Skyview complaint 1 part 2

Contents

Introduction

1-2

History

3-6

Original Feasibility Study Review

7-15

Feasibility Study on District Website (06)

16-19

Analysis of Original Feasibility Study (7/13/04)

20-21

Analysis of Feasibility Study on Website (06)

21-22

Building Capacity

23-30

Discussion

31-48

Appendix Demographics pages 8-12 from 7/13/04 Study PDE Enrollment Projections 10/04 EI Associates Enrollment Projections 10/04 EI Associates Enrollment Projections 2105 District Enrollment - Web 2004 Methacton board Policy No. 126 Actual PDE Enrollment Revised 9/2005 Actual PDE Enrollment Revised 7/2006 Enrollment Capacity Graphs form Study on Web Actual Montco Int Unit Enrollment 1997-2006 Participants in Feasibility Study

- 1Introduction The facilities advisory committee was appointed, not elected, with the majority being district employees. This was not a true cross-section ofthe district with 75% of the voter/taxpayer base not represented on the committee. This in my opinion created bias in the selection of the options and limited any discussion on cost effective alternatives.

The actual enrollment K-4 and K-5 over the past 5 years (2001-2006) has dropped. The enrollment projections by the District, EI associates and PDE overestimate enrollment significantly when compared to actual 2005-06 numbers and cannot be relied upon to move forward on this multimillion dollar project.

Building Capacity was arbitrary as evidenced by multiple calculations noted in the feasibility study and plan con documents.

Existing building capacity was defined in the Feasibility study (06 Web) by the District as 1980 students by using an arbitrary number of22 students per class. There is no mention in the posted facilities study as to why, how and at whose direction the decision to use 22 students per class was made. Board policy 126 indicates that the district can use up to 25 students K-2 and up to 30 students 3-6 per class.

Arbitrarily decreasing class size to 22 resulted in a decreased building capacity and thus created a need for more space and the project. The Board has a fiduciary duty to recognize this and not proceed with the project in its current configuration.

Per Mr. VanHorn, the board has adopted a soft cap of25 students, the same as PDE. My understanding is that maximum reimbursement by PDE under plan con is up to 25 students per class. If we are applying/or state money, and completing the plan con forms at 25 students per class, this figure should have been used rather than 22 per class to calculate building capacity.

The building capacity was also affected by not including 14 modular classrooms.

If they are included at 22 per class the additional building capacity of 308 students is realized.

Kindergarten enrollment was manipulated as seen on page 61 of the study posted on the Web. Y2 of the Kindergarten class was not counted towards building capacity but included in enrollment projections. If you include the 50% of the Kindergarten enrollment that was omitted by the committee and not recognized by the board, this adds roughly 200 students to the building capacity. According to the Plan Con documents the existing Kindergarten capacity is 500 students and not consistent with district capacity calculations in the Feasibility Study.

The building capacity using 25 students per class per PDE is 2250, plus 350 for modulars and 200 for the Kindergarten. The "existing capacity" would be 2800 and not exceeded by any enrollment projections even if you did not apply the Kindergarten capacity.

It is the districts position that there is an increase in enrollment justifying the need for the 5-6 building. The actual enrollment K-5 over the last 5 years has gone down. As shown by PDE actual numbers, the total K-12 growth in enrollment is actually decreasing and is attributable to growth in 6-8 and particularly the 9-12 enrollment, not K-5.

If the board is applying for funding from the state at the maximum reimbursement at 25 students per class then use this number to calculate "existing capacity"

-2The board has not considered or done a cost analysis on the effect of prevailing wage by applying for state funding versus no state funding with resultant decreased construction costs.

The board had not publically considered other alternatives to the "recommended option 6" including the use ofmodulars, expanding the Woodland project by adding more class space, student relocation, converting modulars to permanent classroom space through renovations and manipulating class size. They have a fiduciary responsibility to do so prior to approving this project.

The Board has not done a cost analysis of each option compared to each other or to alternatives like modulars and renovation.

By approving the Woodland project in its current configuration, K-4, the Board is essentially approving the 5-6 building. There is no justification to do so.

I recommend that the project needs to be re-evaluated in light of the facts which I have presented and as a requirement of the Board to fulfill its fiduciary obligation to the taxpayer.

-3History On or about spring of2004, the "Facilities Advisory Committee" was selected by the superintendent and or Mr. VanHorn.

According to the Methacton

Web site (8/17/06)-

"The superintendent was directed by the members of our Board of School Directors to study the District's growth, needfor space, ability to address those needs over the foreseeable future. Issues to review include capacity, adequacy, equity, safety/security, flexibility, efficiency, and programmatic effectiveness. " The website does not identify which board members were responsible for the initiative, and how and why they arrived at the decision to initiate the project.

The task force was created in the spring of 2004 and met from March 9, 2004 to November 2004, and reviewed the most recent Feasibility Study.

The task was to review facilities, projected enrollments, and recommend potential five to ten year solution.

According to the Board of Directors facilities review and recommendation from July 25, 2006, The goal of this committee was to "Review the district's growth and ability to address that growth over the foreseeable future. Issues to review include capacity, adequacy, equity, safety/security, flexibility, efficiency, and programmatic effectiveness. " This Facilities Advisory Committee was comprised of (shareholders) including approximately 10 administrators, 8 PT AlP arents , 3 teachers, 3 school board members, and 2 committee chairmen. (See appendix a).

The process by which these "shareholders" was selected is unclear. I was unable to verify exactly how and when the need for this committee was determined and by whom.

I was unable to verify that the board took a formal public vote authorizing the superintendent or Mr. Van Horn to form this committee, select these individuals or to approve their participation in the study.

I could find nothing to support that this process was open to the community or that the community was notified, recruited, and allowed to participate on this committee.

In my opinion, because this hand picked, specially selected, non-elected committee was appointed with the majority comprised of district employees, PT A members, and teachers, its decision to adopt option 6 was biased.

-4The initial investigation into the fifth and sixth grade configuration was mentioned during the presentation from July 25,2006, "In the spring of 2005, Dr. Miller directed Betsy Rudder and Bill Kirk to do some research into the Pennsylvania school districts that had recently moved from a traditional elementary - middle - high school configuration to an organizational structure that included a grades 5-6 building. " The purposes for investigating a move into the grade 5-6 building configuration included • "To determine how and why the 23 districts in PA (who have moved into a grades 5-6 building configuration) did so, and • To determine the success or failure of their decision to make this change."

Common factors identified after the investigation were that •

• •

•

•

"Each district was experiencing an increase in student enrollments (that served as the primary reason for considering construction of a new building of some type), The district's existing configuration (prior to constructing the facility to house grades 5-6) was either K-5 or K-6 in each elementary school, The transition into the grade 5-6 building produced the desired effect (freed up classroom in each of these existing elementary schools and existing middle/junior high schools) The transition was planned for at least one year prior to the actual move."

The planning included input from all of the shareholders (parents, faculty, administrators, and board members)."

There was no mention of including input from individuals who were not employed by the district with either no children, no children attending Methacton, senior citizens and or business's. These individuals constitute the majority in the district and were not adequately represented or included, again explaining the bias in the study and the failure to consider and compare cost effective alternatives.

There was no mention of investigating how many districts had used the 5-6 option and abandoned it for the more traditional approaches i.e. K-5, and why they made the switch from a 5-6 configuration.

The recommendation by the Superintendent per the presentation was "Remains as originally recommended" 1. Global look at the issue

2. Elementary short of space 3. Will continue to grow - will not get smaller 4. K-5 building only solves part ofthe problem 5. Size of the 6-8 school must be addressed "This is the least expensive way to get the space that is sufficient for our needs, based on a realistic look at the future, and to maintain and enhance the academic program of which we are so proud".

-5This was not substantiated by any cost analysis compared with options like modulars, renovations without an additional elementary school, and class size adjustments.

According to the Methacton Website (8/17/06) The conclusion was that"The current plan, as recommended by the Facilities Task Force appointed in 2004, in cooperation with the District's administration, represents the most cost effective way to get the space that is sufficient for our needs, based on a realistic look at the future, while maintaining and enhancing the academic program of which we are so proud."

The Board has a Fiduciary Responsibility to consider the following; After review of the Feasibility Study(s), 1. There was no explanation as to how, why and by whose direction the facilities advisory committee was formed. There was no rational or basis as to how the committee was chosen to be a representative cross-section of the district.

2. There was no explanation as to what process and by who recommended option 6 was chosen. Was it by a vote of the committee? If so, where is the vote tally and the documentation of who voted for the option and why?

3. I could not find an analysis of cost effective alternatives such as the use of modular classrooms, more classes at the Woodland project allowing for minor student relocation, adjusting class size consistent with Board Policy 126 and the use of permanent additions to the schools with any growth issues compared to the proposed project.

Why weren't these alternatives discussed and compared in the Feasibility Study?

4. I could find no cost analysis of state funding with prevailing wage vs. no state funding offset by decreased construction cost with no prevailing wage.

5. The Facilities Study does not substantiate the statement that this was "the most cost effective way to get the space that is sufficient for our needs. " 6. The actual enrollment K-5 has decreased over the last 5 years. How do you justify an expansion project with a decreasing enrollment? The enrollment projections significantly overestimate enrollment for 2005-06. Does the Board recognize this?

7. Modulars were excluded from the capacity estimates. At whose direction was this done?

-6-

8. Building capacity was arbitrary and not an indication of actual total physical capacity.

In the original Feasibility Study the existing building capacity was calculated using class size of 20 students per class.

