1. education
2. school

Hopewell Valley Regional School District
Future Planning Committee
An Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee
Final Report
October, 2014
Introduction
In the Hopewell Valley, like many communities, the distribution of school-aged population has changed
over time. The towns of Hopewell, Pennington and Hopewell Borough that are served by the District,
have grown and contracted, housing has turned over, and new homes and/or developments were
built. For the past several years, the district has been experiencing a decrease in families with schoolaged children. The result has been an imbalance among our elementary schools, inconsistent class sizes
and increasing available space. This trend is expected to continue for at least the next five years. With
this understanding, it is imperative that the district plan proactively to address these changes. This also
provides an opportunity to examine facilities, current elementary school grade configuration, and
programs.
Statement of the Issue
Problem 1: The Hopewell Valley Regional School District is experiencing an enrollment decrease of 5070 students per year. The result is one school with enrollment that is predicted to continue to decrease and
will function well under capacity while other schools have limited space. If this is not addressed, the
imbalance will continue to grow and impact class sizes and, potentially, programs.
Problem 1a: Long-term, as grade levels continue to decrease in size, as students transition into middle
school and high school, buildings will be functioning well under capacity.
Problem 2: Long-term- a dual problem of declining enrollment and increasing fiscal constraints will
continue to worsen. School budgets are held to 2% cap while our per-pupil costs exceed the state average.
Opportunity: There are several legacy items that have been raised repeatedly over the years including:,
school-grade structure, moving to full-day kindergarten, and moving classes out of trailers.
Opportunity: We have time to investigate, plan and implement any changes over the course of several
years.
Caveats
The impetus for developing the Future Planning Committee and their recommendations is to address the
decreasing enrollment in the District. It is understood that this committee serves as an advisory committee
of the superintendent, not the Board. As such, any District action in response to the recommendations
contained in this report is solely at the discretion of the Board of Education.
It is further acknowledged that a large scale housing development is under consideration by Hopewell
Township officials. While the information contained in this report indicates a trend of decreasing
enrollment for the next five years, the housing development currently under consideration can impact the
district sometime between the next 5 to 10 years. Based on demographic projections, this development
will bring approximately 650 new students to the district. As reported to the Township in July 2014,
based on the 5-year projections, the anticipated District enrollment in the 2018-19 school year will be
3,151. This is down from a peak of 4,000 in 2008. Should the District hire/rehire staff and balance the
student impact across our elementary schools, it could again house students at previous levels. However,
2
as per the June, 2014 demographer’s report, the accuracy of projections longer than 5 years significantly
decreases.
Demographic Projections
In May 2012 and again in June 2014, HVRSD contracted with Dr. Richard Grip to review demographic
data related to the school district and the towns that are served. Based on his data, the total enrollment in
the district is projected to steadily decline to between 3,129 to 3,151 students in 2018-19, which would
represent a loss of 543-565 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 3,694 students.
At the elementary level containing grades PK-5, enrollment is projected to be 1,307-1,332 students in
2018-19, which would represent a loss of 198-223 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,530
students.
For Timberlane Middle School, which contains grades 6-8, enrollment is projected to be 742 students in
2018-19, which would represent a loss of 134 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 876 students. For
Central High School, which contains grades 9-12, enrollment is projected to be between 1,077-1,080 in
2018-19, which would represent a loss of 147-150 students from the 2013-14 enrollment of 1,227
students.
3
4
5
2014-15 Kindergarten Enrollment vs. Projection as of 06/25/2014
2013-14 Kindergarten Enrollment vs. Projection
Process
In early October 2013, the Superintendent of schools sent a letter to the community eliciting their support
as the district embarked on an important journey to address the enrollment shift that has been occurring
over the past several years. The letter outlined the process that was developed to share and review
demographic information with the community, develop an advisory committee to review data and develop
recommendations for a final review by the Board of Education.
Over the course of December 2013 and January 2014, eight evening and daytime meetings were held at
each elementary school to review enrollment projections, building capacities and related topics. In
February 2014, at the conclusion of the school-based meetings, an ad-hoc, representative committee
consisting of over 40 parents, teachers, administrators and community members was developed.
Committee Charge
The Future Planning Committee was created by the Superintendent as an advisory panel to develop
recommendations to assist the district in addressing the changing enrollment. Based on the Charter
developed by the committee, they agreed to limit their activities to advising on matters that directly
concerned district enrollment and the corresponding instructional programs. The specific purposes of the
Committee included the following responsibilities:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Facilitate cooperation and communication between the committee and the community.
Assist the administration to establish a long-term vision for the Hopewell Valley Regional School
District enrollment.
Become informed about current and emerging enrollment management practices in other school
districts.
Review current district policies for student placement in elementary schools.
Review and become informed about district enrollment and housing data.
Serve as a sounding board and strategic advisor to the administrative team on matters related to
redistricting and/or grade reconfigurations.
Provide input to the Finance Committee on pricing strategies and their impact on enrollment.
Develop and recommend for Board action policies to address both short and long-term enrollment.
6
Committee members agreed that he/she will not:
●
●
●
●
Make suggestions to town officials to address the work of the committee
Intervene on behalf of individual families or students
Perform operational tasks outside the scope of the committee
Leap to assumptions based on hearsay and anecdotal information
Guiding Beliefs of the Future Planning Committee:
1. We seek to do what is best for all of the children of Hopewell Valley.
2. We will be assisting in the planning for the future of our schools and for the future in which
our young people will live and work.
