A View on (Not) Following the Rules at Council Rock

Considering what’s happened at Council Rock recently, following the rules does matter.
THAT GOES AT THE TOP TOO.

Click the picture for a video to see what I mean.

Improvement in Information to the Public

Followers of the blog have seen my concern over the level with which the Administration and Board shares information with the public.  With the power the School District has, it is imperative that the public’s right to know be held at the highest level.

It should be acknowledged that the most recent Board meeting showed two levels of improved communication. First off, the agenda for the meeting which was posted on the website ahead of the meeting had its attachments as embedded links in the document, meaning that one could refer to the attachments without having to go back and forth to the agenda. It may seem like a small matter but it does make it easier to research the information which the School Board will be considering.

The second area was the level of detail provided by the solicitor about the reasons an Executive (closed) Session was held prior to the meeting.  At past meetings, announcements about these closed meetings would be explained with a general term such as “personnel matters” or “potential litigation.”  As has been pointed out in the blog and in public comment too, the Sunshine Law stresses the right of the public to know the discrete matter for which the Board is holding a closed meeting out of view of the public.  During the solicitor’s report toward the end of the November 19th meeting, Mr. Robert Cox reported that there had been an Executive Session prior to the meeting, dealing with “confidential employment matters, issues of collective bargaining involving CRESPA, and potential real estate tax assessment appeals.”

This information was more thorough than what might have been said before, i.e. “personnel matters, collective bargaining and potential litigation.”  At least now, the public knows that some work is being done on the expired CRESPA contract, and instead of only hearing a generalized litigation reason, knows the issue of assessment appeals was the concern.

While these two matters alone don’t address all the issues related to full and timely transparency, disclosure and communication between the District and the public, they do represent steps in the right direction.

Melsky Property Sales Agreement Renewal Up for Discussion

One of the items shown on the agenda for tonight’s meeting of the School Board is a discussion item regarding an agreement renewal for the Melsky Property sale to Toll Brothers.  This agreement caused a swirl of controversy during a period about two to three years ago, when Toll Brothers threatened to hold up selling land that would be used for a new Veterans’ Cemetery in Washington Crossing. As a condition for selling that land, Toll wanted to purchase land owned by the School District, known as the Melsky Tract, and build up to 90 homes there.

On June 7th, 2007, an agreement was signed between the District and Toll Brothers to sell them a large part of the Melsky property for the sum of $7,000,000. A second, smaller portion of the Melsky Property, about 40 acres, was also sold by the School District to Leo Holt, to allow the sale of the entire property to go through.

The Melsky Tract had been acquired by the District to provide them some available land in the event another school had to be constructed.  During all the negotiations to try and get the Veterans’ Cemetery for the area, the availability of land for another school a potential hold-up.  It seemed that if the Board did not sell the land, Toll would not sell land to the Veterans Administration for the cemetery.  There was divided opinion in the community because of this perception of a tie-in between a Melsky sale and the success of the project to get the cemetery to be located in Bucks County (if I recall, another site in Chester County was vying for the cemetery if the site fell through).

During this process the School District and the supervisors of Wrightstown Township worked out an amendment of a court stipulation for other property in the District known as the Howes Tract. That property had been the subject of court actions dating back to 1998 with a stipulation reached that a middle school could be built on the property. On March 12, 2007, the Wrightstown Board of Supervisors voted to approve amending the stipulation and allow two schools on the Howes property, an elementary school in addition to the middle school which was approved.

With the availability of Howes for an elementary school, holding on to the Melsky Tract was freed up.  Although some people felt that the sale of Melsky was an imperative in the sequence of actions needed to get a cemetery built on land Toll would sell to the veterans Administration, there were those who felt the two were unrelated and that Toll’s sale to the VA had nothing to do with whether they got other nearby land to build more houses.  Those opinions objected to the land sale because of increase in development, traffic and potentially adding more schools to the District, costing more in taxes than the proceeds from selling the land.