In the study posted on the Districts Website (06) 22 students per class were used.

The Boards soft cap is 25 students per class PDE uses 25 per class for their estimates.

The actual existing capacity in the Plan Con documents is 25.

Board policy 126 uses between 25-30 for K-6.

Who Who Why per class yet

determined actual class size used in the study? made the decision to use a class size of 22 for the study and why? did the district apply for state reimbursement at the maximum of 25 students did not use 25 students per class to determine building capacity?

The Act 34 hearing was held on 8/22/06 at Methacton.

Prior to that hearing I had learned from the communications director that the "Feasibility Study" posted on the district's Website was not, in fact, the complete original Feasibility Study.

I was told excerpts were taken from "executive summaries" given to the board in November of2004 and from Dr. Miller's presentations and posted on the Website.

I had gone to the administration building on 8/17/06, prior to the Act 34 meeting, to review the actual complete Feasibility Study from July 2004 and was refused access at that time by Mr. McCall, business manager, and asked to fill out a "request".

The original Feasibility Study was not available for my review until after the Act 34 hearing, thus the reason for this supplemental report.

-7After review of the original July 13, 2004 Feasibility Study, I have prepared a supplemental anaJysis The original Feasibility Study was dated 7/13/04. I am not sure when EI associates was asked to compile the data and prepare the study but obviously it had to be some time in advance of 7/13/04.

Who directed EI associates to prepare the original Feasibility Study, when did this occur, and why?

Did the Facilities Advisory Committee instruct the EI associates to proceed with the study? If not, who directed EI associates to prepare the Feasibility Study and Why?

The 7/1312004Feasibility Study contained multiple sectionsAccording to the Introduction on page 1 of the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study; The Feasibility Study was commissioned by the Board of Education. When was that done? What was the reason it was done? Was there a formal vote taken?

The report was compiled using data gathered at recent meetings with District Administration. When did these occur?

Buildings were visited, and discussions with district personnel took place to explore possible future changes. When did these visits occur and with whom?

According to the Demographics section on page 7, "Changes can occur in birth trends, in-migration patterns, internal policies, economic climate, zoning and land use controls, infrastructure considerations and interest rates that may affect projections." "Thus, influencing factors must be monitored and

analyzed every year by the school district. Significant changes, therefore, can be quickly identified and appropriate adjustments made. " Translation, there are many variable factors associated with projections requiring that even short term calculations be monitored and re-evaluated. This apparently was not done with respect to actual enrollment analysis and comparing actual enrollment to estimates.

-8AFTER REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL (7/13/04) AND EDITED WEBSITE (06) FEASffiILITY STUDY(s), THERE IS NO REASON BASED ON ENROLLMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AS CONFIGURED. As I state repeatedly in this analysis, the K-4 and K-5 enrollment has dropped over the last five years (2001-2006), a fact that I could not find in the superintendents presentation to the Board or considered in the Feasibility Study.

Even at the time this study was completed (7/13/04) the available "actual" enrollment on pages 8-10 showed a decreasing K-4 and K-5 enrollment.

1. THE ACTUAL ENROLLMENT THE LAST 5 YEARS.

OF K-4 AND K-5 HAS DECREASED

Analysis of Actual 5 year trend in Enrollment (Actual PDE enrollment vs. EI associates) PDE Actual YEAR K-4 2001-02 1953 1916 2002-03 1905 2003路04 1903 2004-05 2005-06 1912

PDEActual K-5 2369 2352 2333 2324 2331

Net Decrease (-38) (-41) Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken from Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

Actual Enrollment over last 5 years ( ) - represents an actual decrease in enrollment

K-4

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

5 year

1953

1916

1905

1903

1912

(-41)

K-5

(-38) 2369 2352 2333 2324 2331 Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken from Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

K-4 and K-5 have declined by 41 and 38 students respectively over the past 5 years.

OVER

-9In evaluating K-5 enrollment from the, District, EI Associates from the 7/13/04 feasibility study and District enrollment (9/04), from the Website (06), I have generated the following chart,

Feasibility Study

2002-03 2363

2003-04 2352

Feasibility Study 2369 District Website Web (9/04) (06) District Actual Enrollment Feasibility study 2369 Original 7(13/04 7/13/04, (pg 11) Feasibility Study EI Actual Enrollment

2352

2353

2352

2353

PDE Website

2352

2333

District Actual Original 7/13/04 Enrollment (7/01 Feasibility Study model (pg 10))

PDEActual (9/2005)

2001-02 2381

2369

The actual enrollment contained in the District and EI projection models are inconsistent and do not match actual PDE enrollment. I am unable to explain this discrepancy The primary motivating factor behind the genesis of this project was "an increase in student enrollment."

As shown K-4 and K-5 enrollment

over the last 5 years has decreased.

In the Facility studies, there were several analyses of enrollment projections including PDE, EI associates, and the District. These projections can be found in the appendix. Enrollment projections were analyzed from the original 7/13/2004 Feasibility Study and from the Modified 11104 Feasibility Study on the district's Website.

- 10路

2. THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY THE DISTRICT, EI, AND PDE SIGNIFICANTLY OVERESTIMATE ENROLLMENT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY PROCEEDING WITH OPTION 6.

ORIGINAL 7/13/04 FEASIBILITY STUDY The Original Feasibility Study from 7/13/04 contained enrollment projections by the District and by EI associates. After review of these projections, I have made several observations A. DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District Projected Student Enrollment (4/16/04)from the Original Feasibility Study 7/13/04,contained numerous inaccuracies and overestimated student enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

District Enrollment Projections K-5 from the Original 7/13/04 Feasibility Study (page 10) were as follows, Blue represents actual PDE enrollment revised 7/2006 websiteRe d re presen t s projec t IOns District 3 4 K-4 K 1 2 5 PDE District Actual Statistic K-4 2001- Actual 301 442 376 415 424 423 1958 1953 02 2002- Actual 303 433 372 391 425 439 1924 1916 03 2003- Actual 289 440 389 392 409 433 1919 1905 04 2004- Proj 305 465 388 415 419 420 1992 1903 05 2005- Proj 321 477 411 415 440 434 2064 1912 06 2006- Proj 294 501 426 440 441 452 2102 07

K-5 District

PDE Actual K-5

2381

2369

2363

2352

2352

2333

2414 (2412) 2498

2324 2331

2553 (2554)

(Generatedfrom the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, District Enrollment Projections 4/16/04, page 10,) (PDE Actual taken from 9/2005 (2004 enrollments PDE website))

Actual Enrollment does not correlate with PDE actual enrollment and 200405 and 2006-07 totals reflect calculation errors as noted in parenthesis.

- 11 (District EnrollmentlProjections 4/16/04, pg. 10, Feasibility Study 7/04) R ed represen t s P ro]ec . tiIons ---------BI uere rresen tAt s c ua I PDE enro II men t 2005-06 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2001-02 2064 K-4 1958 1924 1919 1992 K-4PDE Actual Overprojection

1953

K-5

2381

2363

K-5PDE Actual Overprojection

2369

2352

1916

1905

1903

1912

+89

+152

2352

2414

2498

2333

2324

2331

+90

+167

Actual PDE enrollment taken/rom PDE's website (Rev 712006)

The District overestimated projected enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06 as follows, Enrollment

2004-05

2005-06

K-4 District K-4 PDE actual

1992 1903

2064 1912

Overestimation

+89

+152

K-5 District K-5 PDE actual

2414 2324

2498 2331

Overestimation +90 +167 Actual PDE enrollment taken/rom PDE's website (Rev 712006) District projections for 2004-05 overestimated enrollment as follows, K-4 - +89 K-5 - +90 District projections for 2005-06 overestimated enrollment as follows, K-4 - +152 K-5 - +167

- 12 -

When comparing the "actual" enrollment in the 7/1/2001 model to the actual numbers on the PDE website they do not match. How could these be actual numbers then?

The Enrollment projections used to evaluate District-Projected page 10 appear to have been generated on 7/1101.

The "Model Start Year" was noted to be 7/1101. , K-5 Enrollment 7/01-6/02 7/02-6/03 DISTRICT "Actual" 2363 2381 (7/1/2001 start) PDEACTUAL (9/05 rev) Difference

Student Enrollment on

7/03-6/04

2352

2369

2352

2333

-12 students

-11 students

-19 students

Where did the District obtain the numbers used in there "actual" calculations.

Is it possible that these were projections from the 712001 model start year?

If so, then the 2004-05 and 2005-06 projections are years 4 and 5 of the projections generated in 2001. If not, then the actual numbers were incorrect and need to be updated.

Is it possible that these were not actual enrollments but the first three years of projections? If not why don't they correlate with actual enrollment?

OBSERVATIONS - DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ./ There were mathematical errors in calculating the totals for K-5 in 2004-05 and 2006-07, with the correct calculations in parenthesis . ./ The District overestimated projected enrollment in 2004-05 and 200506 significantly . ./ The actual district enrollment on page 10 of the Original Feasibility Study (7/13/04), from 2001-2004 does not correlate with PDE actual numbers suggesting the possibility that these were projections from the 7/1/2001 "model start year"

- 13B. EI ASSOCIATES

PROJECTED

ENROLLMENT

In the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, page 11, EI Associates actual and projected enrollment are inaccurate and significantly overestimate enrollment.