3. We are conscious of the need to plan with an eye toward flexibility to adapt to possible
unforeseen future factors impacting enrollment.
4. We will explore options that are consistent with our District’s values and priorities of
providing an excellent, well-rounded education.
5. We seek to explore changes with the awareness of the emotions that come about with change.
Relationship of Committee to the Board of Education:
It is the role and sole prerogative of the Board to enact policy. The advisory committee is expected to offer
recommendations for addressing the district enrollment shift and related changes to the instructional
program, if necessary, and to provide information relevant to policy about enrollment and/or the
instructional programs.
Committee Process
The Future Planning Committee met twelve times from February 2014 through October 2014.
Meetings one through three focused mainly developing committee norms, an agreed upon charter and
ensuring that all committee members had the same baseline understanding of the situation facing the
district. Subsequent meetings included presentations from local real estate experts, the County Tax
assessor and the district demographer.
The committee then identified nine scenarios to investigate further. Scenarios were evaluated along six
dimensions:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Students/families impact
Free / reduced lunch students impact
Transportation impact
Fiscal impact
Program impact
Other considerations
During the process, the Committee voted to eliminate three scenarios:
● Option A: Make No Changes – Status Quo
● Option B: Closing one or more elementary schools and
● Option C: Restructuring Schools to a K-3 / 4,5 Model
7
It was determined by the Committee that due to a variety of reasons, Options A, B or C are not feasible at
this time.
Further into the process, the Committee voted to combine two scenarios: Option D: Full Day
Kindergarten and D-1 Full Day Kindergarten Pilot at Bear Tavern. It was determined that piloting a full
day program in one school would be short sighted.
For the remaining meetings, the Committee broke into five subcommittees to complete a detailed review
of all data that was available. Subcommittee members were given access to any and all necessary data to
assist them in their review.
Scenarios that were considered by the Committee
Option A: Make No Changes – Status Quo
Students/families impacted: 0
Transportation impact: 0
Program Implications: 0
Financial Implications: 0
Other Considerations: The current imbalance is expected to grow causing an untenable situation
Determination by the Committee: Not a feasible option at this time.
Option B: Closing one or more elementary schools
Students/families impacted: 300+
Transportation impact: Increase of approximately 20 buses to accommodate those students who cannot
fit on existing runs.
Program Implications:
Financial Implications:
Other Considerations: No
Determination by the Committee: Not a feasible option at this time. At this time, 300+ students
cannot be adequately absorbed by the remaining schools without increasing class size and/or
changing programing.
Option C: Restructuring Schools to a K-3 / 4,5 Model
Students/families impacted: 550 student based on current class size
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: 25
Transportation impact: $ 1.5 m based on 50 new bus runs (all current 4th and 5th graders), $500,000 if
start time is tiered in between elementary and secondary
Academic program impact: Departmentalization provides a more targeted experience to students.
Separates students from primary K-3 and Upper Elementary 4/5
8
Financial Implications: $250,000 savings based on the reduction of 3 staff members and reduced
material costs
Other Considerations: Commonly accepted model. Huge shift in culture from current structure
Determination by the Committee: Not a feasible option at this time.
Option D: Full day Kindergarten in all schools
Students/families impacted: All kindergarten students, 185 in 2014-15 and 175 in 2015-16
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: 0, % should stay the same
Transportation impact: 0, there is potential savings from eliminating the mid-day bus runs at each
school
Academic program impact: Kindergarten Curriculum can be expanded to include necessary Reading,
Writing and Mathematics time to provide Kindergarten students with a better foundation to transition to
1st Grade
Financial implications: $600,000.00 (5 teachers @ $65,000.00 per year/ 5 Paraprofessionals
@$35,000.00 per year/ One time Material/technology Costs $100,000.00) Salary estimates are inclusive
of benefits and payroll taxes.
Loss of revenue of K Extension approximately $125,000.00. Overall costs will be mitigated by retaining
teachers that may otherwise need to be reduced due to declining enrollment for the 2015-16 school year.
Other considerations: At this time, no additional bathroom construction will be necessary (Bathrooms
are required pursuant to NJAC 6A:26-6.3(h)4. Assembly Bill A-447 to establish Full Day K task force to
explore making Full Day K mandatory across the state.(less than one year timeline of the task force is also
a factor in this recommendation)
Subcommittee narrative:
The District currently offers a half-day Kindergarten program, with students divided into morning and
afternoon classes.
The consensus of the sub-committee is that a shift to full day Kindergarten is necessary district wide to
provide the best education to the students in this district, a ‘Trial’ or Magnet Kindergarten program at
Bear Tavern was ruled out. A trial program would create inequity in the education being provided to
students within the district.
It is the recommendation of the Kindergarten sub-committee that Full Day Kindergarten should be
implemented as soon as possible. Declining enrollment has created sufficient space in the four
elementary schools in the district, such that Full Day Kindergarten could begin as early as September
2015. However, the implementation of this program will depend on several factors, including timing of
approval by the Board and finalizing the Curriculum necessary for implementation of full day
Kindergarten.
