Plan B: Close a School

As I see it, the tuition decision is a choice between three main options:

• A: Fill the High School: Tuition in around 300 kids, maintain (or increase) programs, lower taxes.  We would still have to manage future declines in enrollment, perhaps by accepting even more tuition students as slots become available or at the middle school.  With this option we'd have to further choose between Deerfield/Barrington or Newmarket (and they'd have to choose us).
• B: Close a School:  Stop tuitioning in students, close a school, reap an initial sharp reduction in taxes and programming and a further gradual reduction as enrollment continues to decline.  We'd have to decide which school to close, which would be entertaining to say the least.
• C: Status Quo: Keep tuitioning in Barrington students only, which won't much affect the decline in enrollment.  Programming gradually shrinks, taxes stay about the same.

There is a district-wide meeting at the high school auditorium 6pm May 30 to discuss tuition.  The superintendent is hoping for several hundred people to turn out.  The recent tuition survey will be reported and the options discussed.

I've been advocating for plan A pretty much since I started blogging here over a year ago (see Roger Spiedel's Numbers 2/22/2012).  My main problem with the survey is it didn't distinguish between plans B and C.  First I'll report on the survey, which found an overwhelming preference for plan A, tuitioning 300 kids into the high school.  After that, I'll explore what plan B, closing a school, looks like.

Tuition Survey

UNH Professor and district parent Dr. Andy Smith reported on a phone survey of district residents about tuition.  Students were excluded from the survey -- the goal was to survey taxpayers.

Given the potential bias introduced in question 6 (see below), I'll just report questions 1 through 5:

1. 85% of respondents thought ORCSD schools to be excellent or good and 7% fair or poor.  96% of families with students thought the schools to be excellent or good.
2. 65% said the reputation of Oyster River schools was very important in their decision to move to the district, 14% said somewhat important and 25% said not important.  Among student families, 89% said very important.
3. 27% thought the high school facility was too big for the number of students, 43% said about right, 4% too small.  Among high school families, 29% said too big and 56% said about right.
4. 65% thought we were already tuitioning students (a well-informed district!), 4% thought we weren't.  83% of high school families knew we were.
5. 67% favor tuitioning students, 9% oppose.
6. One last thing, from later in the survey: there was no real preference between the Newington option and the Deerfield/Barrington option.

Various people have expressed concern about bias in the survey.  In particular, question 6 is

“As it turns out, Oyster River High School was built to accommodate 900 to 1200 students, but the current enrollment is only 620 and is projected to decline in the coming years.”

“In order to help cover some of the costs of the high school and to maintain the curriculum offered at the high school, the Oyster River School Board is currently considering the possibility of tuitioning in about 290 students from Newmarket, which would make the enrollment of the high school still lower than the size it could accommodate.”

“Would you support or oppose tuitioning in about 290 students in from Newmarket, or don’t you have an opinion one way or the other?” 

915 students is 85% of the capacity of the high school when calculated using ORCSD board policy for maximum class size (22 students) and represents a realistic full enrollment.  I have a problem with the "1200" used above.  1202 is the capacity calculated using NH State rules for maximum class size (30 students).  Since no one is really talking about relaxing the current class size policy, the 1200 is b.s. that makes the high school sound much more empty than it really is.  Probably because of this, the remainder of the survey shows an even more favorable sentiment toward tuition than the already overwhelming 67% to 9% above.

Plan B: Close a School

What happens if we don't tuition in any more students?  If we believe the projections, enrollment declines to the point where the student population can fit into three buildings.  A school can be closed (and even sold) and the taxpayers save money.

It's too bad the survey didn't bring up the possibility.  I personally don't think this plan would be very popular with the community.  First there would be the fight about which school to close.  Then a bunch of layoffs as a building is shuttered, sapping morale.  Then comes the continued slow decline in enrollment, which we manage with more layoffs.  Along with that may come a decline in property values, as the contracting school district is less attractive to potential homeowners.  Eventually there's a new problem when enrollment rises again but we've sold a school.

But as it's a real alternative to tuitioning students, we should at least consider it.  Here's how it works: By not accepting any tuition students our total district enrollment drops below 1957 students.  Now the district no longer needs Moharimet to serve so few students.   We close it, laying off almost all of the non-teaching staff.  We lay off some teachers, but not as many as you might think -- there are still children to teach.  Maybe four.  We might squeeze out a couple more positions if the consolidation allows class sizes closer to the maximum.  Then we reconfigure to grades K-2 at Mast Way, 3-7 at ORMS at 8-12 at ORHS.

The main benefit is that the three remaining buildings are utilized at near capacity.  Like I've argued for tuition, the most efficient way to use a school is to serve as many students as possible.

I think closing a school is a non-starter, due to non-economic considerations.  But to explore the economics, I made the spreadsheet and graph below to try to quantify the different plans.  To model the situation, I needed a capacity for each school.  I used the functional capacity from the recent study, which is 90% (85% for ORHS) of the capacity assuming every class space is filled at maximum ORCSD board policy.  It is intended to be a realistic estimate of full capacity.   For the amount of money we would save when we closed a building, I used the recent ABC report, which has a budget summary by location.