At the meeting of June 7th, 2007, the Board voted 8-1 (Dr. Anagnostakos being the sole “nay” vote, although Mr. Abramson voted in favor of the first part of the motion but against the second part of the motion) to sell the Melsky Tract to Leo Holt (40 acres) for $900,000 and Toll Brothers (94 acres) for $7,000,000.

One would have thought that was the end of that.  But with tonight’s discussion item, it becomes clear that Toll Brothers has not completed the agreement, and presumably the $7,000,000 has not been paid.  The question becomes what extension is now being requested, for what purpose and what the benefit would be to the School District and the community to grant it.

Since the renewal agreement and conditions have not been shared with the public, hopefully the Board will not move ahead with a vote before the public has a chance to see the details and weigh in with opinions on whether a renewal should be granted.  As with many agreements, the devil is in the details.

School District Makes Improvement to Board Meeting Agendas

The agenda posted for tonight’s School Board meeting is an improvement over the format from past agendas which have been on the District’s website. Past agendas showed numbered attachments to various agenda topics, and to check out any posted agendas, you had to exit out of the agenda and click on a separate link for the attachment. It was a bit tedious and could lead to some difficulty matching up agenda items with the relevant attachments.

The latest agenda now embeds the attachment link right into the agenda document. Also, instead of simply numbering the attachment, a brief title identifies the content.

For example, one agenda item tonight is approval of the Physician/Dentist listing for the school year. In a past agenda, that might have also shown Attachment 6, and to see the list one would have to exit out of the agenda, go to the website link and find Attachment 6 and click there to read it. Then to keep reviewing the agenda, one would have to go back to the website link and reopen the agenda. The new agenda titles the attachment Phys/Dentist List and the link is right there in the agenda document.  This new method is a cleaner process for anyone who wishes to review the documents.

That being said, not all items being considered have Attachments available for the public to see in advance. As an example, tonight’s agenda includes approval of purchases of items such as Fitness Equipment and Baseball Batting Cages. While the basic bid documents are included as a link (another improvement), the dollar amounts and specific of the purchases are not shown. It would be nice if the public could get some idea of the scope and price of projects before the Board discusses them. This is because the public must make its comments before the agenda items get considered, and doesn’t get an opportunity to comment further before the Board takes a vote. So when dealing with a situation like Batting Cages as an example, the public might be apt to not worry about these if the cost were, say, $2,500 (I am pulling these numbers out of the air as an example, not saying these are the numbers), whereas they might be more concerned and want to comment if the amount were proposed at $50,000.

That being said, the new agenda format is a step in the right direction.

Details from the Trial of Robert Hawkins, Former Council Rock School District Teacher

Today was the trial date for Robert Hawkins, the former teacher from Council Rock who had been charged with endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors.  These charges arose from an improper sexual relationship he was having with a student, as well as smoking marijuana with her.  Several other Council Rock teachers had some knowledge of the relationship but failed to advise authorities.  One such teacher resigned and two others were terminated by the District.

Robert Hawkins pleaded guilty to the charges, requesting (and being granted) a 60-day deferral of sentencing, so that a psychological profile could be submitted and be considered during sentencing.  After Hawkins entered the guilty plea, he was asked a number of questions about certain details of the case, including the involvement of other teachers.  He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to almost all the added questions, including those about communications with specific other Council Rock teachers.  After the questions were asked and the responses (including those Fifth Amendment) were given, Judge Clyde W. Waite accepted the guilty plea and deferred sentencing for 60 days.

Here is a more detailed recap of the court proceedings based on my observations and notes, including the questions raised by prosecutor Jennifer Schorn regarding Mr. Hawkins’ actions and communications with colleagues at Council Rock High School South after the investigation had begun.

The first appearance in court this morning was in Courtroom 1, where Judge Rea B. Boylan was administering procedures for a variety of cases being tried or processed this day.  She stated that Mr. Hawkins’ case would be assigned to Judge Waite.

At about 11:15 a.m. in Courtroom 7, a number of defendants pleading guilty to various offenses were called to stand before Judge Clyde W. Waite.  Mr. Hawkins was among the group.  The Judge gave the group an explanation of the ramifications of pleading guilty, verifying they were all doing so voluntarily with no threats or promises having been made.  After the group concurred that they accepted these conditions, the rest of the group sat down in the audience and the trial of the Commonwealth v. Robert Hawkins began.