EI Associates projected enrollment, page 11, 7113/04 Feasibility Study 1 2 4 K-4 K-4 5 K-5 K -''" EI PDE EI Actual 2001- Actual 310 421 378 431 413 1953 1953 416 2369 02 2002- Actual 303 431 367 394 421 1916 1916 436 2352 03 2003- Actual 293 440 390 393 407 1923 1905 430 2353 04 2004- Proj 369 491 384 415 403 2062 1903 418 2480 05 2005- Proj 401 504 429 409 425 2168 1912 414 2582 06 (PDE actual enrollment taken/rom PDE Website) EI Associates overestimated

K-5 PDE Actual 2369 2352 2333 2324 2331

the 7106revisions to 2005 enrollment on

projected enrollment

-

According to the 7/13/04 Feasibility study, on page 11, enrollment was overestimated in 2004-05 and 2005-06 by EI Associates as follows, EI overestimate in 2004-05, K -4 -------------------------------K-5 -------------------------------EI overestimate in 2005-06, K-4 -------------------------------K-5 -------------------------------OBSERVATIONS

+159 +156 +256 +251

- EI ASSOCIATES

ENROLLMENT

PROJECTIONS

./

The actual EI numbers for 2003-2004, did not match the actual PDE enrollment suggesting that these were in fact projections .

./

EI associates projections in the first two years of projections significantly overestimated enrollment when these should statistically be the most accurate.

~

...

- 14C. PDEPROJECTEDENROLLMENT The PDE projections found on page 12 ofthe 7/13/04 Feasibility study illustrate a dramatic overestimation in enrollment, PDE Projected enrollment, naze 12,7/13/04 Feasibility Study K-4 3 4 PDE Error 5 K 1 2

K-5

Actual

200102 200203

PDE Actual

Error

Actual

310 421

378 431

413

1953 1953

416 2369

2369

Actual

303 431

367

394

421

1916 1916

436

2352

2352

359 405

377

392 403

438 2374

2333

+41

369

491

354 403

401

504 430

2003- Proj 04 2004- Proj 05 2005- Proj 06

1936

1905

+31

401

2018

1903

+115 420

2438

2324

+114

378 413

2126

1912

+214 418 2544

2331

+213

(PDE actual enrollment taken/rom PDE Website)

the 7106revisions to 2005 enrollment on

PDE overestimated K-4 and K-5 enrollment in 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 as follows, 2003-04 K-4 ------------------------ +31 K-5 ------------------------ +41

2004-05 K -4 -----------------------+115 K-5 ------------------------ +114 2005-06 K-4 ------------------------ +214 K -5 -----------------------+213

OBSERVATIONS - PDE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ./ PDE's estimates are too inaccurate to be used to determine the need for the building project . ./ In review of the birth rates documented on page 13, the birth rate appears to have peaked in 2000 at 380 with a birth rate in 2001 of 350.

- 15 -

D. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District overestimated elementary enrollment in their projections (4/16/04) in the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study.

Comparing the Actual District 2005-06 data from the Web, by school, to District Enrollment Projections (4/16/04) in the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, I have generated the following charts, (District Enrollment ProjectionslElementary School, 4/16/04 from the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, (pa1Zes8, 9)) Original Feasibility ERROR Website 2006 Study (7/13/04) District Projections Actual District Data (4/16/04) 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 Arrowhead 454 442 +12 (overestimate) Eagleville

472

431

+41 (overestimate)

Woodland

440

415

+25 (overestimate)

Audubon

520

580

-60 (underestimate)

Worcester

611

465

+ 146 (overestimate)

Overestimate total

+ 164( overestimate)

The district then posted the "Feasibility Study" on their Website (2006).

I learned recently from the communications director Angela Lynch, that this was not the complete study and contained excerpts chosen by the superintendent from the executive summary given to the board from 11123/04 and from Dr. Miller's presentations.

There was nothing on the site stating that these were selected excerpts by Dr. Miller giving the impression that this was the complete study.

I then attempted to obtain the original, complete 7113104Feasibility study from the district prior to the Act 34 Hearing. I was told to fill out a request and was not allowed to review the entire study until after the hearing.

In review of the Feasibility Study posted on the Website (2006), and comparing it to the original (7/13/04), there were inconsistencies in the actual numbers used in the projections and the projections by the PDE, EI associates, and the District significantly overestimated enrollment.

- 16 -

FEASmnJTY

STUDY DISTICT WEB SITE 2006 (11123/04 excerpts)

According to the District Website (11/04) Feasibility Study projections of enrollment both K-4 and K-5, the following charts have been generated, A. October 2004 - PDE Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study) Re d represen t s PDE projec . te d enro IImen-t Bl ue represen tAt s cua I PDE enro 11men t 3 4 5 K-4 Actual Error K 1 2 Actual Error K-5 K-5 K-5 K-4 K-4 +114 +123 2438 2324 2004- 339 500 378 412 397 412 2026 1903

05 200s06 200607 200708 200809 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314

368 513 436 400 421 407 2138 1912

+226

2545 2331

339

557

448

462

409

432

2647

333

513

486

475

472

420

2699

340

504

448

515

485

484

2776

347

514

440

475

526

498

2800

354

524

448

466

485

540

2817

361

535

457

475

476

498

2802

367

545

467

484

485

488

2836

374

555

475

495

494

498

2891

+214

Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken from Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

The above table above illustrates that PDE overestimated enrollment for the years (2004-05 to 2005-06) K-4 and K-5 as follows -

K-4 ----- (2004-05) overestimate (2005-06) overestimate K-5 ---- (2004-05) overestimate (2005-06) overestimate

of 123 students of 226 students of 114 students of214 students

- 17 B. October 2004-EI Associates Projected enrollment, K-4 -K-5 (From Feasibility study Web) Blue represents actual numbers (PDE) ---Red represents projected enrollment (EI)

200001 200102 200203 200304 200405

200506 200607 200708 200809 200910 201011 201112 201213 201314

K

1

2

3

4

5

K-4

Actual PDE K-4

275

443

393

389

422

394

1922

1922

2316

Actual PDE K-5 2316

310

421

378

431

413

416

1953

1953

2369

2369

303

431

367

394

421

436

1916

1916

2352

2352

293

440

390

393

407

430

1923

1905

2353

2333

363

359

372

400

408

424

1902

1903

2326

2324

368

513

312

394

410

419

1997

1912

2416

2331

339

557

446

330

404

421

2497

333

513

484

472

339

415

2555

340

504

446

512

484

348

2634

347

514

438

472

526

497

2793

354

524

446

464

484

539

2811

361

535

455

473

476

497

2796

367

545

465

482

485

488

2832

374

555

473

501

505

507

2916

Over estimate

+85

K-5

Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken/rom Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

The table illustrates that for 2005-06, EI overestimated K-4 and K-5 enrollment by 85 students.

The table also illustrates that for the five years (2001-02 to 2005-06) there was an actual DECREASE in student enrollment K-4 and K-5 as follows K-4 ----- Decrease in enrollment of 41 students K-5 ---- Decrease in enrollment of 38 students

Over estimate

+85

- 18 ./

EI Projections 85 students •

overestimated

enrollment

for (2005-06) K-4 and K-5 by

../ The "Actual" enrollment in the EI 2004 model for 2003-04 and 200405 are different from the actual PDE enrollment.

C. February

2005 - EI Enrollment

Projections

(From Feasibility Study

Web)

2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4

BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollment RED reflects EI Parenthesis is error, indicating overestimate by district Actual K-4 5 1 2 4 K-4 K 3 275 443 393 389 422 1922 394 310 421 378 431 413 1953 416 303 431 367 394 421 1916 436 430 293 440 390 393 407 1923

2004-5 381 357 372 405 409 1924

projected enrollment K-5 2316 2369 2352 2353

1903 (+21) 426 2350

PDE Actual K-5

2324

(+26

Ratios 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-1 2010-1 2011-1 2012-1 2013-1

368 513 310 395 416 2002 1912 (+90) 420 2422 2331 339 557 446 329 406 2077 427 333 513 484 473 338 2141 417 340 504 446 514 486 2289 347 347 514 438 473 528 2300 499 354 524 446 465 486 2275 524 361 535 455 474 477 2303 499 367 545 465 483 487 2347 490 374 555 473 503 507 2412 510 Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken/rom Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

(+91\

This table illustrates a difference in November 2005 EI projected enrollment compared to the October 2004 EI projections. In 2005-06, the overestimation is greater.

In 2004-05, In 2004-05, In 2005-06, In 2005-06,

EI EI EI EI

overestimated overestimated overestimated overestimated

K-4 K-5 K-4 K-5

enrollment enrollment enrollment enrollment

by by by by

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

21 26 90 91

students students students students

- 19 C. District Projections (September 2004) found in the 11/04 presentation Web overestimated enrollment.

District Enrollment (September 2004) HJA Revised 1217104

K

1

2

3

4

K-4

310 303 293 321

421 431 440 412

378 367 390 372

431 394 393 400

413 421 407 408

1953 1916 1923

K-4 Actual PDE 1953 1916 1905

1913

2005-06 368 2006-07 339

513 557

358 446

394 379

410 404

2043

2125

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

on the

5

K-5 2369 2352 2353

1903

416 436 430 424

K-5 Actual PDE 2369 2352 2333

2337

2324

1912 ------

419 421

2462

2331

2546

------

The districts actualnumbers in2004-05 do notmatch theactualPDE numbers.

