PLEASE FIND BELOW THE FINAL EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE REPORT. THE REFERRED TO ENCLOSURES ARE NOT YET AVAILABLE ONLINE.
MEMO
TO: BATH BOARD OF EDUCATION
FROM: EDUCATIONAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: JUNE 14, 2004
1. THE GOAL:
The Educational Options Committee is pleased to submit this report to the Bath Board of Education.
The Committee was charged with the following task:
TO EXAMINE THE CURRENT K-5 STRUCTURE AND ANY ALTERNATIVE(S) TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OR AN ALTERNATIVE BEST MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL GOALS OF THE BOARD; THE REPORT WILL OUTLINE THE FISCAL AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE AND ANY PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE(S).
At its meeting of November 19, 2003, the Committee discussed the charge and clarified the goal statement by adding the words AND THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF THE STUDENTS to the first phrase.
2. THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE:
The Committee consists of the following individuals:
Kimberly Becker Huse parent representative
Claire Berkowitz Dike-Newell parent representative
Christine Chipman Dike-Newell parent representative
Robert V. Connors Assistant Superintendent of Schools
Dennis Dow Principal, Fisher-Mitchell and Huse Schools
Nancy Harriman Curriculum Coordinator/Director of Instruction
Susan Harrison Dike-Newell teacher representative
Thomas Hoerth Community member representative
Michael Lafortune Superintendent of Schools
Rebecca Quimby Fisher-Mitchell parent representative (replaced Lisa Willey who resigned when she moved from Bath)
Julie Rice Fisher-Mitchell parent representative
Marie Smith Principal, Dike-Newell School
Lynn Spivey Fisher-Mitchell teacher representative
Lisa Stover School Board representative
Catherine Tait Huse teacher representative
Lisa Willey Fisher-Mitchell parent representative (resigned on Feb. 11 when she moved from Bath)
3. COMMITTEE MEETINGS:
The Committee commenced meeting on November 19, 2003 and followed a schedule of two meetings per month through May, 2004. The minutes of the Committee are available on the Bath Public Schools web site which can be accessed by clicking on the Board of Education and then on the Educational Options Committee.
4. MATERIALS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE:
The Committee received and reviewed the following materials which were helpful in providing the membership with background data, a historical perspective and assisted the committee in focusing upon the task at hand.
A. Bath School Department K-5 Enrollment (See Enclosure One)
B. Grade Structures throughout Maine (See Enclosure Two)
C. State-wide grade distributions in school systems with 1500 to 2500 students (See Enclosure Three)
D. Brief history of Bath Schools and their grade structures
E. Fisher-Mitchell floor plan
F. Huse floor plan
G. Dike-Newell floor plan
H. Web sites that contained locations where research grade structure studies had been conducted
I. Articles from the Gray News and grade configuration research articles
J. Historical enrollment of Arrowsic students in Bath schools
K. A summary of the Building Repair/Maintenance Engineering Studies with costs
L. Operational costs (2002-2003) for each school building
M. Restructuring of the Hartford, VT Schools This document provided us with an excellent road map to conduct our study including such things as the idea of a matrix to compare the various options.
N. A Portland Press Herald article concerning disbanding school unions
5. CURRENT SCHOOL SITES AND ACREAGE:
A. Morse High School - - 3.3 acres
B. Bath Middle School - - 41+ acres
C. BRVC - - 1.5 acres
D. Dike-Newell School - - 14.8 acres
E. Fisher-Mitchell School - - 5.4 acres
F. Huse School - - 16.7 acres
Observations:
1. The general rule of the DOE suggests that school sites should be no less than 10 acres plus 1 acre for each 100 students. So, a school with 200 students should be on a site of approximately 12 acres.
2. Therefore we note that three current school sites are too small Morse, BRVC and Fisher-Mitchell.
6. ENROLLMENTS (CURRENT AND PROJECTED)(SOURCE: Maine State Planning Office December 2001) (See Enclosures Four And Five)
Grade Span 2003 2010 2015
BATH ONLY
Ages 4 Grade 5 591 540 519
Grade 6-8 358 288 290
Grade 9-12 450 363 326
1399 1091 1135
UNION 47 ONLY
Ages 4 Grade 5
Arrowsic 12 6 5
Georgetown 52 45 42
Phippsburg 118 107 103
West Bath 119 129 141
Woolwich 209 210 219
Sub-Total 510 497 510
Grades 6-8
Arrowsic 31 30 35
Georgetown 40 32 31
Phippsburg 68 55 58
West Bath 82 83 95
Woolwich 116 87 84
Sub-total 337 287 303
Grades 9-12
Arrowsic 41 44 43
Georgetown 49 41 39
Phippsburg 148 142 136
West Bath 79 62 56
Woolwich 144 116 103
Sub-total 461 405 377
TOTAL Union 47 1308 1189 1190
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT TOTALS:
2003 2010 2015
Bath only 1399 1091 1135
Union 47 only 1308 1189 1190
2707 2280 2325
ENROLLMENT HISTORY:
Grade 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004(Proj) 2005(Proj)
K 114 89 102 102 86 90 90
1 121 105 102 96 113 86 90
2 112 121 104 104 91 113 90
3 112 111 110 100 92 91 107
4 108 119 108 99 102 92 90
5 143 110 115 105 96 102 96
721 655 641 606 580 574 563
7. ORGANIZATIONAL OPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE:
Option 1: Three Buildings (one K only, two grades 1 - 5) (Current Structure)
Option 2: Two Buildings (one K - 2, one grade 3 - 5)
Option 3: Two Buildings (two grades K - 5)
Option 4: Three Buildings (one K only, one grades 1 - 3, one grades 4 and 5)
Option 5: Three Buildings (three grades K 5)
Option 6: Two Buildings (one grades K 1, one grades 2 5)
Option 7: Two Buildings (one grades K 3, one grades 4 5)
Option 8: Two Buildings (two grades K 4); (Move grade 5 to BMS)
Option 9: One Building (New Construction) grades K 5
8. RATING METHODS:
A matrix (See Enclosure Six) was developed in order to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each option according to common components. The areas noted as sub-topics of each component are those areas identified in the research as important to a childs education. The components were
a. educational benefits (including curriculum consistency, grouping flexibility, resource distribution, family/community involvement, distribution of support services, adaptability to enrollment changes and number of transitions).