Wearing a dark blue suit, blue shirt and patterned blue tie, Mr. Hawkins stood with his attorney, Mark Neff, in front of the judge. Jennifer Schorn was making the case for the prosecution.  She advised of the guilty pleas and that the defendant was requesting a deferral of sentencing to allow for a psychological profile to be presented before a sentence was handed down.

Ms. Schorn mentioned that detective Charlie Wyant, police officer in Northampton, and Tom Feo (not sure of this spelling), detective, were present in court.  She also stated the victim would be referred to as “AB” because she was a minor, and that her parents were present in court (she withheld their names to protect the girl’s identity).  Ms. Schorn also mentioned that Mark Klein, superintendent, was in attendance as was Jerold Grupp of the School Board (although she seemed to get his name wrong).

The prosecutor mentioned that in addition to other issues that she would ask for Mr. Hawkins’ teaching certificate to be surrendered.  She said the charges were endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors.  Judge Waite mentioned that the most serious charge represented a 3rd-degree felony, carrying a maximum of 7 years in prison and up to a $15,000 fine.  He said that the facts and circumstances would determine the extent of punishment.  The Judge spoke of the acceptance of these pleas with these maximums known.

Judge Waite asked if the probable cause and facts were accurate, to which Mr. Hawkins said, “yes.”  The Judge then asked the defendant is he was still willing to enter a plea of guilty to these charges, and Mr. Hawkins stated, “yes, I am.”

There followed a discussion of an addendum.  Ms. Schorn stated that the addendum was to reflect the range of dated offenses, and that July 6, 2009, was noted on both criminal counts.  A sidebar conversation between the attorneys and the judge followed; the discussions between Mr. Neff and Ms. Schorn seemed to get quite animated and somewhat heated at points.

After the sidebar concluded, Jennifer Schorn said that she had prepared some documents relevant for sentencing — saying there were a lot of documents so she had highlighted the particularly relevant ones, taking into account the extent of penalties and the surrounding facts.  She also told Mr. Hawkins that “the Commonwealth will elicit information from you regarding the circumstances.”

Mr. Hawkins was asked if he still pleaded guilty and the plea was accepted.

Ms. Schorn then laid out an outline of some of the case’s history. She stated that on April 1, 2009, some concerned students reported to authorities that this defendant was engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.  In June, 2009, Officer Wyant interviewed the victim “AB,” a 17-year-old girl.

During 2008, Mr. Hawkins had been her math teacher.  During 2008 there began to be texting communications and cell phone conversations between the two.  Mr. Hawkins periodically pulled her out of classes for some private tutoring alone in his office.  The relationship became sexual in nature, and the age of consent became an issue, which the defendant researched.

On December 12 and December 13, 2008, Mr. Hawkins engaged in sexual activity with the student.  There followed a period where three to four times a week they would meet for sexual encounters.

From November, 2008, through April, 2009, they were exchanging text messages.  Mr. Hawkins also showed the girl his laptop which contained naked pictures of another student that “AB” knew.  Mr. Hawkins also sent some e-mails to other teachers acknowledging the relationship.

Between November, 2008, and April, 2009, the defendant and student smoked marijuana.

Even after the investigation began, communication between the student and the defendant continued by e-mails, on facebook and by letters.

She concluded; these were substantially the facts.  A pre-sentence investigation was ordered, and the sentencing was deferred 60 days as requested.  Victim impact statements were mentioned, and Judge Waite stated that bail would remain as is.

After this plea acceptance, Jennifer Schorn asked some additional questions about the circumstances involved, and communications with other teachers at Council Rock High School South.

She asked about the smoking of marijuana at Mr. Hawkins’ residence, and that a hookah has been used at his residence.  Mr. Hawkins answered affirmatively.  Ms. Schorn then said that when a search warrant had been executed, other items had been found but the hookah had not been recovered. After some words from his attorney Mark Neff, Mr. Hawkins invoked his 5th Amendment rights not to answer.