The District overestimates

enrollment

for 2005-06, the first year of projections

as

follows, K-4 ------------------------K-5 ---------------------------

PDE Actual Enrollment

Year

K

2001-2006

+131 +131

K-4, K-5) including error in Districts estimates

1

2

3

4

5

K-4

K-5

2001-02 310 2002-03 303 2003-04 292

421 431 433

378 367 389

431 394 389

413 421 402

416 436 428

2004-05 2005-06

416 447

371 373

398 381

404 404

421 419

1953 1916 1905 1903

2369 2352 2333 2324

1912

2331

314 307

Error District K-4

Error District K-5

131 over

131 over

Actual K-4, K-5 data was takenfrom Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

- 20-

IN EVALUATING THE ORIGINAL FEASffiILITY STUDY FROM 7113/04,

1. The District Projected Student Enrollment (4116/04) from the Original Feasibility Study 7113104, contained numerous inaccuracies and overestimated student enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06 as follows, District projections for 2004-05 were overestimated K -4 ----------------- +89 K-5 ----------------- +90 District projections for 2005-06 overestimated enrollment K-4 ----------------- +152 K -5 ----------------- + 167

2. In evaluating the Enrollment Projection Model (7/2001 start year) by Elementary School, the District overestimated elementary enrollment in their projections (4/16/04) in the 7113104 Feasibility Study in 4 out of the 5 elementary schools.

Original Feasibility Study District Projections (4/16/04), page 8-9, 2005-06 Website and Actual District Data 2005-06

Arrowhead -------------------------------------- +12 (overestimate) Eagleville --------------------------------------- +41 (overestimate) Woodland --------------------------------------- +25 (overestimate) Audu bon ----------------------------------------- -60 (underestimate) Worcester ---------------------------------------- + 146 (overestimate)

3. In the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, page 11, EI Associates actual and

projected enrollment are inaccurate and significantly overestimate enrollment EIoverestimated

projected enrollment -

According to the 7/13/04 Feasibility study, on page 11, enrollment was overestimated in 2004-05 and 2005-06 by EI is as follows, EI overestimated in 2004-05, K-4 -------------------------------- +159 K -5 -------------------------------- +156 EI overestimated in 2005-06, K-4 -------------------------------- +256 K-5 -------------------------------- +251

- 21 4. The PDE projections found on page 12 of the 7/13/04 Feasibility study illustrate a dramatic overestimation in enrollment, PDE overestimated as follows,

K-4 and K-5 enrollment

2003-04 K -4 -----------------------K -5 ------------------------

in 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06

+31 +41

2004-05

K -4 ------------------------

+115 K-5 ------------------------ +114 2005-06

K -4 -----------------------+214 K-5 ------------------------ +213

IN EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY POSTED ON THE DISTRICTS WEBSITE 2006 (11104 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) EI associates in their October 2004 enrollment enrollment as follows, 2005-06 K-4 -------------------------+85 K-5 ---------------------------- +85

projections overestimated

EI Associates in their November 2005 enrollment projections enrollment as follows, 2004-05 (may be a mixture of actual and projection) K-4 --------------------------- +21 K-5 ------------------------+26 2005-06 K-4 --------------------------K-5 -----------------------

+90 +91

overestimated

- 22-

PDE in their October 2004 enrollment projections overestimated enrollment as follows,

2004-05 K-4 --------------------------K-5 ----------------------2005-06 K-4 ---------------------K-5 -------------------------

+123 +114 +226 +214

The District in their September 2004 projections, revised 12-7-04, overestimated enrollment as follows,

2004-05 K -4 --------------------------~5 ------------------------

+10 +13

2005-06 K-4 ---------------------------- +131 K-5 --------------------------- +131 The projections in 2005-06 overestimate enrollment from between 85 and 200+ students.

- 23 EXSISTING IN 'rnrs STUDY.

BUILDING CAPACITY WAS ARBITRARILY

EXSITING BUILDINGCAPACITY Building Capacity

= Classrooms

DECREASED

-

x Number of students per class.

According to the Methacton School District Feasibility Study multiple references were made to "building capacity".

According to the Methacton Website (8/17/06) The conclusion was that "The current plan, as recommended by the Facilities Task Force appointed in 2004, in cooperation with the District's administration, represents the most cost effective way to get the space that is sufficient/or our needs, based on a realistic look at the future, while maintaining and enhancing the academic program 0/ which we are so proud. " According to School Facilities and Construction

on PDE's website,

"In general, reimbursement/or school construction project is based on the capacity of the building which can be justified by present or projected student enrollment. Classroom capacity is normally calculated on the basis 0/25 students per regular classroom. "

A. The District arbitrarily reduced the class size to 22 students per class thus artificially reducing Building Capacity.

The Feasibility study on the website does not detail exactly how, why, and at whose direction the "District Capacity" of 22 students per graded classroom was established.

I could not find anything supporting that a vote was taken by the board establishing a class size of 22 students per graded classroom even though PDE recommends using 25 students per class.

As noted on page 57 of the Feasibility Study on the Web, "The school district projected enrollment data shows an increase in student population over the projected timeframe. The elementary grades have surpassed existing building capacity. The secondary grades will reach existing district building capacity levels within the projected timeframe. " The legend key defines the followingPDE existing building capacity - K-5 = 2250 District existing building capacity- K-5 = 1980

- 24What the key fails to include is that the "District Capacity" is based ou only 22 students per class, and that existing moduJars and ~ of the Kindergarten Capacity were excluded from the capacity calculations.

The arbitrary limit of 22 students per graded class set forth by the district is being used to define the district's existing building capacity and does not represent the true actual physical capacity of the facility.

"District Capacity" is an arbitrary distinction and does not represent maximum physical capacity and is attributed to the arbitrary limits set that only 22 students would be placed in a graded class for the district.

There are 100 elementary classrooms as noted on the district website. Using 22 students per class the building capacity should be 2200 students excluding modulars.

Using PDE capacity of25 students per class, this number should equal 2500 students.

Some of the classrooms either are not being utilized or are only partially utilized.

How many classrooms are not being utilized? How many classrooms are only being partially utilized and why?

In the original 7/13/04 Feasibility study, the existing building capacity was calculated based on 20 students per class.

In the study posted on the Districts Website, the "District Capacity" was defined using 22 students per graded classroom. The "PDE Capacity" of 25 students per graded classroom as seen in the existing general data section of the Feasibility Study.

According to Board Policy number 126, the board arbitrarily defined the upper limit of class size K-2 as 25 and 3-6 as 30 students per class (see appendix) but did not apply this to calculating building capacity.

The actual number of students that could physically be put into a classroom is greater than 25 students and may be greater than 30 and would be dictated by code and physical space.

Extrapolating district figures, if it was determined that the maximum number of students in a graded classroom was only 20, the district's existing building capacity would be less than or equal to 1800. If the maximum number of students per class was 30 than the existing building capacity would be 2700. The point is, capacity varies according to whatever class size is chosen.

This concept is illustrated in the K-5 projected student enrollment graph on page 57 of the Feasibility study posted on the Districts Website; At first glance it appears that the enrollment/projections K-5 far exceeded the district's "existing building capacity" of 1980. (Using 22 students per class) One must remember that this building capacity is dependent upon an artificial restriction of 22 students per "graded" classroom and also reflected removing Yz of kindergarten student capacity.

If the artificial restriction was 25 students per graded classroom the district's existing building capacity would be 2250( extrapolating district figures), excluding modulars.

These figures apparently failed to take into account roughly 14 modular classrooms which account for an additional capacity of 308 students at 22 students per class or 350 students at 25 students per class.

- 25 B. Modular Classrooms were excluded from Capacity Calculations artificially decreasing Building Capacity.

Capacity is dependent on class size and number of classrooms and can be manipulated by arbitrarily increasing or decreasing class size, and/or the number of usable classrooms including whether a "modular" is considered a classroom.

In this study, modulars were excluded which dramatically effected the capacity.

There is no explanation as to who made that decision and why.

Arbitrary Class size --------------------Additional Class Size - 20 students/class = 1800 student building Class Size - 25 students/class = 2250 student building Class Size - 30 students/class = 2700 student building (Extrapolating district numbers) Assuming Class Size Class Size Class Size

Capacity capacity capacity capacity

100 usable classrooms - 20 students/class= 2000 student building capacity - 25 students/class = 2500 student building capacity - 30 students/class = 3000 student building capacity

Modulars -----------------------------Additional Capacity 10 Modulars with 20 students/class = 200 student building capacity 10 modulars with 22 students/class = 220 student building capacity 10 modulars with 25 students/class = 250 student building capacity 15 modulars with 20 students/class = 300 student building capacity 15 modulars with 22 students/class = 330 student building capacity 15 modulars with 25 students/class = 375 student building capacity

The "existing building capacity" at 25 students per classroom if 14 modulars are included would be at least 2600 depending on whether all 100 classrooms could be fully utilized. This exceeds the current enrollment by almost 200 students.

If you add the 200 Kindergarten students, the Capacity would be 2800.

If the 100 classrooms could be fully utilized, with 22 students 22 students per class x 100 classes = Building Capacity of 2200 students 14 modulars at 25 students per modular = 350 students The Existing Building Capacity would be 2200 + 350 = 2550 students, without counting Yz of the Kindergarten enrollment. This number exceeds current enrollment by 200 students.