Financial Implications
While there will be actual costs of implementing a Full Day Kindergarten program, these costs will allow
the District to provide Kindergartners with a stronger educational foundation.
The quality of our schools contributes to stable property values in Hopewell Township, full day
Kindergarten will be an added benefit and draw to prospective residents.
9
Additional Staffing Costs
5 teachers at $65,000 =
$325,000.00
5 Paraprofessionals at $35,000.00 =
$175,000.00
Additional Furniture and Materials
$25,000 per school for Leveled Libraries, technology, instructional materials, etc. = $100,000.00
Elimination of Mid-Day Bus Routes:
Elimination of Kindergarten Extension will reduce district revenue by approximately $125,000 annually.
Academic Program Impact
Within the academic “lens”, the kindergarten program in HVRSD would benefit from a shift to full-day
kindergarten in the following ways:
•
Increased student-teacher contact; more opportunities for whole class, small group, and individual
instruction
•
In-depth instruction in literacy (reading AND writing), mathematics, science, and social studies
(Improved alignment with standards)
•
Students to understand concepts/skills and to apply, integrate, and “own” their learning
•
Hands-on learning activities and opportunities for pursuits of individual interests
•
Structured social interaction through natural explorations (e.g., learning centers, lunch, outdoor play,
Responsive Classroom)
•
Follows researched best practices
•
Impacts an entire grade level and all years thereafter
A shift from the present model to full-day kindergarten would allow us to provide reading and writing
instruction everyday, ensuring that students master the concepts and skills set forth by the state-mandated
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). This model is not possible in our present half-day configuration.
The present curriculum will transition easily into full-day kindergarten. We will be able to add additional
units to our newly-adopted, CCSS-aligned reading and writing workshop units to meet standards
presently not addressed due to our current half-day program. A full writing unit in “Small Moment
Narrative” and three additional reading units will allow our students to develop and secure their skills in
narrative writing. At present, students are exposed to all concepts and skills mandated through CCSS.
The additional time afforded through a full-day kindergarten program would provide time for teachers to
instruct “to mastery” in these areas.
By and large, expectations for kindergarten students have changed due to the adoption of the CCSS.
These changes include the following:
· Students entering kindergarten with secure foundational knowledge of letters and numbers
have demonstrated more success in meeting expectations set by the CCSS.
10
· Students mastering the knowledge of letter names and sounds by mid-year kindergarten have
demonstrated significant success in meeting newly established, CCSS-aligned benchmark
expectations by year’s end.
· The kindergarten program in Hopewell Valley has established the goal that all students leave
kindergarten reading books that feature simple narratives, familiar content, picture support and
simple, predictable sentence structure. .
· 80 percent of programs are full-day, compared to 56 percent in 1998.
With regards to whether the curriculum and the present expectations set through the CCSS are
developmentally appropriate, a recent article in Education Week by Daphne Bassok, Amy Claessens, and
Mimi Engel, states that "too many educators and parents are posing a false dichotomy. We don’t have to
choose between play and academically rigorous kindergarten classrooms, they say: “Engaging and
challenging academic instruction should (and can) be developmentally appropriate, and it does not have
to be overwhelming, stressful, or boring. It does not have to supplant play or child-initiated activities.
And it certainly does not have to involve worksheets, one-size-fits-all lessons, or an overemphasis on
assessment.” “The best kindergarten programs provide academically rich instruction in literacy and math
– and also a rich diet of physical education, art, music, science, and social studies."
From the 2011 NJ DOE Division of Early Childhood Education Kindergarten Implementation Guidelines:
Within the daily schedule:
“Each segment of the day should fully incorporate purposefully planned learning, including arrival,
meals, rest, snack, transitions and routines, outdoor time, and departure. Teachers should plan daily
routines and transitions that incorporate rhythm, rhyme, songs, chants, and math story problems.
Weaving gross motor activity into indoor and outdoor learning experiences addresses a kindergartner’s
developmentally appropriate need for movement while facilitating large muscle development. It also gives
children a break from academic learning, helping them to better concentrate and self-regulate for the
duration of the day (Barros 2009). Scheduled physical education classes are not considered a substitute
for recess, the time for children to socialize and self-select their physical activities (NAEYC 2009).
Outdoor time for at least thirty minutes daily should be considered part of the curriculum.”
A move to full-day kindergarten will allow teachers to better meet the academic, physical, emotional and
social needs of these young learners.
11
Other Considerations
·
A move to full day Kindergarten may be mandated statewide in the coming years based upon
legislation currently before the General Assembly.
·
Cannot adequately meet the state curriculum requirements with half day Kindergarten.
·
Increased access to Art/Spanish
·
The majority of local districts have full day programs.
Facilities
Kindergarten classes require classrooms with an attached bathroom (Specific Code citation). Based on
both current enrollment, and the 2014 Demographic report, each elementary school has sufficient
available classrooms with attached bathrooms to house Full Day Kindergarten as early as September
2015.
Redistricting
A transition to full day Kindergarten can be accomplished without immediate changes, such as building
new bathrooms or classrooms, redistricting to move students from an overcrowded school,
implementation of additional magnet programs or shifting 5th grade to Timberlane Middle School.
However, to insure that sufficient space exists over the next five years to house full day Kindergarten,
redistricting and additional magnet programs will be beneficial. This will allow for space at each of the
four Elementary schools in Hopewell Twp. by rebalancing the enrollments at each school.