The remaining issue was how to model what to do with the difference between enrolled students and capacity.  I decided if we had too many students, we would tuition the overflow out at $13,000 per.  I modeled available seats as being filled with tuitioned-in students, each saving the district $7,000.  Alternatively, if you don't like the idea of tuitioning in students, you can think of the $7,000 as the amount saved as enrollment declines one student.

Obviously this model is quick and dirty and not intended to be incredibly accurate.  The goal is to get a feel for what the decision space look like.  Here's the result:


Coincidentally, our 2013 enrollment is 2013, which is two points to the left of the 2000 grid line.  For a given line, each point to the right of the 2000 line represents the enrollment projected for the next year.   The rightmost point is enrollment of 1628 for fiscal year 2023.  (I think the enrollment projections include 60-80 Barrington tuition children which I didn't remove.)  This chart is in current dollars.

The steeper slopes represent the overfilled condition -- the district has to tuition out students.  One less student means one less tuition to pay.   Even if the community were willing to close a school we might not want to tuition out our children, which means waiting until there's space.   That point, when enrollment equals capacity, is indicated by the knee in (two of) the lines.   The less steep slopes represent available capacity in the district.

You can see that by dropping the 60-odd Barrington tuition students, we can immediately get to the point where we can close Moharimet.  According to this (admittedly crude) estimate, we'd save 2% in taxes compared to keeping all schools open.  (I left out the "close Mast Way" line it's about the same as the Moharimet line but less attractive to close, as Mast Way serves more students at less cost than Moharimet.  And I don't want to close Mast Way.)

Want more savings?  You can wait 7 years and close the middle school instead of Moharimet resulting in 4% savings predicted here compared to tuitioning.  If you are willing to tuition out you can capture some of the savings sooner.

Why is the "All Open" savings at the current enrollment -5% instead of zero?  This assumes the unused capacity in the district  (almost 300 in this case) is used for tuitioning in students, saving money.

I didn't take into account the money the taxpayers would get from selling a school.   I don't know how much Moharimet would bring in.  A few million?  What bothers me is that many potential buyers are competitors to the district.  I like competition fine, but I don't see any need particular to help our competitors along.  But who else other than a private school needs a school?  I suppose there's some chance of a project that turns the school into a kind of community center, like the Tuck building in Exeter.  Given that enrollment is tough to predict, the district may be better off holding the building and leasing it (or parts) out.

So, this quick analysis indicates that closing a school can indeed be the choice that results in the largest tax savings.  To me, it's a big headache that probably doesn't result in very much more savings compared to tuitioning.  It doesn't seem worth the decline in programming.  The real question is whether we would be perceived as a district in decline.  If so, the likely result is a decline of property values that for many people would swamp any taxes saved.

All Day K Approved

The ORCSD school board approved a plan for full day Kindergarten in the district last night.   The tentative proposal is that starting this fall 60 full day K slots would be available at a tuition of $210 per week.   Half day K would continue to be offered at no charge.   In three years, the program could accommodate every Kindergarten student in the district all day.

Superintendent Morse presented the plan as a solution to the elementary school equity problem. The district would handle enrollment into Kindergarten and send most of the students to Mast Way.  The students would then attend their neighborhood school for grades 1 to 4 (so some attending K at Mast Way will attend first grade at Moharimet); no redrawing of the line between the schools would be necessary.

The program is billed as self-sustaining: there would be no additional funds required from the taxpayers.  In the first year the money will be used to create and build the program.  In subsequent years the excess of tuition over costs would be available to lower taxes or fund district projects.  When asked if the taxpayers would eventually pay for full day K the superintendent predicted for that for the next five or six years tuition "is the model."

For a board that usually tediously ponders every decision, the speed at which this happened was remarkable.  It was unclear whether further approval from the board is required.  Update 5/17: Chairman Barth tells me that the board only voted to allow the superintendent to explore further.   There are no minutes available yet, but from the recording board member Rotner's motion was "to give Superintendent Morse the approval to move forward with the proposal to phase in all day Kindergarten and take the appropriate next steps."   That seemed like a pretty broad approval to me at the time, and reading it now it still does.  The vote was 6-0 (member Lane was out of town).  Surely further board actions will need to happen to make All Day K real, so there will be chances to stop.

 What appears most likely is that there will be a special election this summer to approve the project for the fall.  Technically the vote would be to amend the FY14 budget just approved in March.  This is needed because even though the program will not raise taxes, the district would spend more money than the approved budget.  This additional spending needs to be approved by the taxpayers before it's legal.

The budget proposed expected FY14 revenue of $210 per student per week * 60 students * 36 weeks = $453,600.  2.5 teachers and 2.5 paras would be hired.  10% of the budget would be dedicated to scholarships. Class size would be 15 or 16.  Transportation, lunch and snack are included.  (The increase in transportation costs should be pretty small as we are already busing half day K students.  Costs come from the additional distance to Mast Way for some and from extra students that would have otherwise done private K.)