- 26-

If the Board applies its arbitrary "soft cap" of25 students/class thenUsing district figures, 25 students per class = Existing Building Capacity of2250 students 14 modulars at 25 students per modular = 350 students The Existing Building Capacity would be 2250+350=2600 This number exceeds projected district capacity past 2013-14

C. Kindergarten Enrollment was manipulated to an artificially reduced Building Capacity.

in the study and contributed

Kindergarten enrollment was fully counted in enrollment projections but only Yz of the student enrollment in the Kindergarten grade or roughly 200 students at 20 per class were used in the "building capacity". This is illustrated on page 30 of the Feasibility Study posted on the District's Website.

According to the requirements for plan con, Yz day Kindergarten classes are accounted for in the application process.

D. Elementary

Capacity was arbitrary

and varied significantly

According to the District Functional Building Capacity from the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, page 17, the capacity of each elementary school is as follows, Woodland - 360 Arrowhead - 360 Eagleville - 360 Audubon - 360 Worcester - 360 The total elementary

building capacity was 1800

According to the Districts Web Site, under "latest enrollment projections the Building Capacity of each of the Elementary Schools is noted as follows, Woodland - 440 Arrowhead - 440 Eagleville - 440 Audubon - 440 Worcester - 440 The total elementary

building capacity was 2200

6/14/06"

- 27According to PDE Existing Functional Feasibility Study, page 17, Woodland - 450 Arrowhead - 450 Eagleville - 450 Audubon - 450 Worcester - 450 The total elementary

Building Capacity from the 7/13/04,

building capacity was 2250

According to the Plan Con A documents, the existing building capacities for each of the elementary schools is as follows, Woodland - 550 Arrowhead - 525 Eagleville - 550 Audubon - 550 Worcester- 550 Plan Con A (FTE) = 2725

According to the Districts Web Site, the District Existing Building Capacity, on page 57, of the 11/04 executive summary, ÂŤ ) = estimated) (Woodland - 396) (Arrowhead - 396) (Eagleville - 396) (Audubon - 396) (Worcester- 396) Total elementary building capacity was 1980 Why are there at least 5 different calculations for existing building capacity?

Building capacity is dependent on the number of usable classrooms, what constitutes a classroom, inclusion or exclusion of modulars, kindergarten manipulations and what number is arbitrarily chosen to determine class size.

This arbitrary process is illustrated by 4 different building capacities for K-5 in the districts analysis and application.

- 28After evaluating school capacities, I have generated the following charts, Arrowhead 360

Eagleville Audubon 360 360

Worcester Woodland 360

360

440

440

440

440

450

450

450

450

550

550

550

550

454

472

520

611

440

442

431

580

465

415

+12

+41

-60

+146

+25

Existing Functional Capacity (7/13/04 Feasibility Study, pg. 17 (20 per class) District Elementary 440 Capacity (Website 05-06) (22 per class) PDE Existing Building 450 Capacity (Feasibility Study 7/13/04, page 17) (25 per class) Plan Con A Capacity 525 (application) (25 per class) District Enrollment estimate (Feasibility study 7/13/04, pg 8,9) 2005-06 Actual District EnrollmentlElementary (Web) 2005-06 Error in (est.) Enrollment

OBSERVATIONS ./ District enrollment calculations significantly overestimated enrollment in the K-5 elementary schools . ./ Why didn't the district use the Plan Con A capacity numbers (25 students per class) to calculate the existing building capacity K-5? ./ Why didn't the district use the 525 to 550 capacity that they used to apply for state funds to illustrate the classroom situation on their website and in the original Feasibility study? ./ The district blended requirements for "state funding" from the plan con process with the study projections affecting the outcome.

The building capacity varied significantly as follows I

Original 7/13/04 Feasibility study (District) ------------- 1800 students Wetisite Feasibility study (11/2004) --------------------1980 students District website (2005-06) ----------------------------------2200 students Original 7/13/04 Feasibility Study (PDE) --------------2250 students Plan Con A documents -------------------------------------2725 students ,

- 29The Original 7113/04 Feasibility Study uses a class size of roughly 18-20 students per classroom to calculate the existing building capacity as 1800 students. The district excluded 14 modular classrooms in their calculation and subtracted Yz Kindergarten class.

The Feasibility study from the Superintendents 4/26/05 presentation, posted on the Districts Website (06), now uses a class size of 22 students per class and thus a building capacity of 1980 excluding modulars and discounting Yz of Kindergarten enrollment.

The Original 7113/04 Feasibility Study uses 25 students per class to calculate PDE existing Building Capacity. Again discounting modulars and possibly Kindergarten enrollment.

The Plan Con application uses an existing building capacity of 2725 with 25 students per class. Excluding modulars but counting K classes.

The school board president has repeatedly stated the "they" approved the project when they approved Pan Con A and B. If this is true then why didn't the Board use the numbers for existing building capacity that were in the Plan Con application (25 students per class and 2725 building capacity)? ./

If the district used the capacities found in their application for state funding, namely the Plan Con A documents, even without modulars and Kindergarten manipulations, there would be no need to proceed with the project as currently configured. ./ How can the district apply for state money based on the maximum student class size of 25 but yet determine a lack of capacity and the need of the project by using only 22 students per class? ./ If the district used 25 students per class for there capacity calculations as they did to take full advantage of state funding, then there would be no need for the project

The total enrollment K-5 in 2003-04 seen in the demographics on page 10 of the Feasibility Study was 2352. This is below the Plan Con capacity of2725 and would not be exceeded at any time in the near future.

Couple this with an actual enrollment decline seen on page 10 even before actual 20042006 numbers were available.

These actual numbers were part of the study and available to the Superintendent and the Board prior to proceeding with the Plan Con application for state funding.

K-5 enrollment Page. 10 (F.S)

Jul/Ol-June/02

Jul/02-Jun/03

JuI/03-Jun/04

2381

2363

2352

At the time this study was presented to the Board, there was no indication or need to proceed with either project based on enrollment increases.

K-5 enrollment was dropping, building capacity estimates were not consistent and significantly underestimated actual physical capacity and were dependent on arbitrarily increasing or decreasing class size, including or excluding modulars, the definition of a usable classroom and inclusion or exclusion of kindergarten classes.

The projection models demonstrated significant error in projections and actual numbers.

- 30Modular classrooms were excluded from estimates and Kindergarten class capacities were underestimated but Kindergarten students were counted in projections.

The School district applied for state funding via the "plan con" process. The state reimburses based on the number of students per classroom and will only reimburse up to a maximum of 25 students per class. The reimbursement would obviously be less if there were only 22 students per class.

The district tookfull advantage of state funding by completing the "Plan Con" application at the maximum number of students per class (25). This was not consistent with the 22 students per classroom that was used tojustify the project based on lack of capacity.

How can the districtjustify the needfor the project by arbitrarily decreasing class size to 22 but then attempt to take full advantage of statefunding by using 25 students per class?

- 31 DISCUSSION THE BOARD HAS AN OBLIGATION TO FULFILL THEm FIDUCIARY RESPONSffiILITY TO THE TAXPAYER BY NOT APPROVING rnrs PROJECT IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION. 1. THE FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS BIASED AND NOT A REPRESENTATIVE CROSS-SECTION OF THE DISTRICT. The Facilities Advisory committee was created and chosen without a formal board vote.

The participants were chosen by the superintendent and or Mr. VanHorn.

Selection for this committee was not open to the public and there was no solicitation or appointment of non Methacton employees/former or present board members with no children, no children at Methacton and/or senior citizens who make up the majority ofthe voter/taxpayer/household mix in the district.

This committee was comprised of (shareholders) including approximately 10 administrators, 8 PTAIParents, 3 teachers, 3 school board members, and 2 committee chairmen.

(See appendix). All had a stake in the project.

The majority ofthe committee consisted of Methacton current or former employees, and at least one school board member associated with the PT A, and who also may have a child in the district.

This committee was NOT a representative sample of the voter/taxpayerlhousehold distribution in the district and thus was biased, affecting the outcome of the deliberations and the decision to recommended Option (Option 6).

I could find nothing in the posted Feasibility Study discussing or comparing alternative options including using modular classrooms, expanding the Woodland project, adjusting class size, student relocation, or permanent additions to schools as needed.

I could find no cost analysis comparing each of the options to each other and to alternatives like modulars or to renovating the 3 elementary schools with deficiencies.

I could find no cost analysis of adjusting class size as could be done under Board Policy No. 126 nor was there any discussion of enlarging the scope of the Woodland project and using minor geographic relocations.

The board has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer and residents of the District.

This should include evaluating and discussing ALL of the alternatives to the recommended option including renovating and updating existing buildings with deficiencies, utilizing modular classrooms, manipulating class size to be in compliance with Board Policy 126, to consider enlarging the current Woodland Project in its K-5 configuration with minor geographic relocations.

A cost analysis should have been prepared for all of the options, compared to each other and to all of the alternatives and presented to the taxpayers.

This was not included in the Feasibility Study and not considered by the Committee.

- 32-

2. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT BASED ON ENROLLMENT INCREASES A. The 5 year actual enrollment K-4 and K-5 is decreasing.

As already illustrated, the actual enrollment K-4 and K-5 over the last 5 years has actually decreased.

I have pointed this out to the Board and the Board President. His response on 8/15/06 was that they are going ahead with the project.

Analysis of 5 year trend in Enrollment (Actual Enrollment from PDE website 712006 and EI in Feasibility stu dy) Year EI PDE EI PDE K-4 K-4 K-5 K-5 1953 2001-02 2369 1953 2369 2002-03 1916 1916 2352 2352 1905 2353 2333 2003-04 1923 2004-05 1924 1903 2350 2324 ----------2005-06 1912 2331

Decrease

(41)

(38)

There has been an actual decrease in enrollment over the last 5 years.