Conclusion
The declining enrollment throughout the district presents a unique opportunity to meet the changing needs
of kindergartners in the Hopewell Valley Regional School District. Based upon current enrollment
figures, the Demographic report, and the Curriculum development that has already occurred, this can be
accomplished as early as the 2015-2016 school year. A move to full day kindergarten is an investment in
our children’s future and the overall value of our community. It is the recommendation that the District
transition to Full Day Kindergarten at this time.
Option D-1: Full Day Kindergarten Pilot at BT
Students/families impacted: 38
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: 2
Transportation impact: Savings of approx. $7,500 due to the elimination of the mid-day run currently
provided by the district.
Academic program impact: K academic program will be expanded to include more reading, writing
and mathematics time resulting in students being better prepared for 1st grade
Financial implications: $30,000 due to loss of Kindergarten Extension revenue for one school. And
hiring of 1 teacher and 1 paraprofessional
12
Other Considerations: Hold lottery for other students in the district, develop tuition program for true
full day program
Determination by the Committee: Combine with option D above.
Option E: Administration moving out of District building
Students/families impacted: 0
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: 0
Transportation impact: Buses would be relocated to Township motor pool, sharing services
Academic program Impact: 0
Financial Implications: Sale of Administration building would generate approximately $2.4 m
Renovation of TMS or BT $500 -$1 mm
Other Considerations: Should enrollment increase, renovations would need to be reversed and the
Administration relocated to another location
Subcommittee narrative:
The District currently houses its central administration at 425 South Main Street in Pennington in the old
Pennington High School. The facility is also home to the district transportation and facilities
departments. It provides storage for all district buses, trucks, and maintenance vehicles and equipment.
The sub-committee utilized data from the district officials, the district architect, and the Hopewell
Township administrator to prepare a SWOT analysis of this option.
Rationale for a move:
The sale of this property could yield a one-time windfall of $2.4m for the district and eliminate the need
to fund $800K in estimated renovation for infrastructure, HVAC, and ADA accessibility of the current
administration building. Declining enrollments have provided some potential excess existing space with
the schools. Bear Tavern school, for example, has space that can be repurposed, as well as land at the rear
of the school. It also has 4-6 out-buildings that may be able to be programmed for administrative offices.
In addition, maintenance and energy savings could be realized since existing school space is currently
funded for these areas within their buildings. Some administrative functions like, technology,
transportation, pupil services and maintenance could be re-located in other facilities throughout the
valley.
Hopewell Township has indicated they might have space available to house the district’s transportation
and maintenance departments. The current class B office market is currently quite soft and may provide
for a short term solution for housing some of the administrative function. Large spaces or halls throughout
the Valley could be used for district purposes during the day. The current site could be used to satisfy
some of the Pennington Borough COAH obligations.
Of all the district properties, Bear Tavern Elementary School and Timberlane Middle School showed the
most potential for accommodating the administrative staff. The configuration of TMS was not considered
suitable for the relocation because of safety and the building layout which does not allow for sufficient
separation of the student and administration spaces. While Bear Tavern could accommodate a portion of
13
the central office operation in the permanent trailers, it would cause significant disruption to the academic
program of that building. In addition, co-locating student, teaching, and learning functions with
administrative functions is not ideal. Adding the administrative function could compromise safety with
the increased visitor count. Currently, parking at Bear Tavern is limited; adding the administration staff
and visitors to the daily flow of parking would require a significant increase in parking capacity.
In addition, the trailers would need substantial modifications to be used as a building of public
accommodation. Additional rest room facilities would need to be added and additional accommodations
for ADA access added. The Bear Tavern trailers also could not house the entire administrative team.
Departments would be broken up causing disruption to the function each area. Bear Tavern also lacks
available large group meeting space that is used daily at the current administration building.
The subcommittee investigated moving the maintenance and transportation departments to the Hopewell
Township Public Works Building. A tour of that facility proved that it would not be able to house the
administrative offices without considerable renovations to that facility and the relocation of some of the
employees of the Township currently working there. In addition, there is limited garage space to
accommodate our mechanics and vehicles. Additional space would need to be created to house our buses
and facilities trucks and equipment.
Consideration was given to having the central office team occupy some of the vacant office space in
Hopewell Valley. However, conservative estimates indicate that it could cost $100K/year at the current
rates for local office space in the area.
Finally, the uncertainty of the impact of the proposed housing project on Scotch Road is of concern. A
significant influx of new students from such a project could lead to a shortage of space at Bear Tavern,
causing the need to reverse the renovations and re-create student instructional spaces.
The consensus of the sub-committee is that the relocation of this vital district operation is not a feasible
solution at this time. It is the recommendation of this sub-committee that this option be removed from
consideration.
Option F: Redistricting – Moving school attendance lines to better balance elementary schools.
Last done: 2007
Students/families impacted: 65 current K-3 SB students (based on the recommendation below).
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: Inconsequential impact to Bear Tavern or Stony Brook.
Transportation impact: Possibility of two additional bus runs, each with likely one stop only.
Academic program impact: Programs will remain intact in all schools, class sizes and resources better
balanced in elementary schools across the district. More balanced enrollment across all four elementary
schools.
