they are planning to go. This is not a save our school plea. This is a plan that started 2½ - 3 years ago when the approval process began for training for PYP and looking at becoming a little more arts oriented at Sorensen. We have been looking at addressing some of the enrollment challenges and perhaps become a different alternative for the community. We recognized that this needs to be revenue neutral. The first partnerships we would ask for would be with the District, the School Board and the community. We have some partnerships established and many promising leads on partnerships. The document is not meant to be exhaustive in terms of the details and is a combination of the present, the past and the future. It is not totally refined but we are getting closer. David Miller and some of his staff members read their script to the committee. The following comments/questions were made after the presentation:

• Sorensen received the highest number of transfer requests this year including 4 out-of-district transfers.
• How many schools in the District are working on PYP? Three which are Fernan, Hayden Meadows and Sorensen.
• Could this program possibly happen at another location? Absolutely.
• Could the staff at Sorensen that were trained for PYP move to that location? Yes, they would be good candidates and if they had the aspiration to do so.
• We have approximately 4,400 elementary students in the District. If you have a 300 student population at the magnet, it would serve approximately 6.8% of our elementary population. If 100% of the Sorensen attendance zone got those first 200 slots, this greatly limits the potential for other students. Please address this. This is not meant to be a detailed recommendation at this point in terms of some of these issues. There are a couple of different options. If you study the word magnet, it originally started when dealing with segregation issues. There is a federal magnet program that will provide significant grants to communities where segregation is an issue. It may not be the best term to use. While attending a PYP training, we visited a school of choice in South Carolina. This school had an attendance zone but also offers available slots to non-attendance zone students.
• Will you be supplying us with accurate information on finances, staffing and other details that is being requested of us (budget)? The purpose of the presentation is not to provide accurate numbers, although it is a huge issue. The other purpose of the presentation was to let people know what is behind the whole talk of magnet and that there is some substance to that and some movement in that direction.
• You will find strengths throughout our district in the elementary schools and perhaps the other schools could develop their strengths over time. This would give the parents a choice to put in for a transfer request.
• Our incoming State Superintendent of Schools will be pushing this type of focus.
• What percentage of the overall budget is that savings? We don’t budget the way people would ordinarily think. You would have to take all the salaries of the certified staff and take all the costs and come up with a figure. The certified staff will still be employed by the District.
• Referred to a report from the Urban Renewal Committee which states “The school district will want to maintain or improve its enrollment over time. We recommend that the City consider the idea of working with private businesses in the school district to create an innovative, unique school within the city limits. The mission of the school should be two fold, provide a unique and unduplicated learning environment for children in the Coeur d’Alene metro area and create an incentive for families with young children to stay in the city or choose to live in the city”. An alternative has been brought to the table and we need to challenge others to look at other alternatives.
• Where will the money come from for this program? Are we going to slash everyone else but leave Sorensen alone because it is a magnet? In the event that the Supplemental M & O Levy failed (13% of the District’s budget), the cuts that would be required would create a district that would not look anything like it does today in terms of activities, courses, etc. Cuts would be required in all areas including a school. That is why it is so critical that it passes.
• Are there any preliminary results from the questionnaire that was provided to staff and posted on the website? We have received 950 of these questionnaires back from staff and 125 from the community. The responses were pretty similar. There were a few areas where there was a 20% gap on each side. In general, the responses were in favor of maintaining the current programs. One of the goals was to educate people about what was included in the levy the other goal was to hear what people had to say.
• It’s not Sorensen versus Winton or this versus that; we want to keep the programs that we offer across the District.
• Do you really want to take the chance of losing the levy based upon that small amount of savings?
• Approximately 85% of every school district’s budget is people. When you are talking about programs, you are talking about people.

Recommendation to the Board:
The members decided they needed more time to analyze all the data that has been provided prior to taking a vote and presenting a recommendation to the Board. The committee would like to organize the pros, cons, alternatives and provide rationale. The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, January 8th at 4:30 p.m. at the Midtown Center meeting room. The goal of by the end of this meeting is to have a recommendation to Board for their January 16th meeting.

Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheri Beard
Administrative Secretary

Home