Either the Board and/or its President doesn't recognize this or they are failing to consider it.

Either way, there is no justification for a building project when enrollments are going:down K-5.

During the July presentation to the Board the recommendation by the Superintendent per the presentation was "Remains as originally recommended" 6. Global look at the issue

7. Elementary short of space 8. Will continue to grow - will not get smaller In light of the decrease in actual enrollment, there is no need for a project of this scope and in this configuration. If Woodland Elementary is configured in a K-4 mode, we will then be committed to the 5_6th grade building for which there is no justification.

-33B. The population projections in the Original (7/13/04) and Posted Feasibility Study are inaccurate and significantly overestimate enrollment.

According to the Feasibility Study(s) projections of enrollment both K-4 and K-5, the following charts have been generated.

DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District Projected Student Enrollment (4/16/04) from the Original Feasibility Study 7/13/04, contained numerous inaccuracies and overestimated student enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

District Enrollment Projections K-5 from the Original 7/13/04 Feasibility Study (page 10) were as follows, Red represents projections Blue represents actua 1PDE enro 11ment from revise . d 7/2006 enro 11ments we b site .

K-4 4 PDE District K 1 3 5 PDE K-5 2 Statistic District Actual District Actual

1958

K-4 1953

2381

K-5 2369

372 391 425 439

1924

1916

2363

2352

Actual

289 440 389 392 409 433

1919

1905

2352

2333

Proj

305 465

388 415 419 420

1992

1903

2324

Proj

321 477 411 415 440 434 2064

1912

2414 (2412) 2498

Proj

294

301 442

376 415 424 423

Actual

303 433

2001- Actual 02 200203 200304 200405 200506 200607

501 426 440 441 452 2102

2331

2553 (2554)

(Generated/rom the 7113104Feasibility Study, District Enrollment Projections 4116104,page 10,) (PDE Actual taken from 912005 (2004 enrollments PDE website))

Actual Enrollment does not correlate with PDE actual enrollment and 200405 and 2006-07 totals reflect calculation errors as noted in parenthesis.

- 34(District EnrollmentlProjections 4/16/04, pg. 10, Feasibility Study 7/04) R ed represen t s P rOlec . fIOns--------------- BI ue re rresen tAt s c ua I PDE enro II men t 2005-06 2004-05 2002-03 2003-04 2001-02 2064 1958 1924 1919 1992 K-4 K-4PDE Actual Overprojection

1953

1916

K-5

2381

2363

K-5PDE Actual Overprojection

2369

2352

1903

1912

+89

+152

2352

2414

2498

2333

2324

2331

+90

+167

1905

Actual PDE enrollment taken/rom PDE's website (Rev 712006)

District projections for 2004-05 overestimated enrollment as follows, K-4 - +89 K-5 - +90 District projections for 2005-06 overestimated enrollment as follows, K-4 - +152 K-5 - +167 There were mathematical errors in calculating the totals for K-5 in 2004-05 and 2006-07, with the correct calculations in parenthesis.

Actual enrollment does not correlate with PDE actual numbers. When comparing the "actual" enrollment in the 7/1/2001 model to the actual numbers on the PDE website they do not match. How could these be actual numbers then?

K-5 Enrollment DISTRICT "Actual" (7/1/2001 start) PDEACTUAL (9/05 rev) Difference

7/01-6/02

7/02-6/03

7/03-6/04

2381

2363

2352

2369

2352

2333

-12 students

-11 students

-19 students

Where did the District obtain the numbers used in there "actual" calculations.

Is it possible that these were projections from the 7/2001 model start year?

If so, then the 2004-05 and 2005-06 projections are years 4 and 5 of the projections generated in 2001. If not, then the actual numbers were incorrect and need to be updated.

~

..

- 35 Is it possible that these were not actual enrollments but the first three years of projections? If not why don't they correlate with actual enrollment? in 2004-05 and 2005-06 as

The District overestimated projected enrollment foJlows, 2004-05 Enrollment

2005-06

K-4 District K-4 PDE actual

1992 1903

2064 1912

Overestimation

+89

+152

K-5 District K-5 PDE actual

2414 2324

2498 2331

Overestimation

+90

+167

The District overestimated enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06 as follows, 2004-05 ----------------K -4 by +89 K-5 by +90.

2005-06 -----------------K-4 by + 152 K-5 by +167.

B. EI ASSOCIATES

PROJECTED

ENROLLMENT

In the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, page 10, EI Associates actual and projected enrollment are inaccurate and significantly overestimate enrollment . . t es projec . te d enro IImen,t pa ge 11 ,7/13/04 F easiibilit EIA ssocia I ity St uly d

K

200102 200203 200304 200405 200506

1

2

,.,

.J

4

K-4

K-4

EI

PDE Actual

5

K-5

K-5

EI

PDE Actual

Actual

310

421

378

431

413

1953

1953

416

2369

2369

Actual

303

431

367

394

421

1916

1916

436

2352

2352

Actual

293

440

390

393

407

1923

1905

430

2353

2333

Proj

369

491

384

415

403

2062

1903

418

2480

2324

Proj

401

504

429

409

425

2168

1912

414

2582

2331

(PDE actual enrollment taken from the 7106 revisions to 2005 enrollment on PDE Website)

- 36EI Associates overestimated projected enrollment According to the 7113/04 Feasibility study, on page 11, enrollment was overestimated in 2004-05 and 2005-06 by EI Associates as follows,

EI overestimate in 2004-05, K -4 -------------------------------K-5 -------------------------------EI overestimate in 2005-06, K -4 -------------------------------K -5 --------------------------------

+159 +156 +256 +251

The actual EI numbers for 2003-2004, did not match the actual PDE enrollment suggesting that these were in fact projections.

EI associates projections in the first two years of projections significantly overestimated enrollment when these should statistically be the most accurate.

C. PDE PROJECTED ENROLLMENT The PDE projections found on page 12 of the 7/13/04 Feasibility study illustrate a dramatic overestimation in enrollment, PDE Projected enrollment, page 12, 7/13/04 Feasibility Study K

1

2

3

4

K-4

PDE Actual

5

K-5

PDE Actual

200102 200203

Actual

310

421

378

431

413

1953

1953

416

2369

2369

Actual

303

431

367

394

421

1916

1916

436

2352

2352

200304 200405 200506

Projections

359

405

377

392

403

1936 1905

438

2374 2333

Projections

369

491

354

403

401

2018

1903

420

2438 2324

Projections

401

504

430

378

413

2126

1912

418

2544 2331

(PDE actual enrollment taken/rom PDE Website)

the 7106 revisions to 2005 enrollment on

- 37 -

PDE overestimated K-4 and K-5 enrollment in 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06 as follows, 2003-04 K-4 ------------------------ +31 K-5 ------------------------ +41

2004-05 K-4 ------------------------ +115 K-5 ------------------------ +114

2005-06 K-4 ------------------------ +214 K-5 ------------------------ +213 PDE's estimates are too inaccurate to be used to determine the need for the building project.

In review of the birth rates documented on page 13, the birth rate appears to have peaked in 2000 at 380 with a birth rate in 2001 of 350.

D. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS The District overestimated elementary enrollment in their projections (4/16/04) in the 7113/04 Feasibility Study.

Comparing the Actual District 2005-06 data from the Web, by school, to District Enrollment Projections (4/16/04) in the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, I have generated the following charts, (District Enrollment Projections/Elementary School, 4116/04 from the 7/13/04 Feasibility

Study, (pages 8, 9))

2005-06 442

2005-06

Arrowhead

Original Feasibility Study (7/13/04) District Projections (4/16/04) 2005-06 454

Eagleville

472

431

+41 (overestimate)

Woodland

440

415

+25 (overestimate)

Audubon

520

580

-60 (underestimate)

Worcester

611

465

+146 (overestimate)

Overestimate total

Website 2006

ERROR

Actual District Data

+12 (overestimate)

+164(overestimate)

- 38 -

The district then posted the "Feasibility Study" on their Website.

I learned recently from the communications director Angela Lynch, that this was not the complete study and contained excerpts chosen by the superintendent from the executive summary given to the board from 11123/04 and from Dr. Miller's presentations.

There was nothing on the site stating that these were selected excerpts by Dr. Miller giving the impression that this was the complete study.

I then attempted to obtain the original, complete 7113104Feasibility study from the district prior to the Act 34 Hearing. I was not allowed to review the entire study until after the hearing.

In review of the Feasibility Study posted on the Website, and comparing it to the original, there were inconsistencies in the actual numbers and with projections significantly overestimated enrollment.

October 2004 EI Associates Actual and Projected enrollment (in students) (K-4 and 5 (from Feasibility Study on Website 06) Blue represents actual numbers (PDE) Red represents projections Actual 2 3 4 5 K-4 K-5 K 1 EI EI K-4 2000- 275 443 393 389 422 394 1922 2316 1922 01 1953 2001- 310 421 378 431 413 416 1953 2369 02 1916 2002- 303 431 367 394 421 436 1916 2352 03 2003- 293 440 390 393 407 430 1923 2353 1905 04 2004- 363 359 372 400 408 424 1902 2326 1903 05

2005- 368 513 312 394 410 419 1997 2416 1912 06 2006- 339 557 446 330 404 421 2497 07 (Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken from Revised 712006(2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website andfrom actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.)

