Merger Study Data - Mayfield Central School District

Transcription

Reorganization Feasibility
Study
On Behalf of the
Mayfield
and
Northville
Central School Districts
February, 2012
DATA SETS OF THE
STUDY
Prepared by:
The SES Study Team, LLC.
This report was prepared with funds provided by the New York State
Department of State under the local government efficiency grant program.
Mayfield and Northville
Central School Districts
Purpose of the Study:
“Objective of the school districts: determine if a
centralization of the Mayfield and Northville
Central School Districts would provide
enhanced educational opportunities and at the
same time increase efficiencies and lower costs
for the overall operation by forming one
centralized district.”
Copyright 2012
As to Original Text and Format.
All Rights Reserved.
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Mayfield and Northville
Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies
to which the districts provide the study.
School District Community Advisory Committee Members Appointed by the Respective
Boards of Education to Work with and Advise the SES Study Team in the Preparation of
the Feasibility Study
PRIME COMMUNITY
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE
REPRESENTATION
STUDY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR MAYFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ryan Bornt
Faculty member/Resident
Program
Michael Brower
Business person
Finance
Jon Caraco
Faculty member/Resident
Program
Elizabeth Croft
Support Staff/Resident
Support
Timothy Delaney
Business person
Finance
Douglas Edwards
Empty-nester
Finance
Barrie Hampton
Retiree
Program
Carol Hart
Business person
Finance
Alicia Henry
Parent secondary student
Program
M. Trini Hernandez
Parent elementary student
Program
Pam Mormando
PTA
Support
Sharon James-Bilger
Taxpayer
Support
Nicholas Petricca
Student
Support
Bailey Ward
Student
Support
Donald Wicksell
Business person
Finance
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Walter Thompson
Senior Citizen
Support
Michelle Ginter
Parent of elementary and secondary
Program
Natasha Cucinella
Parent of elementary
Finance
Shannon Payne
Support Staff, Parent
Support
Mahlon Robinson
Taxpayer
Finance
Warren Hoffman
Secondary Teacher
Finance
Jacob Sitterly
High School Student
Program
Sarah Matarazzo
Parent of preschool
Finance
Bill Van Nostrand
Athletic booster
Support
Colleen Izzo
Senior Citizen, Retired Teacher
Program
John Sira, Jr.
Parent of elementary
Finance
Molly Whittaker
Municipal rep (Youth Commission
Program
Director)
Mary Ann Evans
Retired, new to area
Support
Willard Loveless
Bus Driver
Support
M. Elaine Groff
Elementary teacher
Program
EDINBURG GUEST COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Tammy Reidell
Parent/Teacher
Program
Julie Sitterly
Parent
Support
The Boards of Education, the Superintendents, and the SES Study Team sincerely thank the
volunteer Community Advisory Committee Members
for their time, diligence, collaboration and advice in the preparation of this study.
The SES Study Team acknowledges and thanks Suzanne Spear and Jay O’Connor of the State
Education Department and Sean McGuire of the Department of State as helpful collaborative
resources for the study.
Mayfield Central School District
Board of Education Members: Janis Frish; Tush Nikollaj; Ernie Clapper; Robert Suits; Teresia
Davis
Superintendent of Schools: Paul G. Williamsen
Mayfield Central School District is located at the foothills of the Adirondack Park on the Great
Sacandaga Lake; in Fulton County. New York State Route #30 passes by the district. Access to
the New York State Thruway, bus and train service is available in Amsterdam. The nearest large
airport is in Albany, approximately 50 miles to the southeast.
Mayfield is rural and the school buildings serve as the hub of school and community activity.
There is no major industry in the area, with the school district serving as the largest employer in
the community. The majority of the property is residential and many of the residents are on
fixed incomes.
Mayfield has a poverty rate of approximately 23% and a free and reduced price lunch rate of
33%. The 2010 preK-12 grade level enrollment was 1080.
Northville Central School District
Board of Education Members: James Beirlein; Sheldon Ginter; Lynne Paul; Michael Feldman;
Barbara Sperry; Kirianne Reihl
Superintendent of Schools: Kathy Ellen Dougherty
The Northville Central School District, formed in 1932, is located in the Towns of Bleecker,
Mayfield and Northampton in Fulton County, the Towns of Benson and Hope in Hamilton
County and the Town of Edinburg in Saratoga County. The school district covers approximately
143 square miles and has an estimated population of 3,200. The school building is located in the
village of Northville, approximately 30 miles north of the City of Amsterdam.
The school district is located at the north end of the Great Sacandaga Lake and is reached by
NYS Route #30. Access to the New York State Thruway is available at Amsterdam. Bus and rail
service are available in Amsterdam as well. Air transportation is available in Albany,
approximately 50 miles to the southeast.
The School District is essentially a rural area, with many of its residents commuting to
Amsterdam, Schenectady and Albany for employment. Due to its location near the Great
Sacandaga Lake, summer employment and extensive recreational opportunities are available.
DATA
Data Reference Tools Compiled by the Study,
Analyzed by the Community Advisory Joint
Committee, and Posted on the Website of Each School
District as the Study Progressed since April 2011
DATA
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL OF THE DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS IN THIS DATA
SECTION WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITES OF EACH OF THE
TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MET AND USED THEM TO HELP GUIDE THE STUDY.
SOME OF THE TOOLS POSTED ON THE WEB CONTAINED TYPOGRAPHICAL
CORRECTIONS AND SOME CLARIFICATION OF THE DATA HAS BEEN ADDED
SINCE THE POSTING. THEREFORE, IN SOME INSTANCES THE DATA
REFERENCE TOOLS COMPILED HERE ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS
WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITES. THERE ARE NO
SUBSTANTIVE DATA/INFORMATION CHANGES, HOWEVER, FROM THE
ORIGINAL DATA TOOLS.
Criteria Used by the Boards of Education to Appoint Community Advisory
Committee Members
-1-
What Questions Should the Community Advisory Joint Committee and the
Two District Reorganization Study Address/Answer?
-2-
Agendas of the Work Session Meetings of the Two Community Advisory
Joint Committee
-7-
Pupil Enrollment Projection Calculations
-24-
Federal Census Bureau Demographic Characteristic Estimates for the Two
School Districts
-55-
School District Financial Characteristics/Fiscal Condition Profiles
-65-
Pupil Capacity of Each School Building for Possible Use in a Reorganized
School District
-75-
Summary Results of the 2010 Building Condition Surveys
-98-
2010-2011 Grade Level Section Class Sizes
-91-
Elements of the Grade Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 6 Program in 2010-2011
-97-
Elements of the Grade 7 through Grade 12 Program in 2010-2011
-102-
2010-2011 Program Elements: Interscholastic Athletics, Co-Curricular and
Music/Drama
-108-
2009-2010 Summary of Elementary School Assessment Results
-113-
2009-2010 Middle/High School Assessment Results
-117-
DATA
Labor Contract Profiles and Full Time Equivalent Cost Data
-121-
A ‘What if’ Picture of How the School District
Buildings are used in a Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One
-135-
Preliminary Framework Plan for School Day Times, Transportation Times and
Bus Run Resources
-144-
OPTION ONE and OPTION TWO: A ‘What if” Program/Staffing Picture and
A ‘What if” Financial Picture of a Reorganization of the Two School Districts
-150-
APPENDIX
“Questions and Answers” to Commonly Asked Questions about Timeline
and Governance Topics Related to School District Reorganization
-189-
School District Reorganization Incentive Aid
-191-
Q and A about the Process with Regard to Personnel when a School District
Reorganization Occurs through Reorganization
-194-
DATA
Criteria used by the Boards to appoint Community Advisory Committee members from those who
volunteered in each school district.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL COMMITTEE MEMBERS INCLUDE:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The ability to listen to all sides of an issue and to respect the opinions of others.
Acknowledged by the community as one who represents a ‘constituency’ within the respective
district.
The ability and comfort to accurately convey ideas and information verbally to fellow community
members.
The ability to see a 'big picture' yet able to appreciate and understand details with a focus on the main
mission of a school district which is to serve students effectively and with quality as defined by the
community.
Believes in transparency of the study work, data and process.
Has the willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to attend all (most) meetings in a timely
manner and to contribute to the work of the Committee and study.
Has demonstrated a previous interest and involvement in some aspect of the school district and/or
community.
Is a resident of the respective school district.
Is willing to be accessible to community members to help communicate about the work of the
Committee and the study process.
Understands the process of consensus and is willing to work with others to identify and then support a
consensus recommendation.
Understands and accepts that recommendations of the Committee are advisory in nature to the Boards
of Education and to the communities of the districts.
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
-1-
DATA
REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
MAYFIELD
AND
NORTHVILLE
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
What questions should the Community
Advisory Joint Committee
and the Reorganization Study
address/answer?
COMPILED COLLABORATIVELY BY THE MEMBERS
OF THE TWO BOARDS OF EDUCATION ON
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010; AND BY THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY
JOINT COMMITTEE
AT THEIR APRIL 25, 2011 WORK MEETING
MAY 2011
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
-2-
DATA
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE: A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BY THE BOARDS OF
EDUCATION AND SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE MAYFIELD AND NORTHVILLE
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
September 27, 2010
PRIORITY RANK-ORDERED ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION:
What are the key questions that our communities need to answer about a possible
reorganization of Mayfield and Northville through a merger/consolidation?
CATEGORY
RANK ORDER
PRIORITY
Category: The Education Program
1
2
How could grade levels be organized and where?
What could our students gain educationally immediately and over the first five years
after reorganization?
How could a merged district affect our ability to serve special needs pupils and
enrichment pupils at the home school?
What are the extracurricular opportunities for our pupils with a reorganized district?
How would a reorganization of our two districts compare both financially and
programmatically to a strong collaborative program of shared services between the
two districts and/or with BOCES and/or with other neighboring districts?
Is “bigger” necessarily better for students (ex. involvement in school, personal
attention received)?
What could class sizes look like Pre-K through grade 6?
What programs will be available for students that are not now available?
How compatible are the districts in terms of educational philosophy?
What could a “consolidated” reorganized curriculum look like Pre-K through grade
12?
What could be the name of the reorganized school district—what could be a process
to decide?
What instructional support services could be offered for a combined student body of
1600 Pre-K through grade 12?
What will be the colors and the mascot of the reorganized district—what could be a
process to decide?
Category: Finance
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
CATEGORY
RANK ORDER
PRIORITY
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
5
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
How does a reorganized district manage from day one in preparation for when the
incentive aid ends in 14 years?
What is the current “condition” of each district’s budget (ex. debt, revenue,
financial resources)?
What is a five year outlook for such items as enrollment, revenue, and expenditure?
Will two merged districts really enhance education cost-effectively (ex. what will
the “budget” look like in a reorganized district)?
What facilities currently in place or new facilities will be needed?
What does the merger of personnel look like and how is it done?
What really are the cost savings through reorganization and where are they?
What might happen to bus runs and the length of time pupils are on the bus?
-3-
5
6
7
8
9
DATA
What might the tax rates be for the new district?
What happens to existing personnel contracts?
What might be the structure and costs of the administrative services of the new
district?
How do we know that the incentive money will really be there for 14 years?
How could support services (ex. transportation, cafeteria, maintenance) be
organized and where?
CATEGORY
RANK ORDER
PRIORITY
Category: Community and other
1
2
What are the strengths that the two schools bring to a potential new school district?
How might a reorganization affect the current relationship with the Edinburg
Common School District that tuitions its high school students; how might the
reorganization affect the relationship among the communities?
What is the timeline for what needs to be done if reorganization is approved by the
communities?
Will the ‘districts’ lose their histories and identities—how do we retain them as a
new district?
What strategies could be used to involve stakeholders in the process to consider
reorganization?
What are the shortcomings that each district now has that could be addressed with
reorganization?
Do we want to become one community?
Will the smaller of the two districts lose its say, influence, and control over the
delivered program to the students?
What are the options for “reorganization” (consolidation, annexation)?
How does a merged district retain/reinforce the loyalty and support of the individual
communities and schools to the “new district”?
What barriers to assimilation in becoming a new district might be anticipated with
such stakeholders as students, community members, faculty, and support staff?
How does the reorganized district encourage parent involvement?
What have other districts experienced with reorganization?
What happens if the communities choose not to reorganize?
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
-4-
DATA
RANK ORDER
PRIORITY
Top Ten Rank-Ordered Questions Out of
the Forty Identified
Question
Category
The
Education
Program
1
How could grade levels be organized and where?
2
How does a reorganized district manage from day one in
preparation for when the incentive aid ends in 14 years?
3
What are the strengths that the two schools bring to a
potential new school district?
4
What is the current “condition” of each district’s budget (ex.
debt, revenue, financial resources)?
Finance
5
What is a five year outlook for such items as enrollment,
revenue, and expenditure?
Finance
6
7
8
How could a merged district affect our ability to serve
special needs pupils and enrichment pupils at the home
school?
Will two merged districts really enhance education costeffectively (ex. what will the “budget” look like in a
reorganized district)?
What are the extracurricular opportunities for our pupils with
a reorganized district?
How would a reorganization of our two districts compare
both financially and programmatically to a strong
collaborative program of shared services between the two
districts and/or with BOCES and/or with other neighboring
districts?
Is “bigger” necessarily better for students (ex. involvement in
school, personal attention received)?
What does the merger of personnel look like and how is it
done?
What really are the cost savings through reorganization and
where are they?
What might happen to bus runs and the length of time pupils
are on the bus?
What might the tax rates be for the new district?
How might a reorganization affect the current relationship
with the Edinburg Common School District that tuitions its
high school students; how might the reorganization affect the
relationship among the communities?
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
Finance
Community
The
Education
Program
Finance
The
Education
Program
The
Education
Program
The
Education
Program
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Community
-5-
DATA
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY JOINT
COMMITTEE OF THE MAYFIELD AND NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ON APRIL 25
How might a merged school district influence the village
businesses of Northville?
What athletic class will a merged district compete in?
How will the Advisory Joint Committee and the Boards
communicate the data of the study?
Are there differences in local graduation requirements now
between the two schools?
How might distance learning be affected with a merger?
Currently, at the discretion of parents, some high school
students are allowed to drive to school. With a merged
district, are their driving safety issues?
In the event that a merger process moves forward, what are
some strategies to help students develop a new school
‘identity’ and a comfort level shedding the ‘old one’?
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
-6-
DATA
MEETING OF THE MAYFIELD AND NORTHVILLE
COMMUNITY ADVISORY JOINT COMMITTEE
AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
LIBRARY
“Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and
decision options for serving students in the future"
c.SES Study Team
April 25, 2011
-7-
DATA
AGENDA
MONDAY, APRIL 25 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LIBRARY
(Community Advisory Committee Members,
please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)
Please set your cell phone to ‘vibrate’ before we begin. Thank you.
A. (6:10) Welcome by a representative from each Board of Education and the
Superintendents
SES Study Team:
B. (6:15) What is “School Reorganization” that is applicable to the two districts of the
study?
Centralization: A new district is created encompassing the entire area of the school
districts to be merged. Centralization requires approval, by a majority vote, of the
voters in each affected school district.
Annexation: Ordered by the Commissioner, a neighboring district is dissolved and
becomes part of the annexing district. Annexation to a central school district is
subject to a referendum in each district. For there to be a referendum, a petition
must be filed within 60 days and the referendum must pass in each district.
The following are excerpts from a Guide to the Reorganization of School Districts in New York State. It
is on-line at:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/sch_dist_org/GuideToReorganizationOfSchoolDistricts.htm
CENTRALIZATION
This form of reorganization has been the most common. The procedures for centralization provide that a
new school district be created encompassing the entire area of the school districts to be merged.
The new central district becomes operational only after the centralization order is approved by the
qualified voters in each school district included in the centralization. If each district approves the order by
a majority vote, the new district will begin operation on July 1, following the vote. If approval of the
order is defeated in any district included in the proposed centralization, the new district is not created, and
the question may not be voted upon again for one year.
If the order is presented a second time, and is approved, the new district begins operation. If the order is
defeated a second time — or if it is not brought to referendum within two years of the initial referendum
— then the original order becomes null and void.
Governance:
The new district is governed by a board of education comprising five, seven or nine members. The new
board is elected at a special meeting called by the Commissioner of Education after the new district is
approved at referendum. The number of board members (5, 7 or 9) and their term of office (3, 4 or 5
decision options for serving students in the future.”
-8-
DATA
years) may be voted upon at the same time as the referendum on establishing the district, or may be
decided at a separate meeting.
The boards of education of the districts included in the centralization continue their responsibilities until
the new district begins operation and the business affairs of their former districts have been completed,
usually August 1.
C. (6:20) Purpose of the Study:
“To determine if a centralization of the Mayfield and Northville Central School Districts
would provide enhanced educational opportunities and at the same time increase
efficiencies and lower costs for the overall operation by forming one centralized district.”
The Study Process:
Over a series of working meetings scheduled periodically through August, the
Community Advisory Joint Committee with the help of the SES Study Team will
review comprehensive sets of data about the two districts and identify possible
opportunities and challenges regarding the reorganization of the school districts into
one consolidated, merged school district.
The Role of the Community Advisory Joint Committee:
Each Board of Education has appointed 15 community volunteers to form the
Community Advisory Committee for the district. The volunteers from each school
district provide a wide representation of the community. The charge to the
Committee volunteers is:
9 To listen to presentations and discussions and provide perspectives and feedback
about the data and their analysis during the study process.
9 To advise the consultants on issues related to the study.
9 To help keep district residents informed with accurate information about the
study.
9 To promote 3-way communication among school district officials and personnel,
the citizens of the districts, and the SES Study Team consultants.
The Boards of Education used the following criteria to appoint the volunteers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The ability to listen to all sides of an issue and to respect the opinions of others.
Acknowledged by the community as one who represents a ‘constituency’ within the
respective district.
The ability and comfort to accurately convey ideas and information verbally to fellow
community members.
The ability to see a 'big picture' yet able to appreciate and understand details with a focus on
the main mission of a school district which is to serve students effectively and with quality as
defined by the community.
Believes in transparency of the study work, data and process.
Has the willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to attend all (most) meetings in a
timely manner and to contribute to the work of the Committee and study.
Has demonstrated a previous interest and involvement in some aspect of the school district
and/or community.
Is a resident of the respective school district or is a ‘resident’ business owner in the district.
Is willing to be accessible to community members to help communicate about the work of the
Committee and the study process.
Understands the process of consensus and is willing to work with others to identify and then
support a consensus recommendation.
-9-
DATA
•
Understands and accepts that recommendations of the Committee are advisory in nature to the
Boards of Education and to the communities of the districts.
The Boards of Education also have appointed each member to serve on one of three
sub joint Committee. Each district has 5 Committee Members serving on each
subcommittee. The three sub joint Committees are: The Educational Program
Subcommittee; The Finance, Personnel, Governance, and Local
Assurances/Guidelines Subcommittee; and the Functional Services/Operations
Subcommittee. (red, yellow, blue dots)
9 THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee focuses on
such topics as the K-12 instructional program for children including academic core
subjects; special areas and advanced placement and college courses; co-curricular and
extracurricular offerings; online, distance learning, and other technologically based
instruction; BOCES programming; use of the existing school buildings; and other related
program topics they identify.
9 THE FINANCE, PERSONNEL, GOVERNANCE, AND LOCAL ASSURANCES AND
GUIDELINES SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee focuses on many ‘what if’ topics
that would result depending on the directions the communities take about reorganization.
Topics include: personnel, property tax information, state aid revenues, and costs
associated with various models of how the district might reorganize. Additionally,
information relative to how the new district could be restructured; the makeup of the new
school board; process for reorganization; and timeline information in order to help the
joint Committee better understand the overall impact of a potential reorganization of the
district are analyzed and reviewed.
9 THE FUNCTIONAL SERVICES/OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee
focuses on such topics as pupil transportation; food service/cafeteria program; building
operations and maintenance functions; school business functions and other related topics
they identify.
The Role of The SES Study Team (Paul Seversky, Doug Exley, and Sam
Shevat):
To organize and lead the study process; research, collect and organize various sets
of data about the two school districts; listen to citizens and school personnel;
document various points of view and perceptions about the data collected and
analyzed by the Community Advisory Joint Committee; help ensure public
transparency of the work of the study and data compiled; develop and prepare the
study document. The SES Study Team will take no formal position about what each
district should do or not do with regard to reorganization. The Study Report in an
unbiased fashion will identify opportunities and challenges that reorganization
might provide the two districts.
The Current Timeline for the Study:
9 April-July: scheduled meetings of the Community Advisory Joint
Committee
- 10 -
DATA
August-September: crafting of the Study Report
October: review of the Study Report by the State Education
Department
9 November: public forum meetings in the two communities to
present the Study and engage public discussion
Potential Step After the Study is Completed:
9 Boards of Education decide if a straw vote in each community
should be undertaken to determine the point of view of each
community about reorganization of the two districts.
D. Questions from the Community Advisory Committee Members at this juncture of
tonight’s meeting?
E. (7:00) Our first task together with the study:
Attached is a list of questions that the two Boards of Education and the school
district Superintendents identified at a joint planning session in preparation for this
reorganization study. Are there are other questions not listed that the Community
Advisory Joint Committee and the Study should explore?
9
9
F. (7:45) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water.
G. (8:00) BASELINE DATA: ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS
Opportunities and Challenges
BASELINE DATA: CENSUS DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
BOTH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Think about Opportunities and Challenges for discussion at our next
meeting
(8:50) Meeting Two: Wednesday, May 11 6:00 to 9:00 pm at the Mayfield Central School
District
Meeting Three: Wednesday, June 1 6:00 to 9:00 pm at the Northville Central School
District
Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting:
9 Please remember to sign-in for today’s meeting.
9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you.
9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please
bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the sub
joint Committee.
9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets
you to all three of us simultaneously.
9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your
involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe
is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about
the data the study is analyzing together with the Community Advisory Joint Committee, please refer all
such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of
the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort
will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the fall. Thank you.
Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community.
Please drive home safely.
- 11 -
DATA
MEETING TWO AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, May 11
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
MAYFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Sub-joint Committee, please sit together in groups of three or four folks representing the four
districts.
‘red dot’, Education Committee
‘yellow dot’, Finance/Personnel Committee
‘blue dot’, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee
A. (6:00) Welcome to all members not present on April 25
9 Updated list of Advisory Committee Members.
Please choose a “committee partner” as discussed at our first meeting. If one
partner cannot attend a meeting, the other partner gets copies of all documents and
information used at the meeting to give the absent partner at the next meeting.
Thank you.
B. (6:10) Compilation of questions developed by the Community Advisory Joint
Committee on April 25 in addition to those questions identified by both Boards of
Education
“What questions should the Community Advisory Joint Committee and the
Reorganization Study address/answer?
a. Set of questions is a tool to make sure the study addresses the topics, and
questions important to the Advisory Committee representatives.
C. (6:20) Follow up from April 25 Meeting
b. Data Reference: Enrollment Projection Calculations
◊ Observations: Opportunities and Challenges
9 Data Reference: Census Demographic Characteristics
◊ Observations: Opportunities and Challenges
D. (6:40) Data review, discussion, and analysis (Observations: Opportunities and
Challenges.)
c. Data Reference: Map of the two districts and ‘bus travel’ distances between the
buildings
d. Data Reference: School Building Pupil Capacities
9 Data Reference: Current class sizes of elementary class sections and English
- 12 -
DATA
classes 7-12
E. (7:10) Data Reference: Profile of the Current Pre-Kindergarten through grade 6
elementary programs in the four school districts.
9 (7:10-7:30) Scan of data set by the Community Advisory Joint Committee; review
in your sub joint Committee; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive.
9 (7:30-7:40) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water.
9 (7:40-8:50)
◊ Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts
about the Pre-K through grade 6 program profile.
◊ Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible
answers to the questions:
"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced elementary program/learning opportunities
that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through
reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the
elementary children of the two-district region?
◊
Observations of the community advisory joint Committee: opportunities
and challenges regarding the Pre-K through Grade 6 Elementary Program
and school district reorganization.
Staff Guest Resources for the Community Advisory Committee attending this meeting:
MAYFILED
Tara Caraco,
Elementary Teacher
Nick Criscone,
Elementary Principal
Paul Williamsen,
Superintendent
NORTHVILLE
Lanie Groff,
Elementary Teacher
William Crankshaw,
Elementary Principal
Kathy Dougherty,
Superintendent
F. (8:50) Next meeting (three): Wed., June 1; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Northville Central
Meeting four: Monday, June 20; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Mayfield Central School
9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you.
9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please
bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the sub
joint Committee.
9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets
you to all three of us simultaneously.
9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your
involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe
is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about
the data the study is analyzing together with the Community Advisory Joint Committee, please refer all
such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of
the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort
will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the fall. Thank you.
- 13 -
DATA
MEETING THREE AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, June 1, 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Sub-joint Committee, please sit together in groups of three or four folks representing the four
districts.
A. (6:00) Data Reference: Profile of the Current Grades seven through grade 12
elementary secondary programs in the two school districts.