Post Redistricting Capacity Estimates
Toll Gate - 79%
Hopewell - 72%
14
Bear Tavern - 70%
Stony Brook - 70%
Financial implications: Cost of two additional bus runs TBD. Efficiencies could be realized
minimizing any additional costs.
Other considerations: One time complete shift of attendance lines. All students in shifted area will
attend new school. Affects K-3 only, as current 5th graders will move to Timberlane and current 4th
graders will have option to remain at SB for final year.
Subcommittee narrative: Within the context of declining enrollments across the district, the enrollment
projections across schools vary over time. Based on the demographer’s capacity analysis (Table 20, page
44), all elementary schools will be under capacity by the 2018-19 school year, ranging from 370 to 260
students. Motivated by concerns about class size and resource equity for students across the district, this
subcommittee examined possibilities for shifting attendance boundaries to ensure equal opportunities in
the elementary schools. This type of change has a precedent in the district, with Elm Ridge Park moving
to Hopewell Elementary in 2007.
Because the four elementary schools have a wide range of capacities (305 to 567), we looked into
equilibrating the utilization rate rather than numbers of students under capacity. By 2018-19, Stony Brook
would remain at 92% of capacity, while Bear Tavern would fall to 53%. This discrepancy could be
alleviated by moving 96 students from Stony Brook to Bear Tavern, resulting in capacity utilization at
both schools of 70%. For comparison, Hopewell is forecast to be at 72% and Toll Gate at 79%.
The subcommittee members then met with Heather Van Mater to examine students by street and grade in
the Stony Brook catchment area, as well as other possible groups of students who could be moved to Bear
Tavern from Hopewell and Toll Gate. We considered the non-Brandon Farms area south of Denow (11
students), the Bull Run area (6), an area on Titus Mill near Lake Baldwin (10), homes on PenningtonHopewell closer to Route 31 (14), and the Hopewell Grant subdivision (91). Based on these numbers, the
subcommittee recommends that the Hopewell Grant subdivision be shifted from Stony Brook to Bear
Tavern for the following reasons:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The number of students (91) is close to the target shift goal (96).
This area is geographically separated from the rest of the Stony Brook catchment. Therefore, the
entire neighborhood is kept together and no neighborhoods are split.
A single shift rather than incremental shifts over time (with new enrollments) means that siblings
and friends/neighbors will remain together.
The shift requires minimal changes for the district - two bus routes, each with only one stop.
Approximately 65 K-3 students would be affected, as current 5th graders will move to
Timberlane and current 4th graders would have the option of remaining at Stony Brook for their
final year.
This shift affects approximately 16 students per grade, or one class/section.
Residents of the neighborhood may be disappointed in having to move from Stony Brook and
may feel singled out. However, moving students from other schools as well would be
significantly more burdensome on the district (transportation issues) with little benefit.
Therefore, this subcommittee recommends changing the attendance of students in the Hopewell Grant
development from Stony Brook to Bear Tavern in the 2015-2016 school year, with the exception of
current 4th graders who wish to remain in Stony Brook for their final year. This recommendation is
unaffected by any of the other possible changes considered by the district in this document, as it is
15
focused on equilibrating capacity utilization across the elementary schools. Attendance areas may have to
be revisited in subsequent years based on future development.
Option G: All 5th grades being moved to TMS
Students/families impacted: 283 based on current class size
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: 8
Transportation impact: $230,000 due to 7 additional runs (the assumption is that parents would not
want 5 graders riding on the same bus as CHS students.
Academic program impact: Would expand current departmentalized program that is being adjusted to
class size in several schools, increases time in middle school spending more time in schools: 5,4,4, model
provide access to higher level academic opportunities and activities
Financial Implications: Savings of $250,000 due to the reduction of 2 staff members and reduction of
materials across schools
Other Considerations: More fact finding necessary to determine financial impact of move in terms of
programmatic needs to transition campus to a 5-8 school.
Subcommittee narrative: Members of the sub committee for Option G explored the pros and cons of
moving all 5th classes to Timberlane Middle School most specifically in response to the possible need for
additional facility space for the transition to full day Kindergarten. As part of the review, the
subcommittee analyzed state provided data. After the subcommittee’s examination of data from the New
Jersey Department of Education (http://www.state.nj.us/education/data/), it was determined that there
were no differences in student achievement when comparing middle schools with grades 5 through 8 to
other grade structures, while controlling for other factors such as the wealth of the school district and its
student composition.
The subcommittee also surveyed the Timberlane teaching staff, examined the existing Timberlane facility
and program designs, and met with a middle school teacher from Upper Freehold, a school which recently
made the transition from a K-8 school to a 5-8 school. Surveys and the interview revealed an equal
number of benefits and challenges to the proposed move. Benefits identified include the following:
●
●
●
The proposed move supports the 5-8 Core Curriculum Content Standards and testing structure of
the state.
It provides more opportunities for students to have high level courses and enrichment
programming only offered at the middle school.
The Timberlane facilities could support the move.
Programmatic challenges the committee identified were:
●
●
●
Creating of staffing needs to insure Highly Qualified Teaching personnel.
Increased curricular and scheduling needs.
The developmental appropriateness of the move for the students and the disruptiveness of the
move.
16
●
●
The socio-emotional impact on the fifth grade population.