EI associates estimates/projections

Actual

K-5 2316 2369 2352 2333 2324

2331

overestimated enrollment significantly for

2005-06 as follows K-4 --- EI overestimated by 85 students (2005-06) K-5 ---- EI overestimated by 85 students (2005-06) _ (This is significant because this is the first year of projections which statistically should be the most accurate.)

- 39October 2004 - PDE Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study Web) Red represents PDE projected enrollment Bl ue represen tAt s c ua I PDE enro IImen t Actual Error 4 5 K-4 Actual Error K-5 K 1 2 3 K-5 K-4 K-4 K-5 +114 +123 2438 2324 2004- 339 500 378 412 397 412 2026 1903 05 +214 +226 2545 2331 2005- 368 513 436 400 421 407 2138 1912 06 2006- 339 557 448 462 409 432 2647 07 2699 2007- 333 513 486 475 472 420 08 2776 2008- 340 504 448 515 485 484 09 2800 2009- 347 514 440 475 526 498 10 2010- 354 524 448 466 485 540 2817 11 2011- 361 535 457 475 476 498 2802 12 2012- 367 545 467 484 485 488 2836 13 2013- 374 555 475 495 494 498 2891 14 This table above illustrates that PDE overestimated enrollment for the years (2004-05 to 2005-06) K-4 and K-5 as follows K-4 ----- (2004-05) by 123 students (2005-06) by 226 students K-5 ----- (2004-05) by 114 students (2005-06) by 214 students

- 40-

2000-1 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4

February 2005 - EI Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study Web) BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollment RED reflects estimated EI associates enrollment Parenthesi . error, III . diicatmg overestimate b>y diistnc t arent esis IS K-5 (est PDE Actual K-5 K-4 (est Actual K-4 5 K 1 2 3 4 394 2316 275 443 393 389 422 1922 310 421 378 431 413 1953 416 2369 436 2352 303 431 367 394 421 1916 293 440 390 393 407 1923 430 2353

2004-5 381 357 372 405 409

1924

1903 (+21) 426 2350

2324

(+26)

2002 2077 2141 2289 2300 2275 2303 2347 2412

1912 (+90) 420 2422 427 417 347 499 524 499 490 510

2331

(+91)

Ratios 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-1 2010-1 2011-1 2012-1 2013-1

368 339 333 340 347 354 361 367 374

513 557 513 504 514 524 535 545 555

310 446 484 446 438 446 455 465 473

395 329 473 514 473 465 474 483 503

416 406 338 486 528 486 477 487 507

EI associates in 2005 again overestimated projections (2005-2006) K-4 of 90 and K-5 of 91

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

PDE Actual Enrollment K 1 2 276 443 393 310 421 378 303 431 367 292 433 389 314 416 371 307 447 373

2000-2006 3 4 389 422 431 413 394 421 389 402 398 404 381 404

enrollment

in the first year of their

K-5) including error in EI estimates 5 394 416 436 428 421 419

EI overestimates enrollment as follows; K-4 (2004-05) -------------------- +21 K-5 (2004-05) ------------------- +26 K-4 (2005-05) --------------------- +90 K-5 (2005-06) -----------+91

K-4 1922 1953 1916 1905 1903 1912

K-5 2316 2369 2352 2333 2324 2331

ErrorK-4

ErrorK-5

21 over 90 over

26 over 91 over

- 41 -

The data confirms the following, 1. PDE's enrollment projections are too inaccurate, even during the first 5 years, to use for this project.

The error and overestimation by PDE for 2005-06 was over 200.

October 2004 - PDE Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study Web 06)

200405 200506

Error K-4 +123

K-5

2026

Actual K-4 1903

2138

1912

+226

K

1

2

3

4

5

K-4

339

500

378

412

397

412

368

513

436

400

421

407

2438

Actual K-5 2324

Error K-5 +114

2545

2331

+214

2004-05 data demonstrate an overestimation in, K-4 of 123 students K-5 of 114 students 2005-06 data demonstrate an overestimation in, K-4 of 226 students K-5 of 214 students

2. EI associates enrollment projections are inaccurate and during the first 2 years of the study 2004-2006 significantly overestimate K-4 and K-5 enrollment.

October 2004 EI Associates Actual and Projected enrollment (in students K-4 and 5) from Feasibility Study on Website demonstrated significant overestimation in enrollment

October 2004 EI Enrollment Projections K

1

2

3

4

5

2005- 368 513 312 394 410 419 06 BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollment RED reflects estimated EI associates enrollment

K-4 EI 1997

K-5 EI 2416

Actual K-4 1912

Actual K-5 2331

The error in the October 2004 projections are as follows K-4 and K-5 (200506) data demonstrate an overestimation of K-4 of 85 students K-5 of 85 students The first year estimates should be the most accurate statistically. To overestimate by 85 students adds doubt to the credibility of the projections.

- 42-

February K 1

2005 - EI Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study \Veb) 2

K-4

4

3

Actual K-4

2004-5 381 357 372 405 409 1924

5

K-5

PDE Actual K-5

1903 (+21 426 2350

2324

(+26'

1912 (+90 420 2422

2331

(+91'

Ratios

2005-6 368 513 310 395 416 2002

BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollment RED reflects estimated EI associates enrollment Parenthesis is error, indicating overestimate by district EI associates again overestimated enrolJment in 2005-06 by 90 and 91.

I have not heard Mr. VanHorn or Dr. Miller question these projections and in fact Mr. VanHorn is on record as having the highest confidence in these numbers.

The district plans to go ahead with a project based on enrollment estimates that in the first year demonstrate significant error and overestimation for K-4 and K-5 when the actual enrollments demonstrate a declining enrollment over the last 5 years. The Board has a fiduciary duty to recognize this and not proceed with the projects until further analysis is accomplished.

3. The actual enrollments K-4 and K-5 over the last 5 years have decreased.

The board also apparently did not consider an actual decrease in enrollment K-4 and K-5 over the last 5 years. This is contrary to the Board's fiduciary responsibility.

I made the Board aware at a public meeting that the enrollment for K-5 is declining.

PDE Actual Enrollment K 1 2 3

2000-2006 (K-5) including decrease in enroll men t 4

5

K-4

K-5

Decrease Decrease K-4 K-5

2001-2 310 2002-3 303 2003-4 292

421 431 433

378 367 389

431 394 389

413 421 402

416 436 428

1953 1916 1905

2369 2352 2333

2004-5 314 2005-6 307

416 447

371 373

398 381

404 404

421 419

1903 1912

2324 2331 (-41)

(-38)

(Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken/rom Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments) available on the PDE website andfrom actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.)

Either the Board hasn't seen these actual numbers, hasn't realized there significance or they are choosing not to consider them.

There is no basis for the current proposed project based on enrollment concerns.

In my opinion, moving forward with this project base on decreasing enrollment and estimates that are unreliable is not consistent with the Boards Fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer.

- 43 C. THE EXISTING BUILDING CAPACITY PROJECT IS ARBITRARY AND MISLEADING.

USED TO JUSTIFY THE

1. The existing building capacity was arbitrarily

decreased and set at 22 students per "graded classroom." . , This decrease creates the illusion that the district is over physical capacity and is a justification for the project.

According to the Methacton School District Feasibility Study multiple references were made to "building capacity".

Existing Building Capacity

= Classrooms

x Number of students per class.

In this study, the "District Capacity" was defined as 22 students per "graded classroom" and the "PDE Capacity" was 25 students per graded classroom as seen in the existing general data section of the Feasibility Study. This excluded the 14 modular classes. There is no mention of who made this decision and why.

The study on the website does not detail exactly how, why, and by whom a "District Capacity" of 22 students per graded classroom was established. I could not find anything supporting that a vote was taken by the board establishing a class size of 22 students per graded classroom. Mr. VanHorn is on the record noting a "soft cap" of 25 students per class.

This artificial and arbitrary distinction of 22 students per class dramatically affects the building capacity upon which the board is attempting to justify the project.

As noted on page 57 of the Feasibility Study, "The school district projected enrollment data shows an increase in student population over the projected timeframe. The elementary grades have surpassed existing building capacity. The secondary grades will reach existing district building capacity levels within the projected timeframe. " The legend key defines the followingPDE existing building capacity - K-5 = 2250 District existing building capacity - K-5 = 1980 The district and board are not considering the actual enrollment per PDE that shows a 5 year actual decline in enrollment K-5 of38 students.

The district and board are using enrollment data that is inaccurate and which overestimate the 2005-06 enrollment significantly as already noted.

Now the district uses a class size of 22 that is contrary to its own Board policy 126, and lower than the "soft cap" of25 students per class, in order to justify a need for the project.

This is wrong and in my opinion the Boards Fiduciary duty to the public and taxpayer to recognize this and not approve the projects until further study and analysis are performed.

- 44It is important to note, that "existing building capacity" is an arbitrary and artificial distinction and does do not represent maximum physical capacity.

Existing building capacity is attributed to the arbitrary limits set that only 22 students would be placed in a graded class for the district and 25 students per graded class for PDE reimbursement.

According to Board Policy number 126 (appendix), the board arbitrarily defined the upper limit of class size as 25-30 students per class. The actual physical number of students that could be put into a classroom is greater than 25 students and may be greater than 30 and would be dictated by code.

The arbitrary limit of 22 students per graded class set forth by the district is being used to define the district's existing building capacity and does not represent the true actual physical capacity of the facility.

The study does not indicate how and at whose recommendation and direction this arbitrary number was arrived upon and implemented.