Staff Guest Resources for the Community Advisory Committee attending this meeting:
MAYFIELD
Shelly Duffel,
Secondary Teacher
Robert Husain,
Secondary Principal
Cindy Farrell,
Guidance Counselor
Paul Williamsen,
Superintendent
NORTHVILLE
Warren Hoffman,
Secondary Teacher
Michael Healey,
Secondary Principal
Karen Izzo,
Guidance Counselor
Kathy Dougherty,
Superintendent
(unable to attend because of a
family commitment)
9 (6:10-6:25) Scan of data set by the Community Advisory Joint Committee; review
in your subjoint Committee; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive.
9 (6:25-7:25)
◊ Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts
about the grades 7-12 program profile.
◊ Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible
answers to the questions:
"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced secondary program/learning opportunities
that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through
reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the
secondary pupils of the two-district region?
9
(7:25-7:35) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water.
- 14 -
DATA
o
o
(7:35-7:55)
◊ Observations of the three sub joint Committees: opportunities and
challenges regarding the grades pre-K program and the 7-12 program and
school district reorganization.
(7:55-8:15)
◊ Collaborative listing of opportunities and challenges by both Community
Advisory Joint Committee regarding the Pre-K through grade 12
program and reorganization of the two school districts into one.
B. (8:15-8:50) Discussion and Analysis Tool: Draft Summary for the Initial Discussion of
the Community Advisory Joint Committee about some possible “what if” ideas to use
existing school buildings if the communities chose to reorganize the two districts into
one.
Between now and the next Community Advisory Community Joint Committee Meeting
on Monday, June 20, please list your perceptions of the opportunities and challenges for
each of the draft options to use the buildings in a reorganized district. The Discussion
and Analysis Tool also contains blank worksheets to suggest refinements of the draft
options and/or to suggest other options.
C. (8:50) Meeting four: Monday, June 20; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Mayfield Central
School
Meeting five: Wednesday, July 20; 6:00 to 9:00 at Northville Central School
9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for
you.
9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our
meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to
various data in your work on the subjoint Committee.
9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets you to all three of us simultaneously.
9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you
feel about your involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please
share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by
the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing
together with the Community Advisory Joint Committee, please refer all such
questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and
analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory
Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will
publically be available in the fall. Thank you.
- 15 -
DATA
MEETING FIVE AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, July 20, 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Sub-joint Committee:
A. (6:00-7:00) Data References:
◊ Q and A about staff/employment topics related to a reorganization of school
districts
◊ Summary of the major elements of the instructional and instructional support
contracts currently in place in the two districts.
◊ Summary of staff turnover in the two school districts since 2007-2008.
◊ Summary of the total 2010-2011 cost per FTE for the various categories of
staff employed by the school district.
B. (7:00-7:30) Data Tool: Reorganization Incentive Aid
(7:30-7:40) Time for a cup of coffee or water.
C. (7:40-8:50) “What if” ideas to use existing school buildings if the communities chose to
reorganize the two districts into one given the enrollment projections over the next five
years, and the pupil capacities currently available in the school buildings. Tool: Ideas to
Use Existing School Buildings if a Reorganization Occurs
◊ Meet in your subcommittees to discuss and analyze the various ideas the joint
Committee identified at the last meeting about how to deliver the program in the
facilities available in both school districts. Focus on identifying opportunities and
challenges for each scenario.
◊ Next meet by school district committee to share the perceptions of what the joint
Committee discussed and saw as opportunities and challenges.
◊ Come together as one committee of the whole to identify a rank-ordering of ideas
D. (8:50) Meeting six: Wednesday, August 10; 6:00 to 9:00 at Mayfield Central
School Elementary Building---‘WANDERING TOUR’ STARTING AT 5:30
Topics for future meetings: athletics and extracurricular offerings, financials
- 16 -
DATA
you.
various data in your work on the joint Committee.
publicly be available in the fall. Thank you.
- 17 -
DATA
MEETING SIX AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, August 10, 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY
Sub-joint Committees, please sit together in your groups:
A. (6:00) Grade configurations and use of the buildings to deliver the program in a
reorganized district---discussion with the two superintendents and
elementary/secondary principals.
9 Data Tool: Perceptions of the Two District Leadership Teams of the
Opportunities and Challenges of the Two Scenarios to Deliver the Pre-K through
Grade 12 Program in the Current School Buildings:
Scenario: Pre-K through grade 5 in Mayfield and Northville; 9-12 in Mayfield; 6-8
in Northville
Scenario: Pre-K through grade 6 in Mayfield and Northville: 9-12 in Mayfield; 7-8
in Northville
Community Advisory Joint Committee and Leadership Teams:
Of the two prime scenarios for housing students in a possible reorganization, do you
think the communities would be supportive of both scenarios? Why or Why not?
Which scenario should the study report as the ‘prime’ scenario?
B.
(6:35-7:45) Panel Discussion of Interscholastic Athletics and Co-Curricular
Activities
◊
◊
In your groups, discuss your clarifying questions you need to ask the guest
presenters
Discuss what you see as opportunities and challenges of these programs if the
two districts were to reorganize
- 18 -
DATA
◊
Panel Discussion: Athletic Directors, Secondary Principals and
Superintendents
(7:45-7:55) Time for a cup of coffee or water.
C.
(7:55-8:25) Large Group Discussion: Now that you have heard from elementary,
secondary, and athletics/co-curricular, please share what you believe could be program
enhancements if the two districts were to reorganize? Then, please share what you see
as challenges to a reorganization of the two districts.
D.
(8:30-8:55) Large Group Discussion: Review of K-12 district assessment data.
(This test data is from the 2009-2010 school year. The final report of this study will
include the 2010-2011 test data, which is currently being released.)
Topics for future meetings: Financials, tax information, functional services, transition
issues: school name, colors, mascot
you.
- 19 -
DATA
MEETING SEVEN AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, October 12, 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY
5:30 TO 6:00 ‘WANDERING TOUR OF THE NORTHFIELD JR./SR. HIGH
FOR THOSE WHO CAN ARRIVE EARLY’
A.
(6:00-6:15) Data Reference; September Athletic/Co-Curricular Tool Updated
B. (6:15-7:00) Data Set: Current “Financial Health” profile of each school district
C. (7:00-7:15) Data Set: Summary of the Most Recent Building Condition Surveys
D. (7:15-7:45) Presentation and discussion of the first draft of A ‘What if’
Program/Staffing Picture of a Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One
E.
(7:45-8:30) Ideas/advice as to how the study should report other various elements
related to the reorganization of the two school districts into one. In the subjoint
Committee, please discuss the following: (Take time for a cup of coffee, tea or
water as you need to.)
9 Governance: How many board members should there be on the new
district’s Board of Education? What should be the term of office? What
personal and professional characteristics would you want to see in the
members serving on the new Board of Education? (Tool: Q and A from
the June 20 meeting)
9 Ed Law 1801(2) states that the Commissioner of Education designates the
name of a newly centralized district in the centralization order. Subject to
the commissioner’s approval, school boards of new or reorganized central
school districts may select a different name by filing a written request for a
name change with the commissioner no later than 14 days before the
centralization order is to become effective. (Ed Law 315). What might be
- 20 -
DATA
an appropriate process to select a new district name to recommend to the
commissioner?
9 What might be an appropriate process to choose school colors and mascot
for the reorganized school district?
8:30 Report out of the ideas/advice to the SES Study Team from the subjoint
Committee.
F.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, November 2 at Mayfield library; 6:00 to 9:00 PM
◊ BOCES services and sharing; Guest: Pat Michel, District Superintendent of
the HFM BOCES
◊ A ‘What if’ Picture of How the Program is Delivered and How the School
Buildings are used in a Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One
(including school day times, transportation times, and bus runs)
◊ A ‘What if’ Financial Picture of a Reorganization of the Two School
Districts into One
◊ Review of study timeline and the timeline for possible decision-making
action by the Boards of Education and the communities they serve.
you.
- 21 -
DATA
MEETING EIGHT AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011
6:00 – 9:00 p.m.
HIGH SCHOOL LIBRARY SECOND FLOOR
A. (6:00-6:40) Guest: Pat Michel, District Superintendent of the HFM BOCES;
regional shared services through the BOCES collaborative and
perspective for regional collaboration if a reorganization of the two
districts occurred.
◊ Data Reference: Background about BOCES and Current Services Purchased by
the Two Districts through the BOCES
B. (6:40-9:00)
Please meet in your subcommittee groups. Please review and discuss the following three
documents. Start with A ‘What if’ Program/Staffing Picture of a Reorganization of the Two
School Districts into One. Then, move to A ‘What if’ Picture of How the Program is
Delivered and How the School Buildings are Used in a Reorganization of the Two School
Districts into One. Finally, turn your attention to A ‘What if’ Financial Picture of a
Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One.
Please remember that the three documents each present a framework to implement the
overall student program in existing facilities in a financially prudent and responsible
manner. The overriding focus at this stage is to make sure there is enough estimated
resource in total to deliver a quality, comprehensive program by a reorganized school district
in a defendable, responsible and financially prudent manner. For example, the pupil
transportation framework has additional bus runs to help ensure the goal of having bus rides
not exceed 1 hour. Another example is the program framework has additional instructional
FTE’s to offer enhancements like more Pre-K, driver education, foreign language K-12, a
business program, and more college/advanced placement courses. In the end how the
estimated resources are used is up to the new district. The ‘what if’ financial plan, though,
- 22 -
DATA
gives a scenario of the financials related to providing the resources in total regardless as to
how they might be actually used for program delivery if there was a reorganization.
The specific assignment of each type of professional and instructional support resource is a
program development task that is addressed if the reorganization process gets to the
implementation stage.
C. Review of study timeline and the timeline for possible decision-making action by the
Boards of Education and the communities they serve.
Next Step for the Study Team: Based on what we have learned with the Community Advisory
Joint Committee since April, the Study Team will draft a study report. In mid-December, we
will invite all of the Community Advisory Committee members to a meeting to review the draft
report of the study. We will let you know by email when the meeting is scheduled.
At the same time, the study is sent to the State Education Department for their review which will
take about three weeks. The draft study is not a public document as directed by the SED. After
review and approval by the State Education Department of the study, the Study Team will host a
community forum meeting in each of the four school districts to present the study and its
findings.
After the community forum presentations, the Boards of Education will deliberate to decide if
reorganization of the four school districts should be presented to each respective community for
a ‘straw vote’.
you.
- 23 -
DATA
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE
COMMMUNITY ADVISORY
JOINT COMMITTEE:
ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
CALCULATIONS
2011-2020
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
April 2011
- 24 -
DATA
Copyright 2011
As to Original Text, Format, and Methodology.
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Mayfield and Northville Boards
of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide
the study.
SES Study Team
- 25 -
DATA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of the Enrollment Projection Calculations
Variables that May Suggest Adjustments to the Calculated
Baseline Enrollment Projections
Basic Assumption Guiding the Projection Calculations
Methodology to Project Baseline Enrollment Forecasts
Findings of the Enrollment Projection Calculations
Limitations of the Calculations Study
Data
A. Historical Perspective of Annual Enrollments
B. Historical Perspective of Annual Live Births in
Fulton County and in the Enrollment Areas
Of the Two School Districts
C. Historical Perspective of the Trend Patterns of
the Live Births in Fulton County, the “Catchment
Area Towns” of Each District, and Within the
Attendance Area of Each School District
D. Historical Perspective of the Relationship Between
Annual Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollments in
Each District
E. Kindergarten Enrollment Forecasts
F. Baseline K-12 Enrollment Projections for the Two
School Districts
G. Summary of Enrollment Projection Data Calculations
As they Apply to a Reorganization of the Two Districts
Into One K-12 School District
Attachment 1: Enrollment Projection Calculations Figures,
Tables and Charts
- 26 -
DATA
PURPOSE AND USE OF THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
CALCULATIONS DATA
This demographic/enrollment projection calculations study provides historical and current enrollment data
and suggests enrollment projection scenarios based on the trending of patterns of historical data. A cohort
survival statistic methodology is used. The calculations provide present and projected pupil enrollments
based on different assumptions about the future. The study enables the school districts to comply with
Commissioner’s Regulation Section 155.1. The Regulation requires long-range planning of program
requirements, pupil capacity of existing facilities, and a plan for repair or modernization of facilities
and/or provision for additional facilities to support the delivery of program. The Regulation outlines that
planning for grades K-6 should be done with a five year view of future enrollments and a ten year view of
future enrollments for grades 7-12.
The enrollment estimates are projections and not predictions. All enrollment projections for years
further in the future (plus five years) have inherent uncertainties because the assumptions on which they
are based can be affected by changes in human behavior, by the economy, or by other events. The
projections do offer a starting point for analyzing and understanding the elements of future school district
demographic change. The enrollment projection study calculations combined with the values, intuition,
and vision of school district officials and their communities can frame planning discussions as the school
districts project their facilities, staffing and program needs into the future.
VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE FUTURE SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS
The six sources of current and projected school district enrollment are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
live births within the school district and their eventual kindergarten enrollment in the district;
new household population with children who move to the district;
new population who move to the district who are at child-bearing age and plan to begin a family;
enrollment of students from non-public schools or from home schooling settings;
school program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the school
district in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation;
a change by other public schools, if any, who tuition students to attend the school districts.
- 27 -
DATA
BASIC ASSUMPTION GUIDING THE PROJECTION CALCULATIONS
When using the Cohort Survival Statistic to project future enrollments, it is assumed that the following
variables will continue in the future in a similar manner as they have since 2005 unless data are identified
to the contrary the death rate of children
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
the live birth rate
migration of students both into and out of the district
grade retention patterns
residential construction and housing market
increase or decrease of local employment opportunities
dropout rate
graduation rate
private school enrollments
number of non-residents enrolled on a tuition basis
If there are data to suggest that one or more of the variables listed above will not continue into the near
future of the next five years in the same historical pattern, then the base Cohort Survival Statistic results
are modified to estimate the potential impact the variable(s) may have on future school district
enrollments. As of April 2011, there are no substantial data to suggest the expectation of significant new
population sparked by a growing job market to the enrollment area of the two school districts, and/or a
significant increase of new residential construction that could attract households with school-age children
over the next five years. Also, the death rate of children, the rate of private school enrollments, and the
few numbers of non-resident tuitioned enrollments are not expected to change significantly over the next
five years. School program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the
school districts in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation
may be a variable that might influence future enrollments and should be analyzed if significant
educational program opportunities are added and/or if academic support-intervention services are changed
systemically.
The variable of live births is integral to the methodology used to estimate future kindergarten enrollments.
The enrollment projection calculations are baseline projections in that they analyze two of the six
variables that may influence future enrollments: historic live birth patterns, and historic grade-level
enrollments.
- 28 -
DATA
METHODOLOGY TO PROJECT BASELINE ENROLLMENT FORECASTS
Compilation of Data
The study collects the following data to execute the cohort survival statistic to project baseline future
enrollments of each school district:
•
•
•
Student enrollments by grade level from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 are compiled from data
provided by district personnel. All enrolled children including special needs students, temporarily
home-bound pupils, and non-resident tuitioned pupils regardless of instructional program are
included in the calculations.
Annual kindergarten class enrollments are compared to the total school district enrollment area
live births five years earlier.
Live birth numbers in the school district since 2002 as reported by the NYS Department of Health
are analyzed.
Application of the Baseline Cohort Survival Statistic
The cohort survival statistic identifies a ‘percentage of survival’ ratio that describes the relationship of a
grade level enrollment in a given year compared to the grade enrollment in the next lower grade from the
previous year. If a ratio falls below 1.0, the ratio signifies that the enrollment of students in a grade level
decreased or did not ‘survive’ enrollment into the next grade level of the next year. If a ratio rises above
1.0, the ratio then signifies new enrollment has moved to the district or a significant change in grade-tograde promotion policy.
Calculating the survival ratios from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011 for each of the grade enrollments
provides the basis for a set of average grade-to-grade survival ratios that can be used to estimate future
baseline grade enrollments in the Mayfield and Northville school districts.
Limitations of the Calculations Study
Future enrollments are positively affected by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Added births in the district and the resulting added kindergarten enrollments.
The reductions in private school/home school/charter school enrollments
The increase in the enrollment retention of students through grade 12 as completers of a
diploma program.
A robust employment market that can attract new residents with children and/or who are at
childbearing age.
A robust housing market that can attract new residents with children and/ or who are at
childbearing age.
Increased enrollment of tuitioned students from other school districts.
- 29 -
DATA
Similarly, future enrollment projections can be negatively affected by the antitheses of the same variables.
Therefore, the enrollment projection estimates should be revisited and updated yearly if there are any
major changes in: the assumptions that base the methodology of this study; the annual live birth data for
the district; major shifts in the housing market and employment market opportunities from what has been
expected; changes in the educational program offered; and/or changes in the non-public school, charter
school, or out of school district enrollments by residents of the school districts; or major immediate
changes to the numbers of pupils tuitioned from other school districts.
The Enrollment Projection Calculations provide sets of estimates about future K-12 enrollments ranging
from ‘low’ to ‘high’ based on defined assumptions and historical patterns of population and enrollment
data. It is suggested that the Boards of Education, the school district leadership team and the respective
communities discuss the projection scenarios and come to consensus about what the school district and
the community believe about the local future—will the “glass be filled, half filled or half empty?” with
regard to such items as increased numbers of pupils completing graduation, new residential construction,
the existing residential market, new population to the district, and increased jobs within commuting
distance of the district.
A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS
9 Grades K-12, K-6, and 7-12:
DATA SNAPSHOT
District:
Net Change of 2005
Six-Year Average
and 2010 enrollments
Enrollment K-12:
K-12:
-118; -10.8%
1020
Mayfield
-74; -13.2%
510
Northville
District:
Net Change of 2005 and 2010
enrollments K-6:
-22; -4.3%
-32; -13.3%
Mayfield
Northville
9 Grade Kindergarten:
District:
Mayfield
Northville
Six Year Median
Enrollment K-12:
1015
506
Net Change of 2005 and 2010
enrollments 7-12:
-96; -16.8%
-42; 13.1%
Net Change of 2005 and 2010 Kindergarten
Enrollments:
+17; +26.5%
-5; -20%
- 30 -
DATA
CHART ONE: MAYFIELD CS
HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT
2005-2010
ENROLLM ENT
y = -24.086x + 1104.5
1088
05-06
1052
1035
06-07
07-08
995
981
970
08-09
09-10
10-11
470
489
488
08-09
09-10
10-11
YEAR
CHART ONE: NORTHVILLE CS
HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT
2005-2010
E N R O L LM E N T
y = -15.486x + 564.2
562
529
522
05-06
06-07
07-08
YEAR
- 31 -
DATA
571
549
517
503
547
523
488
487
y = -4.9714x + 511.07
495
494
475
472
K-6
ENROLLM ENT
600
575
550
525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
CHART TWO: MAYFIELD CS
HISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT
2005-2010
7-12
y = -19.114x + 593.4
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
ENROLLMENT
YEAR
600
575
550
525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
CHART TWO: NORTHVILLE CS
HISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT
2005-2010
y = -5.4286x + 231.33
K-6
321
316
313
281
276
241
213
209
208
279
209
7-12
194
y = -10.057x + 332.87
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
YEAR
- 32 -
DATA
FIGURE FIVE: MAYFIELD KINDERGARTEN
ENROLLMENT 2005-2010
y = 3.1429x + 55
100
95
90
85
81
80
75
75
70
ENROLLMENT
65
64
66
60
56
54
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
YEAR
FIGURE FIVE: NORTHVILLE KINDERGARTEN
ENROLLMENT 2005-2010
y = 2.2857x + 21.667
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
ENROLLMENT
65
60
55
50
45
41
40
35
30
25
31
25
30
29
22
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
YEAR
- 33 -
DATA
B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANNUAL LIVE BIRTHS IN FULTON COUNTY AND IN
THE ENROLLMENT AREAS OF EACH OF THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
DATA SNAPSHOT
Live Births Net Change from 2002 through 2009
-36; -6.1%
Fulton County
District Enrollment Area:
Mayfield
Northville
+6; +13.6%
-7; -21.2%
FIGURE ONE: FULTON COUNTY
LIVE BIRTHS 2002-2009
700
690
680
670
660
y = 2.6786x + 569.82
650
640
632
LIVE BIRTHS
630
620
610
600
599
592
590
605
582
580
570
560
556
549
550
540
540
530
520
510
500
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
YEAR
- 34 -
DATA
LIVE BIRTHS
FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE
MAYFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AREA
2002-2009
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
y = 0.119x + 51.964
60
57
Will the pattern of the
last eight years of live
births in the district
continue over the next
five years?
59
50
48
52
50
44
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
YEAR
LIVE BIRTHS
FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE
NORTHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AREA
2002-2009
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Will the pattern of the
last eight years of live
births in the district
continue over the next
five years?
y = -0.75x + 33
36
33
33
31
28
29
26
21
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
YEAR
- 35 -
DATA
C. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE TREND PATTERNS OF THE LIVE BIRTHS IN
FULTON COUNTY, THE ‘CATCHMENT AREA TOWNS’ OF EACH DISTRICT, AND
WITHIN THE ATTENDANCE AREA OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Fulton County
Pattern slope: +2.68
“Catchment Area
of the Towns”
where the district is
located.
School district
enrollment area
Mayfield
Northville
Slope: -1.14
Slope: +1.26
Slope: +.119
Slope: -.75
BIRTHS
FIGURE THREE: MAYFIELD ENROLLMENT AREA, CATCHMENT AREA, AND
FULTON COUNTY BIRTH TRENDS 2002-2009
700
675
650
625
600
575
550
525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
y = 2.6786x + 569.82
y = -1.1429x + 144.39
y = 0.119x + 51.964
2002
2003
2004
2005
FULTON COUNTY
2006
DISTRICT
2007
2008
2009
CATCHMENT AREA
- 36 -
DATA
BIRTHS
FIGURE THREE: NORTHVILLE ENROLLMENT AREA, CATCHMENT AREA, AND
FULTON COUNTY BIRTH TRENDS 2002-2009
700
675
650
625
600
575
550
525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
y = 2.6786x + 569.82
y = 1.2619x + 107.07
y = -0.75x + 33
2002
2003
2004
2005
FULTON COUNTY
D.
2006
DISTRICT
2007
2008
2009
CATCHMENT AREA
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNUAL LIVE BIRTHS
AND KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS IN EACH DISTRICT
District:
Mayfield
Northville
DATA SNAPSHOT
Pattern of total live births from
2002-2005 and total kindergarten
enrollments five years later 20072010 (K enroll divided by live
births in district 5 years earlier):
266/209; 1.27 (127%)
131/128; 1.02 (102%)
Median result of yearly
comparisons of kindergarten
enrollments and births five years
earlier:
Ratio of 1.34 (134%)
Ratio of 1.00 (100%)
- 37 -
DATA
TABLE 3
RATIOS OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS (2007-2010)
OF THE MAYFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER (2002-2005)
IN THE ENROLLMENT AREA
OF THE DISTRICT
COMPARISON
YEARS
2007
2008
2009
2010
K
K
K
K
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
TO
TO
TO
TO
2002
2003
2004
2005
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
K
ENROLL
LIVE
BIRTHS
ENROLLMENT
AREA
KIND/
BIRTHS
RATIO
56
54
75
81
44
60
48
57
1.272727
0.9
1.5625
1.421053
HISTORICAL LIVE BIRTH RATIOS
2007-2010
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
2007
2008
2009
2010
- 38 -
DATA
FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE
BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE MAYFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
W ILL THE RATIO BETWEEN K
ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE
YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO
THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS
MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?
100
95
90
85
NUMBER OF BIRTHS AND PUPILS
80
75
81
74
75
73
69
70
66
65
66
64
60
60
56
57
54
55
59
50
48
50
52
50
44
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT
LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER
TABLE 3
RATIOS OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS (2007-2010)
OF THE NORTHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER (2002-2005)
IN THE ENROLLMENT AREA
OF THE DISTRICT
COMPARISON
YEARS
2007
2008
2009
2010
K
K
K
K
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
TO
TO
TO
TO
2002
2003
2004
2005
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
BIRTHS
K
ENROLL
LIVE
BIRTHS
ENROLLMENT
AREA
31
29
41
30
33
28
36
31
KIND/
BIRTHS
RATIO
0.939394
1.035714
1.138889
0.967742
HISTORICAL LIVE BIRTH RATIOS
2007-2010
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
2007
2008
2009
2010
- 39 -
DATA
FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE
BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE NORTHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
W ILL THE RATIO BETWEEN K
100
ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE
YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO
THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS
MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?
95
90
85
NUMBER OF BIRTHS AND PUPILS
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
41
39
40
37
33
31
35
30
28
27
25
25
36
33
30 31
2928
22
29
26
21
20
15
10
5
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT
LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER
E. KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT FORECASTS
Estimating future kindergarten enrollments is the most speculative aspect of projecting K-12 enrollments.
However, analyzing historical annual kindergarten enrollments in concert with historical annual live birth
data and patterns do reveal a set of defendable estimates of future kindergarten enrollments. These
estimated future kindergarten enrollments then can be included in the base cohort survival statistic
application to project future K-12 enrollments. Historical kindergarten enrollments of the two school
districts and historical live birth data are analyzed three ways. The three analyses form the basis for three
kindergarten enrollment forecasts for each school district. The three kindergarten forecasts are used to
develop Low, Mid, and a High K-12 enrollment projection calculations for the Mayfield and Northville
school districts. The nomenclature of low, mid, and high is determined by the estimated total K-6
enrollment five years from now consistent with the planning guidelines in NYS Commissioner’s
Regulation 155.1. The methodology and the assumptions that underscore the three estimated kindergarten
enrollment projections for each district are illustrated in the Figures, Tables, and Charts Attachment.