Though the initial year is proposed to have at most 60 students, the superintendent said the program could open with as few as 30 students.   Among the next steps is a survey of next year's Kindergarten families to gauge interest.

One reason the project is able to get off the ground so quickly was the existence of a five-year old report on All Day K in the district.  Apparently I was wrong when I reported after the last meeting that the solution to the elementary inequity was to redraw the bus lines -- sorry about that.

The superintendent mentioned an "executive fund" and a board meeting with the district lawyer immediately after the public meeting.  The fund seems to be some kind of scheme for getting around the apparent requirement that the taxpayers must approve the change to the FY14 budget if All Day K is to start this fall.  My free advice to the board and superintendent: whenever you feel you need to ask the lawyer if what you want to do is OK (like holding secret meetings in police stations or spending half a million dollars without taxpayer approval) you probably just shouldn't do it whatever the lawyer says.  This board, which serves under the threat of contempt of court due to past Right-to-Know violations, would do well to adhere to the well-accepted, if occasionally inconvenient, procedures of governance.

During public comments recently retired board member Krista Butts expressed concern that the tuition may be too high for some families which do not qualify for scholarships.  My recollection is that the proposed price is significantly higher than the maximum tuition at full day K at CSDC (UNH daycare) our family paid a few years ago, but I'd have to look that up to be sure.  Ms. Butts further pointed out that the proposal doesn't really solve the equity problem.  Even though adding full day K gets enrollment at Mast Way within 20 students of Mohariment, according to Krista the class sizes for grades 1-4 will still be much higher at Moharimet (and thus inequitable) under this proposal.

In other news, Dr. Andy Smith presented the results of the district-wide tuition phone survey.  67% of the public support tuitioning in 290 students, with no real preference between the Newmarket and the Deerfield/Barrington option.  Only 9% oppose.  There will be a public, district-wide meeting about the issue at the high school May 30.  Postcards were to be mailed to all homeowners in the district today.

Board member Turnbull once again hinted at an alternative to tuitioning: closing a school.  She used terms like "facilities consolidation" and "program reduction."  I'll write more on tuitioning soon -- watch this space.

Here's the video of the All Day K proposal, starting at 1:30:00.  Thanks to Alexander in the booth for getting this out right after the meeting ended.

Pay to Play

Trisha Hall at the
recent parents' forum

This is a report on the May 1, 2013 ORCSD board meeting.  I wrote this before I remembered I don't usually like just doing meeting reports.

It's decided: graduation day is definitely June 14th, 6pm on the field.  This is despite receiving the waiver from NH Education Commissioner Virginia Barry allowing us to move the date back to the 7th.  The decision was made two Monday's ago not to change the date a second time.

Please vote for Oyster River's own Neville C. for Doodle 4 Google.  Congratulations to Neville for making it into the top 10 in the country in the 8-9 group (eighth and ninth grade).

Congratulations to district parent and district kindergarten teacher Trisha Hall on being promoted to Moharimet first grade teacher.  The position is one of a few (4 of 17) retirements that needed to be replaced.  My boy was incredibly lucky to have Mrs. Hall for K at Mast Way.  I don't think it was stated at the meeting, but I had the impression that the vacated kindergarten position would not be replaced.  It appears to be a deft move by the superintendent to retain a popular and effective teacher while shedding a position.

Football News

Policy JJIF (Athletic Policy - Sanctioning of Sports) (page 4) generated some discussion.  Board member Rotner was most concerned about the Pay to Play passage:

Pay to Play.  The School Board supports the concept of pay to play in part or in whole of any given Board approved athletic program and will follow Board policy and transportation may or may not be provided.

Vice Chairman Newkirk transformed into an English professor, suggesting edits.  (He chaired tonight's meeting -- get well soon Maria.)  He was also concerned that once a sport reached a certain level, Policy JJIF required the district to pay for it, at least in part:

School-sponsored sport.  This is the final level of sanctioning.  The School Board assumes all the responsibilities listed above for a school sport.  In addition, the school district pays for some or all of the activity's uniforms and equipment.  The level of responsibility for uniforms and equipment may vary from activity to activity depending on the costs involved and the individual agreement between the school district and any affiliated booster costs (except coaches and insurance costs) associated with teams other than varsity and junior varsity, reserve and middle school teams. Transportation may or may not be provided.

There's similar language that requires the district to pay for the second level, school sport.

The superintendent said Pay to Play was the current district practice.  The board approved the policy for first read, with the policy committee attempting a rewrite to reflect current district practice as well as the objections of some board members.

Board member Rotner's objection was primarily that by requiring students to pay to play, the least well-off among us may be unable to participate.  There was nothing about waivers or scholarships in the policy, nor is there likely to be in the rewrite.  If sports don't serve an important educational function, we probably shouldn't have them at school.    If sports do serve an important educational function, we probably have to make sure there's an opportunity for each student to participate regardless of ability to pay.