Additionally, the committee discussed the need for more fact finding in terms of the true financial
impact of the move.
Members of the Option G subcommittee determined not to recommend to move all 5th grade classes to
the middle school unless absolutely necessary and directly related to a space need on the elementary level.
The additional transportation concerns (additional middle school runs and/or students in grades 5-12
riding on the same bus) and the culture shift necessary for the community to accept this move suggest that
unless absolutely necessary, this scenario should not be explored further at this time.
Option H: THE ADDITION OF ONE MAGNET PROGRAM
Students/families impacted: 20 new entrants by parent choice
Free and Reduced Lunch students impacted: unknown
Transportation impact: Minimal, students would be added to existing bus runs
Academic program Impact: Academic benefits vary according to magnet program selection. The
incorporation of any magnet program, however, does allow students to experience a differentiated
program curriculum which is specific to their interests.
Financial Implications: Financial implications vary by program selection, as human resources, public
funding, and academic materials may already exist within the district.
Other Considerations: The addition of an elementary level magnet program not only allows for some
potential voluntary redistricting among elementary students to address the population disparity which
currently exists among the elementary schools, but it also allows the continued participation of the
Hopewell Valley Regional School District as participants in Choice Program Federal Funding.
Subcommittee narrative:
Throughout the course of the subcommittee meetings, this subcommittee reviewed the data for the
bilingual magnet program which was proposed to the Superintendent in the spring of the 2013-2014
school year. Upon reviewing the information, the committee felt that it would be ideal to poll the
community before selecting a particular magnet program so as to choose a program reflective of
community interests. The subcommittee researched popular magnet programs around the state, and
created a survey for community stakeholders.
The general recommendation of this subcommittee is to formulate a process and committee to examine
the addition of one new elementary-level magnet program. The objective of this committee would be to
review the district’s current magnet program, research and examine potential options for one additional
magnet, and develop an action plan for long and short term program implementation. The subcommittee
recommendation is to survey community stakeholders to gage interest regarding a specific program as
part of this process.
At this point, there has been research and exploration regarding a dual immersion magnet program. The
impetus for this research was the recommendation World Language Program Review to use a bilingual
program as a means of improving the quality of the language program at the elementary level. The
documentation related to this program includes research data with concrete academic benefits, curricular
17
and program models, and example schools districts implementing the program. Potential benefits of this
particular magnet program include the voluntary redistricting of elementary students to balance the
population disparity, the increase in overall district student population through the use of Choice grants
for out of district participants, the implementation of World Language program review recommendations,
and the potential to link the bilingual program curriculum to the PEECH program or after-school
programs for enrichment purposes.
Prioritization of Recommendations:
In their charter, the Future Planning Committee established a decision-making process to vote on
scenarios and prioritize final recommendations. The following process was used:
a. A minimum quorum of 3/4 of the members is required to hold a vote based on 40 voting
members
b. A vote must pass by a 2/3 majority)
c. Administrators and teachers will be voting members of the Committee
d. No voting by proxy
Using the tenets outlined above, the Committee formally voted on two occasions to narrow and prioritize
recommendations. The following were the outcomes of those votes:
Committee prioritization vote on September 10, 2014:
18
Committee Final Recommendation vote on September 24, 2014:
Full Day Kindergarten
19
Redistricting
Exploration of Magnet Program
20
Moving 5 Grade to Timberlane
Moving District Administration out of District Board Office
Conclusions
The current trend of decreasing enrollment is expected to continue for at least the next five years. A
thorough review of current enrollment, facility capacities, grade configurations and program offerings has
been conducted by a committee of forty community representatives. While no scenario is without some
drawback, it is agreed that the District must develop a plan to address the current enrollment challenge
that it is facing. It is also agreed this process provides the District with an opportunity to review the
current grade configurations and the use of school facilities to determine if the current structure is
21
reflective of district and community priorities. After over 30 hours of meetings and several votes to
eliminate or prioritize recommendations, the committee is recommending that the Board of Education
further investigate the following three scenarios for possible implementation in the near future:
●
Move all schools to full day kindergarten
●
Move school attendance lines to balance the elementary schools at 70-79% capacity
●
Investigate the addition of one additional magnet program
Should the District face another situation that could significantly impact enrollment (e.g. the proposed
development of the Merrill Lynch property) it is strongly suggested that a similar committee be convened
to ensure that any district impact is well thought out and shared among district schools to the best extent
possible.