Forecasted
Mayfield
Northville
- 40 -
DATA
Kindergarten
Enrollment
Estimate
Current 2010
Kindergarten
Enrollment
2011
‘low range’
‘mid range’
‘high range’
2012
‘low range’
‘mid range’
‘high range’
2013
‘low range’
‘mid range’
‘high range’
2014
‘low range’
‘mid range’
‘high range’
2015
‘low range’
‘mid range’
‘high range’
81
30
75
79
76
21
21
31
64
67
79
33
34
31
66
70
83
29
30
31
66
70
87
26
27
31
69
71
91
25
27
32
The 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 projected kindergarten enrollments are based on published actual
historical live births in the district respectively for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. The future
kindergarten enrollment estimates for 2015 are based on mathematical theoretical live birth patterns
because the actual live birth counts for the year 2010 are unknown at this time.
F. BASELINE K-12 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Tables 7A, B, and C in the Figures, Tables, Charts Attachment present Low, Mid, and High range K-12
enrollment projections calculated using forecasted future kindergarten enrollments and the cohort survival
statistic. Each calculation is based on historical K-12 enrollments as reported by the school district for
each of the school years 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. The historical enrollment data are used to
calculate ‘percentage of survival’ ratios for each grade level K-12. The ratios quantify the rate of change
in number of students in a particular grade level compared to the number of students in the next higher
grade level in the following year. The ‘survival ratios’ are averaged for each grade level from 2005-2006
through 2010-2011. The six-year average ratios for each grade level are used to calculate estimated future
grade 1-12 enrollments through 2020-21.
- 41 -
DATA
DATA SNAPSHOT MAYFIELD CS
Year
Grades
K-6
CURRENT ENROLLMENT
2010-2011
495
Calculation
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
540
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
558
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
622
Grades
7-12
475
468
482
509
BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR
MAYFIELD CS
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
LOW RANGE PROJECTION
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
511
460
971
961
511
450
514
439
953
943
529
414
950
540
410
960
541
419
972
528
444
522
456
977
985
528
456
534
468
1002
MID RANGE PROJECTION
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
515
460
975
968
518
450
526
439
965
959
545
414
968
558
410
981
562
419
995
551
444
541
461
1002
1009
544
465
544
482
1026
HIGH RANGE PROJECTION
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
512
460
972
977
527
450
549
439
988
1000
586
414
1032
622
410
1071
652
419
1115
671
444
701
457
1158
1209
733
476
766
509
1275
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
K-5
6-8
7-9 9-12 10-12
436
224
224
311
237
439
227
227
295
223
453
218
230
282
209
461
210
219
272
195
462
215
212
273
198
449
248
219
263
200
442
269
253
261
191
448
264
272
265
184
453
246
266
286
190
458
235
248
309
220
K-5
6-8
7-9 9-12 10-12
440
224 224
311 237
446
227 227
295 223
465
218 230
282 209
477
210 219
272 195
481
215 212
273 198
470
248 219
263 200
461
273 253
261 191
464
273 277
265 184
464
259 275
286 190
464
248 262
314 220
K-5
6-8
7-9 9-12 10-12
437
224 224
311 237
455
227 227
295 223
488
218 230
282 209
519
210 219
272 195
544
215 212
273 198
559
248 219
263 200
584
270 253
261 191
611
283 273
265 184
638
285 286
286 190
666
298 289
310 220
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
365
239
272
146
150
378
236
275
132
155
386
219
295
128
157
384
209
319
144
142
370
215
325
169
138
364
218
323
178
156
369
221
306
158
183
374
222
299
148
191
378
223
305
150
170
380
225
308
154
159
6
75
72
61
68
78
93
86
73
75
75
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
369
243 272
146 150
386
243 275
132 155
398
231 295
128 157
400
221 324
144 142
389
225 333
169 138
380
227 336
182 156
385
228 323
166 183
385
227 314
156 196
385
226 319
159 179
384
224 320
161 168
6
75
72
61
68
78
93
90
77
80
80
K-4
K-2 3-6
5-6
7-8
366
240 272
146 150
395
252 275
132 155
421
254 295
128 157
442
266 320
144 142
452
279 343
169 138
473
291 360
179 156
495
304 367
176 183
517
317 384
184 192
539
331 402
194 190
563
346 420
203 199
6
75
72
61
68
78
93
87
90
95
99
- 42 -
DATA
PUPILS
700
675
650
625
600
575
550
525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
CURRENT ENROLL. 2010-2011
CHART SIX: MAYFIELD CS
GRADES K-6 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT
SCENARIOS 2011-2015
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
BASE COHORT LOW RANGE
511
511
514
529
540
BASE COHORT MID RANGE
515
518
526
545
558
BASE COHORT HIGH RANGE
512
527
549
586
622
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2010
495
CHART SEVEN: MAYFIELD CS
GRADES 7-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT
SCENARIOS 2011-2020
550
525
500
475
450
425
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2010-2011
PUPILS
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
460
450
439
414
410
419
444
456
456
468
460
450
439
414
410
419
444
461
465
482
460
450
439
414
410
419
444
457
476
509
475
- 43 -
DATA
DATA SNAPSHOT NORTHVILLE CS
Year
Grades
K-6
CURRENT ENROLLMENT
2010-2011
209
Calculation
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
198
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
203
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
219
Grades
7-12
279
223
225
235
NORTHVILLE CS
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
206
252
458
447
204
243
433
210
223
429
202
227
415
198
217
409
182
228
409
175
234
391
175
216
395
165
230
380
157
223
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
206
252
458
448
205
243
435
212
223
432
205
227
420
203
217
416
188
228
418
183
234
403
187
216
408
177
231
397
172
225
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
216
252
468
454
211
243
443
220
223
444
217
227
436
219
217
439
211
228
447
213
234
442
214
229
454
215
239
451
215
235
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
172
107
121
179
131
184
96
120
167
123
179
104
102
151
120
175
98
116
157
111
160
119
107
136
109
154
118
134
138
94
155
110
128
144
106
145
95
117
152
99
138
96
107
161
123
133
103
105
144
118
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
172
107
121
179
131
185
96
120
167
123
181
104
102
151
120
178
98
116
157
111
165
119
107
136
109
161
118
134
138
94
164
110
128
144
106
155
96
117
152
99
150
98
108
161
123
147
106
108
144
118
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
182
107 121
179 131
192
96
120
167 123
188
104 102
151 120
190
98
116
157 111
181
119 107
136 109
183
118 134
138
94
184
119 128
144 106
185
106 130
152
99
186
107 117
161 123
187
107 118
157 118
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
153
91
115
53
73
152
83
121
51
76
151
81
129
59
72
136
86
116
66
70
131
79
119
67
81
134
74
108
47
90
124
71
104
50
90
118
68
107
58
64
114
66
99
51
69
110
64
93
48
78
6
34
19
32
27
39
28
19
31
27
24
MID
K-4
153
153
153
139
136
141
132
127
124
121
RANGE PROJECTION
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
91
115
53
73
84
121
51
76
83
129
59
72
89
116
66
70
83
120
67
81
79
110
47
90
77
107
51
90
75
112
60
64
73
105
53
70
72
100
50
81
6
34
19
32
27
39
28
19
32
28
25
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
163
101 115
53
73
160
90
121
51
76
161
91
129
59
72
151
91
126
66
70
153
92
127
67
81
154
93
117
57
90
155
94
118
58
90
156
94
119
58
77
157
94
120
58
79
157
94
121
59
79
6
34
19
32
27
39
28
29
29
29
29
- 44 -
DATA
CHART SIX: NORTHVILLE CS
GRADES K-6 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT
SCENARIOS 2011-2015
CURRENT ENROLL. 2010-2011
PUPILS
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
206
204
210
202
198
206
205
212
205
203
216
211
220
217
219
209
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2010-2011
PUPILS
CHART SEVEN: NORTHVILLE CS
GRADES 7-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT
SCENARIOS 2011-2020
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
252
243
223
227
217
228
234
216
230
223
252
243
223
227
217
228
234
216
231
225
252
243
223
227
217
228
234
229
239
235
279
- 45 -
DATA
G. SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTION DATA CALCULATIONS AS THEY APPLY
TO A REORGANIZATION OF THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT
DATA SNAPSHOT
Grades
K-6
Calculation
Year
Grades
7-12
CURRENT COMBINED
ENROLLMENT OF THE TWO
DISTRICTS
2010-2011
704
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
738
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
761
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
841
Calculation
Year
CURRENT COMBINED
ENROLLMENT OF THE TWO
DISTRICTS
2010-2011
704
754
TOTAL GRADES
K-12 FOR INITIAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING
1458
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
717
715
724
731
738
712
693
662
641
627
1429
1408
1386
1372
1365
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
721
723
738
750
761
712
693
662
641
627
1433
1416
1400
1391
1388
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
728
738
769
803
841
712
693
662
641
627
1440
1431
1431
1444
1468
754
TOTAL GRADES
K-12 FOR LONG TERM
PLANNING
1458
1429
691
1468
707
1585
744
DATA SNAPSHOT
Grades
K-6
Grades
7-12
- 46 -
DATA
ATTACHMENT:
FIGURES, TABLES AND CHARTS
- 47 -
DATA
TABLE 1
LIVE BIRTHS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA SERVED BY THE
MAYFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
AS REPORTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
2002-2009
TOWN
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 TOTAL
BIRTHS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY
FULTON COUNTY
Village of Mayfield
6
11
6
17
12
8
10
11
81
45
63
48
54
61
58
51
48
428
49
50
52
58
45
42
43
41
380
27
28
34
26
18
33
32
27
225
100.00%
Mayfield
79.60%
Johnstown
14.70%
Northhampton
3.10%
Percentages refer to the share of residential parcels that are in the Mayfield School District
TOTAL BIRTHS IN CATCHMENT AREA
127
152
140
155
136
141
136
127
1114
44
60
48
57
59
50
52
52
422
34.65%
39.47%
34.29%
36.77%
43.38%
35.46%
38.24%
40.94%
NYS HEALTH DEPARTMENT
'LIVE BIRTHS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT'
DISTRICT/CATCHMENT AREA
LIVE BIRTH RATIO
6 YEAR RATIO
38.08%
FULTON COUNTY
592
TOTAL BIRTHS
DISTRICT/FULTON
582
7.43%
549
10.31%
540
8.74%
599
10.56%
605
9.85%
632
8.26%
COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATIO
556
8.23%
4655
9.35%
6 YEAR RATIO
9.14%
TABLE 2
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT OF THE MAYFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
2001-2010
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
74
73
69
66
64
66
56
2008
54
2009
2010
75
81
TABLE 4
PROJECTED MAYFIELD 2011-2020 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS BASED UPON
(A) THE EXPONENTIAL TREND ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT YEAR HISTORICAL
PATTERN OF ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS FROM 2002 THROUGH 2009, AND
(B) THE RATIO DERIVED FROM TOTAL ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS ('02-'05)
AND TOTAL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT ('07-'10)
YEAR
PROJECTED
K-ENROLL.
2011
2012
2013
2014
75
64
66
66
YEAR
2006
2007
2008
2009
LIVE
BIRTHS
ENROLL.
AREA
K-ENROLL TO LIVE
BIRTH RATIO
'07-'10
59
50
52
52
1.272727
1.272727
1.272727
1.272727
PROJECTED
LIVE BIRTHS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
69
69
69
70
70
71
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
54
54
55
55
55
55
1.272727
1.272727
1.272727
1.272727
1.272727
1.272727
ESTIMATED FUTURE KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS SCENARIO I
y = 0.6773x + 62.833
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
HISTORICAL
PROJECTED
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
- 48 -
DATA
TABLE 5
PROJECTED MAYFIELD CENTRAL 2011-2020 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS BASED
UPON (A) THE EXPONENTIAL TREND ANALYSIS OF THE SIX YEAR HISTORICAL
PATTERN OF ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS FROM 2004 THROUGH 2009, AND (B)
THE MEDIAN RATIO DERIVED FROM THE RATIOS OF ANNUAL ENROLLMENT AREA
LIVE BIRTHS ('02-'05) AND ANNUAL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN
ENROLLMENTS ('07-'10)
YEAR
PROJECTED
K-ENROLL.
2011
2012
2013
2014
YEAR
79
67
70
70
LIVE
EST. K-ENROLL TO
BIRTHS
LIVE BIRTH
ENROLL.
RATIO
AREA
2006
2007
2008
2009
59
50
52
52
1.34689
1.34689
1.34689
1.34689
53
52
52
52
52
52
1.34689
1.34689
1.34689
1.34689
1.34689
1.34689
PROJECTED
LIVE BIRTHS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
71
71
71
70
70
70
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
ESTIMATED FUTURE KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS SCENARIO II
y = 1.1241x + 61.776
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
HISTORICAL
PROJECTED
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
TABLE 6
PROJECTED MAYFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
2011-2020 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS
BASED UPON AN EXPONENTIAL TREND ANALYSIS
OF THE HISTORICAL PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT
DATA FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS 2005-2010
YEAR
PROJECTED
K-ENROLL.
YEAR
LIVE
BIRTHS
ENROLL.
AREA
59
50
52
52
PROJECTED
LIVE BIRTHS
2011
2012
2013
2014
76
79
83
87
2006
2007
2008
2009
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
91
95
99
103
108
113
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
EST. K-ENROLL TO
ENROLL. AREA LIVE
BIRTH RATIO
1.289293
1.589117
1.596045
1.667122
ESTIMATED FUTURE KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS SCENARIO III
y = 3.168x + 54.788
HISTORICAL
20
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
PROJECTED
20
06
20
05
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
- 49 -
DATA
TABLE 7-A: LOW RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12
YEAR
KNDG
R
1ST
R
R
R
R
5TH
6TH
7TH
8TH
9TH
R
R
12TH TOTAL
83
1088
73
0.99
68
1.00
81
1.01
85
1.16
102
0.91
84
0.94
89
0.85
88
1.06
106
0.82
80
1052
07-08
56
1.09
72
1.01
72
1.10
65
0.97
71
1.04
71
1.00
81
1.11
94
0.94
96
1.02
86
0.92
82
1.07
94
0.90
95
1035
08-09
54
1.13
63
1.06
76
1.01
73
0.98
64
1.01
72
0.99
70
1.14
92
0.96
90
0.99
95
0.83
71
1.10
90
0.90
85
995
09-10
75
1.20
65
0.95
60
0.97
74
1.01
74
1.05
67
1.00
72
1.00
70
0.95
87
0.93
84
0.93
88
1.11
79
0.96
86
981
10-11
81
1.00
75
1.00
65
1.00
60
0.95
70
1.00
74
1.04
70
1.06
76
1.07
75
1.03
90
0.90
76
0.97
85
0.92
73
970
76
73
76
62
61
61
65
63
53
59
971
961
953
943
950
960
972
977
985
1002
75
64
66
66
69
69
69
70
70
71
90
83
71
73
73
76
76
76
77
77
75
89
82
70
73
73
76
76
76
77
67
77
92
85
72
75
75
78
78
78
59
66
75
90
83
71
73
73
77
77
71
60
67
77
92
85
73
75
75
78
75
72
61
68
78
93
86
73
75
75
0.966
76
81
79
66
74
85
101
94
80
82
0.984
73
74
79
76
64
71
82
98
90
77
100
11TH
1.06
1.091
103
10TH
59
1.009
95
R
0.95
1.021
92
R
71
0.980
88
R
1.11
1.029
84
R
64
0.995
81
R
66
1.106
69
4TH
06-07
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
69
3RD
05-06
Average Ratio
62
2ND
0.886
74
72
73
77
75
63
70
80
96
89
98
1.061
80
65
64
64
69
66
56
62
71
85
0.899
81
85
69
68
68
73
70
59
66
76
TABLE 7-B: MID RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12
YEAR
KNDG
R
1ST
R
2ND
R
3RD
R
4TH
R
5TH
R
6TH
R
7TH
R
R
R
R
R
62
69
69
81
84
88
83
1088
1.11 71
0.95 59
1.06 73
0.99 68
1.00 81
1.01 85
1.16 102
0.91 84
0.94 89
0.85 88
1.06 106
0.82 80
1052
07-08
56
1.09 72
1.01 72
1.10 65
0.97 71
1.04 71
1.00 81
1.11 94
0.94 96
1.02 86
0.92 82
1.07 94
0.90 95
1035
08-09
54
1.13 63
1.06 76
1.01 73
0.98 64
1.01 72
0.99 70
1.14 92
0.96 90
0.99 95
0.83 71
1.10 90
0.90 85
995
09-10
75
1.20 65
0.95 60
0.97 74
1.01 74
1.05 67
1.00 72
1.00 70
0.95 87
0.93 84
0.93 88
1.11 79
0.96 86
981
10-11
81
1.00 75
1.00 65
1.00 60
0.95 70
1.00 74
1.04 70
1.06 76
1.07 75
1.03 90
0.90 76
0.97 85
0.92 73
970
1.106
0.995
1.029
0.980
1.021
1.009
1.091
0.966
0.984
0.886
1.061
0.899
75
89
87
74
77
77
78
78
78
77
67
77
92
89
76
79
79
80
80
80
59
66
75
90
88
74
78
78
79
79
71
60
67
77
92
90
76
79
79
80
75
72
61
68
78
93
90
77
80
80
76
81
79
66
74
85
101
99
84
87
73
74
79
76
64
71
82
98
95
81
74
72
73
77
75
63
70
80
96
94
80
65
64
64
69
66
56
62
71
85
98
12TH TOTAL
64
90
87
74
77
77
79
79
79
77
77
100
11TH
66
79
67
70
70
71
71
71
70
70
70
103
10TH
06-07
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
95
9TH
05-06
Average Ratio
92
8TH
81
85
69
68
68
73
70
59
66
76
76
73
76
62
61
61
65
63
53
59
975
968
965
959
968
981
995
1002
1009
1026
- 50 -
DATA
TABLE 7-C: HIGH RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12
YEAR
KNDG R
1ST
05-06
64
62
69
69
81
84
88
83
1088
06-07
66
1.11 71
0.95 59
1.06 73
0.99 68
1.00 81
1.01 85
1.16 102
0.91 84
0.94 89
0.85 88
1.06 106
0.82 80
1052
07-08
56
1.09 72
1.01 72
1.10 65
0.97 71
1.04 71
1.00 81
1.11 94
0.94 96
1.02 86
0.92 82
1.07 94
0.90 95
1035
08-09
54
1.13 63
1.06 76
1.01 73
0.98 64
1.01 72
0.99 70
1.14 92
0.96 90
0.99 95
0.83 71
1.10 90
0.90 85
995
09-10
75
1.20 65
0.95 60
0.97 74
1.01 74
1.05 67
1.00 72
1.00 70
0.95 87
0.93 84
0.93 88
1.11 79
0.96 86
981
10-11
81
1.00 75
1.00 65
1.00 60
0.95 70
1.00 74
1.04 70
1.06 76
1.07 75
1.03 90
0.90 76
0.97 85
0.92 73
970
1.106
0.995
1.029
0.980
1.021
1.009
1.091
0.966
0.984
0.886
1.061
0.899
Average Ratio
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
76
79
83
87
91
95
99
103
108
113
R
90
84
87
92
96
101
105
109
114
119
2ND
R
75
89
84
87
91
96
100
104
109
113
3RD
R
4TH
67
77
92
86
89
94
99
103
108
112
R
59
66
75
90
84
88
92
97
101
105
5TH
R
71
60
67
77
92
86
90
94
99
103
6TH
R
7TH
R
92
75
72
61
68
78
93
87
90
95
99
8TH
R
9TH
95
76
81
79
66
74
85
101
95
99
104
R
103
73
74
79
76
64
71
82
98
92
95
10TH
R
100
74
72
73
77
75
63
70
80
96
90
80
65
64
64
69
66
56
62
71
85
11TH
R
98
81
85
69
68
68
73
70
59
66
76
12TH TOTAL
76
73
76
62
61
61
65
63
53
59
972
977
988
1000
1032
1071
1115
1158
1209
1275
TABLE 1
LIVE BIRTHS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA SERVED BY THE
NORTHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
AS REPORTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
2002-2009
TOWN
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 TOTAL
BIRTHS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY
FULTON COUNTY
17
Village of Northville
11
17
10
10
11
16
13
105
100.00%
Bleecker
1
2
0
2
9
3
5
8
30
45
63
48
54
61
58
51
48
428
27
28
34
26
18
33
32
27
225
4
1
4
4
4
1
3
1
22
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
7
14
10
9
9
9
7
13
7
14
78
5.40%
Mayfield
2.60%
Northhampton
89.60%
HAMILTON COUNTY
Benson
100.00%
Hope
43.00%
SARATOGA COUNTY
0.13%
Percentages refer to the share of residential parcels that are in the Northville School District
TOTAL BIRTHS IN CATCHMENT AREA
105
115
113
108
110
119
114
118
902
33
28
36
31
21
33
29
26
237
31.43%
24.35%
31.86%
28.70%
19.09%
27.73%
25.44%
22.03%
592
582
549
540
599
605
NYS HEALTH DEPARTMENT
'LIVE BIRTHS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT'
DISTRICT/CATCHMENT AREA
LIVE BIRTH RATIO
6 YEAR RATIO
25.81%
FULTON COUNTY
TOTAL BIRTHS
DISTRICT/FULTON
5.57%
4.81%
6.56%
5.74%
3.51%
5.45%
COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATIO
632
4.59%
556
4655
4.68%
6 YEAR RATIO
5.06%
TABLE 2
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT OF THE NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
2001-2010
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
28
39
27
37
25
22
31
2008
29
2009
41
2010
30
- 51 -
DATA
TABLE 4
PROJECTED NORTHVILLE 2011-2020 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS BASED
UPON (A) THE EXPONENTIAL TREND ANALYSIS OF THE EIGHT YEAR HISTORICAL
PATTERN OF ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS FROM 2002 THROUGH 2009, AND
(B) THE RATIO DERIVED FROM TOTAL ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS ('02-'05)
AND TOTAL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT ('07-'10)
YEAR
PROJECTED
K-ENROLL.
2011
2012
2013
2014
YEAR
21
34
30
27
LIVE
BIRTHS
ENROLL.
AREA
2006
2007
2008
2009
K-ENROLL TO LIVE
BIRTH RATIO
'07-'10
21
33
29
26
1.023438
1.023438
1.023438
1.023438
PROJECTED
LIVE BIRTHS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
27
26
25
25
24
24
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
26
25
25
24
24
23
1.023438
1.023438
1.023438
1.023438
1.023438
1.023438
ESTIMATED FUTURE KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS SCENARIO I
y = 0.1186x + 28.039
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
HISTORICAL
PROJECTED
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
TABLE 5
PROJECTED NORTHVILLE CENTRAL 2011-2020 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS
BASED UPON (A) THE EXPONENTIAL TREND ANALYSIS OF THE SIX YEAR
HISTORICAL PATTERN OF ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS FROM 2004 THROUGH
2009, AND (B) THE MEDIAN RATIO DERIVED FROM THE RATIOS OF ANNUAL
ENROLLMENT AREA LIVE BIRTHS ('02-'05) AND ANNUAL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN
ENROLLMENTS ('07-'10)
YEAR
PROJECTED
K-ENROLL.
2011
2012
2013
2014
YEAR
21
33
29
26
LIVE
BIRTHS
ENROLL.
AREA
2006
2007
2008
2009
EST. K-ENROLL TO
LIVE BIRTH
RATIO
21
33
29
26
1.001728
1.001728
1.001728
1.001728
25
24
23
22
22
21
1.001728
1.001728
1.001728
1.001728
1.001728
1.001728
PROJECTED
LIVE BIRTHS
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
25
24
23
22
22
21
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
ESTIMATED FUTURE KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS SCENARIO II
y = -0.0032x + 28.421
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
HISTORICAL
PROJECTED
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
- 52 -
DATA
TABLE 6
PROJECTED NORTHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
2011-2020 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS
BASED UPON AN EXPONENTIAL TREND ANALYSIS
OF THE HISTORICAL PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT
DATA FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS 2002-2010
YEAR
PROJECTED
K-ENROLL.
YEAR
LIVE
EST. K-ENROLL TO
BIRTHS
ENROLL. AREA LIVE
ENROLL.