The term "Pay to Play" isn't defined in the policy.  I thought of Alan Freed, so I looked it up.  It apparently refers to a fee paid by parents to the school to play a sport or other activity.  This may be above and beyond having families purchase equipment and uniforms and provide their own transportation.  Forbes reads like a hippy rag on this one:

... that sends a clear message to everyone in the school district, a message opposite of that intended by community-supported public schools: opportunities are available only to those who can pay the fee.  

... Is America the land of opportunity, or the land of opportunity only for those who can afford the price of admission?

Science Daily reports a survey showing 19% of families earning less than $60K decreased participation in school athletics because of costs.

As I read all this, Pay to Play means the taxpayers are subsidizing recreational activities for the children of the affluent.  I don't support this. If we're going to fund these programs, we have to fund that little extra to make sure every student can participate. The budget has $17,000 revenue for "charges for services" and another $196,000 "other revenues" -- I'd like to know how much  of that is pay-to-play and other athletic fees.

Elementary Reconfiguration Path Chosen

There was a tedious discussion about elementary reconfiguration even after the superintendent announced that he had decided as a result of the meeting with the parents to eliminate "Option 1" (Mast Way becomes K-2, Moharimet 3-4).  He requested and eventually got board consensus to focus on a modified dividing line between schools and a smooth transition process, presumably grandfathering families with children already at Moharimet.  Board member Turnbull pressed for the transition to begin in fall of 2013 (aka FY14) rather than wait to FY15 as planned.  The new plan will be presented at the June 5 meeting when we'll probably get to hear the same discussion over again.

The superintendent once again dangled the prospect of 400 students enrolled at Moharimet next year if nothing changes.  It would be way above the projected number of 375.  There are anecdotes of young families moving into the district.   The enrollment forecasts looks most dire for the elementary schools -- it would be interesting if the decline failed to materialize.  The superintendent indicated full day Kindergarten (with tuition) and universal pre-K were "winners for the district" that could happen quickly as space is freed up in the elementary schools.  (I think he attributed the idea to a parent at the forum.)

In other news, there will be a meeting about the tuition student issue on May 30th.  In addition to the usual ways the district reaches out, a postcard will be mailed to every homeowner in the district advising of the meeting.

In closing public comments Krista Butts urged the board to address the elementary school inequities.  Brenda Worden came with an extensive proposal for the district to provide day care for the third week of August, when apparently all the competition closes up to disinfect.  The board came up with a big list of agenda items they'll be too busy to get to.

Parents Opine on Elementary Reshuffle

On April 18, Superintendent Morse hosted a forum for parents potentially affected by the proposed elementary school reconfiguration.  I would estimate over 100 people participated.  Parents who didn't attend missed a scary moment when a toddler fell off the stage while his mother was speaking at the podium.  The boy seemed OK as he was carried out by his mom.

Board members attend forum

There were about as many people at this forum as at the last deliberative session.  Board members Charle, Howland, Rotner and Chairman Barth attended. The questioning of the superintendent by parents went on for almost two hours.  I was very impressed by the knowledge and passion for education displayed by the parents, most of whom I did not know.  It was a real reminder of just how much the people of our district value education.  At the end of the meeting board member Rotner made a very welcome statement about how the parents were truly heard.  It's too bad that the meeting doesn't seem to have been recorded.

The basic problem to be solved is the inequity created by the enrollment difference between Mast Way and Moharimet.  The superintendent has been talking about a situation where Moharimet has 400 students and Mast Way 300.   That's a bit of an exaggeration -- the current difference is 69 students and the worst projected difference is 80.

Long Term Planning Committee Projections for Elementary Enrollments

Let's look at some measures of imbalance.
 (A) % needed to be switched to balance = (400-300)/(2*700)=7%.  
 (B) mohariment/mastway as %= 400/300-1 = 33%.

Let's look at the imbalance measures in the projections.

None of the projections is quite as dire as the superintendent's 33% example.  The imbalance stays pretty constant starting at FY17.  This is probably telling us something about how the projections were created. It may mean that the years through FY17 were estimated using actual births in the district while after that the numbers are just extrapolated.  For imbalance purposes, FY17 is probably the last useful year projected.

Nonetheless, the imbalance is clearly a problem.  In FY15, the first year I believe we're aiming to change, Moharimet is forecasted to have 60 more students (20% more) than Mast Way.  Moharimet has modular classrooms we rent for over $20,000 a year; Mast Way has empty classrooms.

Three options were presented: Option 1 turns Mast Way into grades K - 2 and Moharimet into 3 - 4. (As enrollment declines, preschool may move back to Mast Way and 5th grade back to Moharimet under option 1.)  Option 2 is centralized registration, where the district chooses your elementary school, i.e. it puts new kids in Mast Way no matter where they live.  Option 3 is redrawing the bus lines, which is probably the most common solution a school board chooses for this sort of problem, and has been the district's traditional remedy.