Mr. Hawkins was then questioned if he had asked another teacher to remove some sexual device and the hookah from his residence; he invoked his 5th Amendment rights.  Jennifer Schorn then asked to whom he had sent e-mails, and again he took the 5th Amendment.

The prosecutor then asked if Paul Pasko had provided the pictures seen on the defendant’s laptop. 5th Amendment rights were invoked.  (Note: Paul Pasko was another teacher at Council Rock South who resigned effective June 10, 2009, per the minutes of the Board meeting of July 23, 2009.)

Ms. Schorn asked whether Mr. Pasko had advised Mr. Hawkins that there was a teacher at Council Rock who was willing to remove the hookah but would not remove the sexual implement.  Mr. Hawkins invoked his 5th Amendment rights.

The prosecutor then brought up the name Barbara Cavanaugh, saying that this was Mr. Hawkins’ girlfriend at the time during the relationship with the student, and asked if Ms. Cavanaugh was living at Mr. Hawkins’ residence during that time.  I believe Mr. Hawkins responded that she was not living there.  Ms. Schorn asked whether Mr. Hawkins turned to Ms. Cavanaugh for assistance, and he invoked the 5th Amendment. (Note: Barbara Cavanaugh was a teacher of Latin and German at Council Rock; she was terminated from the District effective August 25th per meeting minutes of September 17, 2009.)

Jennifer Schorn asked whether he had sent an e-mail to Jill Tex or to one other employee of Council Rock, and Robert Hawkins once again invoked the 5th Amendment. (Note: Jill Tex was a Math Teacher at Council Rock High School South who was terminated effective August 25th. The other employee’s name was mentioned by the prosecutor; however, the superintendent has advised that this individual had been exonerated — so her name is being kept off this blog post at this point.)

Then after checking with someone sitting in the front row of the audience, Ms. Schorn said the prosecution had no further questions, and the judge accepted the guilty plea with sentencing deferred for the 60-day period.

So the case now will await whatever further documentation is to be provided the Judge for consideration during sentencing, which will presumably occur in mid-January.

For another report on this trial, click here for the Courier Times Now on-line story.

Former Council Rock High School South Teacher Robert Hawkins Pleads Guilty to Both Charges; Sentencing Deferred for 60 Days

The trial of Robert Hawkins, former Math Teacher at Council Rock High School South, on charges arising out of a sexual relationship with a student, was held this morning.  Appearing before Judge Clyde W. Waite, Mr. Hawkins entered a plea of guilty to charges of endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors,.  The judge noted that the most serious of these is a third-degree felony carrying a maximum possible sentence of seven years in prison and up to a $15,000 fine.

Mr. Hawkins, through his attorney Mark Neff,  requested a deferral of sentencing so that a psychological profile could be provided prior to sentencing.  The prosecution, represented by Jennifer Schorn, had no objection to the delay.

After the guilty plea was entered, the defendant was asked a number of questions about the details of the case and possible involvement of others.  He claimed his 5th Amendment rights in refusing to provide yes or no answers.

After the questions by Ms. Schorn were completed, the judge accepted the guilty plea and granted the deferral of sentencing for sixty days.

I will provide another post with additional details and some of the questions raised, but I wanted to quickly post this summary of what transpired.

(Note: The next blog post written contains many of the details I observed at the trial, if you are interested in more information.)

What Is the Responsibility of the School District to Keep the Public Informed? Where Is the Response to Public Comments? What Is the Status of the CRESPA Contract?

Let’s be clear — the Council Rock School Board is a governmental agency.  They have taxing authority over the public.  And with that comes a responsibility to keep the public informed of matters impacting the District and potential problems that could affect the budget and, in turn, the taxes we pay. They don’t just operate in a vacuum, free to do their business without properly keeping the public advised.

One wonders, then, why Council Rock seems to avoid providing information on certain issues going on in the District. I have previously blogged about whether this Board bothers listening to public comment.  That post discussed doubts based on the fact that comments made to problems with a proposed policy were not addressed (and no response given). Well, based on the District’s lack of information and responsiveness about the status of the CRESPA contract (the District’s support workers’ union), the question still seems apropos.