FUTURE PLANNING COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES:
Parents:
Bear Tavern Elementary:
Keith Tringone (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Tracy Vogler (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Debbie Linthorst (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Hopewell Elementary:
Matt Webster (Redistricting Subcommittee)
Sean Simone (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Brian Heaphy (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Stony Brook Elementary:
John Johann (Redistricting Subcommittee)
Amy Lewis (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Fayez Azeez (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
Toll Gate Grammar:
James Creegan (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Casey Upson (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
Max Brothers (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
Alternate:Brandon Foy (replaced Casey Upson)
Timberlane Middle School:
Jeffrey Gross (Redistricting Subcommittee)
Alex Reznik (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Roger Demareski (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Central High School:
Leslie Donovan (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Neil Seftor (Redistricting Subcommittee)
Rakesh Gupta (Redistricting Subcommittee)
22
Community:
Hopewell Township: Lynn DeClemente (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Hopewell Boro: Mel Myers (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Pennington Boro: Tom Ogren (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
HVRSD Staff :
Bear Tavern:
Bruce Arcurio, Principal (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
Janine Baxter, Teacher (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Betsy Finnegan, Teacher (Redistricting Subcommittee)
Stony Brook:
Steve Wilfing, Principal (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
Debbie Nutt, Teacher (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Marci Thomas, Teacher (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Hopewell Elementary:
David Friedrich, Principal (Full Day Kindergarten Subcommittee)
Bob Alexander, Teacher (Full Day K Subcommittee)
Amy Parker, Teacher (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Timberlane
Rosetta Treece, Principal (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Barbara Bugay, Teacher (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Kimmerle Kop’Kash, Teacher (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Toll Gate
Tana Smith, Principal (Moving out of District Admin Subcommittee)
Meg Caulfield, Teacher (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Carol Chalela, Teacher
Georgine Johnson, Teacher (Replaced Carol Chalela) (Full Day K Subcommittee)
Central HS
Mike Daher, Principal (5th grade move to TMS Subcommittee)
Rebecca Mora, Teacher (Magnet Programs Subcommittee)
Leslie Silverman, Teacher (Redistricting Subcommittee)
Non-Voting Members:
Robert Colavita (District Administration)
Dan Umstead (District Administration)
Lyndell Davis, (CHS Vice Principal)
23
APPENDIX A
Dual Immersion Language Education Programs
What is Dual Immersion?
Dual language education programs integrate language minority (ELLs) and language majority (Native
English speakers) to provide content area instruction in both English and a second language (L2). This is
an additive bilingual program for both groups, meaning it give students the opportunity to maintain and
develop reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills in their native language, while simultaneously
acquiring those skills in a second language.
Objectives of Dual Immersion:
●
Support and develop bilingual, biliterate, and bicognative skills in BOTH English and L2,
including reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
● Maintain academic achievement at or above grade level.
● Promote positive cross-cultural attitudes and behaviors: competence, understanding, and
appreciation.
● Promote language and social equality among native and non-native speakers of English.
● Prepare students for global citizenship by encouraging students to broaden their understanding of
and ability to communicate with the citizens of a greater variety of nations abroad.
● Make structural adjustments that work towards district goals, in consideration of enrollment
changes.
● Address and satisfy the World Language Program Review 2013 recommendation to rethink the
current instructional model at the elementary level. This is based on the lack of time and
frequency of instruction in our current program.
● Attract out of district students who may be drawn to this program for a variety of reasons.
● Explore additional language options not currently offered in our program of studies that satisfy
the preferences of the community.
● Create opportunities in World Language department restructuring that provide options supporting
multilingualism (more than two languages) in future years.
● Increase student performance by developing transferable skills acquired through language studies
which, according to research, strengthen abilities in other content areas.
Benefits of Bilingualism through Dual Immersion
According to research, Bilingual and multilingual children:
●
●
●
●
perform better on select cognitive tasks particularly regarding attention to details, abstract
reasoning, and the manipulation of abstract data (Baker, Kovelman, Bailystok, & Petitto, 2004)
demonstrate above average problem solving and critical thinking skills (W.P. Thomas & V.P.
Collier, 2003-2009)
develop technological and content area competence, communicative proficiency, literacy, and
analytical skills in two languages (Government funded Business-Education Think Tank, 1985)
Students who had engaged in long sequences of language study (e.g., beginning in grades 4-6)
performed significantly better on the corresponding AP Exams and positioned themselves to be
24
granted advanced placement and/or receive academic credit when entering college. (Baum,
Bischof, & Rabiteau, 2002)
● Students whose profiles include long-sequences of world language study consistently demonstrate
higher scores on both the math and verbal portions of the SAT than do their non-language
studying counterparts (In the College Board’s report, 2004 College Bound Seniors: A Profile of
SAT Test Takers)
Factors to consider:
● Language selection
● Long and short term language trends and sustainability
● Program models, entry points & trajectory options
● Resources
● District goals and changes
● Out of district participants
● Marketing, advertising, and outreach options
Implementation Scenarios at Hopewell Valley Regional School District:
Option #1- Spanish Dual Immersion
●
●
●
●
Start with an afterhours Kindergarten or Pre-K program that is optional to parents
Continue with a 1st -5th grade bilingual program for a student cohort using the 50/50 model.
Team teaching for two sections (1 bilingual and 1 English speaking teacher)
Independent or Team dual immersion at the Kindergarten level if we move to full day
kindergarten.
● Promote multilingual programing options for students starting at the middle school to begin a 3rd
language of study.
Option #2- Chinese Partial Immersion
●
●
Start with an afterhours Kindergarten or Pre-K program that is optional to families.
Continue with one class period of Chinese Language and Culture at the elementary level as an
elective.
Option #3- Chinese or Spanish Full Immersion
●
●
Start with an afterhours Kindergarten or Pre-K program that is optional to parents
Continue with a phase in program starting in kindergarten
o 0% English- Pre-K and K
o 10-15% English - 1st grade
o 25% English – 2nd grade
o 40% English – 3rd grade
o 50% English – 4th-5th grade
25
APPENDIX B
Overall Average Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs). These are measures to how a student does compared
to his/her peers throughout NJ. This is averaged for the school. When compiled across all schools, by
definition, the average SGP should be at or near the 50th percentile.
