We Must Delay School Facilities Master Plan

Facilities Master Planning is important. It's so important that even if it were being done by volunteers, it has to be done right -- even more so when you're asking for tax dollars to do it, more still when those dollars are being sought in a time of budget crisis, and yet more when you're redirecting that money from an existing purpose of great importance to the community.

Below are excerpts from published copies of school Facilities Master Plans. In generally accepted practice, the Educational Master Plan must be done before a Facilities Master Plan can be undertaken. There are no exceptions. This is the standard methodology. In fact, one of the citations actually labels it "The Standard."

The New Paltz Central School District does not currently have an Educational Master Plan, and is a long way from having one. It is irresponsible and wasteful of increasingly precious resources to hire a facilities planning consultant at this time.

Citations:
---------------------------------------------------

The facilities planning process will examine the college's’ and the District's Educational Master Plans, then determine future needs, examine options and recommend solutions.(http://153.18.96.19/downloads/aboutfhda/MasterPlan.pdf)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. WHAT IS THE CONNECTION WITH THE EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN?

The Educational Master Plan identifies new programs, changing instructional and program delivery methods, anticipated changes in the different curriculum, and identifies the needs (space, equipment, staffing, etc.) to accomplish the stated goals. The Facilities Plan then addresses the space and equipment needs so those goals can be achieved. http://www.napavalley.edu/Projects/34/aug_2007_faq.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------

The Standard: Foremost, the MFP must provide the best support for educational improvement. It must accurately reflect reforms that are detailed in the Master Education Plan and lay the foundation for a high quality system of public schools in the District of Columbia.

The Master Facility Plan advances and supports HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION, not just school buildings. Circle appropriate rating: 01234

1. Does it accurately reflect the Master Education Plan?

(http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publications/MFPEvaluationChecklistSep2008.pdf)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This report has been developed as an additional aspect of the master planning process for Gavilan Community College District. For a detailed analysis of the educational programs and services offered by the District, refer to the recently completed Educational Master Plan. For continuity and ease of reading, background information and general information regarding the college, its mission, vision, values and philosophy have been extracted from the Educational Master Plan and included in the introductory section of this Facilities Master Plan.

As mentioned in the Chapter One, the basis for this Facilities Master Plan is the Educational Master Plan that was approved by the Governing Board in January, 2000. Outlined in the Educational Master Plan was framework or overview statement regarding facilities as well as goals and strategies that were to serve as the basis for facility master planning. (http://www.gavilan.edu/facilities/)

------------------------------------------------------

Aligning Facilities Planning with Educational Needs The 2008 Master Facilities Plan builds on the substantial work that has already been completed and builds on the lessons learned by OPEFM to establish a strategic plan that will meet the vision of every parent in the District - that every child deserves to learn in an environment that supports the delivery of a high-quality education.

Guiding Principles Another significant mechanism by which the Master Facilities Plan is driven by academic priorities is through the application of Guiding Principles developed by the Chancellor's office.(http://opefm.dc.gov/pdf/DC_Master_Plan_2008.pdf)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The District’s educational master plan has projected the growth of the various programs and disciplines to the year 2022. This has entailed a careful analysis of eachentity’s relative rate of growth and in the case of instructional disciplines, the relative changing emphasis upon use of Lecture, Lab and other forms of teaching and learning. What is needed next is a means of having the educational master plan drive the facilities master plan -- in effect to link them."

"The plan is meant to be a comprehensive District-wide educational programs and services plan that will drive the 20-year facilities master plan...Process On November 20, 2001 the Educational and Facilities Master Plan Task Force was approved by the President’s Advisory Council. The task force was charged with developing a comprehensive District-wide educational programs and services plan tied to the 20-year facilities master plan...The first meeting of the task force took place on Thursday, February 7, 2002. At that meeting the members were introduced to the educational planning process, and a tentative timeline was established for the completion of the various tasks assigned to the task force. The need to create individual educational plans for departments and programs, facilities plans for the San Marcos Campus, facilities plans for existing Centers, as well as plans for possible new centers and campuses was discussed...The draft education plans were completed by September 2002. These draft plans were then sunshined to the general campus community. The sunshine process lasted three months during which each department/program had a chance to review their document and make changes or corrections as necessary. The education plans were 52 Palomar Community College District Master Plan 2022 finalized in December 2002, and the sunshining process continued until the final draft of the educational master plan was presented to the Governing Board at their March 11th meeting. Because the Educational Master Plan was to drive the Facilities Master Plan, once the Future District Structure had been determined and the draft Educational Master Plan was finalized, Spencer/Hoskins had all the information that they needed to begin finalizing the Facilities Master Plan." (http://www.palomar.edu/masterplan/)

To Plan or Not to Plan!