BIRTH RATIO
AREA
21
33
29
26
PROJECTED
LIVE BIRTHS
2011
2012
2013
2014
31
31
31
31
2006
2007
2008
2009
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
32
32
32
32
32
32
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
1.47794
0.944332
1.078955
1.208344
ESTIMATED FUTURE KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS SCENARIO III
y = 0.5966x + 26.825
20
15
20
14
20
12
20
11
20
09
20
10
PROJECTED
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
HISTORICAL
20
13
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TABLE 7-A: LOW RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12
YEAR
KNDG R
1ST
05-06
25
34
38
38
32
31
43
52
54
61
62
44
48
562
06-07
22
1.12 28
0.82 28
0.95 36
1.05 40
0.97 31
0.90 28
1.40 60
1.04 54
1.00 54
0.80 49
1.00 62
0.84 37
529
07-08
31
0.82 18
1.11 31
0.89 25
0.97 35
0.95 38
1.00 31
1.46 41
0.92 55
0.98 53
0.93 50
1.04 51
1.02 63
522
08-09
29
0.97 30
1.06 19
1.06 33
0.72 18
0.80 28
0.97 37
1.26 39
0.93 38
1.04 57
0.98 52
0.92 46
0.86 44
470
09-10
41
0.93 27
1.07 32
1.05 20
1.09 36
1.22 22
1.07 30
1.41 52
1.00 39
1.08 41
0.95 54
0.92 48
1.02 47
489
10-11
30
0.98 40
1.07 29
1.06 34
1.00 20
0.94 34
1.00 22
1.47 44
0.90 47
1.03 40
1.07 44
0.96 52
1.08 52
488
0.963
1.025
1.004
0.967
0.977
0.990
1.398
0.957
1.024
0.946
0.969
0.965
Average Ratio
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21
33
29
26
25
24
23
22
22
21
29
20
32
28
25
24
23
22
21
21
R
2ND
41
30
21
33
29
26
25
24
23
22
R
3RD
29
41
30
21
33
29
26
25
24
23
R
4TH
33
28
40
29
20
32
28
25
24
23
R
5TH
20
32
28
39
28
20
31
27
24
23
R
6TH
34
19
32
27
39
28
19
31
27
24
R
7TH
31
47
27
44
38
54
39
27
43
38
R
8TH
42
29
45
26
43
36
52
37
26
41
R
9TH
48
43
30
46
27
44
37
53
38
27
R
10TH
38
46
41
29
44
25
41
35
50
36
R
11TH
43
37
44
40
28
42
24
40
34
48
R
12TH TOTAL
50
41
35
43
38
27
41
23
39
33
458
447
433
429
415
409
409
391
395
380
- 53 -
DATA
TABLE 7-B: MID RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12
YEAR
KNDG R 1ST
05-06
25
34
38
38
32
31
43
52
54
61
62
44
48
562
06-07
22
1.12 28
0.82 28
0.95 36
1.05 40
0.97 31
0.90 28
1.40 60
1.04 54
1.00 54
0.80 49
1.00 62
0.84 37
529
07-08
31
0.82 18
1.11 31
0.89 25
0.97 35
0.95 38
1.00 31
1.46 41
0.92 55
0.98 53
0.93 50
1.04 51
1.02 63
522
08-09
29
0.97 30
1.06 19
1.06 33
0.72 18
0.80 28
0.97 37
1.26 39
0.93 38
1.04 57
0.98 52
0.92 46
0.86 44
470
09-10
41
0.93 27
1.07 32
1.05 20
1.09 36
1.22 22
1.07 30
1.41 52
1.00 39
1.08 41
0.95 54
0.92 48
1.02 47
489
10-11
30
0.98 40
1.07 29
1.06 34
1.00 20
0.94 34
1.00 22
1.47 44
0.90 47
1.03 40
1.07 44
0.96 52
1.08 52
488
0.963
1.025
1.004
0.967
0.977
0.990
1.398
0.957
1.024
0.946
0.969
0.965
Average Ratio
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21
34
30
27
27
26
25
25
24
24
R 2ND
29
20
33
29
26
26
25
24
24
23
R 3RD
41
30
21
34
30
27
27
26
25
25
R 4TH
29
41
30
21
34
30
27
27
26
25
R 5TH
33
28
40
29
20
33
29
26
26
25
R 6TH
20
32
28
39
28
20
32
28
25
25
R 7TH
34
19
32
27
39
28
19
32
28
25
R 8TH
31
47
27
44
38
54
39
27
44
39
R 9TH
42
29
45
26
43
36
52
37
26
42
R 10TH
48
43
30
46
27
44
37
53
38
27
R 11TH
38
46
41
29
44
25
41
35
50
36
R 12TH TOTAL
43
37
44
40
28
42
24
40
34
48
50
41
35
43
38
27
41
23
39
33
458
448
435
432
420
416
418
403
408
397
TABLE 7-C: HIGH RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12
YEAR
KNDG R 1ST
R 2ND
R 3RD
R 4TH
R 5TH
R 6TH
R 7TH
R 8TH
R 9TH
R 10TH
R 11TH
R 12TH TOTAL
05-06
25
34
38
38
32
31
43
52
54
61
62
44
48
562
06-07
22
1.12 28
0.82 28
0.95 36
1.05 40
0.97 31
0.90 28
1.40 60
1.04 54
1.00 54
0.80 49
1.00 62
0.84 37
529
07-08
31
0.82 18
1.11 31
0.89 25
0.97 35
0.95 38
1.00 31
1.46 41
0.92 55
0.98 53
0.93 50
1.04 51
1.02 63
522
08-09
29
0.97 30
1.06 19
1.06 33
0.72 18
0.80 28
0.97 37
1.26 39
0.93 38
1.04 57
0.98 52
0.92 46
0.86 44
470
09-10
41
0.93 27
1.07 32
1.05 20
1.09 36
1.22 22
1.07 30
1.41 52
1.00 39
1.08 41
0.95 54
0.92 48
1.02 47
489
10-11
30
0.98 40
1.07 29
1.06 34
1.00 20
0.94 34
1.00 22
1.47 44
0.90 47
1.03 40
1.07 44
0.96 52
1.08 52
488
0.963
1.025
1.004
0.967
0.977
0.990
1.398
0.957
1.024
0.946
0.969
0.965
Average Ratio
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
41
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
29
41
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
33
28
40
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
20
32
28
39
28
29
29
29
29
30
34
19
32
27
39
28
29
29
29
29
31
47
27
44
38
54
39
40
40
40
42
29
45
26
43
36
52
37
38
38
48
43
30
46
27
44
37
53
38
39
38
46
41
29
44
25
41
35
50
36
43
37
44
40
28
42
24
40
34
48
50
41
35
43
38
27
41
23
39
33
468
454
443
444
436
439
447
442
454
451
- 54 -
DATA
COMMMUNITY ADVISORY JOINT
COMMITTEE:
FEDERAL CENSUS BUREAU
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC
ESTIMATES
2005-2009
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
April 2011
- 55 -
DATA
SOURCE OF DATA:
Federal Census Bureau 2005-2009 American Community Survey
5-Year Estimates
Page 1: Selected Demographic Estimates (Sex and Age, Race, Housing
Units..)
Page 2: Selected Social Characteristics (Education, Marital Status,
Relationships, Grandparents..)
Page 4: Selected Economic Characteristics (Income, Occupation,
Commuting to Work..)
Page 7: Selected Housing Characteristics (Occupancy and Structure,
Housing Value..)
To maintain confidentiality, the Census Bureau applies statistical procedures that introduce some
uncertainty into data for geographic areas with small population groups. The data in this table contain
sampling error and nonsampling error. Each demographic characteristic has a corresponding Margin of
Error. The margin of error is the difference between an estimate and its upper or lower confidence
bound. All American Community Survey margins of error are based on a 90 percent confidence level.
The margins of error are not reported in this discussion tool due to space considerations. The
demographic estimates are reported here to encourage community discussion about possible similarities
and differences in characteristics of the Mayfield and Northville school districts. The compilation of the
Census data is to help the community and school leaders discuss and suggest insights about the school
districts and the communities they serve as part of the long-term planning effort of the school districts.
Additional information on the design and methodology of the American Community Survey, including
data collection and processing, can be found at:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/methodology main/
Copyright 2011
As to Original Text, and Format
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Mayfield and Northville Boards of
Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.
SES Study Team
- 56 -
DATA
Demographic 5-Year Estimates: 2005-2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey
Demographic
Estimates
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
SEX AND AGE
Total population
Male
Female
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Median age (years)
6,473
3,159
3,314
314
438
396
449
185
679
904
1,121
510
462
557
380
78
48.8%
51.2%
4.9%
6.8%
6.1%
6.9%
2.9%
10.5%
14.0%
17.3%
7.9%
7.1%
8.6%
5.9%
1.2%
2,987
1,465
1,522
101
129
218
241
110
201
346
579
234
254
315
208
51
49.0%
51.0%
3.4%
4.3%
7.3%
8.1%
3.7%
6.7%
11.6%
19.4%
7.8%
8.5%
10.5%
7.0%
1.7%
49.0
43.7
18 years and over
21 years and over
62 years and over
65 years and over
5,098
4,830
1,309
1,015
78.8%
74.6%
20.2%
15.7%
2,358
2,267
686
574
78.9%
75.9%
23.0%
19.2%
18 years and over
Male
Female
5,098
2,439
2,659
47.8%
52.2%
2,358
1,168
1,190
49.5%
50.5%
65 years and over
Male
Female
1,015
516
499
50.8%
49.2%
574
270
304
47.0%
53.0%
6,473
6,433
40
99.4%
0.6%
2,987
2,972
15
99.5%
0.5%
RACE
Total population
One race
Two or more races
- 57 -
DATA
Selected Social Characteristics 5-Year Estimates: 2005-2009
Selected Social
Characteristics
HOUSEHOLDS
BY TYPE
Total households
Family households
(families)
With own children
under 18 years
Married-couple family
With own children
under 18 years
Male householder, no
wife present, family
With own children
under 18 years
Female householder, no
husband present, family
With own children
under 18 years
Nonfamily households
Householder living
alone
65 years and over
Households with one or
more people under 18
years
Households with one or
more people 65 years
and over
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
2,606
1,339
1,980
76.0%
897
67.0%
675
25.9%
331
24.7%
1,605
61.6%
741
55.3%
432
16.6%
212
15.8%
56
2.1%
62
4.6%
33
1.3%
54
4.0%
319
12.2%
94
7.0%
210
8.1%
65
4.9%
626
24.0%
442
33.0%
491
18.8%
358
26.7%
173
6.6%
225
16.8%
763
29.3%
355
26.5%
701
26.9%
480
35.8%
Average household size
2.48
2.23
Average family size
2.80
2.68
2,589
1,304
MARITAL
STATUS
Males 15 years and
over
Never married
Now married, except
separated
Separated
Widowed
Divorced
Females 15 years and
over
Never married
Now married, except
separated
Separated
Widowed
Divorced
507
19.6%
342
26.2%
1,699
65.6%
747
57.3%
75
54
254
2.9%
2.1%
9.8%
43
41
131
3.3%
3.1%
10.0%
2,736
1,235
491
17.9%
195
15.8%
1,672
61.1%
745
60.3%
90
243
240
3.3%
8.9%
8.8%
27
135
133
2.2%
10.9%
10.8%
GRANDPARENTS
Number of
grandparents living
with own grandchildren
under 18 years
Responsible for own
grandchildren under 18
169
20
83
8
- 58 -
DATA
Selected Social
Characteristics
EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
Population 25 years
and over
Less than 9th grade
9th to 12th grade, no
diploma
High school graduate
(includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree
Graduate or professional
degree
Percent high school
graduate or higher
Percent bachelor's
degree or higher
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
4,691
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
2,188
168
3.6%
103
4.7%
515
11.0%
204
9.3%
2,185
46.6%
890
40.7%
890
259
440
19.0%
5.5%
9.4%
381
168
241
17.4%
7.7%
11.0%
234
5.0%
201
9.2%
85.4%
86.0%
14.4%
20.2%
6,428
2,967
RESIDENCE 1
YEAR AGO
Population 1 year and
over
Same house
Different house in the
U.S.
Same county
Different county
Same state
Different state
Abroad
6,061
94.3%
2,797
94.3%
354
5.5%
170
5.7%
260
94
71
23
13
4.0%
1.5%
1.1%
0.4%
0.2%
81
89
60
29
0
2.7%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
6,473
6,321
6,281
5,914
367
97.7%
97.0%
91.4%
5.7%
2,987
2,937
2,921
2,594
327
98.3%
97.8%
86.8%
10.9%
40
0.6%
16
0.5%
152
2.3%
50
1.7%
50
50
PLACE OF BIRTH
Total population
Native
Born in United States
State of residence
Different state
Born in Puerto Rico,
U.S. Island areas, or
born abroad to
American parent(s)
Foreign born
LANGUAGE
SPOKEN AT
HOME
Population 5 years and
over
English only
Language other than
English
Speak English less
than "very well"
Spanish
Speak English less
than "very well"
Other Indo-European
languages
Speak English less
than "very well"
Asian and Pacific
Islander languages
Speak English less
than "very well"
Other languages
Speak English less
than "very well"
6,159
2,886
5,992
97.3%
2,800
97.0%
167
2.7%
86
3.0%
23
0.4%
22
0.8%
85
1.4%
54
1.9%
15
0.2%
13
0.5%
72
1.2%
32
1.1%
8
0.1%
9
0.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
10
0.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
- 59 -
DATA
Selected Economic Characteristics 5-Year Estimates: 2005-2009
Selected
Economic
Characteristics
Mean travel time to
work (minutes)
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
25.8
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
29.7
OCCUPATION
Civilian employed
population 16 years
and over
Management,
professional, and
related occupations
Service occupations
Sales and office
occupations
Farming, fishing,
and forestry
occupations
Construction,
extraction,
maintenance, and
repair occupations
Production,
transportation, and
material moving
occupations
INDUSTRY
Civilian employed
population 16 years
and over
Agriculture,
forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and
warehousing, and
utilities
Information
Finance and
insurance, and real
estate and rental and
leasing
Professional,
scientific, and
management, and
administrative and
waste management
services
Educational
services, and health
care and social
assistance
Arts, entertainment,
and recreation, and
accommodation and
food services
Other services,
except public
administration
Public
administration
2,986
1,199
669
22.4%
396
33.0%
530
17.7%
268
22.4%
863
28.9%
241
20.1%
32
1.1%
8
0.7%
409
13.7%
126
10.5%
483
16.2%
160
13.3%
2,986
1,199
21
0.7%
25
2.1%
377
340
91
387
12.6%
11.4%
3.0%
13.0%
73
114
9
143
6.1%
9.5%
0.8%
11.9%
136
4.6%
59
4.9%
99
3.3%
44
3.7%
48
1.6%
61
5.1%
152
5.1%
52
4.3%
879
29.4%
343
28.6%
175
5.9%
82
6.8%
107
3.6%
58
4.8%
174
5.8%
136
11.3%
- 60 -
DATA
Selected
Economic
Characteristics
INCOME AND
BENEFITS (IN
2009 INFLATIONADJUSTED
DOLLARS)
Total households
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 or more
Median household
income (dollars)
Mean household
income (dollars)
With earnings
Mean earnings
(dollars)
With Social
Security
Mean Social
Security income
(dollars)
With retirement
income
Mean retirement
income (dollars)
With Supplemental
Security Income
Mean
Supplemental
Security Income
(dollars)
With cash public
assistance income
Mean cash public
assistance income
(dollars)
With Food
Stamp/SNAP
benefits in the past
12 months
Families
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
2,606
157
107
254
279
496
627
375
6.0%
4.1%
9.7%
10.7%
19.0%
24.1%
14.4%
1,339
109
79
177
197
198
285
149
8.1%
5.9%
13.2%
14.7%
14.8%
21.3%
11.1%
273
10.5%
101
7.5%
17
0.7%
33
2.5%
21
0.8%
11
0.8%
50,338
42,969
56,560
51,973
2,045
78.5%
53,918
952
36.5%
16,742
646
24.8%
(X)
570
42.6%
500
37.3%
21,175
5.1%
8,255
52
61.9%
15,525
15,878
133
829
54,468
78
5.8%
6,319
2.0%
2,263
2
0.1%
5,300
203
7.8%
157
11.7%
1,980
112
58
145
175
400
486
320
5.7%
2.9%
7.3%
8.8%
20.2%
24.5%
16.2%
897
68
25
83
125
93
246
126
897
7.6%
2.8%
9.3%
13.9%
10.4%
27.4%
14.0%
260
13.1%
91
10.1%
5
0.3%
29
3.2%
19
1.0%
11
1.2%
- 61 -
DATA
Selected
Economic
Characteristics
Median family
income (dollars)
Mean family
income (dollars)
Per capita income
(dollars)
Nonfamily
households
Median nonfamily
income (dollars)
Mean nonfamily
income (dollars)
PERCENTAGE OF
FAMILIES AND
PEOPLE WHOSE
INCOME IN THE
PAST 12 MONTHS
IS BELOW THE
POVERTY LEVEL
All families
With related
children under 18
years
With related
children under 5
years only
Married couple
families
With related
children under 18
years
With related
children under 5
years only
Families with
female householder,
no husband present
With related
children under 18
years
With related
children under 5
years only
All people
Under 18 years
Related children
under 18 years
Related children
under 5 years
Related children 5
to 17 years
18 years and over
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
54,611
53,883
59,969
60,434
22,544
23,160
626
442
31,613
30,091
40,340
33,694
8.0%
9.9%
13.1%
10.9%
37.0%
38.7%
5.4%
6.9%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
22.9%
31.9%
26.4%
43.5%
100.0%
100.0%
11.3%
11.4%
18.7%
11.0%
15.7%
9.0%
41.7%
22.8%
7.7%
6.2%
9.3%
11.5%
10.8%
13.4%
65 years and over
3.3%
5.6%
People in families
Unrelated
individuals 15 years
and over
8.9%
8.3%
25.3%
24.6%
18 to 64 years
- 62 -
DATA
Housing 5-Year Estimates: 2005-2009
Selected Housing
Characteristics
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
HOUSING
OCCUPANCY
Total housing units
Occupied housing
units
Vacant housing units
2,199
2,199
2,606
3,100
84.1%
1,339
60.9%
494
15.9%
860
39.1%
Total housing units
1-unit, detached
1-unit, attached
2 units
3 or 4 units
5 to 9 units
10 to 19 units
20 or more units
Mobile home
Boat, RV, van, etc.
3,100
2,444
7
126
26
5
0
2
483
7
78.8%
0.2%
4.1%
0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
15.6%
0.2%
2,199
1,679
23
121
80
26
8
7
255
0
76.4%
1.0%
5.5%
3.6%
1.2%
0.4%
0.3%
11.6%
0.0%
YEAR STRUCTURE
BUILT
Total housing units
Built 2005 or later
Built 2000 to 2004
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1939 or earlier
3,100
51
169
511
317
417
288
356
268
723
1.6%
5.5%
16.5%
10.2%
13.5%
9.3%
11.5%
8.6%
23.3%
2,199
29
22
275
230
291
154
175
142
881
1.3%
1.0%
12.5%
10.5%
13.2%
7.0%
8.0%
6.5%
40.1%
UNITS IN
STRUCTURE
ROOMS
Total housing units
1 room
2 rooms
3 rooms
4 rooms
5 rooms
6 rooms
7 rooms
8 rooms
9 rooms or more
Median rooms
3,100
10
10
185
325
827
729
438
334
242
5.8
0.3%
0.3%
6.0%
10.5%
26.7%
23.5%
14.1%
10.8%
7.8%
2,199
16
122
119
321
537
444
354
232
54
5.5
0.7%
5.5%
5.4%
14.6%
24.4%
20.2%
16.1%
10.6%
2.5%
BEDROOMS
Total housing units
No bedroom
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms
5 or more bedrooms
3,100
10
222
875
1,406
487
100
0.3%
7.2%
28.2%
45.4%
15.7%
3.2%
2,199
16
214
619
1,012
301
37
0.7%
9.7%
28.1%
46.0%
13.7%
1.7%
- 63 -
DATA
Selected Housing
Characteristics
MAYFIELD
Estimate
Percent
NORTHVILLE
Estimate
Percent
HOUSING
TENURE
Occupied housing
units
Owner-occupied
Renter-occupied
Average household
size of owneroccupied unit
Average household
size of renter-occupied
unit
2,606
2,219
387
85.1%
14.9%
1,339
1,339
1,041
298
77.7%
22.3%
2.45
2.22
2.70
2.28
2,606
1,339
YEAR
HOUSEHOLDER
MOVED INTO
UNIT
Occupied housing
units
Moved in 2005 or later
Moved in 2000 to
2004
Moved in 1990 to
1999
Moved in 1980 to
1989
Moved in 1970 to
1979
Moved in 1969 or
earlier
302
11.6%
172
12.8%
571
21.9%
321
24.0%
826
31.7%
353
26.4%
440
16.9%
207
15.5%
351
13.5%
150
11.2%
116
4.5%
136
10.2%
2,219
243
796
477
269
287
102
25
20
105,000
11.0%
35.9%
21.5%
12.1%
12.9%
4.6%
1.1%
0.9%
1,041
83
296
220
203
169
28
39
3
133,400
1,041
8.0%
28.4%
21.1%
19.5%
16.2%
2.7%
3.7%
0.3%
VALUE
Owner-occupied units
Less than $50,000
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $499,999
$500,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 or more
Median (dollars)
- 64 -
October 2011
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL
CHARACTERISTICS/ELEMENTS PROFILE
2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMMUNITY
ADVISORY JOINT COMMITTEE:
DATA
- 65 -
Revenues are very close to budgeted amounts in each school. Expenditures are very close to budgeted expected amounts. A
usual financial health measure is ending a fiscal year with about 3% of revenues remaining and between 6-7% of anticipated
expenditures not expended.
Both districts have reduced the property tax levy with unexpended fund balance to a high level such that it is unlikely that the
practice can be sustained with future year budgets.
Mayfield is well below the 4% unreserved undesignated fund balance outlined in education law.
•
•
•
- 66 -
Each district is in the ‘low range’ with regard to the funding of generally accepted necessary reserves. Neither, for example,
have and Employee Retirement reserve.
•
The present and future status of the Hudson-Black River Regulatory District in meeting tax levy obligations is an important
variable.
•
SOME OVERALL OBSERVATIONS:
• Health insurance expenses by Northville are significantly higher than they are for Mayfield. It seems Northville has more
retiree health benefit obligations.
Some indicators of financial health that are used to evaluate a school districts condition are as follows:
• Fund balance, including reserves
• Excess of revenues over expenditures
• How reliant is the school district on State aid?
• Excess appropriation of fund balance
• Comparison of budgeted revenues and expenditures to actual
• School Lunch subsidies?
• Status of tax certiorari or any litigation outstanding
FINANCIAL HEALTH CHARACTERISTICS
School District financial health is dependent on a number of issues. In the current economic environment the school district needs to
be able to absorb State Aid decreases and increasing expenditures while maintaining a sound educational program.
Mayfield and Northville Central School Districts
DATA
General Support
3
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
% Transfers of Total
Transfers-net
12.75
4,262,672
48.67
12.59
7,828,996
47.79
5.01
4.12
0.00
0
11.03
Northville.
0.10
8,553 Northville includes $10,000 transfer out to school lunch fund.
4.90
429,093 Northville will increase upon bonding of project.
438,710
1,806,700
Core expenditures consistent except for higher % of health insurance in
- 67 -
90.05 Northville. For 2010, $ 2,746,976 for Mayfield vs. $1,862,812 for
7,886,487
28.62
674,613
84.85
13,900,472
24.47
Observation/Items to note or consider:
2,506,850 Northville has a higher % of retiree health insurance expense.
1,116,965
2,062,776
4,008,700
8,757,640
Northville
16,382,442
Mayfield
% Debt Service of Total
Debt Service
% Transportation of Total
Transportation
% Total General Support, Instruction, and
Employee Benefits of Total
Sub-total General Support, Instruction, and
Employee Benefits
% Employee Benefits of Total
Employee Benefits
% Instruction of Total
Instruction
% General Support of Total
Total
2
4
Expenditures (2010):
1
Financial Characteristic/ Element
EXPENDITURES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010
DATA
0%
NORTHVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Debt Service
EXPENDITURES
5%
0%
Instruction
48%
Instruction
48%
General Support
13%
0%
Employee Benefits
29%
Transportation
5%
0%
Employee Benefits 0%
24%
0%
Transportation
4%
EXPENDITURES
General Support
Debt Service
0%
13%
11%
DATA
- 68 -
Real Property Taxes and Tax Items
(including STAR)
% Real Property Taxes of
Total
3
4
11
10
9
8
7
6
Miscellaneous Revenue
Mayfield approx. $350,000 and Northville approx. $325,000 under amounts
228,293
0.77%
122,462
4.02%
- 69 -
109,552 Ex. BOCES refund from prior year unexpended; insurance recoveries….
5.58% Northville depends more highly on tuition revenue from other districts.
477,375 Tuition from other ditricts.
4.68%
400,481 Education Jobs Monies.
638,722
ARRA funding will no longer be available in 2011-12. Replaced partially by
39.18%
3,353,945 Mayfield more dependent on State Aid.
49.29%
4,219,281 budgeted are owed from the Hudson-Black River Regulating District
8,560,634
Northville
57.45%
9,132,893
36.33%
5,775,095
15,897,465
Mayfield
% Service Charges of Total
Charges for Services
% Federal Aid of Total
Federal Aid
% State Aid of Total
State Aid
Total
2
5
Revenues (2010):
1
Financial Characteristic/
Element
SELECTED REVENUES
DATA
Real Property Taxes
NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and Tax Items
SELECTED REVENUES
(including STAR)
Miscellaneous
49%
Revenue
1%
Real Property Taxes
and Tax Items
(including STAR)
36%
State Aid
39%
Federal Aid6%
5%
State Aid
58%
Federal Aid
4%
SELECTED REVENUES
Miscellaneous
Revenue
1%
1%
REVENUES
DATA
- 70 -
Worker's Compensation
Employees' Retirement Contributions
Tax Certiorari
Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve
4
5
6
7
Property Loss and Liability
Tax Reduction
Total Reserves
12
13
14
1,115,152
1,013,455
Debt Service Fund Balance - 2010
23
See Mandatory Reserve above for Northville.