This means that, if it was determined that the maximum number of students in a graded classroom was only 20, the district's existing building capacity would be less than 1800. If the class size was determined to be 30, the capacity would be 2700.

This concept is illustrated in the K-5 projected student enrollment graph on page 57 of the feasibility study; At first glance it appears that the enrollment projections K-5 far exceeded the district's "existing building capacity". (1980 students) One must remember that this building capacity is dependent upon an artificial and arbitrary restriction of22 students per graded classroom and does not include modular classrooms.

If the artificial restriction was 25 students per graded classroom the district's existing building capacity would be 2250, excluding modulars.

The "existing building capacity" for the district, K-5, apparently failed to take into account roughly 14 modular classrooms which account for an additional 308 students at 22 students per class or 350 students at 25 students per class.

According to the District's Website, there are 100 Elementary Classrooms. If these classrooms were fully utilized, then actual capacity would be as follows, 100 classrooms with 20 students per class -------------------- 2000 student capacity 100 classrooms with 22 students per class -------------------- 2200 student capacity 100 classrooms with 25 students per class -------------------- 2500 student capacity 100 classrooms with 30 students per class -------------------- 3000 student capacity It appears that either not all the classrooms are being utilized or they are only being partially utilized.

- 45 -

2. The reduction in "existing building capacity" was caused by a decision to exclude modulars, to arbitrarily decrease class size and to exclude 50% of Kindergarten enrollment.

Building capacity is dependent on class size and number of classrooms and can be manipulated by arbitrarily increasing or decreasing class size, the number of usable classrooms including whether a "modular" is considered a classroom.

In this study, modulars were excluded which dramatically effect the capacity.

Arbitrary Class Size Class Size Class Size

Capacity - (Extrapolating district data) - 20 students/class = 1800 building capacity - 25 students/class = 2250 building capacity - 30 students/class = 2700 building capacity

Class Class Class Class

with - 20 - 25 - 30

size Size Size Size

total classroom utilization students/class = 2000 building capacity students/class = 2500 building capacity students/class = 3000 building capacity

Modulars 10 Modulars with 20 students/class = 200 students 10 modulars with 22 students/class = 220 students 10 modulars with 25 students/class = 250 students 15 modulars with 20 students/class = 300 students 15 modulars with 22 students/class = 330 students 15 modulars with 25 students/class = 375 students The "existing building capacity" at 25 students per classroom if 14 modulars are included would be at least 2600. This exceeds the current enrollment by almost 200 students.

If the district abides by there arbitrary "soft cap" of 25 students/class then 25 students per class = 2250 students 14 modulars at 25 students per modular = 350 students A calculated arbitrary capacity if 14 modulars are used with 25 students per class = 2600 students.

If you add the 200 for Kindergarten

tbe "existing capacity" is 2800 students.

This number exceeds projected district capacity past 2013-14.

- 463. The Feasibility Study underestimated

capacity for Kindergarten

by 50%.

The study calculated the building capacity for kindergarten as 20 per room or 200 students total for 10 rooms. The committee and Board failed to note that there are 2 Kindergarten classes per day (112 day each), per room, and thus an actual class capacity of 40 students per class.

The true existing capacity for the 10 Kindergarten classes is 400.

This would add 200 students to the "existing building capacity".

Kindergarten enrollment was fully counted in enrollment projections but only 12 of the student enrollment in the Kindergarten grade or roughly 200 students at 20 per class were used in the "building capacity". This is illustrated on page 30 of the Feasibility Study posted on the District's Website.

According to the requirements for plan con, 12 day Kindergarten classes are accounted for fully in the application process.

According to the plan con application, the existing FTE for Kindergarten for all of the elementary schools is 500 students.

So when applying for statefunding, the entire Kindergarten enrollment/class is accounted for but when attempting tojustify the needfor the project, ~ of the class is excludedfrom capacity calculations. Why is this?

4. The Existing building capacity in 6-8 and 9-12 will not be exceeded.

The 6-8 projected enrollments (all models) at only 22 students per classroom do not exceed PDE or District building capacity over the next 7 years.

The 9-12 projected enrollments for the next 7 years, at 22 students per class, fall short of both district and PDE capacity.

These findings are significant in that any growth in enrollment according to the February 2005 EI Enrollment Projection is in 9-12.

The board attempts to give the impression that the enrollment at Methacton is going up and is using that to justify the 5-6 projects.

The projections show that there has been a decrease in enrollment K-5 which did not increase overall enrollment.

For example, actual PDE enrollment 6-8 and 9-12 for 2000-2006 is as follows, Atc ua IE nro IJmen t 68- ver PDE 6 7 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

8

6-8

Increase per year

358 1144 401 385 78 408 424 390 1222 1273 51 426 409 438 434 429 1306 33 443 1341 459 35 442 440 -27 444 1314 435 435 (Actual 6-12 data was taken/rom Revised 712006(2005 Enrollments) available

on the PDE website.)

- 47-

AtuiE c a 9

nro IImen t 9-12 per PDE 10

11

12

355 317 303 362 359 308 388 350 353 399 390 354 438 390 391 464 431 390 (Actual 6-12 data was taken/rom

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

337 402 412 449 454 476

9-12

1312 1431 1503 1592 1673 1761

Increase per year 9-12

Increase 6-8 per year

Total increase 6-12

Total K-12 4812 5022 5128 5231 5338 5413

Increase K-12 per year

210 197 106 123 103 122 107 116 75 61 Revised 712006(2005 Enrollments) available 119 72 89 81 88

78 51 33 35 -27

on the PDE website.)

The above charts illustrate the following 1. The increase in overall enrollment has fallen over the last 5 years.

2. The increases in both 6-8 and 9-12 enrollments have fallen over the last 5 years.

3. The increases in enroJIment are not due to K-5 but due to 6-12 enrollment 4. The decline in enrollment in 2005-06 for 6-8 will eventually affect the overall number.

5. The numbers confirm that building capacity for 6-12 will not be reached unless the Board arbitrarily decreases class size.

In summary, the facilities advisory committee was appointed, not elected, with the majority being district employees. This was not a true cross-section of the district with 75% of the voter/taxpayer base not represented on the committee. This in my opinion created bias in the selection of the options and limited any discussion on cost effective alternatives.

The actual enrollment K-4 and K-5 over the past 5 years (2001-2006) has dropped. The enrollment projections by the District, EI associates and PDE overestimate enrollment significantly when compared to actual 2005-06 numbers and cannot be relied upon to move forward on this multimillion dollar project.

Building Capacity was arbitrary as evidenced by multiple calculations noted in the feasibility study and plan con documents.

Existing building capacity was defined in the Feasibility study (06 Web) by the District as 1980 students by using an arbitrary number of22 students per class. There is no mention in the posted facilities study as to why, how and at whose direction the decision to use 22 students per class was made. Board policy 126 indicates that the district can use up to 25 students K-2 and up to 30 students 3-6 per class.

Arbitrarily decreasing class size to 22 resulted in a decreased building capacity and thus created a need for more space and the project. The Board has a fiduciary duty to recognize this and not proceed with the project in its current configuration.

Per Mr. VanHorn, the board has adopted a soft cap of 25 students, the same as PDE. My understanding is that maximum reimbursement by PDE under plan con is up to 25 students per class. If we are applying/or state money, and completing the plan con

- 48-

forms at 25 students per class, this figure should have been used rather than 22 per class to calculate building capacity.

The building capacity was also affected by not including 14 modular classrooms.

If they are included at 22 per class the additional building capacity of 308 students is realized.

Kindergarten enrollment was manipulated as seen on page 61 of the study posted on the Web. Yz of the Kindergarten class was not counted towards building capacity but when applying for state financial reimbursement. If you include the 50% of the Kindergarten enrollment that was omitted by the committee and not recognized by the board, this adds roughly 200 students to the building capacity.

The building capacity using 25 students per class per PDE is 2250, plus 350 for modulars and 200 for the Kindergarten. The "existing capacity" would be 2800 and not exceeded by any enrollment projections even if you did not apply the Kindergarten capacity.

It is the districts position that there is an increase in enrollment justifying the need for the 5-6 building. The actual enrollment K-5 over the last 5 years has gone down. As shown by PDE actual numbers, the total K-12 growth in enrollment is actually decreasing and is attributable to growth in 6-8 and particularly the 9-12 enrollment, not K-5.

If the district wants to convert modulars to permanent classroom space then tell us.

If the district is arbitrarily attempting to decrease the class size from 25 to 22 students per class then include us in the decision.

If the board wants to convert Methacton into a private school, then have each individual family assume financial responsibility for their own child the way it is done in private school.

If the board is applying for funding from the state at the maximum reimbursement at 25 students per class then use this number to calculate "existing capacity" The board has not considered or done a cost analysis on the effect of prevailing wage by applying for state funding versus no state funding with resultant decreased construction costs.

The board had not publically considered other alternatives to the "recommended option 6" including the use ofmodulars, expanding the Woodland project by adding more class space, student relocation, converting modulars to permanent classroom space and manipulating class size. They have a fiduciary responsibility to do so prior to approving this project.

By approving the Woodland project in its current configuration, K-4, the Board is essentially approving the 5-6 building. There is no justification to do so.

I recommend that the project needs to be re-evaluated in light of the facts which I have presented and as a re .rement of the Board to fulfill its fiduciary obligation to the taxpayer.

'I........--'l\I[A"I1i c

211 ountry View Ln Lansdale Pa 19446