The March 6 meeting agenda has the options detailed (page 39), along with a (skewed, IMHO) list of pros and cons of each.  Due to the football presentation, the superintendent didn't present the topic until the March 13 meeting.   Here's the video of the presentation at that meeting.

District parent and Kindergarten
 teacher Trisha Hall prefers
more grade levels per school.

Option 1 (MW is K-2, MOH is 3-4) seemed to receive the most pushback from parents and educators.  It's by far the most disruptive, and would cost real money to implement.   John Collins among others referred to research indicating that more grades in a single school is superior.  (Basically more transitions to new schools means more time adjusting and less time learning. ) The bus routes are longer under option 1, as the plan would be for each elementary bus to stop at both Mast Way and Moharimet.  My point was with an expected 312 assigned to Mohariment and 395 assigned to Mast Way, this 83 student difference is more imbalanced than the largest projected imbalance of the status quo, so doesn't really solve the problem.  Former board member Krista Butts points out that the imbalance isn't as as bad as it seems, as Kindergarteners are currently half-day students.  The superintendent seemed to imply that it was more OK to be inequitable across grades than within the same grade, but he's way too savvy to ever say that.  Moharimet and Mast Way are each a central focus of social life in their respective towns, and option 1 may disrupt that.

Options 2 and 3 as presented had obvious drawbacks, but these seem much easier to overcome than those of option 1.   Centralized registration would result in families that move in near Moharimet sending their kids to Mast Way.  Redrawing bus lines would cause around 25 families to be forced to change schools.  I think it was Krista Butts who pointed out that the growth in the district is largely in Madbury, so the redrawing of the bus lines as proposed is probably insufficient and would need to be redone sooner rather than later.

I would propose a hybrid option 2 & 3 scheme in which the district is divided into three zones: Moharimet, Mast Way and Maybe. Within the Maybe zone the district would do centralized registration.  It could alleviate disruption by grandfathering families with students already in a given school.  The Maybe zone should be kept as small as possible, but needs to be large enough to handle potential inequities that may arise for at least a decade.

The superintendent was hoping for a decision this June.  There was a show of hands in which many parents indicated they would prefer the decision to be pushed later to allow for a more thorough exploration of the issues.

I believe at least part of the current imbalance stems from a perception that Mohariment is a better school than Mast Way.  The superintendent stressed that this was not the case.   For what it's worth, one of my children attended both schools and generally had a better experience at Mast Way.  It was pointed out that Mast Way is a SINI (School in Need of Improvement).  The superintendent rightfully downplayed this.  The SINI designation came from the Mast Way "educational disability cohort" (students with IEPs) not achieving proficiency at the rather high rate expected of other cohorts for two years in a row.  That cohort did make adequate yearly progress (AYP) last year.  If it does again this year (results soon) Mast Way would lose its SINI label.

That's about it. I did want to mention one thing that stuck with me.  Former board member Jocelyn O'Quinn spoke at the meeting. Her point was that it would be wise to consider the elementary school reconfiguration decision in tandem with the tuition issue.  In particular, Ms. O'Quinn seemed to prefer an option with a minimum of tuitioning, which then saves money by closing (and, she said, selling) one of the district schools.  It reminded me that board member Ann Lane asked about the economics of closing a school, I believe at the March 13 meeting.  And of course readers of Foster's or this blog know Calvin Jarvis is against tuitioning.  It makes me wonder if the district is once again cleaving along those old lines.   I'll be sure to write more posts about this soon, so please check back.

Tuition? I reply to Cal's reply to my reply to Cal

School Board News: New Hampshire Education Commissioner Virginia Barry personally approved our request to grant a waiver allowing us to move graduation day back to June 7.   The board voted unanimously to put the decision in the superintendent and principal's hands.  Congratulations to the board on a successful passing of this hot potato. Principal Allen will quickly survey seniors and their families and the final decision will be made soon.  Check out ORTV for fun coverage by the students of this and other district issues.  (The graduation date story starts at 8:07.)

Also surprising, staffing up for tuition students began tonight, with a request approved for two .4 part time, no benefits teacher positions to teach required math and science to (I think they said) 34 additional Barrington students.  Principal Allen apparently aroused some consternation in Barrington by starting a waiting list that grew to four before the board could vote tonight.

Even though the tuition greatly exceeds the cost of these positions, the money for the positions still has be taken from the budget approved by the voters in March.  Since then, there have been three retirements approved, only one of which will be replaced.  Technically, that's where the money for the new hires comes from.

The superintendent suggested election day, early November 2013, as a target date the tuition student decision should be made.  This gives time for budget planning.  Transition planning has already begun.  If approved, the mass of students would start in September 2014.  That's also known as FY15, since that fiscal year (corresponding to the school year) ends June 30, 2015.