1,769,122
7.15 Mayfield is below allowable 4.0%.
2.52
Unreserved Undesignated
22
to Mayfield's reserves, amount is 16.1%
5.58
3.66
Unreserved Appropriated to Reduce Taxes in 201011
21
- 71 -
14.41 Mayfield in Debt Service Fund. By adding debt service fund
5.33
Northville % is high due to reserve for debt in General Fund,
626,152
413,455
Can both districts maintain appropriating this much fund
489,000 balance?
600,000
1,261,969
1,147,891 Mandatory reserve or Debt Service Fund?
1,460
Mayfield includes a $300,000 bus purchase reserve in this
54,173 account.
For compensated absences.
Both should consider this reserve - see uncollected taxes.
0 Neither has reserved for employees' retirement.
47,749
10,696
Northville
Reserves
Fund Balance as a % of 2010 Expenditures
Total Unreserved
Appropriated Fund Balance to Reduce Taxes in
2010-11
Unreserved Undesignated Fund Balance (Subject to
4.0% of subsequent year's budget)
872,560
380,020
352,378
50,000
0
50,000
40,162
Mayfield
20
19
18
17
16
Unreserved:
Insurance
15
Mandatory Reserve Fund
10
11
9
Capital Reserve (Voter approval required to
establish and fund)
Repair Reserve (Voter approval required to fund,
public hearing to spend)
Unemployment Insurance
3
8
Encumbrances (Purchase Orders Still Open)
Reserves:
2
1
FUND BALANCE
AS OF JUNE 30, 2010
DATA
FUND BALANCE
5.82%
Total Reserves
53%
Total Reserves
46%
Appropriated Fund
Balance to Reduce
Taxes in 2010-11
21%
Unreserved
Undesignated Fund
Balance (Subject to
4.0% of subsequent
year's budget)
26%
Appropriated Fund
Balance to Reduce
Taxes in 2010-11
32%
3.48%
-1.65%
Mayfield
primarily
under in
FUND BALANCE
0.110283 0.048996
Unreserved
Undesignated Fund
Balance (Subject to
4.0% of subsequent
year's budget)
22%
FUND BALANCE
DATA
- 72 -
12
11
10
9
8
1,147,891
2,319
231
1,809
(928)
Northville reserve in the General Fund.
Mayfield has a much higher building
aid ratio.
Net Debt Per Student
Funds Available Per Student
Debt Service Fund
Funds Available:
1,769,122
2,550
881
Debt Per Student
9,423
9,361
Estimated Aid Per Student
7
0.787
0.914
6
Building Aid %
Total Estimated Debt Per Student
5
This assumes Northville bonds for the
3,865,000 entire amount of the project.
11,973
Total Estimated Debt
4
0
10,242
Anticipated Bonding on Projects
3
2,061,830
10,016,317
5,926,830
Serial Bonds Due at 6-30-10 (1,000s)
2
495
Northville
978
Mayfield
10,016,317
Enrollment
1
LONG-TERM DEBT
AS OF JUNE 30, 2010
DATA
- 73 -
-2.45%
3.37%
-1.65%
1.83%
Percent of Revenue Under Budget
2010 Excess (Deficit) Revenues and Expenditures to Budget
% of Pupils Eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunches
School Lunch Fund Balance at June 30, 2010
School Lunch Subsidy from Genereal Fund?
7
8
9
10
11
No
5.82%
3.48%
Percent of Unexpended 2010 Budget
6
OBSERVATIONS
- 74 -
Northville had a loss of $4,439 befopre a transfer in of
$10,000.
Low net percentages indicate close budgeting.
Mayfield primarily under in expenditures in
transportation while Northville was in employee
benefits.
Both Districts under on revenue due to unpaid real
estate taxes.
Northville percentage will increase when renovation
project is bonded ($3,865,000).
Average for North Counrty Region is $18,205 per
pupil; NYS average is $19,082.
1,473 total enrollment
Both Districts are highly dependent on State Aid as a
revenue source. Future reductions in State Aid would
force higher than average increases in the tax levy
and/or expenditure reductions. The average for this
region(North Country) is 61.8%.
Both Districts had excess expenditures in 2010.
Yes - $10,000.
$46,273
4.90%
11.03%
Debt Service as a % of Expenditures
5
$64,834
$17,692
$16,751
General Fund Expenditures per Pupil
4
495
978
K-12 Public School Enrollment including Charter Schools
3
60.79%
State and Federal Aid / Total Revenue
2
60.65%
General Fund Excess Revenues Over Expenditures Last Two Years?
1
No
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mayfield
Northville
No
INDICATORS
FINANCIAL CONDITION COMPARISON
AS OF JUNE 30, 2010
DATA
DATA
COMMITTEE:
AVAILABLE PUPIL CAPACITY
OF EACH SCHOOL BUILIDNG FOR
POSSIBLE USE IN A CONSOLIDATED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
May 2011
- 75 -
DATA
Copyright 2011
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Mayfield and Northville Boards of
Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.
SES Study Team
- 76 -
DATA
SOURCE OF DATA:
Inventory of each instructional and instructional support space by each
principal/superintendent based on how the space is used to deliver the
kindergarten through grade twelve educational program in 2010-2011.
Classrooms used to deliver pre-kindergarten are also included.
ASSUMPTIONS:
The method and assumptions for estimating pupil capacity per existing school
building for potential use by a reorganized school district includes:
9 The pupil capacity analysis is based on delivering instruction with the following class
size goals:
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils
Grades 2 and 3:
22 pupils
Grades 4, 5, and 6:
24 pupils
Grades 7-12:
25 pupils
(Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for
such specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the
board)-and 25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a
classroom will host class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less
specialized.)
Spaces now designated for instructional support are generally assumed to continue for
instructional support.
Pre-kindergarten is assumed to be part of the delivered program at each potential
elementary school.
State Education Department guidelines are applied in calculating the number of pupils
that a specific type of classroom should serve.
Unassigned pupil capacity is planned for in each school building to allow for flexibility in
delivering the program and/or to add an instructional support function or additional
programs not now in place.
The analysis, at the present time, does not include renting classrooms to the BOCES to
host consortium shared programs.
Current spaces used for central administration are not ‘re-claimed’ for instructional
program pupil capacity.
It is assumed for this pupil capacity analysis that there are no renovations to change
existing space or the building of new additional space.
It is assumed that Edinburg will continue the historical pattern of tuitioning their pupils to
Northville over the next ten years.
- 77 -
DATA
9 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR A REORGANIZED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Calculation
Year
Grades
K-6
Grades
7-12
TOTAL GRADES
K-12 FOR LONG
TERM PLANNING
1458
CURRENT COMBINED
ENROLLMENT OF THE
TWO DISTRICTS
2010-2011
704
754
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
738
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
761
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
841
Calculation
Year
Grades
K-6
Grades
7-12
CURRENT COMBINED
ENROLLMENT OF THE
TWO DISTRICTS
2010-2011
704
754
TOTAL GRADES
K-12 FOR INITIAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING
1458
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
717
715
724
731
738
712
693
662
641
627
1429
1408
1386
1372
1365
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
721
723
738
750
761
712
693
662
641
627
1433
1416
1400
1391
1388
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
728
738
769
803
841
712
693
662
641
627
1440
1431
1431
1444
1468
1429
691
1468
707
1585
744
- 78 -
DATA
PUPIL CAPACITY OF EACH EXISTING SCHOOL BUILIDNG
ASSUMPTIONS:
• No new construction of additional space forecasted.
• No immediate renovations of existing space.
• Unassigned pupil capacity is factored to ensure flexibility of program delivery, allow for
program enhancements, and allow for appropriate space for instructional support
activities.
• All existing instructional support spaces remain instructional support spaces.
• Allocation of three classrooms district-wide for Pre-K at class section size of 18 pupils
(108 half day; 54 full day pupils).
• Pupil Capacity based on implemented class sizes per classroom of:
◊ Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils
◊ Grades 2 and 3:
22 pupils
◊ Grades 4, 5, and 6:
24 pupils
◊ Grades 7-12:
25 pupils
(Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for
such specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the
board)-and 25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a
classroom will host class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less
specialized.)
Mayfield K-6
Pupil Capacity
Northville K-6
Pupil Capacity
576
286
Total K-6 Pupil Capacity Currently
Available:
862
Anticipated K-6 Pupil Capacity Need
in five years:
738-841
Mayfield 7-12
Pupil Capacity
Northville 7-12
Pupil Capacity
373
515
Total 7-12 Pupil Capacity Currently
Available:
888
Anticipated 7-12 Pupil Capacity Need
in ten years:
691-744
- 79 -
DATA
DISTRICT: MAYFIELD
EXISTING K-6 ELEMENTARY SPACES AVAILBLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION:
Use or Subject
Size (Sq. ft.)
Minimum
standard
elementary
class sq.
footage is 770.
Pre-K to 6th
(over 550 square
feet)
Plus 1000’
900’
725’
700’
696’
675’
667’
625’
Number of Existing
Rooms (SED pupil
capacity rating
each):
4
6
2
8
1
7
2
1
(27)
(27)
(25)
(24)
(24)
(23)
(23)
(21)
Number of Grade
level classes with
assumed Class Size
Goals:
Pre-K: 18
K and gr. 1: 20
Gr. 2 and 3: 22
Gr. 4,5,6: 24
Special ed: 12:1:1
Pre-K:
2
Pupil Capacity
Calculated Based on
Assumed Class Size
Goals
Half-day 36
Full day 18
K-1:
8
160
7
154
Grades 2-3:
Grades 4-6:
7
Special Needs self-contained:
6
Classroom or
Unassigned
instructional space for
flexibility and/or to
add an instructional
support function or a
pre-k:
1
31
31
Total
Instructional
Rooms
ESTIMATED NET K-6 PUPIL CAPACITY TO USE FOR INITIAL PLANNING
168
72
22
576 pupils
EXISTING ELEMENTARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity)
Computer Lab
784
Speech/Language
700
Art
1400
Stage
X
Vocal music
672
Occupational
280
Cafeteria
1872
Therapy
Instrumental music
728
Physical
700
Teachers’ conf.
x
Therapy
rm.
Library
1600
School
450
psychologist
Gym
3869
Reading
280
Social worker
450
Gym
6630
Reading
280
Piano lab
696
Reading
270
Reading
270
(Existing offices, faculty work rooms, nurse, storage, operations and maintenance spaces, bathrooms, kitchen, locker
rooms and similar spaces are assumed to be continued as used.)
- 80 -
DATA
DISTRICT: MAYFIELD
EXISTING 7-12 SECONDARY SPACES FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION
Use or Subject
No. of
Size (Sq.
Square feet
Functional
Pupil
rooms
Ft.)
per pupil
Pupil
Capacity
station;
Capacity
by SED
maximum
Assumed
guidelines
pupil stations Class Size
to
(SED Building Goal of 25
determine
Aid
pupils per
Building
Guidelines)
classroom or Aid Units
SED
guideline,
which ever is
smaller.
Ag shop and CR
75 sq ft =
20 max
1
1247
25
25
Art
45 sq ft =
25 max
1
1900
25
25
Business Ed
2
792
35 sq ft =
24 max
Computer CR
35 sq. ft =
24 max
Distributive Ed
50 sq ft =
20 max
Keyboarding
35 sq ft =
24 max
Home & Careers
1
1247
Music:
Classroom
50 sq ft =
24 max
50
44
25
25
25
17
Instrumental
1
1088
25 sq ft = 30
max
25 sq ft x .4
Vocal
1
1088
20 sq ft x .4
25
21
Technology
1
627
75 sq ft =
24 max
8
8
- 81 -
DATA
Use or Subject
No. of
rooms
Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Mech. Drawing
& CAD
Science:
General
Square feet
per pupil
station;
maximum
pupil stations
(SED Building
Aid
Guidelines)
Functional
Pupil
Capacity
Assumed
Class Size
Goal of 25
pupils per
classroom or
SED
guideline,
which ever is
smaller.
Pupil
Capacity
by SED
guidelines
to
determine
Building
Aid Units
35 sq ft =
25 max
30 sq ft =
30 max
1
792
30 sq ft =
30 max
25
26
Biology (Living 1
Environment)
792
50 sq ft =
24 max
25
15
Chemistry
1
792
50 sq ft =
24 max
25
15
Physics
1
986
50 sq ft =
24 max
25
19
32
32
30
30
Earth
Library
Reading Rm
Phys Ed:
1st stationup to 500 pupils
2nd station501 – 1000 pupils
Each additional500 pupils or
fraction
Pool
800
1
5400
25 sq ft max
of 15% ps-ic
48 x 66 (3168)
max 30
48 x 66 (3168)
max 30
36 x 52 (1872)
Max 30
Max 30
- 82 -
DATA
Use or Subject
No. of
rooms
Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Study Hall if so
designated
Interchangeable
Classrooms
Square feet
per pupil
station;
maximum
pupil stations
(SED Building
Aid
Guidelines)
Functional
Pupil
Capacity
Assumed
Class Size
Goal of 25
pupils per
classroom or
SED
guideline,
which ever is
smaller.
Pupil
Capacity
by SED
guidelines
to
determine
Building
Aid Units
25
150
150
100
30
180
180
100
16.5 sq ft max
of 40% ps ic
1
6
6
4
968’
986’
805’
660’
26 sq. ft =
30 max
Raw Total of Existing Pupil Stations:
Special Needs Classrooms: (690’, 805’)
770
24
Total existing:
770
Minus 200:
-200
Equals:
570
Divided by 1.16: 491
Plus special needs: 24
EQUALS TOTAL PUPIL CAPACITY OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING:
515
EXISTING SECONDARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTURCTIONAL
SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity)
528
X
5628
Computer lab
Guidance
Auditorium
616
986
x
Special Needs
Cafeteria
792
Resource Rooms
660
660
520
3445
AIS, PM School
Smart board
instruction
x
Distance learning 378
library
x
Weight Room
Faculty workroom
360
CRASH 7
- 83 -
DATA
EXISTING K-6 ELEMENTARY SPACES AVAILBLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION:
Use or Subject
Size (Sq. ft.)
Minimum
standard
elementary
class sq.
footage is 770.
Pre-K to 6th
(over 550 square
feet)
990’
845’
832’
804’
660’
Number of Existing
Rooms (SED pupil
capacity rating
each):
1
1
5
4
3
(27)
(27)
(27)
(27)
(23)
Number of Grade
level classes with
assumed Class Size
Goals:
Pre-K: 18
K and gr. 1: 20
Gr. 2 and 3: 22
Gr. 4,5,6: 24
Special ed: 12:1:1
Pre-K:
1
Pupil Capacity
Calculated Based on
Assumed Class Size
Goals
Half-day 18
Full day 36
K-1:
4
80
4
88
4
96
0
Classroom or
Unassigned
instructional space for
flexibility and/or to
add an instructional
support function or a
pre-k:
1
14
0
Grades 2-3:
Grades 4-6:
Special Needs:
14
Total
Instructional
Rooms
ESTIMATED NET K-6 PUPIL CAPACITY TO USE FOR INITIAL PLANNING
22
286 pupils
EXISTING ELEMENTARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity)
Computer Lab
832
Speech/Language
209
Auditorium K-12 3152
Art
Vocal music
Library K-12
Library Classroom
Library workroom
Gym
1145
605
3065
860
860
3855
Intervention
reading and math
630
780
780
Special Needs
Resource Rooms
632
Elementary Reading
Testing
185
845
Cafeteria K-12
X
Teachers’ conf.
rm.
X
(Existing offices, faculty work rooms, nurse, storage, operations and maintenance spaces, bathrooms, kitchen, locker
rooms and similar spaces are assumed to be continued as used.)
- 84 -
DATA
DISTRICT: NORTHVILLE
EXISTING 7-12 SECONDARY SPACES FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION
Use or Subject
No. of
rooms
Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Ag shop and CR
Square feet
per pupil
station;
maximum
pupil stations
(SED Building
Aid
Guidelines)
Functional
Pupil
Capacity
Assumed
Class Size
Goal of 25
pupils per
classroom or
SED
guideline,
which ever is
smaller.
Pupil
Capacity
by SED
guidelines
to
determine
Building
Aid Units
75 sq ft =
20 max
Art
1
1010
45 sq ft =
25 max
25
22
Business Ed
1
680
35 sq ft =
24 max
25
18
25
17
25
20
Computer CR
35 sq. ft =
24 max
Distributive Ed
50 sq ft =
20 max
Keyboarding
35 sq ft =
24 max
Home & Careers
1
885
Music:
Classroom
50 sq ft =
24 max
Instrumental
1
1260
25 sq ft = 30
max
25 sq ft x .4
Vocal
1
792
20 sq ft x .4
25
15
Technology
1
1858
75 sq ft =
24 max
25
24
- 85 -
DATA
Use or Subject
No. of
rooms
Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Mech. Drawing
& CAD
Science:
General
Square feet
per pupil
station;
maximum
pupil stations
(SED Building
Aid
Guidelines)
Functional
Pupil
Capacity
Assumed
Class Size
Goal of 25
pupils per
classroom or
SED
guideline,
which ever is
smaller.
Pupil
Capacity
by SED
guidelines
to
determine
Building
Aid Units
25
28
35 sq ft =
25 max
30 sq ft =
30 max
30 sq ft =
30 max
1
865
Biology (Living 1
Environment)
1
865
785
50 sq ft =
24 max
25
25
17
15
Chemistry
1
540
50 sq ft =
24 max
25
10
Physics
1
792
50 sq ft =
24 max
25
15
30
30
Earth
Library
Reading Rm
Phys Ed:
1st stationup to 500 pupils
2nd station501 – 1000 pupils
Each additional500 pupils or
fraction
Pool
25 sq ft max
of 15% ps-ic
1
3856
48 x 66 (3168)
max 30
48 x 66 (3168)
max 30
36 x 52 (1872)
Max 30
Max 30
- 86 -
DATA
Use or Subject
No. of
rooms
Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Study Hall if so
designated
Interchangeable
Classrooms
Square feet
per pupil
station;
maximum
pupil stations
(SED Building
Aid
Guidelines)
Functional
Pupil
Capacity
Assumed
Class Size
Goal of 25
pupils per
classroom or
SED
guideline,
which ever is
smaller.
Pupil
Capacity
by SED
guidelines
to
determine
Building
Aid Units
25
25
100
50
50
25
25
22
25
100
52
60
30
30
16.5 sq ft max
of 40% ps ic
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
580’
642’
660’
680’
805’
835’
990’
26 sq. ft =
30 max
Raw Total of Existing Pupil Stations:
Special Needs Classrooms: 2 (630’, 645’)
605
24
Total existing:
605
Minus 200:
-200
Equals:
405
Divided by 1.16: 349
Plus special needs: 24
EQUALS TOTAL PUPIL CAPACITY OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING:
373
EXISTING SECONDARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTURCTIONAL
SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity)
Computer lab
Special Needs
Resource Rooms
IT Tech room
Weight room
780
780
715
290
680
Guidance
695
Social Worker
350
CSE office
School store
850
350
- 87 -
C. SES STUDY TEAM
October 2011
December 2011
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE 2010-11
BUILDING CONDITION SURVEYS (BCS)
DATA
-- 88 --
Building:
Building:
Building:
Estimated capital construction
expenses anticipated through
2015-2016 in addition
to “Items judged unsatisfactory”
Elementary
Jr/Sr High School
Bus Maintenance
$0 ($53,700 in possible capital projects was
identified ... spill prevention plan $13,000; light
replacement $25,000; reseal floors $9400; )
None
$70,000 (another $800,000 in possible capital
projects was identified ... ie tennis courts
$300,000; elevator $97,500; panel boards
$56,000; lights $22,000; phone system $187,500;
water heater $9400; power elements $187,500)
None
$0 ($3.3 million in possible capital projects was
identified ... ie asphalt replacement $34,000;
playground $62,5000; all-weather track
$812,500; ceiling tiles $562,500; roof $750,000;
electrical $929,300)
None
Mayfield
C. SES STUDY TEAM
K-12 Building
Northville
$0
-- 89 --
Roofs; air handling and ventilation systems; fire alarm
system; smoke detection system; emergency lighting;
door hardware; windows
Est. $436,000
Overall building rating: Unsatisfactory
Bus garage
$1,225,000 (ie ceiling replacement $90,000; replace
gym lockers $80,000; ADA compliant hardware
$75,000; replace phone system $145,000; replace old
carpet $30,000; replace VAT $30,000; repoint mortar
$25,000; reroof 1934 wing $750,000)
None
(There are no ‘non-functioning’ or ‘critical failure’
items identified in the survey.)
Items judged unsatisfactory:
SUMMARY OF THE 2010-11
BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEYS
DATA
Critical Failure:
Excellent:
Satisfactory:
Unsatisfactory:
Non-Functioning:
C. SES STUDY TEAM
-- 90 --
System is in new or like-new condition and functioning optimally; only routine maintenance and repair is needed.
System functioning reliably; routine maintenance and repair needed.
System is functioning unreliably or has exceeded its useful life. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed.
System is non-functioning, not functioning as designed, or is unreliable in ways that could endanger occupant health and/or safety.
Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed.
Same at ‘non-functioning’ with the addition that the condition of at least one component is so poor that at least part of the
building or grounds should not be occupied pending needed repairs/replacement or some or all components is needed
The items of the Building Condition Survey are rated by the engineer/architect using the following scale:
DATA
The Building Condition Survey (BCS) is a facility review process to be conducted every five years as required by the State Education Department. A
licensed architect or engineer has completed the survey for each of the buildings within the two school districts of the study. There are 114 items on
the survey. The various categories of items include questions about:
Space adequacy
Site utilities and features
Substructure (ex. foundation)
Building envelope
Interior spaces
Plumbing
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems
Fire safety systems
Accessibility
Environment/comfort/health
Indoor air quality
Relation with the American Red Cross and emergency shelter use
The information listed above is a summary of examples obtained from the Building Condition Surveys (BCS) completed during the 2010-11 school
year as prepared by the architects and forwarded to SED by the Districts. For a complete Building Condition Survey that was filed with the SED,
please contact the respective district office. Please note that it is possible that some of these items may have been addressed by the district after the
BCS was filed.
DATA
COMMUNITY ADVISORY JOINT
COMMITTEE:
GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION
ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2010
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
May 2011
C. SES STUDY TEAM
-91-
c.SES STUDY TEAM
17
17
20
17
GRADE 3
GRADE 3 Range
GRADE 3 Average
17
17
13-15
14
20
21
19
19-21
20
GRADE 2
13
15
20
20
20
20
14-15
15
14
15
8-9
9
Northville Elementary
8
9
GRADE 2 Range
GRADE 2 Average
19
19
20
17
17-20
19
21
20
20
20-21
20
Mayfield Elementary
18
18
15
15-18
17
22
21
22
21-22
22
GRADE 1 Range
GRADE 1 Average
GRADE 1
K Range
K Average
KINDERGARTEN
RE-K Range
PRE-K Average
PRE-K
GRADE LEVEL
DATA
2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS
OCTOBER 1, 2011
- 92 -
c.SES STUDY TEAM
24
25
25
24-25
25
Mayfield Elementary
24
23
23
23-24
23
17
18
18
17-18
18
22
22
13 inclusion
20
20
19
13-20
18
22
22
Northville
High School
17
18
8
8-18
14
20
20
16-17
17
20
17
16
20
20
Mayfield
High School
17
23
24
17-24
21
GRADE 8 Range
GRADE 8 Average
GRADE 8
GRADE 7 Range
GRADE 7 Average
GRADE 7
ENGLISH CLASSES GRADE LEVEL
2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR GRADES 7-12 ENGLISH
CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2011
GRADE 6 Range
GRADE 6 Average
GRADE 6
GRADE 5 Range
GRADE 5 Average
GRADE LEVEL
GRADE 5
GRADE 4 Range
GRADE 4 Average
GRADE 4
DATA
- 93 -
c.SES STUDY TEAM
10-19
16
17
12
10
10-17
13
26
23
18
18-26
22
18
19
10
15-21
18
15
21
19-20
20
19
20
12
23
27
16
12-27
20
13
25
20 inclusion
23
13-25
20
16 inclusion
22
22
18
16-22
20
GRADE 12 Range
GRADE 12 Average
GRADE 12
GRADE 11 Range
GRADE 11 Average
GRADE 11
GRADE 10 Range
GRADE 10 Average
GRADE 10
GRADE 9 Range
GRADE 9 Average
GRADE 9
DATA
- 94 -
c.SES STUDY TEAM
- 95 -
3. Consulting with the resource teacher at the beginning of each marking period to establish the teacher's expectation of the student and at the
end of each marking period to assist in evaluating the student.