Does the Board listen to public comment?  The lack of requested updates would seem to cast doubt that they do.

As far as I can see from the website, the District itself has never actually informed the public that the CRESPA contract expired on June 30th. Wouldn’t you think parents deserve to know there is a labor situation that could have the potential to impact services in the schools?  Wouldn’t you think taxpayers deserve to know of a contract situation that could impact the budget and taxes needed?  I don’t know that anything like this is on the horizon, but whenever there’s an expired contract there is always the threat of a walkout, slowdown or other disruption.  Again, I’m not saying CRESPA is threatening to do this, but shouldn’t the public at least know that they could?

The District exacerbated the situation by changing over the union members’ health coverage to the self-funded system, opening the District up to grievances, as has been mentioned in this blog. But this detail is not mentioned in any webpage I can find on the District site.

At a meeting in mid-June, Nancy Carroll made a public comment asking for the status of the CRESPA contract.  During later meetings, first in September and again at the most recent meeting, November 5th, I asked for status updates on the CRESPA situation when speaking at public comment.

I have not received any response to the requests for information to be provided, and my search of the District’s website found no mention as far as CRESPA and the contract.

As I have also discussed, the statements by the solicitors about the reasons for executive sessions are not specific enough to determine whether they have anything to do with these negotiations.  Even if they say “contract negotiations,” who knows whether they mean this contract or some other?  After all, they sprung an extension of the teachers’ contract without having kept the public advised that they were even negotiating an extension.

The performance of Council Rock stands in stark contrast with that of a nearby District, Hatboro-Horsham, which has several pages on its website about contract negotiations, details of its offer, etc.  If someone were to look at Council Rock’s site or listen to its officials, he/she wouldn’t even be aware that a problem exists.  That should be considered untenable.

Board members have been heard speaking to the issue and importance of good communication with the community.  Well, actions speak louder than words.  Or in this case, lack of actions would seem to display a contempt for the public.

Taxpayers Beware: Richboro Redistricting Would Create a Geographically Segregated Council Rock School Board — May Have Gigantic Cost/Tax Consequences for Years

One of the consequences of the proposed redistricting Richboro Middle School could have a much bigger impact on the future than simply the question of where students will go to school.  What is being proposed could potentially shift the power in Council Rock toward one of the two high schools.  With that power would come the potential for major new projects at Council Rock High School South, along with all sorts of costs for the public to bear.

In a way, the vote on this redistricting shift could be the most impactful vote this School Board will make.

Here’s why: If all students from Richboro Middle got sent to Council Rock High School South, then five Board members would represent geographic areas which send all their students to South, and only four from North.

The present structure of the Board has four members whose area-represented students attend North, three with all their students going to South, and two who have a split of students going to both high schools.

Under the present system, there is not a majority of five members whose allegiance is to one school more than the other. When an issue affects one of the high schools, there are enough Board members with ties to the other High School to make sure there remains some equitable balance between resources spent for North and for South.

However, once there is a Board with five members whose voters all send their children to South, this balance of power shifts.  The potential for votes of 5-4 for big projects and programs at South grows.

This is in no way to impugn the two current Board members who hold those positions with constituencies split between North and South, Bernadette Heenan and Robert Donnelly.  There is no indication I have that these two individuals would act in any way other than the overall benefit of both high schools and the entire School District.

However, this geographic power shift would create the potential for a more divided Board in the future. An active group of voters in the areas feeding CRHS South could push candidates for Board seats who would promise greater attention and greater resources for South.

The hit on the expenditures for the District could be huge.  All of a sudden, the issue of whether a $6,000,000 swimming pool should be built at South would not necessarily be judged as whether it’s in the best interests of the District and whether taxpayers could afford it.  Five Board members with allegiance to the voters from South could pass the project on a 5-4 vote regardless of cost impact.

Similarly, the issue of a stadium at South could get pushed through. Currently there is no stadium on the grounds at South and both schools’ teams share a stadium at North.  If there is a 5-4 majority pressing for a stadium to be constructed at South, how many millions could that cost taxpayers?