There's a meeting tonight (Thursday 4/18, 6pm, ORHS auditorium) to discuss elementary school reconfiguration.  Childcare will be provided.  The most radical proposal is to make Mast Way grades K - 2 and Moharimet grades 3 - 4, maybe 3 - 5.  There's an alternate proposal to redraw district lines to even out the currently projected enrollment of I think Mohariment 380, Mast Way 300.


Now to the main topic.

Calvis Jarvis has another letter in Foster's today.   It's an attempt to rebut my letter about his original letter.  I don't plan to respond in the paper, because I'd just be repeating my first letter. But I thought it would be worthwhile to respond here where I don't have to be so terse.

I've formatted Cal's letter in this font.

Tawdry deception

I see where the editor get's "deception" from the letter, but "tawdry?" That is apparently Foster's contribution to the debate. I looked it up: Showy but cheap and of poor quality. I'll agree my letter is a poor quality deception because it's not a deception. It's my understanding of the truth as best as I could articulate in 350 words.

To the editor: I have a news flash for those who were wondering (Big money, 4/11/2013): I do want to reduce taxes for Oyster River! I have advocated we should restore the cost of our own kids’ educations to a more competitive amount, before importing students at a discounted tuition we have to subsidize. 

I was wondering, Cal.  I'm glad you're back on the side of us taxpayers.  Cutting our costs "of our own kids' education" cuts taxes.  I'm all for it.   We should do it.  We have been doing it.  That's what retirement incentives and energy savings do, as I pointed out in my letter.  I hope we keep doing it.  I hope we find new ways to cut costs.

But why "before importing?"  Tuition students cuts our taxes now.   As I've attempted to show many times, even if our cost per student is higher than that the tuition we charge, tuition students still cut our taxes.  This is because it costs money just to have buildings open and staffed with principals and custodians, etc.  If we can spread that cost among more students, we get lower cost per student.

I'm not giving up on you Cal.  Let's try another analogy.  Say you and I ran a summer camp, Camp Jervine.  We have a dining operation to serve the kids and staff three meals a day.  We lease a high end kitchen with nice ovens, freezers and dishwashers.  We're staffed with a dining director, nutritionist, head chef, a dishwasher, cooks and waiters.  When we count up all the costs at the end of the summer and divide, it comes out to $10 per meal.  (Let's ignore cost differences between breakfast, lunch and dinner.)

Say we have a visitor for dinner.  At any given dinner, we could produce and serve another plate of food for essentially the cost of the food, say $2.  We wouldn't need to hire anyone.   If we charged the visitor $6 for her meal, we would make $4.  We surely wouldn't lose $4 because our average cost per meal is $10.  We are not subsidizing this visitor's meal when we charge $6.  That $4 we make can be use to lower the cost to the campers or to increase our profit, Cal.

Cal says we don't need a head chef, nutritionist and director.  Our nutritionist is a great manager and chef.  Let's make that one job.   That's great. Now it only costs us $7 per meal on average.  But that doesn't change the economics of that extra meal for a visitor.  That would still only costs us $2.

Cal says, sure that's OK for one visitor, but for a significant number you're going to have to hire waiters  and maybe even more cooks.   I agree.   But we don't need to hire another head.  We don't need a bigger kitchen with new appliances.   Our dishwasher is underutilized and we won't need another one.   We have extra space in the dining room.   We already have plenty of plates and utensils.  Say when you add in the additional waiters and cooks just for these extra meals, the cost goes up to $4 per meal.   We would still make money charging $6 for each extra meal.   Let's open Jervine Cafe!

This all seem straightforward to me.  The last point to make is that now is when the tuition student deals are being presented.  We may not have the opportunity to take a large number of tuition students in the near future. We have to decide now whether or not they make sense for the district.  I've argued they're a win-win, saving programming for the students and money for the taxpayers.

Mr. Rubine is used to throwing big $ amounts around like Hail Mary passes, figuring people will eventually just punt when figures get too confusing. Once we get past all the bemusement and deception, consider the content of his arguments:

It's Dr. Rubine, but that couldn't matter less.  Call me Dean.  I worked pretty hard, using only the roundest of numbers, to make things as simple as I could for our readers in my letter.  Let's recap: 

• 200 new students covered by 10 new staff, generously estimated as $5,000 cost per student.
• $12,000 tuition minus $5,000 cost is $7,000 the taxpayers save per tuition student.  
• $90,000 annually in energy savings thanks to Sustainability Committee.
• $1 million annually in staff savings due to board's retirement incentive.
• $900,000 annual shift by Republican legislature from state taxes to local property taxes.
• At least $10,000 in annual football costs not covered by the boosters.

OK, it's alot of numbers, I'll give you that.  I hope there's not too much here that your typical newspaper reader couldn't handle.  If you have a problem with any of these figures, state it.  Just because you're confused doesn't make what I say false.

The OR retirement incentive led to 17 takers, “only four of whom will be replaced.” Then, by his accounting, to manage an estimated 200 tuition students, 10 new hires are required. We net 3 employees less than before. Taxpayers rejoice! 