2. Recognizing that the mainstreamed student is to be evaluated by the resource teacher; and
In the event such weighting occurs, the involved teacher shall consult in developing the IEP's by:
1. Recognizing that the mainstreamed student will exhibit a lower level of participation then the regular student;
1. If such assignment occurs for three (3) or more instructional periods per day at grades 7-12 or for one-half (1/2) day or more for grades K-6,
each student shall be weighted as +2 (i.e., one (1) mainstreamed handicapped student = two (2) regular students for the purpose of computing
class size and appropriate adjustment shall be made as required by Article 3.4 and 3.5 of the Agreement.
"In the event handicapped students are mainstreamed into the regular classroom, such students will be weighted as follows:
Memorandum Side Letter:
Article 3.4: "It is agreed that the class size limits set forth in 3.4 above shall be used by the District as maximum class sizes in planning the
number of class sections for the subsequent year. Such planning will be finalized by July 1 of each year. Any new students who register with
the District subsequent to July 1 of any year may be assigned without regard to the class size limits set forth in 3.4. In the event the class size
exceeds 27 students in K; 30 students in grades 1-3; or 32 students in grades 4-6; the Administration shall assign teacher aides on the basis of
40 minutes of aide time for each student in excess of the limits which are set forth in 3.4 above."
Article 3.3: "In the elementary grades, the number of pupils enrolled in any section in Kindergarten will not exceed 25 students; grades 1-3 27
students; grades 4-6 29 students; grades 7-12 30 students. The Administration will consider additional help for teachers assigned larger class
loads. Extended departmentalizations will be granted in grades 4, 5 and 6."
Article 3.2: "The daily pupil load of secondary teachers, except physical education teachers, will not exceed 150 pupils; the number of pupils in
assigned study halls and/or homeroom periods will not be considered when determining daily per pupil load. PE teachers may exceed 150
pupils because of the limited PE facilities."
Mayfield CS
DATA
TEACHER CONTRACT LANGUAGE REFERENCES TO CLASS SIZE
c.SES STUDY TEAM
- 96 -
3.5 At the Secondary level, each regular classroom teacher load will be maintained at not more than 125 pupils per day subject to the
limitations of building facilities and state mandates. The areas of chorus, band, physical education, and drama will be maintained at no
more than 150 pupils per day subject to the limitations of building facilities and state mandates.
under the limitations of our building facilities and current state mandates. The above will be maintained by actual enrollment as of the last
teaching day of the preceding school year. Exempt from this provision are chorus, band and physical education. All physical education
classes will be equitably distributed and chorus will be capped at one chorus assignment per day.
a. The Board will maintain as follows:
K-3 20-27 students
4-6 24-30 students
Northville CS
DATA
c.SES STUDY TEAM
MAY 2011
MAYFIELD AND NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS
PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES
PRE-KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE SIX
PROGRAM DELIVERED
IN THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR BY THE
DATA
- 97 -
General Music K-6 1X Week for 40
minutes, Chorus before school
2Xweek
Band during school and before
school for grades 4-6
K-3 2 40 minutes per week and 4-6
3 40 minutes per week
PreK-4 1x per week for 40 minutes,
Grades 5/6 1x during enrichment
Vocal Music
Instrumental
Music
Physical Education
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Special Education teachers work
with reading and classroom
teachersGrades 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6
40 minutes per week PreK through
grade 6, Art Club
General Music 40 minutes per week
PreK though 6th grade
Vocal-40 minutes 2X week, Grades
5-6 chorus
40 minutes 2X week and lessons
are 1X week for 30 minutes
2X week for 40 minutes grades K-6
Committee Member
“highlight/reminder” Notes:
1 40 minute class each week
(Serviced by Library Media
Specialist and Teacher Assistant
K-6 1X Week
Art
Library, Media
Special Ed consultant for push-in
with Science and Social Studies in
grades 2-6
Consideration of data related to
students including reading and math
scores, teachers’ recommendations
for placement, social promotions,
CSE status, Response to
Intervention, and social/emotional
stability of students
Kindergarten, 1st, 4th have four
sections. Pre-K, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th
have 3 sections. Academic and
Behavioral concerns are taken into
account when determining
placement. Special education
students grouped in one homeroom
per grade level.
Combined 1-2 and 3-4 for special
education purposes. 12:1:1 are K-2
and 3-6
Grades 3-6 have a 40 minute
enrichment period- (taught by
homeroom teachers) AIS, Piano
Lab, Book Club and Library. K-2
for AIS and Resource
8:1:1 for grades 2-4. Multiage for
grades 3-4 in general education
classrooms.
After school (10th period)
homework club 2 days/week grades
2-6; AIS and Title services grades
K-6; Resource Grades K-6; Library
Club;
Pre K program
Northville
Pre K program
Mayfield
Team-Teaching
Options
Combined/
Multi-Age
Offerings
Enrichment
Pre-Grade
level transitions
K-6 Core
Program
Element
- 98 -
DATA
ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES PRE-KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE SIX PROGRAM DELIVERED CURRENTLY
Mayfield
1.0 FTE (see Reading, above)
Provided in classroom
1.0 FTE, serves elementary
Through a referral process based
upon RTI and IEP’s
1.6 FTE as push-in and pull-out
services for Title-eligible students
As needed (Contracted out)
1.0 FTE for entire district; does all
CSE testing and counseling; serves
as resource to Response To
Intervention teams
For IEP counseling and as needed,
.4 FTE
Committee Member
1.6 FTE Therapist for the
elementary and high schoolsservices 60 students
See above in reading instruction
Limited to Grades 3-6 AIS students
(Only taught by homeroom teachers
during AIS)
3.5 FTE teachers, 30 minutes per
day for K-3, push-in reading
support as well as 4-6 pull-out for
students who struggle with reading
and writing
Minimal-ERSS 6-10 students
1.0 FTE-Full time through the
district and .2 through the BOCES.
Full time assigned to the
elementary program and does all
CSE testing and counseling. .2 is
1X week assigned to high school
and does CSE testing only.
2 days per week, Steps to Respect
and Personal Safety Curriculum and
IEP counseling
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Remedial Reading
Remedial Math
Speech (nonspecial needs
pupils)
Speech/special
needs
Psychiatric
Foreign
Language
English as a
Second Language
Reading
Instruction
Resource Officer
Psychologist
Social Worker
Guidance
Counseling
Program
Element
DATA
Northville
- 99 -
Yes, grades 3-6
Grades 4-6; volunteer advisor
Open to grades 2-12 students;
volunteer advisors; number of
teams dependent upon student
interest; generally 1-2 meetings per
week
Committee Member
Grades 5-6, 40 minutes 1X week
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Student Council
Intramurals
Art Club
Open to grades 3-6 students 1 to 2
days per week for approximately
one month. After school, no
transportation provided, volunteer
advisor (20 students)
As per IEP’s (see above)
1.0 FTE primary grades K-3; 1.0
intermediate grades 3-6 all IEP
driven
8:1:1 in-district for grades 2-4; 4
students
12:1:4 for multiply handicapped
students out-of-district 2 students
4 teachers at the elementary school
and 6 teachers at the high school
Resource Room
for special needs
pupils
Special needs-self
contained
classrooms
Special needsintegrated
Specialized
Academic
Programs:
Primary Mental
Health
Elementary
Odyssey of the
Mind
.6 FTE through BOCES provides
IEP mandated services
1.0 FTE OTR and .8 COTA-Full
time is assigned to the elementary
school and the part time is assigned
to the high school but also helps
with elementary program
Occupational
Therapy
12:1:1 for grades K-3/1 teacher and
1 aide (6 students)
12:1:1 for grades 3-6/1 teacher and
1 aide (6 students)
.6 FTE through BOCES provides
IEP mandated services
Part of reading and speech
instruction
1.0 FTE nurse for entire district
1.0 FTE provides services K-12 for
20 students
See above in reading instruction
1.0 FTE Nurse at the elementary
school
Mayfield
Physical Therapy
Health Services
Remedial Writing
Program
Element
DATA
Northville
- 100 -
Mayfield
Elementary yearbook, volunteer
advisor
Elementary Drama Club (fall play;
spring musical) volunteer advisor
PTO sponsored karate and tennis
lessons
Committee Member
Exploring Student Potential: Grades
4-6 students based on academic
performance and overall character.
Program is designed to engage and
challenge top students. Meets 1-2
days per week, teacher stipend,
lasts for 30 weeks, no transportation
provided (20 students)
5/6 students, teacher stipend, meets
approximately 20 times per year
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Yearbook
Other Extra
Curricular
Program
Element
DATA
Northville
- 101 -
c.SES STUDY TEAM
June 2011
- 102 -
MAYFIELD AND NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
FOR THE
PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES
7-12 PROGRAM DELIVERED
IN THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
DATA
1.0 FTE
2.0 FTE, Spanish
2.0 FTE, teach more than one grade level
1.0 FTE, teaches more than one grade level
1.0 Band and Lessons, teaches more than one
grade level
1.0 Chorus, teaches more than one grade level,
includes Music in Our Lives, History of Music,
Rock Band/Music Industry
2.0 FTE, 1 certified and one out of prime certification
1.0 Spanish teacher and 1.0 French teacher
3.0 FTE, 2 certified and 1 out of prime certification
1 Part time teacher
Jr. High Band and lessons
Jr. High Chorus
Health
Art
Language
Physical Education
Home and Careers
Instrumental Music
Vocal Music
c.SES STUDY TEAM
9-12 SS
9-12 Courses
9-12 English
2.0 FTE teachers for Global 9, 10, US History,
Principles in Government, American Political
Systems, Honors Economics
2.0 FTE teachers for Eng 9, 10, 11, 12, College
English, Writing Workshop, Public Speaking,
1.0 FTE
3 teachers-shared with 1 full time and 2 part time
4.0 FTE teachers for English 9, 10, 11 and Senior English,
Corporate Communications, English 103 and 104, Speak
Your Mind (elective)
4.0 FTE teachers for Global 9 and 10, US History, AP US
History, Economics, Participation in Government, College
Government (elective), Holocaust (elective), AP Psychology
(elective)
1 teacher, teaches more than one grade level
Science 8
Other Gr 8
Technology
2 teachers shared with 7th and 8th grades
1 teacher
1 teacher
1 teacher
1 teacher
1 teacher; some 8th graders accelerated with high school
teacher
2 teachers shared with 7th and 8th
SS 7
Math 7
Science 7
English 8
SS 8
Math 8
2 teachers, both teach more than one grade
level
1 teacher dual certified
Northville
2 teachers shared with 7th and 9th grades
Mayfield
English 7
Subject
Categories and Program
Elements
ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES 7-12 PROGRAM DELIVERED CURRENTLY 2010-2011
DATA
- 103 -
Committee Member
“highlight/reminder”
Notes:
3.0 FTE teachers for 7-12 art, includes 7/8 art, drawing and
painting, cartooning, computer art, studio art, television
production, Ceramics I, II, AP Studio Art, Graphic Design
and Advertising Art (Note: Art courses are singletons in the
secondary level)
Students sent to CTC in Johnstown, 44 students in 2010-2011
Art
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Advanced Placement
Courses
20 Students go to CTC in Johnstown (Students
can earn an 5 unit sequence in Career/Tech at
Northville
1.0FTE Pre-K-8 and 1.0FTE 9-12
1.0 FTE Teacher teaches Health and Home and
Careers
2.0 FTE, Spanish I, II, III, IV,
2.0 FTE
See Above: Health
Sr. High Band/Lessons
Music In Our Lives, History of Music, Rock
Band/History
1.0 FTE, Construction, Small Engine Repair,
Design and Drawing
3.0 FTE teachers, Earth Science, Living Env,
Chemistry, Physics, Environmental Science, ,
Adirondack Science, College Bio, College
Chemistry
1.0 FTE, CFM, Escape, Marketing, BA/BCA,
NCS School Store
2.0FTE teachers, Math 1, Algebra Yr I,II,
Geometry, Geometry Yr I, II, Algebra/Trig,
Financial Algebra, Pre-Calc, Calc
Northville
AP US History: 12-15
AP Psych: 26
AP Bio: 6
2.0 FTE: Spanish II, III, IV, V and French II, III, IV, V
2.0 FTE
.5 FTE Grades 7 and 8 only
Sr. High Band and Lessons
Sr. High Choir
Language
Physical Education
Home and Careers
Instrumental Music
Vocal Music
Career and Technical
Programs
1.0 FTE
1.5 teachers: Careers and Fin. Management, Computer
Literacy, Web 2.0, Desktop Publishing, Principles of
Business, Sports and Entertainment Marketing, Accounting,
Math and Financial Applications, Career Exploration
Internship
7.0 FTE teachers: 1 Distance Learning (College: Pre Calc),
Integrated Algebra, Algebra Yr 1 and 2, Geometry, Geometry
Yr 1, Algebra/Trig, Algebra/Trig Yr 1, Algebra/Trig Yr 2,
College Calc, Statistics, Applied Math and Computer
Programming I, II
5.0 FTE teachers: 1 Distance Learning (Forensic Science),
Living Environment, Earth Science, Chemistry, Physics,
Applied Chemistry, Environmental Science and APBiology
Mayfield
Health
Technology
Business
9-12 Science
9-12 Math
Subject
Elements
DATA
- 104 -
Committee Member
Notes:
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Graduation Sequences
Available to Pupils at the
Home School
Courses provided by
teleconferencing or other
distance learning
programs
List of Singletons by
Subject Name with less
than 14 pupils enrolled
Subject
Elements
Other Opportunities, ex
college sponsored
programs
Design/Drawing: 13
Small Engine: 8
Construction: 8
Spanish I in Grade 9: 7
BA/BCA: 9
Marketing: 6
Research Seminar: 7
Physics: 10
College Bio/Chem: 10
Pre Calc: 5
Calc: 5
American Political Sys: 12
Financial Algebra: 12
Outdoor Living: 8
Music Lives: 9
History of Music: 10
Rock Band: 10
College Drawing: 10
Ceramics: 9
College English: 12
Drawing/Painting: 8
Writing Workshop: 10
Adirondack Science: 10
Spanish IV: 7
Psychology: 11
For Advanced Regents: Nine Credit sequence
is available in the Arts/Music area
Northville
College Spanish II, College Drawing, College
Ceramics, Research Seminar, College Biology,
College Chemistry, Pre Calc, Calc, College
English, American Political Systems
For Advanced Regents students can replace 3 unit Foreign
Language requirement with five unit sequence in art, music,
fine arts, business and career education
AP Bio: 6
Advanced Studio Art: 12
Bach to Rock: 9
Music Drama I: 12
Applied Math: 12
Algebra/Trig Yr 2: 4
Princ of Business: 9
CEIP: 11
Video Production: 13
Graphic Art: 12
Drawing: 13
French V: 13
Applied Chem: 6
Spanish IV: 11
Spanish V: 5
Integrated Algebra Accelerated: 11
Algebra/Trig: 1
Geometry: 4
College Calc: 3
AP US History: 12
Pre-Calc, Forensics Science
Mayfield
College Credit: Eng 103, 104, Principles of Business,
Intermediate French I/II, Pre-Calc, Calc, College Govt,
American History, Intermediate Spanish I/II
DATA
- 105 -
Committee Member
Notes:
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Clubs
Subject
Elements
7th grade: 12
8th grade: 10
9th grade: 20
10th grade: 6
11th grade: 12
12th grade: 45
Art Club: 15
Band/Jazz: 19
Marching Band: 45
Bowling: 12
Chorus Club: 35
Drama Club: 35
FTA: 8
Library Club: 26
Girls Athletic Assc: 14
Green Club: 8
Golf Club: 16
International Club: 19
Internet Club: 16
Men’s Indoor Soccer: 15
Odyssey Mind: 36
NHS: 11
Peer Leadership: 8
Readers of the Round: 11
SADD: 8
Student Council: 25
Tech Club: 5
Tennis Club: 9
Varsity Club: 22
Yearbook Club: 7
Northville
Class of 2011: 73
2012: 82
2013: 80
2014: 89
2015: 75
2016: 73
School Store/Key Club:20
Yearbook: 20
Builders Club: 20
Cheerleading :13
Guitar Club: 12
Student Council: 35
Post Prom/SADD:15
Jr/Sr Vocal :90
Jr Honor Society: 36
Sr Honor Society: 34
Band Booster: 65
Drama: 100
Gay/Straight Alliance: 15
Mural Club: 10
Outdoor Club
Mayfield
DATA
- 106 -
Committee Member
Notes:
1.0 FTE
1.8 FTE
.2FTE 1X Week, plus 1.0 FTE Psychologist
Speech
Counseling
Resource Room
Physical Therapy
Occupational Therapy
Psychologist
Psychiatrist
Social Worker
Self-Contained
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Jazz Band 1X Week (stipend) 20
Select Choir 1X Week (stipend) 5
Musical Drama: During school day: 12
Drama Club: Evenings in the winter: 100+
1.6 FTE Speech Therapist
2.5 FTE
5.4 FTE Special Education Teachers for Grades 7 through 12
Music Drama
1.0 FTE Social Worker
1.0 FTE Counselor for 7-12 Grades
.5 FTE Special Ed for 7-8, and 1.0 FTE Special
Ed Teacher for 9-12. Resource Room available
for 7-12 special ed students.
Golf: M/F: V, Stipend-11
Boys Mod Soccer, S-21
Girls Mod Soccer,S-13
Boys JV Soccer, S-18
Girls JV Soccer, S-17
Boys V Soccer, S-18
Girls V Soccer, S-15
Boys 7th Gr Hoops, S-10
Boys 8th Gr Hoops, S-11
Girls 8th Gr Hoops, S-8
Boys JV Hoops, S-14
Boys V Hoops, S-8
Girls JV Hoops, S-8
Girls V Hoops, S-10
Cheerleading, S-15
Boys Mod Baseball, S-13
Boys JV Baseball, S-16
Girls V Softball, S-14
Mod Track:S- 7
V Track: S-25
Mayfield
12:1:1 Life Skills and 12:1:4
Girls Soccer: Mod, JV, V: Stipend-45
Boys Soccer: Mod, JV, V: Stipend-50
X-Country: M/F: Mod, JV, V: Stipend-23
Volleyball: F: Mod, JV, V, Stipend: 49
Golf: M/F V: Stipend-7
Swim Team: F: V: Stipend-5
Hoops/Boys: Mod, JV, V: Stipend-42
Hoops/Girls: Mod, JV, V: Stipend-38
Cheerleading: M/F: JV/ V: Stipend-14
Bowling: M/F: JV/V: Stipend-21
Nordic Ski: M/F: Mod, JV, V: Stipend-19
Swim Team: M: V: Volunteer-2
Baseball: M: Mod/JV/V: Stipend
Softball: F: Mod/JV/V: Stipend
Track/Field: M/F
Subject
Categories and Program Elements
Interscholastic Sports M/F
Intramural Sports M/F
DATA
- 107 -
Northville
c.SES STUDY TEAM
August 2011
October 201
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
GRADES 7-12 INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS
CLUBS AND DRAMA/MUSIC
CURRENT 2010-2011 PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
DATA
- 108 -
c.SES STUDY TEAM
Mod Soccer – Girls
JV Soccer – Girls
Varsity Soccer – Girls
Mod XC – Girls
Mod Soccer – Boys
JV Soccer – Boys
Varsity Soccer – Boys
Mod XC - Boys
JV XC – Boys
Varsity XC – Boys
Mod BB – Boys
7th Grade BB – Boys
8th Grade BB – Boys
JV BB – Boys
Varsity BB – Boys
Mod Nordic Skiing
JV Nordic Skiing
Varsity Nordic Skiing
Varsity Swimming
JV Bowling – Boys
Varsity Bowling – Boys
Mod Baseball
JV BB
Varsity BB
Mod Track – Boys
Varsity Track - Boys
Varsity Golf – Boys
15
17
15
6
13
10
13
5
4
3
2
3
6
16
12
13
3
17
7
6
10
16
19
15
NORTHVILLE
X
13
17
15
1
14
11
X
15
14
4
12
14
8
21
18
18
X
Combined for
2011-12
X
NUMBERS OF PUPILS WHO CURRENTLY PARTICIPATE
Activities provided in 2010 program and not in 2011 program (x)
MAYFIELD
SPECIFIC GRADES 7-12
INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC
ACTIVITY
DATA
X
X
X
X
X
- 109 -
267
475
c.SES STUDY TEAM
260
46
435
22
13
3
8
14
8
10
9
Total Number of PARTICIPANTSDUPLICATED COUNT
2010-2011 total grades
7-12 enrollment unduplicated count
X
COMBINED FOR
2011-12
X
COMBINED FOR
2011-12
Total Number of Teams
10
15
13
10
5
10
11
7
8
5
5
6
6
3
3
8
15
11
11
9
14
4
NUMBERS OF PUPILS WHO CURRENTLY PARTICIPATE
Activities provided in 2010 program and not in 2011 program (x)
JV XC – Girls
Varsity XC - Girls
Mod Volleyball – Girls
7th Gr Volleyball – Girls
8th Gr Volleyball – Girl
JV Volleyball – Girls
Varsity Volleyball - Girls
Cheerleading – Fall
Mod Basketball – Girls
7th Grade BB – Girls
8th Grade BB – Girls
JV BB – Girls
Varsity BB – Girls
Varsity Swimming - Girls
JV Bowling – Girls
Varsity Bowling – Girls
Mod Nordic Skiing - Girls
JV Nordic Skiing - Girls
Varsity Nordic Skiing - Girls
Varsity Cheerleading – Winter
Mod Softball
JV SB
Varsity SB
Mod Track – Girls
Varsity Track – Girls
INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC
ACTIVITY
DATA
X
X
- 110 -
c.SES STUDY TEAM
$24,619
$1,883
$2,112
$28,614
$726
$1,000
$30,340
Total $ of paid stipends
Total FICA paid on stipends
Total retirement paid on stipends
TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENDITURE
TOTAL SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, FEES FOR CO-CURRICULAR
TOTAL BUSING COSTS FOR CO-CURRICULAR
TOTAL COSTS CO-CURRICULAR:
CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM
(NOT INCLUDING MUSIC AND DRAMA)
Total grades
Per pupil
279
$108.75
NORTHVILLE
2010-2011
31
279
$498.13
$66,808
$5,111
$5,759
$77,677
$10,300
$21,000
$30,000
$138,977
NORTHVILLE
2010-2011
31
CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM
(NOT INCLUDING MUSIC AND DRAMA)
Total number of paid STIPEND positions
TOTAL ATHLETIC SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, FEES FOR INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS
TOTAL BUSING COSTS FOR INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS
TOTAL COSTS FOR OFFICIALS
TOTAL COSTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS
Total grades
Per pupil expenditure
INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS
INTERSCHOLASTIC AND CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM COSTS FOR 2011-2012
Note that Northville expenses are listed for 2010-2011 since funds for
interscholastic and co-curricular programs in 2011-2012 were decreased significantly.
DATA
- 111 -
475
$23.20
$11,019
$9,202
$704
$1,113
$11,019
MAYFIELD
2011-2012
10
475
$272.08
$74,940
$5,733
$9,067
$89,740
$6,500
$5,000
$28,000
$129,240
MAYFIELD
2011-2012
26
c.SES STUDY TEAM
279
$64.80
$13,545
$1,036
$1,168
$15,749
$1,331
$1,000
$18,080
NORTHVILLE
2010-2011
15
TOTAL MUSIC AND DRAMA CO-CURRICULAR SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, FEES
TOTAL BUSING COSTS FOR CO-CURRICULAR MUSIC AND DRAMA
TOTAL COSTS MUSIC AND DRAMA CO-CURRICULAR:
Total grades
Per pupil
MUSIC AND DRAMA CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM
DATA
4
- 112 -
475
$23.08
$10,967
$9,156
$701
$1,110
$10,967
MAYFIELD
2011-2012
DATA
COMMITTEE:
2009-2010 STUDENT REPORT CARD:
SUMMARY OF
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
August 2011
- 113 -
DATA
Performance on the State assessments in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics,
and science at the elementary and middle levels is reported in terms of mean
scores and the percentage of tested students scoring at or above
Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4.
About the Performance Level Descriptors
Level 1: Not Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance does not demonstrate an
understanding of the content expected
in the subject and grade level.
Level 2: Partially Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance demonstrates a partial
Level 3: Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance demonstrates an
Level 4: Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction.