After all, these five Board members from South areas could tell their constituents that all the benefits are going to them, while the expenses must also be shared by the taxpayers from the northern areas.

This shift would even have the potential of impacting the educational program.  With a 5-4 majority there could be pressure to ensure favoritism toward South for educational programs, technology equipment and perhaps even teacher assignments.

This may all sound like an imaginary scenario, but the fact remains that a vote to redistrict Richboro Middle School does open a door to permit this kind of divided District environment in the future.

Could the taxpayers of the District afford the potential impact of a Board with a majority having greater allegiance to one of the two high schools?  Could the District itself?

We shouldn’t just trust that it wouldn’t happen. It could.

Council Rock High School South Capacity Figures Magically Change When It Suits the Latest Need — Don’t Official Documents Matter?

At a community forum November 4th, the Administration presented a slideshow justifying a proposed realignment so that all students graduating Richboro Middle School (RMS) would attend Council Rock High School South.  Currently, some students from RMS attend South and others attend North, depending on the address of residence.

The Superintendent claimed the capacity for South was 2,380 students.  However, when the building was planned, all the official documents showed it was being built with a capacity for 2,000 (it had originally been designed for 1,600 but actions by the School Board increased that by 400 for a total of 2,000).  The documents includes minutes of School Board meetings on January 27, 2000, and June 15, 2000, as well as Act 34 documentation for the school project.

Now, there was a provision written into the Act 34 documents that South was expandable to 2,400 students, but the approved capacity was 2,000.  The expansion up to 2,400 was not part of the construction then, nor done since that time. Taxpayers should be concerned that this move of more students into the building could encourage people to push for added facilities to be built to accommodate them.

If the official documents approved for the construction showed a capacity of 2,000, how could there all of a sudden be room for 2,380 students as was being claimed in the presentation?  The District cannot play both sides of the coin — using one figure for official approval but an altogether different number when it suits its needs.

The statement was made that this figure of 2,380 capacity was determined by assigning 25 students into each instructional space.  What’s humorous (or questionable) about that is that at a meeting just the following night about high school scheduling, planners discussed space limitations.  They spoke of the need to keep an eye on how many students could fit into a room, since not all classes could take a full complement of kids, sometimes for facilities reasons. So a flat 25 students per instructional space might sound good and easy but not mesh with reality.

The plan for RMS students to all come to South did not mention any need to build facilities to accommodate the added students, but that doesn’t mean this wouldn’t somehow get pursued.  You can bet it would become a demand if the addition of those students led to the reality (or even perception) that the building was overcrowded.

The Superintendent was asked whether any new facilities were to be constructed at South should this redistricting happen, including a swimming pool (which North has but South does not); his response was simply that students at South would not be taught swimming.

The slideshow contained projected numbers of students in future years, including some minimal growth pattern (37 students to grade 9).  In the year 2014-15, these figures showed that South might have 2,219 students. Well, by the official number of 2,000, that would be overcrowding.

That raised two concerns from some attendees, some of whom have been involved in District activity for many years.  First were the vagaries of projecting future enrollment, and one audience member indicated that based on looking at projections using 3rd grade student increases would result in more students than the Administration was showing.  A difference of 5% could push Council Rock South up against even the 2,380 capacity figure that was being claimed to justify this move.

But the other bone of contention was this discrepancy between what was shown as the capacity and what was being claimed. The Superintendent even stated at one point that ““I don’t know if that’s right, 2,000, 2,380 as far as capacity.”  Well, forgive me, but as a taxpayer, I think Government agencies are bound by the documents and records they create.

If the school was built as planned for capacity, that figure is 2,000.  If it was somehow built larger and can really accommodate 2,380, then the District should answer why money was spent to build a larger school than had been approved at the time (presumably costing more).

But since the official documents state the capacity is 2,000, any plans to house upwards of 2,200 students in this building must be considered overcrowding unless and until the School District can justify this discrepancy with certainty.  I think the public should be concerned that this overcrowding (to accommodate this RMS redistricting) could become the foot in the door that will lead to an expensive expansion of facilities at South.