The taxpayers should rejoice under this story.  We save 3 employees' pay, say $200,000 and collect an additional $2,400,000 in tuition.  That's $2.6 million dollars less the taxpayers will have to shell out.  That's about 7% off your taxes.  And I really think my estimate is conservative.  Business Administrator Caswell is working on the actual numbers.

Tuition revenue for 200 students at $12,000 each is $2.4 million. However, OR taxpayers will foot the bill for the difference, $900,000, between the revenue received, versus our costs for those 200 students! Someone living in Deerfield can give their kid an Oyster River education for the state average cost, while we pay for 1/4 of their education, as part of the cost for our kids. Our total cost is “marginally” less, but this is our solution for educating our children? Why, so we can keep more people on the ORCSD payroll? 

There is no $900,000 bill.  The taxpayers have to shell out less money after they take the tuition students.  Less taxes is good.   

As best as I can tell, Mr. Jarvis' complaint is really that it's not fair that the tuition kids get a better deal than the district kids. That the tuitioning town ends up spending less sending each kid to high school than we spend sending our own kids.   Even though it's to our benefit to take the tuition kids at the good rate for them, it's still not fair.

I can see this.  It's a good deal for Deerfield.  Anybody who wants to could move to Deerfield and send their kids to Oyster River High at a bargain rate.   Here's a house on a nice lake for $135K and $3,214 in taxes.  Snap it up, Cal.

It's perhaps not as great a deal as it might seem.  Tuition doesn't include transportation or special education, two things that add much to the cost per student taxpayers see.  Once you adjust for those things it's less unfair.

Right now, anyone could move to Barrington and send their kids to Oyster River.  Maybe one of the kids on Todd's waiting list lives in this house that recently sold in Barrington for $37,500.

It suggests an alternate plan for the district.  We can be like Newmarket.  We close the middle school, squeeze the kids we can into the three remaining buildings and tuition out the rest.    I have no doubt that  this would save the taxpayers money.  I'd have to work out whether it would save more or less than tuitioning students.  Eventually enrollment may shrink until we no longer have excess students to tuition out.  I'm pretty sure that if you presented this plan in public it wouldn't be very popular.  But it's not really my idea.  Board Member Lane asked about the economics of closing one school at a recent meeting.

I think it would be great if our costs were such that this unfairness was eliminated.  But from a purely business perspective, tuition students benefit district taxpayers as well as the towns sending the students.  And benefits all the students too.  The world is rarely fair, but at least in this case it offers us and the tuitioning towns a win-win situation.  That's pretty rare too, so we should grab it up.

Mr. Rubine bemoans the fact that the “Republican” state legislature shifted costs back to the local communities. He was happy tourists and vacationers were supporting our kids’ educations. This epitomizes the problem we have in this country with spending. The local taxpayers would not see any effect from shifting costs, if the school administration would take care of the spending side of the equation. That is where the rub is with FORE and their clan, because it might cost jobs. I’d be concerned if we had a student-to-teacher ratio of 20:1, instead of 11:1, like it is. Their concerns reside with the Dept. of Labor, not with the Dept. of Education. 

Cal, of course I'm happier when taxes extracted from visitors to the state go toward schools.  Pretty much anyone who lives here would be.  It's got nothing to do with spending or jobs.  It's got to do with lessening the burden on local families.  Lessening the burden on the people of Oyster River.  You said you were with us, Cal.  I thought you were with us.

Readers will ultimately decide who in this debate is making sense. Just governance and prudent decisions for our schools depend on where the truth lies. Right now, money is flowing from the wallets of OR taxpayers. Collecting it does not require forks. It requires pitchforks, and wheelbarrows. High cost is one excuse used why there is no room for football at ORHS. 

The only position I've taken on football is that I want the board and the public to know how much it will eventually cost us before we say yes.  If the taxpayers are willing, I'm in.  I think the taxpayers are going to be a lot more willing when there are a bunch of kids paying tuition to support new programs like football.   I don't see football working out very well in a small school with declining enrollment that's frantically cutting to reduce costs.

Sure, people will decide.  The board will ultimately decide.  But this board will weigh heavily public opinion.  So the public should understand, tuitioning is good.  Let's make a list.

Why Tuitioning is Good

• It's good for students, who get to maintain or even increase their electives.
• It's good for taxpayers, who pay less because tuition revenue greatly exceeds costs.
• It's good for the tuitioning town, which due to market forces will get a good deal on an Oyster River High School education.
• It's good for teachers, who get to have a job teaching kids who want to be there.  I said it, Cal.
• It's good for all the employees of the district to work in a successful district.
• It's good for the administration, which has a chance to correct any past understaffing without painful layoffs by assuring that all teachers are fully utilized in a larger school.
• It's good for the community, which has a long history of valuing education, to be the winner in the secondary education market.  To be the place that other towns want to pay to attend.  To have the culture of a thriving high school.
• It alleviates the pain of a shrinking system where cost per student would skyrocket, large layoffs would ensue, morale would stink, performance would suffer, property values would tank and soon we'd be looking to tuition out our own kids.