Student performance demonstrates a
thorough understanding of the content expected
SUMMARY OF 2009-2010 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
MAYFIELD
NORTHVILLE
% OF STUDENTS
% OF STUDENTS
Assessment:
WHO SCORED
TOTAL
WHO SCORED
TOTAL
AT OR ABOVE
TESTED
AT OR ABOVE
TESTED
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 3
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
(ELA)
74
18
Grade 3
58
61
74
33
Grade 4
69
70
69
20
Grade 5
57
65
72
31
Grade 6
64
52
MATHEMATICS
73
18
Grade 3
67
78
74
33
Grade 4
84
67
68
20
Grade 5
78
70
71
31
Grade 6
75
61
SCIENCE
74
33
Grade 4
95
97
- 114 -
DATA
MAYFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL
STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS
2009-10
2008-09
TEST
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL 2
LEVEL3
LEVEL4
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
GR 3 ELA
74
93
58
18
72
96
88
31
GR 3 MATH
73
95
67
22
72
99
94
43
GR 4 ELA
74
96
69
14
66
92
80
12
GR 4 MATH
74
97
84
42
66
94
86
52
GR 4 SCIENCE
74
99
95
72
65
94
91
85
GR 5 ELA
69
86
57
7
71
100
85
14
GR 5 MATH
68
96
78
24
71
97
82
35
GR 6 ELA
72
90
64
10
67
100
88
9
GR 6 MATH
71
96
75
32
68
97
87
24
GR 7 ELA
72
93
49
7
89
100
82
3
GR 7 MATH
72
99
68
19
89
98
85
33
GR 8 ELA
83
89
42
2
85
100
69
5
GR 8 MATH
83
95
65
10
83
100
89
16
GR 8 SCIENCE
71
99
2007-08
79
14
66
98
80
24
2006-07
TEST
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL
2
LEVEL
3
LEVEL
4
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL
2
LEVEL
3
LEVEL
4
GR 3 ELA
67
93
76
7
72
90
69
11
GR 3 MATH
65
98
88
29
72
99
90
22
GR 4 ELA
70
94
76
9
69
99
75
10
GR 4 MATH
68
99
96
53
68
99
96
35
GR 4 SCI
69
100
96
62
69
99
99
65
GR 5 ELA
72
99
89
3
84
96
61
2
GR 5 MATH
73
97
95
32
84
98
71
6
GR 6 ELA
82
100
63
0
84
98
74
18
GR 6 MATH
80
98
80
25
82
98
80
15
GR 7 ELA
93
99
73
5
100
97
54
4
GR 7 MATH
94
99
79
30
99
94
75
9
GR 8 ELA
97
95
44
3
86
97
48
3
GR 8 MATH
97
94
75
9
84
95
65
8
GR 8 SCI
86
97
83
31
75
97
88
41
- 115 -
DATA
NORTHVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL
STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS
2009-10
2008-09
TEST
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL 2
LEVEL3
LEVEL4
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
GR 3 ELA
18
94
61
11
33
100
82
15
GR 3 MATH
18
100
78
11
32
100
97
13
GR 4 ELA
33
100
70
12
17
100
94
0
GR 4 MATH
33
94
67
18
17
100
94
18
GR 4 SCIENCE
33
100
97
48
16
100
100
94
GR 5 ELA
20
95
65
10
28
100
86
25
GR 5 MATH
20
100
70
5
28
100
86
21
GR 6 ELA
31
94
52
13
40
100
80
8
GR 6 MATH
31
90
61
16
41
98
66
7
GR 7 ELA
49
86
31
4
39
100
77
0
GR 7 MATH
49
86
43
8
38
100
84
21
GR 8 ELA
41
98
54
2
40
100
68
3
GR 8 MATH
41
93
46
5
39
95
90
18
GR 8 SCIENCE
40
98
88
33
29
100
93
7
2007-08
2006-07
TEST
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL
2
LEVEL
3
LEVEL
4
NO.
TESTED
LEVEL
2
LEVEL
3
LEVEL
4
GR 3 ELA
23
100
74
0
35
86
51
3
GR 3 MATH
22
100
95
9
34
94
82
3
GR 4 ELA
34
97
76
0
39
95
54
5
GR 4 MATH
35
100
89
14
36
94
83
14
GR 4 SCI
32
100
100
69
37
199
100
62
GR 5 ELA
39
100
72
5
30
100
80
3
GR 5 MATH
39
100
82
18
29
100
97
10
GR 6 ELA
33
100
67
3
27
96
67
4
GR 6 MATH
31
97
94
16
29
93
69
7
GR 7 ELA
41
100
76
5
58
97
50
7
GR 7 MATH
42
98
81
12
60
92
55
5
GR 8 ELA
55
100
36
4
52
98
54
4
GR 8 MATH
56
96
61
0
53
89
58
9
GR 8 SCI
53
100
83
17
52
96
79
23
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
What instructional programs are in place now that address helping students achieve at least a 3 or 4 on
the State Assessments?
What other instructional programs not now in place could help increase the number of students who
achieve at least a 3 or 4 on the State Assessments?
- 116 -
DATA
COMMITTEE:
2009-2010 STUDENT REPORT CARD:
SUMMARY OF
MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
August 2011
- 117 -
DATA
Performance on the State Assessments in English Language Arts (ELA),
mathematics,
and science at the middle and secondary levels is reported in terms of mean
scores and the percentage of tested students scoring at or above
Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4.
About the Performance Level Descriptors
Level 1: Not Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance does not demonstrate an
Level 2: Partially Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance demonstrates a partial
Level 3: Meeting Learning Standards.
Student performance demonstrates an
Level 4: Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction.
Student performance demonstrates a
thorough understanding of the content expected
- 118 -
DATA
SUMMARY OF 2009-2010 MIDDLE SCHOOL/SECONDARY PERFORMANCE
MAYFIELD
% OF
STUDENTS
WHO
SCORED AT
OR ABOVE
LEVEL 3
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
ARTS
Grade 7
Grade 8
HS English
MATHEMATICS
Grade 7
Grade 8
HS Math
SCIENCE
Grade 8
REGENTS
EXAMINATION
ENGLISH
MATH B
INTEGRATED
ALGEBRA
TRIG / MATH B
GEOMETRY
TOTAL
TESTED
TOTAL
TESTED
49
42
81
72
83
96
31
54
75
49
41
48
68
65
81
72
83
96
43
46
75
49
41
48
79
71
88
40
NUMBER
TESTED
YEAR
NORTHVILLE
% OF
STUDENTS
WHO
SCORED AT
OR ABOVE
LEVEL 3
% AT OR ABOVE
55
% AT OR ABOVE
65
% AT OR ABOVE
85
MAY
NORTH
MAY
NORTH
MAY
NORTH
MAY
NORTH
07-08
91
45
98
100
93
100
45
16
08-09
87
41
91
98
87
90
39
20
09-10
78
42
100
100
99
98
41
24
07-08
52
45
88
51
81
31
15
7
08-09
42
26
83
88
71
65
14
12
09-10
6
10
50
80
33
60
0
30
07-08
67
32
100
97
99
81
33
6
08-09
70
57
100
100
97
91
30
19
09-10
100
44
96
91
90
84
15
7
07-08
52
NA
88
NA
81
NA
15
NA
08-09
42
NA
83
NA
71
NA
14
NA
09-10
33
16
94
69
91
44
42
19
07-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
08-09
43
31
98
81
98
45
33
6
09-10
57
44
100
95
91
73
30
9
- 119 -
DATA
GLOBAL HISTORY
US HISTORY
LIVING
ENVIRONMENT
EARTH SCIENCE
CHEMISTRY
PHYSICS
SPANISH
FRENCH
07-08
94
64
93
81
90
59
40
8
08-09
70
59
100
76
99
61
51
19
09-10
86
60
99
83
95
60
38
18
07-08
88
48
100
96
95
90
72
42
08-09
84
40
96
100
93
88
68
45
09-10
75
45
100
100
100
98
80
38
07-08
83
42
96
98
89
90
23
26
08-09
92
62
99
100
91
97
36
32
09-10
78
62
94
98
86
85
31
31
07-08
73
52
99
83
86
58
32
19
08-09
67
57
100
82
88
67
34
18
09-10
90
46
92
96
81
80
31
28
07-08
36
23
100
91
89
61
14
0
08-09
48
8
100
100
96
63
10
13
09-10
40
17
100
94
95
76
13
18
07-08
21
0
95
0
81
0
14
0
08-09
10
0
100
0
100
0
30
0
09-10
18
0
100
0
94
0
28
0
07-08
30
14
100
100
90
100
37
57
08-09
0
15
0
100
0
100
0
87
09-10
26
11
100
100
96
100
35
73
07-08
11
8
100
100
91
100
55
25
08-09
11
7
100
100
91
86
64
57
09-10
11
8
100
100
100
100
82
63
* From New York State Education Department Report Cards Comprehensive Assessment Report
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
What instructional programs are in place now that address helping students achieve at least a 3 or 4 on
the State Assessments?
What other instructional programs not now in place could help increase the number of students who
achieve at least a 3 or 4 on the State Assessments?
- 120 -
SES STUDY TEAM
July 2011
NORTHVILLE CS
MAYFIELD CS
- 121 -
◊ FULL TIME EQUIVALENT OF STAFF WHO HAVE LEFT THE DISTRICTS FOR ALL REASONS EXCEPT
REDUCTION IN FORCE FOR THE SCHOOL YEARS 2007-2008 THROUGH 2010-2011
◊ AVERAGE TOTAL FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES ACROSS BOTH SCHOOL
DISTRICTS BENCHMARKED TO THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
◊ TOTAL FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES BY EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT
BENCHMARKED TO THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
◊ PROFILE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ALL LABOR CONTRACTS IN PLACE IN THE TWO DISTRICTS
FOR THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
◊ ‘Q AND A’ ABOUT THE PROCESS WITH REGARD TO PERSONNEL WHEN A SCHOOL DISTRICT
REORGANIZATION OCCURS THROUGH CONSOLIDATION
COMMMUNITY ADVISORY JOINT COMMITTEE:
DATA
SES STUDY TEAM
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Mayfield and Northville Central School Districts,
their Superintendents and by all government agencies
to which the districts provide the study.
Copyright 2011
All Rights Reserved
DATA
- 122 -
- 123 -
Competitive class employees are credited with seniority in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Other employees may have seniority
rights set forth in their collective bargaining agreements.
4. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law?
Teachers are credited with seniority earned within a particular tenure area. When school districts centralize, the seniority lists are
merged so that the new school district has only one seniority list per tenure area.
3. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of teachers?
The terms of those agreements may become elements of new agreements with the new school district. The new school district and the
new bargaining units’ bargaining agents must make a good faith effort to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements.
2. Q: What happens to the collective bargaining agreements of the former school districts?
Each teacher employed by a former school district becomes an employee of the new school district. Employees appointed pursuant to
the Civil Service Law by a former school district may have varying rights in the new school district, depending on their civil service
class (competitive, non-competitive, labor, etc.).
1. Q: If two or more school districts centralize into one school district, what happens to the employees of the former school districts?
The following information is based on guidance materials from the State Education Department and general principles of
public sector employment law. This document does not contain legal advice and should not be considered a legal opinion.
For legal advice, the districts should contact their respective attorney counsels.
(July 20, 2011)
Labor Relations Implications
Of School District Centralization
DATA
- 124 -
Superintendents of the former districts do not have any statutory rights to that position in the new district. The new school district
board of education may select its own new superintendent. When the superintendent of a district included in the reorganization has an
employment contract, that contract becomes an obligation of the newly reorganized school district. If the newly reorganized district
determines not to employ the superintendent of a former school district, the new district may discharge the contractual obligation by
paying the salary which he or she would have earned, less any income obtained from employment elsewhere during the term of the
contract.
8. Q: What happens to the superintendents of the former school districts?
Although the guidance materials from the State Education Department specifically reference the seniority rights of teachers, there is
reason to believe the seniority rights of school administrators could be handled in a similar manner. However, since school
administrator tenure areas may vary from district to district, the actual impact of these rights by individual job title/role is a case-by-case
analysis.
7. Q: What happens to the administrators of the former school districts?
The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce competitive class positions on the basis of seniority as set forth in the
Civil Service Law. Current collective agreements that cover civil service employees may have additional reduction in force references.
6. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer civil service employees?
The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce teaching positions on the basis of seniority within a particular tenure
area. If a teaching position is abolished, the affected individuals are placed on a preferred eligible list for a period of seven years.
5. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer teachers?
DATA
- 125 -
Since the success of any centralization endeavor depends largely on the participation of all affected stakeholders, it is important for the districts
to provide labor union representatives with appropriate opportunities to discuss the impact of centralization on the rights of bargaining unit
members. Often such opportunities come before a formal reorganization public referendum and sometimes before the non-binding ‘straw vote’
among the communities.
When two or more school districts centralize into a new school district, it is possible that the local bargaining units are represented by
different bargaining agents. It is important for the school districts and local bargaining units to work with their labor relations experts.
10. Q: Are there other considerations relating to labor relations?
Retirement benefits associated with the retirement system remain unchanged. Retirement benefits associated with an employment
contract or collective bargaining agreement are governed by the terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement.
Individuals who are already retired from a school district may have certain retiree health insurance protections contained in Chapter 504
of the Laws of 2009. Chapter 504 prohibits reduction of health insurance for retirees and their dependents unless there is a
corresponding reduction of benefits or contributions for the corresponding group of active employees.
DATA
9. Q: What happens to the retirement benefits of the employees of the former school districts?
involuntary
Bereavement
Personal
Leaves
Sick days/Accumulation
Dismissal
Layoffs
Transfers
Vacancies
Secondary
Teacher Load
Elem.
CONTRACT ELEMENT—
INSTRUCTIONAL CONTRACTS
Hours a Day
Total of 15 days a year, with unused accumulation to
190
Part of 15 total leave days
Part of 15 total leave days
Just cause for tenured teachers
Tenured teachers will be notified by March 1 if their
positions are to be abolished
Among qualified personnel, seniority shall be
considered
Notice of openings publicized and all qualified
teachers within the system given opportunity to
apply.
Within 9 period day, teach up to 6 periods, or 5
periods plus 2 duty-comparable periods.
Schedule permitting, 30 mins. prep. time a day, at
least 150 mins. prep time per 5 day week
Northville
07/01/06-06/30/11
M-Th, 7 hours, 15 mins - starting no earlier than
7:30 a.m. and ending no later than 3:15 p.m. Fridays
6 hours 45 mins.
15 days a year with unused accumulation to
200
3 days
3 days
Fair dismissal for probationary teachers with
Board review; just cause after probation.
No teacher transferred without first having
opportunity to discuss transfer.
Vacancies posted but not filled until present
employees have opportunity to apply and be
considered.
40 min. prep period 5 days a week plus 1
additional 40 minute prep period every 4 or 5
days
Within 9 period day, teach up to 6 class
assignments, or 5 classes plus study hall, ISS
etc.
Mayfield
07/01/07-06/30/12
7.0 hours
- 126 -
Observation/Items to note
or consider:
PROFILE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ALL INSTRUCTIONAL LABOR CONTRACTS IN PLACE IN BOTH
DISTRICTS FOR THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
DATA
Starting salary w/ MA
(2011-2012)
Beginning 5th yr
Beginning 10th yr.
Beginning 15th yr.
Beginning 20th yr.
$ Per credit hour
Distance Learning
Retirement benefit
Health expense reimbursement
Dental
Medicare Part B reimb.
Opt-out
Flex Plan
Retirees
Rx Co-pays
Plans
Employee’s %/Caps
Insurance
CONTRACT ELEMENT—
INSTRUCTIONAL
CONTRACTS
Personal health leave
$37,155
$41,326
$47,233
$53,977
$63,023
$50
Deductibles under District’s PPO 813 plan
reimbursed to teacher upon submission of
usage documentation.
Teacher may contribute 15 unused leave days
per year into a health savings acct. to apply in
retirement toward health insur. premiums
Dental plan
1,500
yes
PPO, MVP alternative
Unit members pay 10% of Ind. or Fam.
premium
Where sick leave unavailable, up to 1 year
leave
Northville
07/01/06-06/30/11
$41,014
$46,555
$53,480
$60,406
$67,329
$35
If retire prior to age 63 with at least 100 accum.
leave days, there is a sliding scale benefit. Also, if
retire in 2011/2012, $1,000 paid into member’s
105(h) acct.
Yes, to provide courses not otherwise available to
receiving school
Unit member pays 12% of Ind. or Fam. premium
$4 generic, $10 name brand retail and $0 generic
and mail order
800 single, 1,600 two person and 2,000 family
yes
At least 10 consecutive years at District immed.
before retire; member to pay same % of single
premium as paid when active plus 50% of
spouse’s single plan
$350 contribution by District
This expense reimbursed to members retiring
before 7/1/12.
District deposit of $750 annually to each
member’s 105 (h) account
Fulmont Trust Blue Preferred PPO or equivalent
Unpaid leave for balance of school year and up to
two years thereafter.
Mayfield
07/01/07-06/30/12
DATA
- 127 -
Observation/Item to note
or consider:
Secretaries
Typists
10 month typists and
computer specialist
Work Hours
Custodians & mechanics
Bus drivers
Teacher Aides & nurses
10 month typists
Vacations
12 month employees
Northville
Generally work days corresponding to school calendar, but
may be required to work when school is not in session and are
expected to work on snow days.
260 days, 8 hours a day
200 days, work hours established by District
Work days corresponding to the school calendar, and work
hours and assignments established by District
with 6 specified weeks of guaranteed additional work in
summer, receive 5 days
with 6 specified weeks of guaranteed additional work in
summer, receive 5 days for use in subsequent year
for annual workers: 1 week after 1 year; 2 weeks after 2
years; 3 weeks after 6 years; and 4 weeks after 15 years.
for annual workers: i.e. custodian, custodian/
bus driver, custodial worker, mechanic helper/bus driver: 14
paid holidays
Part of total leave days above
18 total days per year/ accum. 15 annually to a total of 190.
15 total days per year/ accum. 12 annually to a total of 190
07/1/06-06/30/11
42 weeks, 7 hours a day
52 weeks, 40 hrs a week
40 weeks, 4 hrs. a day
181 days, 7 hrs. a day
2 weeks after 1 year;
3 weeks after 7 years; and
4 weeks after 15 years
secretaries, custodians & mechanics:
12 paid holidays
3 per year
Bereavement leave
Paid Holidays
3 per year
15 days a year/accum. to 200
15 days a year/accum. to 200
Mayfield
07/1/07-06/30/12
Personal leave days
Personal or family illness
Leaves
Leave Days
12 month employees
10 month employees
CONTRACT ELEMENT—
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT CONTRACTS
- 128 -
or consider:
PROFILE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ALL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT LABOR CONTRACTS IN PLACE IN THE
TWO DISTRICTS FOR THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
DATA
Opt-out
Flex plan
Retirees
Dental
Rx co-pay
For those who work 3-4 hrs. a day,
District pays 50% of family premium
Part-time employees
Northville
$1,000 single, $1,000 two person and $1,000 family
yes
Dist., will pay $400 per employee each year toward
reimbursement of documented optical/dental/audiological
expense.
After 15 years with the Dist., employee paid $200 for each
year of service for years 1-15; $300 for each year from year
16 and above, to a max., of $7,500. Part-time workers
receive a pro-rated benefit.
For those eligible, Dist. will provide the improved onefiftieth, section 75-I non-contributory plan to the NYSERS
and the one-sixtieth, non-contributory plan to the NYSERS
on behalf of all other eligible employees
Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPO
For member hired after 7/7/97, and entitled to health
insurance under CBA, Dist. will pay 100% indiv., and 50% of
difference between family and single in 1st year; in 2nd year
Dist will pay 100% indiv., and 75% of the above difference;
and in 3rd year, 100% of indiv., and family plan.
For those hired after 7/1/85, Dist. will provide above health
insur. benefit for those employees who work 30 or more
hours a week. Dist., will not provide said benefit for those
hired after 7/1/85 who work less than 30 hours a week.
07/1/06-06/30/11
$800 single plan, $1,600 two person and
$2,000 family
For those who work 5 hrs. a day, District
pays 75% of family premium
For those bus drivers who work two
hours per day, District pays 50% of
family premium.
$4 generic, $10 brand name and $0 mail
order
District will deposit $750 per year per
member into a section 105(h) acct. for
payment of their unreimbursed
medical/dental expenses
yes
After 10 years with Dist. immed. prior to
retirement, Dist. will pay 100% of indiv.
health prem. and 50% of family prem.
Fulmont Trust Blue Preferred PPO
100% indiv., and 85% two person or
family
Above classes of employees plus other
F.T. employees who have accum. 75
leave days, receive 50% accum. leave
paid at employee’s per diem
Statutory
contributions
Mayfield
07/1/07-06/30/12
Health insurance
District’s contribution
NYS retirement
CONTRACT ELEMENT—
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT CONTRACTS
District Retirement Benefit
DATA
- 129 -
or consider:
Year 2011/2012
Northville
7.42
9.35
9.05
7.42
18.26
Year 2009/2010
20.21
7.42
23,672 salary
28,335 salary
7.42
Advance notice of vacancies to present employees. Among
presently employed qualified applicants, seniority shall be
used as the criteria.
07/1/06-06/30/11
36,634 salary
24,029 salary
11.30
14.96
9.07
29,811 salary
17.94
One-time payment of $250 at 15th, 20th
and 25th years
Longevity
Starting rates: hourly/salary
Bus Driver
Clerk
Custodial worker
Custodian
Food service worker
Mechanic
Monitor
Nurse
Secretary
Teacher Aide
Teacher Assistant
Typist
Board shall reduce staff by seniority from
date of original appt. within the 5 work
areas.
Association applicants with greatest
seniority will be given serious
consideration, but final decision based on
qualifications, as determined by Board.
Mayfield
07/1/07-06/30/12
Layoff/Recall
CONTRACT ELEMENT—
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT CONTRACTS
Vacancies
DATA
- 130 -
or consider:
MAYFIELD
STAFF
TOTAL
TOTAL $
COST
TOTAL
SEGMENT
FTE’S
2010-2011
PER FTE FTE’S
Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers
45
$3,479,950
$77,332
21.1
(including counselors, nurses and similar others):
Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors,
41
$3,398,669
$82,894
30.5
nurses and similar others):
Grades K-12:
Teacher Assistants (certified)
0
4
Teacher Aides (civil service payroll) / Monitors
24
$728,985
$30,374
5.89
Grades K-12:
OT/PT (civil service payroll)
3
$261,452
$87,151
0
STAFF
TOTAL
TOTAL $
COST
TOTAL
SEGMENT
FTE’S
2010-2011
PER FTE FTE’S
Social worker (civil service payroll)
0
Nurse (civil service payroll)
2
$104,017
$52,009
1
K-12 certified administrators:
Include all district administrators including
the business official if she/he serves
5
$651,468
$130,294
3
in a civil service position
On Civil Service payroll: (CONSIDERED FTE’S)
Supervisors of any support function
1
$105,194
$105,194
4
Bus drivers
9
$249,527
$27,725
0
Bus aides
3
$59,552
$19,851
0
School lunch workers
0
0
Operations and Maintenance workers
12
$638,537
$53,211
6
Secretaries
7
$349,600
$49,943
5.5
Business Office staff other than secretarial
OR business official
2
$134,184
$67,092
3
Technology support staff
1
$48,250
$48,250
1
$57,045
$112,907
$68,432
$60,771
$46,015
$62,651
$72,466
$57,045
$338,720
$273,727
$364,628
$253,083
$187,953
$72,466
COST
PER FTE
$29,426
$28,532
$117,705
$168,056
TOTAL $
2010-2011
$76,152
$2,322,628
NORTHVILLE
TOTAL $
COST
2010-2011
PER FTE
$1,476,667
$69,984
- 131 -
Total personnel expenditures for each staff segment category equals the total of salary, employer FICA costs, employer health insurance costs,
employer retirement costs, and any other benefits (if any). Please note that the differences in cost per FTE per staff category is primarily due
to the longevity differences of various FTE’s at each respective school district; the different retirement ‘tier’ an FTE falls under based on what
state ‘tier’ was in place at time of hire; along with contractual pay guidelines.
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT TOTAL NUMBERS OF STAFF AND THE
TOTAL FTE PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES BENCHMARKED TO THE 2010-2011 SCHOOL YEAR
DATA
0
0
0
Bus aides
Part-time cleaners
MAYFIELD
TOTAL $
COST
2010-2011
PER FTE
6768
hours
2208
hours
3456
hours
TOTAL
FTE’S
0
TOTAL
FTE’S
STAFF
SEGMENT
CONSIDERED HOURLY EMPLOYEES ON
CIVIL SERVICE PAYROLL
Bus drivers
DATA
$43,300
$24,061
$216,270
$12.53
$10.90
$31.95
NORTHVILLE
TOTAL $
COST
2010-2011
PER hour
- 132 -
CONSIDERED HOURLY EMPLOYEES ON CIVIL SERVICE PAYROLL
Bus drivers
Bus aides
Part-time cleaners
- 133 -
$31.95
$10.90
$12.53
$55,731.39
$48,214.64
$64,427.40
$60,358.00
$75,784.20
$27,725.22
$19,850.67
$123,773.50
Include all district administrators including the business official if she/he serves in a civil service position
On Civil Service payroll: (CONSIDERED FTE’S)
Bus drivers
Bus aides
Secretaries
Business Office staff other than secretarial OR business official
$53,687.33
$87,150.67
$29,426.25
$30,011.41
Grades K-12:
Teacher Aides (civil service payroll)
Grades K-12:
Average
FTE Cost
$74,986.64
$80,018.14
STAFF
SEGMENT
Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others):
Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others):
Summary of FTE Personnel Costs Benchmarked to 2010-2011 in the Mayfield and Northville Central
School Districts
DATA
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2010-2011
5
2009-2010
1
2008-2009
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
2007-2008
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including
counselors, nurses and similar others)
Grades K-12:
Teacher Aides (civil service)
Grades K-12:
OT/PT (civil service)
Social worker (civil service)
Nurse (civil service)
Civil Service:
Bus drivers
Bus aides
Secretaries
Business Office not secretarial
STAFF SEGMENT
2009-2010
NORTHVILLE
2008-2009
MAYFIELD
2010-2011
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
1
1
3
5
15
15
TOTAL OVER 4 YEARS
FTE NUMBERS OF STAFF WHO HAVE LEFT THE DISTRICTS FOR ALL REASONS
EXCEPT REDUCTION IN FORCE
DATA
2007-2008
- 134 -
DATA
DATA REFERENCE: PERCEPTIONS OF THE TWO DISTRICT
LEADERSHIP TEAMS OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AND
CHALLENGES OF THE TWO PRIMARY SCENARIOS
IDENTIFIED BY THE ADVISORY JOINT COMMITTEE TO
DELIVER THE PRE-K THROUGH GRADE 12 PROGRAM IN THE
CURRENT SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Initially, a series of scenarios and options were identified by the
members of the Community Advisory Joint Committee on June 20. On
July 20, the Community Advisory Joint Committee identified two
priority options for further discussion and analysis.