When Are Enrollment Projections Valid and When Aren’t They?

At last night’s forum on possibly redistricting so that all Richboro Middle School students get sent to Council Rock South (as opposed to the current system of splitting them into the two high schools by geographic location), figures were presented about future enrollments.  The Administration was using these numbers to indicate how all the students would be able to fit into the capacity at South.

Some of the numbers were based on current students enrolled at different grade levels, but others were based on added students entering the schools. These future assumptions of enrollment raise a question:

When does this Administration and Board consider future enrollment projections valid and when do they not?

At the time the 10-year master plan to renovate all the elementary and middle schools was unveiled, I questioned the logic of renovating and continuing to maintain all ten elementary schools when projected enrollment figures showed an anticipated decline of about 500 or more students. That would be more students lost than the current enrollment at several of the schools presently (four have populations below 500, with one below 400).  When I asked why this master plan didn’t even discuss the possibility of closing one of the schools should those trends bear out, I was told that these projections are uncertain and shouldn’t be used to make any determination such as potentially closing a school.

It should be noted that I wasn’t asking for the plan to specifically promise or guarantee to close a school, just that a reduction in schools would be considered as opposed to keeping all ten open if these trends bear out. After all, renovating a school is costing about $12,000,000 at this time and certainly more in a few years. Between the cost avoidance of not fixing one school, not running it afterward, and savings on administrative staff, the savings to taxpayers would be significant.  Despite my comments, the possibility of someday considering a reduction in schools did not get put into the plan.  So in that case, projected enrollments weren’t dependable.

But at last night’s meeting, selected enrollment figures were projected and used to try and show that all the students from Richboro Middle School could fit at South.  This drew some consternation from some attendees, claiming that the projections showed problems vis-à-vis the high school’s capacity.  Those concerns would be exacerbated if the projections somehow were understated.

Several members of the audience raised objections to the capacity being claimed for South, saying that the original figures when the school was built had stated a capacity of 2,000.  The Superintendent said the capacity was higher, based on an analysis done by the District’s Facilities staff, saying that with 25 students per instructional space the capacity was 2,380.  But early in the meeting, the Superintendent said “I don’t know if that’s right, 2,000, 2,380 as far as capacity.” And was based on the 2,380 capacity that the District projected that 2,219 students could fit at South in 2014-15.  But again, that projects a growth pattern projection for several years out.

So the District is used projections to plan a decision it apparently wants, but refuses to even include in the master plan the possibility of considering reducing schools at some point in the future if projections come true.  It makes one wonder what the motivation is. Shouldn’t the possibility of reducing costs (and tax increases) when/if feasible be at least documented when plans are being drawn up?

Academic Standards Committee Meeting to Cover High School Scheduling Thursday at 6:30 p.m.

The agenda for the Academic Standards Committee meeting 6:30 p.m Thursday, November 5th (before the regular Board meeting at 7:30 features a discussion on High School Scheduling.  This issue can have significant ramifications for students, so the meeting may be worth attending — both for parents who will have students facing these issues and wanting to understand the process; as well as parents whose students may have encountered problems and conflicts with the existing method.

There are occasions where students want to take certain classes in a field they plan to pursue in college but are unable to do so because the time it is offered conflicts with another course needed for graduation.  It can become a juggling act to try and fit in the necessary classes and the desired elective choices with the availability.  The frequency with which some courses are offered, as well as the day and time, can impede the ideal mix of classes for students.

And if a bunch of students who might want to take a class cannot do so because of conflicts, that could potentially drop the number of students below the class-size minimum threshold, meaning other students could be impacted and also have to go back to the drawing board.

The potential redistricting of all Richboro Middle School students to attend Council Rock High School South (as opposed to the current split between North and South) could also have ramifications on scheduling at North.  If enrollment drops due to fewer students and fewer courses are offered, that could increase the difficulty of scheduling for students attending CRHS North.

The topic sounds innocuous but the implications are significant and may warrant interested parents (and perhaps students with ‘horror stories’) attending this meeting of Academic Standards.