b. social benefits (including diversity, school climate, family/community involvement and social continuity throughout elementary education affecting classmates, teachers and administrative staff).
c. staff considerations (including collaboration between/among teachers).
After completing the matrices (See Enclosure Seven), each committee member rated each option according to the following criteria:
a. to create and maintain a student body at each grade level in each school that reflects the demographics and economic composition of the community as a whole.
b. that the option makes sense educationally
c. to provide sufficient flexibility to enable the city to respond to enrollment changes over both the short and the long term.
d. that the option can be implemented within the amount of space and number of classrooms currently available.
e. that the option has social benefits for students and families
f. to facilitate staffing and professional collaboration.
A rating scale of 5 to 1 was used where each number was described as follows:
5. Meets the criteria very well
4. Meets the criteria well
3. Meets the criteria but questions/concerns remain
2. Meets the criteria but many questions/concerns remain
1. Meets the criteria minimally or not at all.
In rank order, the Committee came to the following conclusions (See Enclosure Eight) but the spread between some options may not be significant. Therefore the Committee has placed the various options in four different levels with Level A receiving the most support and Level D receiving the least support.
Level A
1. Option 9 One new elementary school (K-5)
2. Option 2 Two Buildings (K-2 and 3-5)
Level B
3. Option 3 Two Buildings (K- 5 and K- 5)
4. Option 4 Three Buildings (K and 1-3 and 4-5)
Level C
5. Option 5 Three Buildings (K-5 and K-5 and K-5)
6. Option 1 Three Buildings (K and 1-5 and 1-5)
Level D
7. Option 7 Two Buildings (K-3 and 4-5)
8. Option 6 Two Buildings (K-1 and 2-5)
9. Option 8 Two Buildings (K-4 and K-4 {Grade 5 to BMS})
The Committee did a preliminary analysis of the projected enrollments and building capacities for 2005-2006. (See Enclosure Nine)
9. GROUPING OF OPTIONS:
Level A includes two options - Option 9 (New or enhanced K-5 building) and Option 2 (Two Buildings K-2 and 3-5). Option 9 was clearly the choice of the Committee, but this option would require new construction and also may not be currently viable. It however may very well be the best LONG TERM solution for the School Board and the City of Bath.
Level B includes two options Option 3 (Two Buildings K-5 and K-5) and Option 4 (Three Buildings K-5 and K-5 and K-5)
Level C includes two options Option 5 (Three Buildings K-5 and K-5 and K-5) and Option 1 (Three Buildings K and 1-5 and 1-5)
Level D includes three options Option 7 (Two Buildings K-3 and 4-5) and Option 6 (Two Buildings K-1 and 2-5) and Option 8 (Two Buildings K-4 and K-4 with Grade 5 moving to Bath Middle School)
10. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Educational Options Committee recommends that the Board consider the content of this report and the Committee also feels that further study needs to be conducted by the Board and/or some other larger committee. Among the areas still to be explored are the following:
a. The costs and cost savings of selected options needs to be determined. The Committee has not had sufficient time to develop cost and cost analyses for each option. Also the entire system needs to be considered for instance repairs at Morse High School and repairs to other buildings compared to the cost of a new school and the relative priority of each; the report of the Union 47 and Bath School Department Governance Study and the potential impact of 1A, Palesky and Essential Programs and Services on the funding of schools.
b. The impact of selected options on the transportation system needs to be studied.
c. More study of the educational benefits (e.g. class size, geographic equalization, availability of space for specialists, etc.) of selected options is needed. The Committee also suggests on-site visits and interviews with personnel in systems that are organized in patterns that are favored by the Committee.
d. And, most importantly, the committee strongly endorses the need for the creation of a Strategic Planning Group whose responsibilities could/should include long term goals and short term goals, the engineering studies of each building, the report of the Union 47 and Bath School Department Governance Study and the immediate as well as long term impact of Maines Learning Results, No Child Left Behind, the MEAs, graduation rate, post-secondary attendance goals, dropout rate, etc.
ENCLOSURES:
1. K-5 Per Class Enrollments, October, 2003
2. Grade Structures, State of Maine
3. Grade Distributions (Maine School Systems with 1500-2500 Students
4. K-12 Projections Through 2015
5. State Planning Office Projections Through 2017
6. The Matrix
7. Analysis of Rating Sheet #4
8. Rating Sheet #2
9. Projected Enrollments and Building Capacities
