News - pcgazette.com

News

Board approves elementary school closing criteria

By CHRIS RANDAZZO
of The Gazette
The Stevens Point Area Public School District Board unanimously approved the criteria for closing an elementary school when it met Monday, March 14.

It did so at the recommendation of its Business Services Committee, which went over the criteria item-by-item at a meeting on Wednesday, March 9.

While the board agreed on the criteria, the majority of teachers and community members who spoke at the meeting asked the district to take more time to study the issue before making a decision.

Community members (many of the same ones who spoke at the School Board meeting) made that same plea to the Business Services Committee at its Monday, March 7, meeting.

"I don't think anybody can say at this time what it would cost to close an elementary school," Jen Zach, a parent of students at Jackson Environmental Discovery Center, said "It would certainly be a big cost in ways other than money."

Board member Dwight Stevens has also argued for more time since closing an elementary school became a serious consideration.

Stevens, and many community members, argued that the district should take the cost of running the school out of its fund balance (which is approximately $10 million) for next year.

Whether the district has the room at its other schools to absorb the students from the closed one, how the closing will affect student-to-teacher ratios, the timeline, having to move students multiple times (because of planned future redistricting or the results of the Secondary Review Committee), effects on school-specific programs and charters and the cost of physically closing a building were all issues brought up at the meeting.

A number of community members also questioned how many students the district would lose to other districts, private schools and home schooling when it closes a school.

Renae Sheibley, a parent of children in the district, said that if the district lost 50 students because of the closing it would lose $396,000 in funding (based on the revenue limit of $7,931 per student) and that would eat up most of the savings from closing a school (an estimated $453,000).

Superintendent David Schuler said that the district is contacting other districts that have closed schools to see if they've had many students shift to other districts, private schools or home schooling.

"We have not heard of any district that had a significant shift," Shuler said Wednesday. "We do not anticipate any significant shift."

To address the questions community members raised, the board's approval of the criteria included forwarding the minutes of Monday's meeting to whomever the district contracts with to do its study.

Schuler said the district is still exploring the option of who to have do the study, but that it would be someone from outside the area to avoid any conflicts of interest.

He also said the consultant would likely do a double-blind study where he or she would study the information without knowing which school was which and then taking a second look at the data after physically inspecting each school.

Stevens said that it was important that the district use someone with expertise in education, not just finances. "You need someone who understands programs," he said.

As far as a timeline, Schuler said nothing has been set in stone yet. "We want a thorough analysis done in a thorough and expeditious manner," Schuler said.

He did say that, logistically, the district would likely need to have a decision in place at least six to eight weeks prior to the start of the next school year.

That short time-frame was a concern for some.

"This decision is coming awfully late, because if I'm going to enroll my children in a private school I should do it now," said Angela Higgins-Jed, a parent of elementary students in the district.

Higgins-Jed said she was concerned that the quality of education in the district would suffer if the district closed a school and, if it did, she would move her children to a private school.

Others questioned what the district would do if the consultant says closing a school isn't a viable option.

"Is there a plan in place should the consultant come back and say there is insufficient space to close a school?" said Andy Scott, a community member who spoke to the board.

The criteria approved by the board includes:

1. Low expectations for significant growth in the area. Details included in this category are where, when and what kind of significant residential development is anticipated in each attendance area; potential for residential growth in adjacent school attendance areas; and status of existing land use and comprehensive municipality land-use plans.

2. Neighboring schools have sufficient space for additional students. Details in this category include current building usage - how many additional students or self-contained programs can be reasonably absorbed into adjacent schools; likelihood of boundary change (adjacent schools should have room for more students without displacing its own); likelihood that all parts of a given school's new attendance area are within one continuous boundary (to avoid creating attendance "islands").

3. Stand-alone programs (Early Childhood Immersion Program, etc.) can be moved with minimal financial and educational impact. Details to be considered include whether programs can be moved in whole; the degree to which schools have been retrofitted for specific programs; and whether stand-alone programs conflict with other school programming.

4. Relocated students should have reasonable travel time.

5. School mission (charter and non-charter) could continue at another site. Details to be considered include the likelihood that the school's mission could be transferred to another location; and whether the school is a site-specific charter school.

Schuler said that closing a charter school would have a minimal, if any, funding impact on the district.

6. Significant number of students would be impacted by closing this school. Details to be considered include the number of students impacted by the closure of the school; and being consistent with federal environmental justice regulations (laws which protect districts from targeting economically depressed areas).

7. Major building maintenance needs are anticipated in future years.

8. District costs are reduced by closing this school. This category includes the most components and includes curriculum, administrative/clerical, food service, facilities, transportation and technology.

9. Other criteria. This is a catch-all category in case the group or individual the district hires to do a study based on the criteria finds additional factors that are not covered. It also allows those doing the study the option of using criteria suggested by the public at the board meeting.

Once the consultant makes a recommendation on which school to close, the final decision will lie with the School Board. "This will be our decision," said Mary Thurmaier, School Board member.