. mean LA_SGP
Mean estimation
Number of obs
=
1745
-------------------------------------------------------------|
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+-----------------------------------------------LA_SGP |
49.9467
.2401243
49.47574
50.41767
-------------------------------------------------------------. mean M_SGP
Mean estimation
Number of obs
=
1745
-------------------------------------------------------------|
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+-----------------------------------------------M_SGP |
50.49226
.2801097
49.94288
51.04165
--------------------------------------------------------------
26
Average SGPs by District Factor Group (DFG) - As expected, as the letters go up, the average SGPs
go up. Students in high resourced districts/schools do well.
. mean LA_SGP, over( a2000_dfg2)
Mean estimation
A:
B:
CD:
DE:
FG:
GH:
I:
J:
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
Number of obs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1678
A
B
CD
DE
FG
GH
I
J
-------------------------------------------------------------Over |
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+-----------------------------------------------LA_SGP
|
A |
40.72632
.5182326
39.70986
41.74277
B |
46.52926
.5594707
45.43192
47.62659
CD |
47.1821
.5826347
46.03933
48.32487
DE |
48.19535
.5408803
47.13448
49.25622
FG |
50.54405
.5429231
49.47917
51.60893
GH |
54.74895
.5060037
53.75648
55.74141
I |
57.47039
.4467865
56.59408
58.34671
J |
61.51667
.9542476
59.64502
63.38831
-------------------------------------------------------------. mean M_SGP, over( a2000_dfg2)
Mean estimation
A:
B:
CD:
DE:
FG:
GH:
I:
J:
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
a2000_dfg2
Number of obs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1678
A
B
CD
DE
FG
GH
I
J
-------------------------------------------------------------Over |
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
27
-------------+-----------------------------------------------M_SGP
|
A |
43.2386
.685412
41.89424
44.58295
B |
49.96011
.7373242
48.51393
51.40628
CD |
48.76852
.7360275
47.32489
50.21215
DE |
48.39767
.7261045
46.97351
49.82184
FG |
49.29736
.7464806
47.83323
50.76149
GH |
53.88397
.6915314
52.52761
55.24032
I |
56.09704
.531234
55.05509
57.13899
J |
62.83333
1.36867
60.14885
65.51782
--------------------------------------------------------------
28
Average SGPs by middle school grade span. To see if a difference is meaningful, the confidence
intervals should not overlap. Those that are different are highlighted. Keep in mind, this is a mix of
schools (low resourced districts mixed with high resourced districts.
. mean LA_SGP, over(middle_gs)
Mean estimation
_subpop_1:
_subpop_2:
_subpop_3:
_subpop_4:
_subpop_5:
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
Number of obs
=
=
=
=
=
=
1745
Grades 6-8
Grades 5-8
Grades PK-8 or K-8
Other middle (incl 6-8)
No middle school
-------------------------------------------------------------Over |
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+-----------------------------------------------LA_SGP
|
_subpop_1 |
49.44266
.5694307
48.32582
50.5595
_subpop_2 |
52.5942
.9617734
50.70785
54.48055
_subpop_3 |
46.98029
.5358423
45.92933
48.03125
_subpop_4 |
48.4437
.495252
47.47235
49.41505
_subpop_5 |
51.57878
.3796291
50.83421
52.32336
--------------------------------------------------------------
29
Average SGPs within DFG I (same as HVRSD). There do not appear to be meaningful differences
in the average SGP.
. mean LA_SGP if a2000_dfg2==7, over(middle_gs)
Mean estimation
_subpop_1:
_subpop_2:
_subpop_3:
_subpop_4:
_subpop_5:
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
Number of obs
=
=
=
=
=
=
304
Grades 6-8
Grades 5-8
Grades PK-8 or K-8
Other middle (incl 6-8)
No middle school
-------------------------------------------------------------Over |
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+-----------------------------------------------LA_SGP
|
_subpop_1 |
54.05682
1.034579
52.02095
56.09269
_subpop_2 |
55.85714
1.139246
53.61531
58.09898
_subpop_3 |
59.55556
1.289024
57.01898
62.09213
_subpop_4 |
53.34444
1.079869
51.21945
55.46944
_subpop_5 |
59.22404
.5838227
58.07518
60.3729
-------------------------------------------------------------. mean M_SGP if a2000_dfg2==7, over(middle_gs)
Mean estimation
_subpop_1:
_subpop_2:
_subpop_3:
_subpop_4:
_subpop_5:
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
middle_gs
Number of obs
=
=
=
=
=
=
304
Grades 6-8
Grades 5-8
Grades PK-8 or K-8
Other middle (incl 6-8)
No middle school
-------------------------------------------------------------Over |
Mean
Std. Err.
[95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+-----------------------------------------------M_SGP
|
_subpop_1 |
52.93182
1.221568
50.52799
55.33565
_subpop_2 |
56.85714
2.302906
52.32543
61.38886
_subpop_3 |
55.22222
2.577943
50.14928
60.29516
_subpop_4 |
54.63333
1.16259
52.34556
56.92111
_subpop_5 |
57.2459
.7080177
55.85265
58.63916
--------------------------------------------------------------
30