To plan or not to plan is not really the question. Of course we should plan! But, it strikes me as problematic that both our town and school district are having such a difficult time answering simple questions about what exactly they are planning and specifically how they are paying for it all.

Amid the ethics questions raised about Ken Wishnick’s new job as Town Planner, the question of precisely what the job will actually entail has been lost. As reported in the New Paltz Times, Mr. Wishnick himself is not really sure what the position involves. While the town has already approved this new position in the budget, and a civil service job description has been written, Wishnick states, “the town board will decide the role of the town planner and it has not yet done so.” How can this be so?

The town is not the only local elected body lacking a clear articulation of what a planner could do for them/us. The school district is considering hiring a consultant to create a long-term plan. I don’t mean to sound cute, but what exactly are we planning? We have a building inventory, and we have a forthcoming educational learning plan to be constructed by the superintendent. Is this long term planning a synthesis of these two documents? Or is it more? We need additional information about what a consultant will provide: Does this involve data that has already been compiled and/or that could clearly be assembled by existing staff? What existing studies (that are sitting on a shelf or otherwise) will be integrated into this planning? How come the superintendent and her staff are not assigned the task of conducting this type of planning? And what will a paid consultant value-add to this planning process, exactly?

There are a few things on this topic I feel pretty strongly about: One, I am concerned about shipping this job out to someone external to the inner workings of the district and our community. If this process is to move forward, we need to be clear, those that are most intimate with the data, that is, the teachers, staff, parents, and the community, must play an integral role. Perhaps the volunteer Building Level School Climate Action Teams, whose task will be completed in February, would be willing to stay on and work on this project. Given the state of the economy, any tasks that can be completed by current staff or volunteers should be done so in house (so to speak). Further, while the district plans, so does the Village and Town of New Paltz and the rest of the towns that are included in the district. Any planning project needs to include input and collaboration with these local municipalities.

Second, we need better projections for our school age population. In the board’s pamphlet handed out at the Middle School forums last winter, there is chart of the projections from 2008 to 2070 which show (within the margin of error) a tiny decline in student population and reads,

“The district has conducted multiple* demographic studies, which have revealed varied statistics. After careful examination and comparison of the various studies against actual figures, enrollment is projected to be approximately 2,200 to 2,300 students annually in the next five years.”

I would like to see a very simple, straightforward analysis of the projections of the school age population for at least the last ten years to see if the current source(s) for this information is reliable. As a parent of kindergarteners in 2005 and 2008, I am highly skeptical that the current sources are dependable. In 2005, kindergarteners found themselves in classrooms of 24-26 students because the estimates were off. This past May, an additional kindergarten class was added to the expected number for this past September when pre-registration showed the estimates to be low. In August, an additional third grade class was added at the very, very, very last minute (for the earlier cohort of 2005 kindergartens) because of the inaccuracy of the projections. As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” But I think we can do a better job. And, we need reliable data in order to move forward with a comprehensive plan.

Third, the Middle School location is non-negotiable. As reported in the New Paltz Times on December 11th, school board member Don Kerr, while supportive of hiring a consultant, was concerned with the time frame. If the study is to take eighteen months, “…what if the planner’s final report contradicted their decision to renovate the middle school? Kerr said he did not like that possibility.” Nor do I. Any district wide planning needs to be crystal-clear, the Middle School is staying put – this issue is absolutely not on the table. Last winter, our community (including the Village Boards and Town Boards) came out in full force to let the school board know that the Middle School – not just any one of our schools, but the Middle School – is to stay put. There is no wiggle room. (And the study needs to take a lot less time than eighteen months. As my dad use to say, “While you plan, it happens.”)