	Board approves elementary school closing criteria By CHRIS RANDAZZO of The Gazette The Stevens Point Area Public School District Board unanimously approved the criteria for closing an elementary school when it met Monday, March 14. It did so at the recommendation of its Business Services Committee, which went over the criteria item-by-item at a meeting on Wednesday, March 9. While the board agreed on the criteria, the majority of teachers and community members who spoke at the meeting asked the district to take more time to study the issue before making a decision. Community members (many of the same ones who spoke at the School Board meeting) made that same plea to the Business Services Committee at its Monday, March 7, meeting. "I don't think anybody can say at this time what it would cost to close an elementary school," Jen Zach, a parent of students at Jackson Environmental Discovery Center, said "It would certainly be a big cost in ways other than money." Board member Dwight Stevens has also argued for more time since closing an elementary school became a serious consideration. Stevens, and many community members, argued that the district should take the cost of running the school out of its fund balance (which is approximately $10 million) for next year. Whether the district has the room at its other schools to absorb the students from the closed one, how the closing will affect student-to-teacher ratios, the timeline, having to move students multiple times (because of planned future redistricting or the results of the Secondary Review Committee), effects on school-specific programs and charters and the cost of physically closing a building were all issues brought up at the meeting. A number of community members also questioned how many students the district would lose to other districts, private schools and home schooling when it closes a school. Renae Sheibley, a parent of children in the district, said that if the district lost 50 students because of the closing it would lose $396,000 in funding (based on the revenue limit of $7,931 per student) and that would eat up most of the savings from closing a school (an estimated $453,000). Superintendent David Schuler said that the district is contacting other districts that have closed schools to see if they've had many students shift to other districts, private schools or home schooling. "We have not heard of any district that had a significant shift," Shuler said Wednesday. "We do not anticipate any significant shift." To address the questions community members raised, the board's approval of the criteria included forwarding the minutes of Monday's meeting to whomever the district contracts with to do its study. Schuler said the district is still exploring the option of who to have do the study, but that it would be someone from outside the area to avoid any conflicts of interest. He also said the consultant would likely do a double-blind study where he or she would study the information without knowing which school was which and then taking a second look at the data after physically inspecting each school. Stevens said that it was important that the district use someone with expertise in education, not just finances. "You need someone who understands programs," he said. As far as a timeline, Schuler said nothing has been set in stone yet. "We want a thorough analysis done in a thorough and expeditious manner," Schuler said. He did say that, logistically, the district would likely need to have a decision in place at least six to eight weeks prior to the start of the next school year. That short time-frame was a concern for some. "This decision is coming awfully late, because if I'm going to enroll my children in a private school I should do it now," said Angela Higgins-Jed, a parent of elementary students in the district. Higgins-Jed said she was concerned that the quality of education in the district would suffer if the district closed a school and, if it did, she would move her children to a private school. Others questioned what the district would do if the consultant says closing a school isn't a viable option. "Is there a plan in place should the consultant come back and say there is insufficient space to close a school?" said Andy Scott, a community member who spoke to the board. The criteria approved by the board includes: 1. Low expectations for significant growth in the area. Details included in this category are where, when and what kind of significant residential development is anticipated in each attendance area; potential for residential growth in adjacent school attendance areas; and status of existing land use and comprehensive municipality land-use plans. 2. Neighboring schools have sufficient space for additional students. Details in this category include current building usage - how many additional students or self-contained programs can be reasonably absorbed into adjacent schools; likelihood of boundary change (adjacent schools should have room for more students without displacing its own); likelihood that all parts of a given school's new attendance area are within one continuous boundary (to avoid creating attendance "islands"). 3. Stand-alone programs (Early Childhood Immersion Program, etc.) can be moved with minimal financial and educational impact. Details to be considered include whether programs can be moved in whole; the degree to which schools have been retrofitted for specific programs; and whether stand-alone programs conflict with other school programming. 4. Relocated students should have reasonable travel time. 5. School mission (charter and non-charter) could continue at another site. Details to be considered include the likelihood that the school's mission could be transferred to another location; and whether the school is a site-specific charter school. Schuler said that closing a charter school would have a minimal, if any, funding impact on the district. 6. Significant number of students would be impacted by closing this school. Details to be considered include the number of students impacted by the closure of the school; and being consistent with federal environmental justice regulations (laws which protect districts from targeting economically depressed areas). 7. Major building maintenance needs are anticipated in future years. 8. District costs are reduced by closing this school. This category includes the most components and includes curriculum, administrative/clerical, food service, facilities, transportation and technology. 9. Other criteria. This is a catch-all category in case the group or individual the district hires to do a study based on the criteria finds additional factors that are not covered. It also allows those doing the study the option of using criteria suggested by the public at the board meeting. Once the consultant makes a recommendation on which school to close, the final decision will lie with the School Board. "This will be our decision," said Mary Thurmaier, School Board member.