Why Tuitioning is Bad

• It's not fair the tuition towns get a better deal than us locals.
• That unfairness may have a negative effect on district property values.

This isn't Mr. Jarvis' list, it's mine.  He'd probably claim tuition students cost district taxpayers money, but I think that's simply incorrect. The property value thing is a concern of mine, one that Mike McClurken makes an attempt to downplay in a recent letter to Foster's.  I'm not sure if it's true.  It relies on people being able and willing to move to a town with a tuition agreement with another town.  That doesn't seem that attractive a prospect to me.  Also, the people who would be willing to scheme to get their kid into our school are probably self-selecting to be just the ones we want.

Occasionally you hear special education as a reason not to take tuition students.  Our agreement with Barrington states that they pay any special education costs we incur for their students.  The superintendent has made it clear any tuition agreement would work this way. Apparently Dover left this clause out of their agreement with Barrington and thus probably has almost all of this population.  Dover will obviously fix that in this cycle, so we can expect a share of this group.  It should have no effect on taxes.

I've assumed a pretty low tuition.  In reality, the district should try to charge the maximum amount for tuition that would still end up with enough demand to fill the school.  Since it's a market that doesn't really trade very often, it's hard to know what that price is.  

Future Searched

Here are the pictures from Future Search.  I thought I'd post these for the record largely without comment.  Thanks Ruth for all the photos.

For a conference concerned with the future, it sure spent lots of time dwelling on the past.  Here are various tables' answers to "what about the history does the strategic planning committee need to know?"

Click caption to enlarge

This is a "mind map" exploring the "Forces At Work" in the district.

Click caption to enlarge

Here's another shot at stitching together the timeline, this time with higher resolution photos.

Click on this caption for full resolution

Here's the "Message from our Future Trends," whatever that means:

Click caption to enlarge

- Dean

FORKed up

Foster's kindly ran my letter to the editor today. It was a response to the 4/5/2013 letter from Cal Jarvis entitled "Hiking Costs Versus Fumbling Spending."  It's an extension of a pretty good debate Cal and I have been having about tuition students in this post.

Though I don't always agree with Cal, I do want to thank him for his attention.  Ever since my first post, Cal has been there to push back on what I said.  He is my most prolific commenter.  His contributions have definitely made this blog more interesting and relevant.   Thanks for taking me seriously, Cal.  I hope you keep your comments coming.

Cal, with your permission I'll include your letter right here.

Here's my response.  Thanks to Foster's for running it and for the free editing advice.  The editor encouraged me to take out all the objectionable terms like "we're FORKed" and "they FORKed us over."   That's probably for the best.

Foster's also edited my quote "NOT requesting Tax Payer Assistance" that I should have tagged "[their emphasis]" or some such.  I've restored the quote to the way it was originally presented at the March 6 school board meeting.

Big money

To the editor: Calvin Jarvis used to want lower taxes in Oyster River. But his F.O.R.K. proposals have us taxpayers FORKing out big money. (Letters, 4/5/2013). 

Tuition students are a fantastic deal for us, but Mr. Jarvis says no. We could squeeze in one more student for the cost of some supplies. For 200 we’d need to hire about 10 people. Conservatively estimating the cost as $5,000 per student, each $12,000 in tuition means $7,000 that we district taxpayers don’t have to FORK up.

Mr. Jarvis is against the Sustainability Committee, whose energy audit led to $90,000 in fuel savings. Annually! He criticizes the board for not addressing staffing, though their incentive led to 17 retirements, only four of whom will be replaced. We save half a million next year when the incentives are paid and a million each subsequent year.

He wants football, presented as a program “NOT requesting Tax Payer Assistance.”  But they spoke with FORKed tongue. The superintendent said the athletic director “easily identified another $10,000” in annual costs not in the proposed budget. The boosters’ proposed contract allows them to end support immediately anytime, but we pay startup costs if we even consider terminating. There’s no external funding for trainers, support staff, marching band, cheerleaders and Title IX girls sports. “Full” external funding surely won’t continue forever. We taxpayers will have to FORK it over. 

The previous Republican state legislature shifted $500,000 a year in retirement costs to the district. They cut an additional $400,000 a year in school aid. Now this money comes from our local property taxes instead of room taxes paid by visitors and dividend taxes paid by the wealthy. I don’t know if Mr. Jarvis supported this FORK in the back.

Board members pay taxes too. I know each is acutely aware of the burden high taxes place on all of us, especially the least well-off. Energy savings, retirement incentives and tuition students are all ways the board is trying to bring taxes down. So let’s all commend the board for what they’ve done for us taxpayers, encourage them to do more and stick a FORK in F.O.R.K.

Cal’s mistaken about at least one more thing. F.O.R.E. didn’t endorse anyone in the last two elections. I did, at ORCSDcleanslate.org.

Dean Rubine
Lee