However, there are implications for the future of the Middle School site that impact the wider district. Two obvious ones are the location of the kitchen (there is only one kitchen that actually is suited to cook food, the rest merely distribute food, and the cooking kitchen is currently at the Middle School) and the old district office of which I don’t even know is possible to renovate and perhaps needs to be leveled. At the September meeting where Rhinebeck Associates, the firm hired to evaluate the Middle School, presented their work to date before the board, the firm was clear that they are only looking at the Middle School, not at the district as a whole. Is this a logical way to proceed? I am not sure, nonetheless I am not open to a process that will impede the guarantee of the Middle School staying put, along with the planning dollars promised to the endeavor. The Middle School is actually the only project even close to shovel-ready given the work already done by Rhinebeck Associates, which means we should be moving faster and focusing more on the Middle School since it is the only site realistically available for potential Obama stimulus dollars in the next year.

Which leads to my last point: Given the state budget cuts, how much money are we talking about and where will the district get the money for this service? It is my understanding that the money is proposed to be taken from a budget line that has been unmistakably allocated for study of the Middle School renovation, including an assessment of both the current status of the facilities and how to implement the actual renovation. It is unacceptable to use these dollars for different purposes. From the district website, the results of the vote to focus on the renovation of the Middle School are recapped:

“Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs* that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward.”

While only a portion of this budget line has been spent so far, that is, the initial fact finding portion: the state of the facilities, it is the only part that has been completed, and has not even been reported to the public yet. (FYI – scheduled for February 18th .) The remaining dollars are for the remaining stages – not just current status but implementation. Implementation dollars for the Middle School project should not and cannot be pilfered from this budget line.

If you would like the school board to hear your opinions on this matter, please attend their next meeting on January 7th, 7pm at the high school.

* Emphasis added

Relevant links: This entry is also posted at New Paltz Gadfly

Important info for Middle School supporters

I sent the following letter to the New Paltz Times. It exceeds their word limit, so I'm abridging it for the newspaper. I am publishing it here in its entirety. Please distribute. Thanks.

It is unfortunate that the New Paltz Times article this week did not mention why I am opposed to hiring a long-term facilities planner at this time. And I say "at this time" because I have been clear that this is a necessary endeavor, but that now is an especially poor -- and improper -- time to do so.

There are a few reasons. One is the poor timing. We are not prepared to get a good value for our dollar because we haven't done two pieces of critical work without which a long-range facilities plan cannot be usefully created. One is to determine the actual demographic and enrollment trends. The last time this was paid for two years ago, enrollment was predicted to decline, but it's been growing -- significantly -- ever since. We have to hit the pause button on paid consulting until we examine this matter thoroughly. We also do not have the new long-term comprehensive performance plan from the Superintendent. Without this, even with accurate demographics, a planner cannot even pretend to provide useful facilities advice, because much of that advice is derived directly from application of the comprehensive plan. In other words, by moving forward now, all we'll get is another expensive document that gives us very little to apply to our decision-making process, and no return of equivalent (or perhaps any) value to the taxpayer, as has happened so many times already.

On top of these practical matters, and where we cross the line into impropriety, is that the Superintendent and majority of Board members in support of moving forward now are going to use money that was appropriated for the Middle School renovation study, in front of the fully assembled public last winter, and approved by the voters in May. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period, let alone on the "aggressive timetable" that was promised. All we'll get for the $12,000 we've spent to date (of the $60,000 appropriated) is an existing conditions study and an extremely broad cost estimate. Unless additional studies are conducted, that $12,000 is wasted, for two reasons. One is that we already paid a lot of money last year for a much more detailed existing conditions study, the one that led to the public discussion on the future of the Middle School, and then spent more money printing and distributing mailings and public information pamphlets, which included generalized estimates. So all we're getting for the $12,000 spent so far is an update and tweaking of what was previously paid for. The second is that if we don't use the remaining funding to move forward with the additional research the public agreed to finance, such as where to hold classes during construction, or exploration of designs that would suit the Middle School's current and future mission, curriculum, extra-curricular and community needs, then the $12,000 spent so far was nothing more than a make-work project for two consultants as a salve for a temporarily engaged -- and angry -- public. We (and I say "we" because I was not on the Board at the time, and even now that I am, I'm still a taxpayer with kids in school) were promised a full-bore study on an aggressive timetable, a study that was described to us as follows:

"Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward. With community backing, this is a firm step to keep the Middle School located in the village, but the Board remains open-minded as they continue on their fact-finding process. Board President Rod Dressel wants to be certain that the Board has all of the information needed to make a decision before any concrete plans are put in place. To get that information, however, the District needs to make an investment of both human and financial resources. The Board’s vote enables the District to take this important step forward." (http://npcsd.edublogs.org/2008/02/04/a-recap-of-the-boards-decision/)

Note: "firms" is plural, three types of firms are indicated, the phrase "detailed plans" is used, and the need to have "all the information needed to make a decision." We have not even scratched the surface, and the Superintendent and solid majority of the School Board are already moving forward at great speed to cancel the remaining funding and use it for something else.

When I announced my candidacy for School Board, I promised to do all that I could to hold the New Paltz Central School District to its promises regarding the Middle School. I have been doing so. Consider this letter part of that effort. The full board is expected to hold its vote on redirecting the Middle School money to a poorly timed long-term facilities consultant at its next meeting, on January 7th at 7 PM at the High School. I will be voting "no." I hope you will come down to take part in this urgent matter.

Steve Greenfield

New Paltz

A note from Steve Greenfield re: New Paltz Middle School study

It's unfortunate that the NP Times article this week did not mention why Edgar and I are opposed to hiring the planner. There are a few reasons, but one of the biggest is that they're going to use the Middle School renovation study money that was appropriated in front of the fully assembled public last April. There is no other line item from which it can be taken, and everyone on the board knows that, as per the superintendent. Going ahead with the planner means choosing not to move the Middle School study forward -- period. It is extremely important that the community turn out on January 7th on the same scale that we did from January to April. We're losing this vote 5-2 right now. Only an overwhelming community response can win the Middle School study back.

I will be putting this information in the form of a letter to the New Paltz Times. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you post it on your blog.

And Merry Christmas, too.
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6092347

Steve

New Paltz Middle School renovation evaluation funding to be redirected?

According to Steve Greenfield, via comments at the new paltz gadfly: "If you have any further questions, please attend the January 7th board meeting at the high school, 7 PM for public comment. The board is about to vote to redirect its Middle School renovation evaluation funding to an unrelated project. Your presence is urgently needed if we are to have any hope of preventing this."

New Paltz Board of Education Meeting Schedule 2008-2009

2008:
October 15 Regular/Business Meeting
November 5 Regular/Workshop Meeting
November 19 Regular/Business Meeting
December 3 Regular/Workshop Meeting
December 17 Regular/Business Meeting


2009:
January 7 Regular/Workshop Meeting
January 21 Regular/Business Meeting
February 4 Regular/Workshop Meeting
February 18 Regular/Business Meeting
February 25 Special Meeting – Budget Presentation
March 4 Regular/Workshop Meeting
March 18 Regular/Business Meeting
April 1 Regular/Workshop Meeting
(Budget Hearing for Community Input)
April 15 Regular/Business Meeting
(Budget Approval)
(Gardiner Town Hall)
April 22 BOCES County-Wide Vote
May 6 Regular/Workshop & Public Hearing on Budget (Legal Requirement)
May 19 (Tuesday) Annual Meeting - Election/Budget Vote
May 20 Regular/Business Meeting
June 3 Regular/Workshop Meeting
June 17 Regular/Business Meeting

Please note that all Board of Education meetings begin at 7:00 PM and are held at the New Paltz Central High School Audion unless otherwise noted.

Meetings are broadcast live on local access channel 23.

Pro-Renovation Greenfield Wins Seat on New Paltz School Board

"New Paltz school district residents voted 896-471 in favor of a $48.19 million district budget that increases spending by 7.04 percent, or $2.57 million. Under the spending plan, the property tax levy will rise by $1.44 million, or 4.88 percent, to $30.91 million.

Residents also elected two candidates to three-year seats on the Board of Education: Steve Greenfield, who led the field with 867 votes, and incumbent Patrick Rausch, who received 795 votes. Incumbent Michael Swigart trailed with 620 votes." - source: Kingston Daily Freeman