The Priority Options described are based on:
9 the mid range enrollment projections five years from now
9 the pupil capacity analysis of the school buildings in the two
districts
9 the initial premises of a future program vision of the elementary
curriculum and the secondary curriculum that a reorganized
school district may implement and deliver
The superintendents and the principals since July 20 have studied the
two scenarios identified by the Community Advisory Joint Committee.
This Data Reference outlines the opportunities and challenges the
superintendents and their leadership teams perceive about both options.
The perceptions are based on how each scenario may allow them to
deliver the program efficiently, effectively, and in keeping with the
program values identified by the Advisory Joint Committee.
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
August 10, 2011
- 135 -
DATA
- 136 -
Mayfield
49.5
St. Johnsville
33.96
HFM BOCES
2755 State Hwy
67
Johnstown
Mayfield
Elementary
80 North Main
Street
Mayfield
Mayfield
CS
Jr/Sr. High and
bus garage
27 School Street
Mayfield
Northville Bus
Garage
5th. Street Ext.
Northville
Wheelerville
53.78
.1
10.25
55.13
9.67
10.35
Edinburg
74.41
.61
16.33
77.44
Fonda-Fultonville
85.52
16.68
87.55
Broadalbin-Perth
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9 Sizes of School Districts in the HFM BOCES in square
miles. Potential size of consolidated district made up of
Mayfield and Northville: 192.43 square miles.
88.83
98.26
56.64
Fort Plain
9.57
Johnstown
24
Amsterdam
24
Gloversville
Mayfield
Elementary
80 North Main
Street
Mayfield
Canajoharie
Mayfield
CS
Jr/Sr. High
and bus
garage
27 School
Street
Mayfield
142.93
Northville
Northville Bus
Garage
5th. Street Ext.
Northville
195.76
Lake Pleasant
Northville CS
131 S. Third
Street
Northville
269.35
Wells
DATA
- 137 -
270.58
Piseco
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
366
240
272
146
150
395
252
275
132
155
421
254
295
128
157
442
266
320
144
142
452
279
343
169
138
473
291
360
179
156
495
304
367
176
183
517
317
384
184
192
539
331
402
194
190
563
346
420
203
199
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
437
224
224
311
237
455
227
227
295
223
488
218
230
282
209
519
210
219
272
195
544
215
212
273
198
559
248
219
263
200
584
270
253
261
191
611
283
273
265
184
638
285
286
286
190
666
298
289
310
220
6
75
72
61
68
78
93
87
90
95
99
- 138 -
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
512
460
972
527
450
977
549
439
988
586
414
1000
622
410
1032
652
419
1071
671
444
1115
701
457
1158
733
476
1209
766
509
1275
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
369
243
272
146
150
386
243
275
132
155
398
231
295
128
157
400
221
324
144
142
389
225
333
169
138
380
227
336
182
156
385
228
323
166
183
385
227
314
156
196
385
226
319
159
179
384
224
320
161
168
6
75
72
61
68
78
93
90
77
80
80
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
365
239
272
146
150
378
236
275
132
155
386
219
295
128
157
384
209
319
144
142
370
215
325
169
138
364
218
323
178
156
369
221
306
158
183
374
222
299
148
191
378
223
305
150
170
380
225
308
154
159
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
6
75
72
61
68
78
93
86
73
75
75
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12
440
224
224
311
446
227
227
295
465
218
230
282
477
210
219
272
481
215
212
273
470
248
219
263
461
273
253
261
464
273
277
265
464
259
275
286
464
248
262
314
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
436
224
224
311
237
439
227
227
295
223
453
218
230
282
209
461
210
219
272
195
462
215
212
273
198
449
248
219
263
200
442
269
253
261
191
448
264
272
265
184
453
246
266
286
190
458
235
248
309
220
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
10-12
237
223
209
195
198
200
191
184
190
220
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
515
460
975
518
450
968
526
439
965
545
414
959
558
410
968
562
419
981
551
444
995
541
461
1002
544
465
1009
544
482
1026
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
511
460
971
511
450
961
514
439
953
529
414
943
540
410
950
541
419
960
528
444
972
522
456
977
528
456
985
534
468
1002
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MAYFIELD CS
DATA
RANGE PROJECTION
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
91
115
53
73
84
121
51
76
83
129
59
72
89
116
66
70
83
120
67
81
79
110
47
90
77
107
51
90
75
112
60
64
73
105
53
70
72
100
50
81
6
34
19
32
27
39
28
19
32
28
25
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
163
101
115
53
73
160
90
121
51
76
161
91
129
59
72
151
91
126
66
70
153
92
127
67
81
154
93
117
57
90
155
94
118
58
90
156
94
119
58
77
157
94
120
58
79
157
94
121
59
79
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
182
107
121
179
131
192
96
120
167
123
188
104
102
151
120
190
98
116
157
111
181
119
107
136
109
183
118
134
138
94
184
119
128
144
106
185
106
130
152
99
186
107
117
161
123
187
107
118
157
118
- 139 -
6
34
19
32
27
39
28
29
29
29
29
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
216
252
468
211
243
454
220
223
443
217
227
444
219
217
436
211
228
439
213
234
447
214
229
442
215
239
454
215
235
451
MID
K-4
153
153
153
139
136
141
132
127
124
121
K-4
K-2
3-6
5-6
7-8
153
91
115
53
73
152
83
121
51
76
151
81
129
59
72
136
86
116
66
70
131
79
119
67
81
134
74
108
47
90
124
71
104
50
90
118
68
107
58
64
114
66
99
51
69
110
64
93
48
78
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
6
34
19
32
27
39
28
19
31
27
24
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12
172
107
121
179
185
96
120
167
181
104
102
151
178
98
116
157
165
119
107
136
161
118
134
138
164
110
128
144
155
96
117
152
150
98
108
161
147
106
108
144
K-5
6-8
7-9
9-12 10-12
172
107
121
179
131
184
96
120
167
123
179
104
102
151
120
175
98
116
157
111
160
119
107
136
109
154
118
134
138
94
155
110
128
144
106
145
95
117
152
99
138
96
107
161
123
133
103
105
144
118
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
10-12
131
123
120
111
109
94
106
99
123
118
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
206
252
458
205
243
448
212
223
435
205
227
432
203
217
420
188
228
416
183
234
418
187
216
403
177
231
408
172
225
397
K-6
7-12
TOTAL K-12
206
252
458
204
243
447
210
223
433
202
227
429
198
217
415
182
228
409
175
234
409
175
216
391
165
230
395
157
223
380
YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
NORTHVILLE CS
DATA
DATA
9 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR A REORGANIZED SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Calculation
Year
Grades
Grades
TOTAL GRADES
K-6
7-12
K-12 FOR LONG
TERM PLANNING
2010-2011
704
754
1458
CURRENT COMBINED
ENROLLMENT OF THE
TWO DISTRICTS
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
738
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
761
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2015-2016
2020-2021
841
Calculation
Year
Grades
K-6
Grades
7-12
CURRENT COMBINED
ENROLLMENT OF THE
TWO DISTRICTS
2010-2011
704
754
TOTAL GRADES
K-12 FOR INITIAL
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING
1458
Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
717
715
724
731
738
712
693
662
641
627
1429
1408
1386
1372
1365
Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
721
723
738
750
761
712
693
662
641
627
1433
1416
1400
1391
1388
Baseline Cohort
High Range
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
728
738
769
803
841
712
693
662
641
627
1440
1431
1431
1444
1468
1429
691
1468
707
1585
744
140
DATA
PUPIL CAPACITY OF EACH EXISTING SCHOOL BUILIDNG
ASSUMPTIONS:
• No new construction of additional space forecasted.
• No immediate renovations of existing space.
• Unassigned pupil capacity is factored to ensure flexibility of program delivery, allow for
•
•
•
•
program enhancements, and allow for appropriate space for instructional support activities.
All existing instructional support spaces remain instructional support spaces.
Allocation of three classrooms district-wide for Pre-K at class section size of 18 pupils (108 half
day; 54 full day pupils).
Edinburg Common students will continue to attend 7-12 in the same pattern as they have in the
past.
Pupil Capacity based on implemented class sizes per classroom of:
◊ Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils
◊ Grades 2 and 3:
22 pupils
◊ Grades 4, 5, and 6:
24 pupils
◊ Grades 7-12:
25 pupils
(Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for such
specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the board)-and
25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a classroom will host
class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less specialized.)
Mayfield K-6
Pupil Capacity
Northville K-6
Pupil Capacity
Northville 7-12
Pupil Capacity
Mayfield 7-12 Pupil
Capacity
576
286
373
515
Total K-6 Pupil Capacity Currently
Total 7-12 Pupil Capacity Currently
Available:
Available:
862
888
Anticipated K-6 Pupil Capacity Need
Anticipated 7-12 Pupil Capacity Need
in five years:
in ten years:
738-841
691-744
Average expected combined enrollment in five years:
780
627
- 141 -
DATA
PRIMARY SCENARIO A
Pre-K through grade 5 in Mayfield and Northville; 9-12 in Mayfield; 6-8 in Northville
Estimated enrollments:
K-5; 646 (Mayfield 481, Northville 165)
6-8; 334 Northville
9-12; 409 Mayfield
Available Pupil Capacity
Mayfield
K-6; 576
7-12; 515
OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS OPTION
NCS students stay through grade 8
Greater opportunities for 6-8 co and
extracurricular esp leadership and service-based
Could host BOCES classes @ NCS and more @
MCS
Dissolve “neighborhood boundaries” at
elementary progressively for greater efficiency of
class sizes and staff deployment
More flexibility of space with specials’ areas
Adds technology and business course offerings to
secondary
Adds distance learning classes for NSC secondary
Might justify Department Chairpersons or
Curriculum/Instruction Administrator
Maximizes class sizes at 6-12
Keeps “home elem” locations
Allows for Project-based learning and STEM
initiatives at 6-8
Could increase program offerings via other costsavings measures
Could add International Baccalaureate Program
Both schools use Danielson teacher eval model
Both schools use Treasures reading series and
Saxon math at elem level
Combined professional development opportunities
within shared staffs
Consolidation of operational services for costsavings
Would allow smaller schools to send students
Concentrates elem principals’ efforts to 7 rather
than 8 grade levels
Northville
K-6; 286
7-12; 373
CHALLENGES OF THIS OPTION
MCS students must move in grade 6
Sets new middle school configuration
Slight underutilization of space at NCS and MHS
Requires travel for shared secondary teachers
between MS and HS
Doesn’t allow max elem class sizes due to 2 bldgs
Can never host K-12 together in one location
Requires close C/I coordination for 2 elem bldgs
Unequal distribution of student load for elem
principals
What becomes of Asst Principals?
Greater transportation costs
Requires coordination of start and end times
Certification issues for science and language
teachers
Does 6-8 give greater potential cost savings in
staff?
Differences in athletic abilities
- 142 -
DATA
Allows greater scheduling opportunities for 6-12,
i.e. Mandarin Chinese: Create a mock 6-12
Master Schedule
Allows for 6-12 Team Teaching approach
Increased participation in extra and co-curricular
will serve to support keeping those opportunities
available
Higher performance standards for art, music and
drama programs
PRIMARY SCENARIO B
Pre-K through grade 6 in Mayfield and Northville; 9-12 in Mayfield; 7-8 in Northville
Estimated enrollments:
K-6; 761 (Mayfield 558, Northville 203)
7-8; 219 Northville
9-12; 409 Mayfield
Available Pupil Capacity
Mayfield
K-6; 576
7-12; 515
Northville
K-6; 286
7-12; 373
Very similar to Scenario B, only difference is grade 6 and corresponding opportunities and challenges.
The administrators agreed that their preference is Scenario A.
- 143 -
DATA
COMMITTEE:
PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR
SCHOOL DAY TIMES, TRANSPORTATION
TIMES AND BUS RUN RESOURCES
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE
November 2011
December 2011
- 144 -
DATA
Current Profile of Student Instructional Day and Bus Transportation:
Northville
8:03 – 2:40
(6 hours, 37 minutes)
Mayfield
9:00 – 3:00
(6 hours)
8:03 – 2:40
7:55-2:20
First student pickup time:
7:00
7:10
Total number of bus routes
currently:
5 (K-12)
Current Elementary Student
Day
Current Secondary Student Day
8 (Pre-K-6)
8 (7-12)
Prime Option for Grade configurations and Use of Buildings in a Reorganized School District:
Grades preK-5
Mayfield Elementary; est. 481 pupils
Grades preK-5
Northville Elementary; est. 165 pupils
Grades 6-8
Northville; est. 334 pupils
Grades 9-12
Mayfield; est. 409 pupils
Preliminary Framework Plan for School Day Times, Transportation Times, and Bus Run
Resources in a Reorganization of the Districts into One
Assumptions:
9 All Pre-K through grade 5 pupils attend the elementary school within the original school district
‘attendance zone’. However, parents who wish to have their elementary children attend an
elementary school of the new reorganized school district that is closer to their home may request
that attendance at their discretion.
9 The goal is that no child is on a bus longer than 1 hour.
9 Smaller (less than 66 passenger) buses will probably be used to transport pupils who currently live
at the most outer limits of the current school district geographic boundaries.
9 A current ‘walker’ will be transported to his/her respective school if it is not located in the current
school district. The new district will define the definition of a ‘walker’. (It is suggested that ‘a
walker’ reflect the current policy of the four school districts that is most beneficial for students.)
9 It is suggested that existing routes with existing drivers be provided for at least the first year (or
longer) of the reorganized district. Starting for year 2, study if there can be some combining of
routing where boundaries of the two attendance zones are very close.
Please note that outlined below is one possible comprehensive scenario to provide transportation in a
reorganized school district taking into account the assumptions listed above. This scenario will be used as
an element of the ‘What if’ financials picture for a reorganized school district. The scenario is just one
concrete example for discussion and adaptation by a reorganized school district.
- 145 -
DATA
9 Preliminary student instructional day schedule in a reorganized school district:
Grades
preK-5
Grades
preK-5
Mayfield
Elementary
Northville
Elementary
Grades
6-8
Northville
(Middle School
Program)
Grades 912
Mayfield
(High School
Program)
9:00-3:30
9:00-3:30
Teacher/ teacher assistant before school program starting
at 8:25
8:25-3:05
Shuttle leaves Mayfield at 7:55 for Northville arrives by
8:20; Shuttle leaves Northville for Mayfield at 3:05 arrives
by 3:25;
Teacher/teacher assistant after school program starting at
3:05-3:30 at Northville for Northville area middle school
pupils
8:00-2:30
Shuttle leaves Mayfield for Northville at 3:05 arrives by
3:25;
(allows Northville area high school students the
opportunity to participate in after-school activities or to
meet with teachers)
6 hours, 30
minutes
6 hours, 30
minutes
6 hours, 30
minutes
6 hours, 30
minutes
9 The preliminary transportation framework has the following bus runs:
PreK-8
Grades 9-12 direct
to Mayfield
Pre-K-5
Grades 6-12
6-8 shuttle to
Northville
MORNING BEFORE SCHOOL DAY
Northville
Est. Number of
Mayfield
Attendance Zone
Routes/buses
Attendance Zone
Bus Run; first
pick-up 7:25
5
Bus Run; first
pick-up 6:45
4 (one way)
Bus Run; first
pick-up 8:10
Bus Run; first
pick-up 7:10
Shuttle leaves
Mayfield at 7:55
arrives Northville
by 8:20 (provided
by the 4 buses that
transported
Northville area 912 pupils to
Mayfield earlier)
Est. Number of
Routes/buses
8
8
4 (one way; return
of 9-12 run from
Northville
attendance zone)
- 146 -
DATA
9-12 shuttle to
Northville from
Mayfield
Pre-K - 12
6-8 shuttle to
Mayfield from
Northville
Pre-K - 8
Grades 9-12
AFTERNOON END OF SCHOOL DAY
Northville
Est. Number of
Mayfield
Attendance Zone
Routes/buses
Attendance Zone
4 one way shuttles
Shuttle leaves
Mayfield at 3:05
arrives Northville
by 3:25
Bus Run; leaves
5
Northville at 3:35
Shuttle leaves
Northville for
Mayfield at 3:05
arrives by 3:25
Bus Run; leaves
Mayfield at 3:35
Bus Run; leaves
Mayfield at 2:35
(availability of
‘late bus’ for 9-12
by taking Pre-K –
8 bus run at 3:30)
Est. Number of
Routes/buses
4 one way shuttles
12
8
Late bus (5:00 PM) runs for co-curricular and athletics; Monday through Friday:
Northville 3 routes for the Northville attendance area
Mayfield
3 routes for the Mayfield attendance area
Bus Fleet for AM and PM before school and after school runs:
Currently:
Estimated with reorganization:
Buses
Spare buses
Buses
Spare buses
Northville
5
3
5 plus 3 new
3
Mayfield
8
3
8 plus 3 new
3
- 147 -
DATA
Estimated Cost and Revenue Basis for Transportation:
Current Number of Bus Routes
Estimated Number of Bus Routes for Initial Planning
Collectively by the Two Districts:
by a Reorganized School District Given the Program
Grade Level Instructional Delivery Configurations
and Transportation Assumptions:
21 round trip
21 round trip
4 one way Mayfield attendance zone PM pre-k-8
4 one way Northville attendance zone AM 9-12; return to
Northville with grades 6-8 from Mayfield attendance
zone
4 one way shuttles 6-8 PM Northville to Mayfield
4 one way shuttles from Mayfield to Northville PM 9-12
Estimated Shuttles:
In the morning:
In the afternoon:
Grades 6-8 Shuttle to Northville from
Grades 9-12 shuttle to Northville from Mayfield; number
Mayfield using the return by the 4 buses used of buses: 4
earlier to transport 9-12 from Northville
attendance zone to high school in Mayfield
Grades 6-8 shuttle to Mayfield from Northville; number
of buses: 4
Estimated number of buses for purchase by the reorganized school district: 6
Estimated transportation cost basis:
In 2011, a study commissioned by the districts of the BOCES records the following total costs per round
trip bus route by each of the districts is reported as follows:
Northville
Mayfield
$48,000
$39,038
Average cost for per bus route run round trip plus 10% for inflation and the cost of fuel
for budget planning :
Northville attendance area bus route: $52,800
Mayfield attendance area bus route roundtrip: $42,942
Estimated Cost Per shuttle bus one way: 66 miles x $1.50 plus 1.5 x $25 per hour = $136.50;
Estimated budgeted cost: $150 per shuttle one way x 180 = $27,000 annually
Estimated yearly cost over five years for each new bus: $21,600
Estimated transportation state aid revenue basis:
Estimated budgeted revenue from state transportation aid which is 90% of all approved
expenditures:
It is suggested that this estimate be conservative. In the 2011 study, each of the school districts received
the following state transportation aid percentages for expenditures submitted to the state:
Northville: 51%; Mayfield 85%
- 148 -
DATA
Estimated Cost to Achieve the Preliminary Transportation Framework Plan for bus transportation
to and from school:
Northville, without
Mayfield, without
Estimated Est.
Est. Net
reorganization:
reorganization:
Total Cost Transportation
Local Cost
in Total
Annually: Aid Received in
Annually:
Total Annually:
5 round trips
$52,800 16 round trips
$42,942 $951,072
$718,651
$232,421
each
Estimated in a Reorganized District Made up of Northville and Mayfield combined:
Estimated Est.
Est. Net
Total Cost Transportation
Local Cost
Annually: Aid Received
Annually:
Annually:
5 round trips
$52,800 16 round trips
$42,942 $951,072
$718,651
$232,421
for the
each
for the
Northville
Mayfield
attendance
attendance
zone
zone
Additional Transportation to Implement the Reorganized Delivery of Instruction
4 one way trips $26,400 4 additional
$21,471 $191,484
$126,857
$64,627
for 9-12 in
one way trips
Northville
for Pre-K-8 in
attendance
Mayfield
zone in AM to
attendance
high school
zone in the PM
8 shuttles: 4 one way PM for 9-12 to
$27,000 $216,000
$183,600
$32,400
Northville attendance zone; 4 one way PM
for 6-8 to Mayfield attendance zone
6 new buses paid for over 5 years; est.
$21,600 $129,600
$110,160
$19,440
annual cost each bus
6 late bus routes for co-curricular and
$12,000 $72,000
$61,200
$10,800
athletics
Estimated total yearly cost not including state aid $609,084
to implement reorganization:
Estimated additional program addition and costs to implement reorganization:
Estimated before school program at Northville for grades pre-K through 5 from 8:25 to 8:55 daily:
• Estimate seven staff members (example teacher assistants); 3.5 hours; one-half FTE = $14,713
Estimated after school program at Northville for grades 6-8 from 3:05 to 3:25 daily:
• Estimate 6 staff members (example teacher assistants); 3 hours; .45 FTE = $13,242
- 149 -
October 2011
November 2011
January 2012
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
Based on the Program Vision Ideas of the Community
Advisory Joint Committee for Opportunities for All Pupils
A ‘What if’ Program/Staffing Picture and
Financial Picture of a Reorganization of the
Two School Districts into One
COMMUNITY ADVISORY STUDY DATA REFERENCE TOOL:
OPTION ONE and OPTION TWO
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Mayfield and Northville Boards of Education,
their Superintendents and by all government agencies
to which the districts provide the study
Copyright 2012
As to Original Text, Concept and Format
- 151 -
- 152 -
school in the attendance zone that corresponds to the past boundaries of the specific school district before reorganization. However, at the
option of the parents, it is suggested that students would be able to attend the elementary school of the ‘attendance zone’ closest to their
home. Therefore, the staffing level at each of the two elementary schools is based on the projected K-5 populations of the current school
districts.
• No new construction of additional space or renovation of existing space is forecasted.
• It is assumed that all Pre-K through grade 5 pupils now in the two school districts will choose to have their children attend the elementary
Assumptions for the estimated staffing to implement the direct instruction of the K-5 Program:
The ‘What if” Picture that follows is only a roadmap. It suggests the total staff resource needed to implement the
envisioned program with quality and the level of human resources necessary to enable the program to be sustained at
quality levels expected by the communities. The specific number of full time equivalent staff assigned to a particular
building in a given school year will be judged by the actual number of pupils enrolled and a profile of their educational
needs in that given school year.
The estimates are based on what it might take to deliver the current program offerings in the two school districts PLUS
enhanced educational opportunities discussed and suggested by the two Community Advisory Joint Committee in a
reorganized school district. The Full Time Equivalent Instructional staffing listed should be viewed in light of what type
of resource may be provided to the students in a reorganized district. The total FTE’s is an estimate of resources and
should not be looked at by actual position title. For example, the reorganized district may decide that more social workers
are needed instead of the number of guidance counselors that are listed. Or, pupils of a school may not need occupational
therapy services in a given school year, but another school’s students may need more. Then, the occupational therapy
services are allocated to the school whose pupils require the help. It is also assumed that all special needs pupils will be
included in the regular program offering as individually appropriate. The staffing estimate includes 20 FTE’s district-wide
to provide self-contained special needs classroom sections, resource support services, and/or consultant teacher services
(special ed teachers and classroom section teachers jointly working together in classes that include special need pupils),
reading, and academic intervention services. Specific allocation to a service delivery depends upon the needs of the pupil
population year-to-year. All of the Full Time Equivalents listed in the What if Picture do not necessarily exist now on staff.
For example, there are currently no social workers. Therefore, the What if scenario should be looked at as a plan that may
take up to 24 months to implement completely.
A ‘What if’ Program/ Staffing Picture of a Reorganization of the Two Districts into One
Plus estimated other instructional staff assigned to one or both
elementary schools as needed in a given school year.
level class section.)
Pre-K
Special Needs/Resource/ Academic Intervention Services/Reading
Vocal Music
Instrumental Music
Art
Foreign Language
30
Social Worker
Guidance Counselor
(On average 21.5 pupils per
Speech
class grades K-5 across the
Occupational Therapist
district. It does not take into
Physical Therapist
account that there may be some
special needs pupils served in a Physical Education
Psychologist
self-contained setting when
appropriate instead of a grade Librarian/Enrichment
Estimated grade level
sections
K-5 instructional staff
(FTE)
• No new construction of additional space or renovation of existing space forecasted.
• One/half registered nurse is assigned to the middle school.
Assumptions for the estimated staffing to implement the direct instruction for the Grades 6-8 Program:
165
ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT:
481
Mayfield Elementary
PROGRAM: K-GRADE 5
- 153 -
3
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
.75
.75
3
1
1.5
3
10
FTE
known and specific needs of the pupils are determined, then the staffing Full Time Equivalents will be identified and deployed for each
building. It is suggested that the What if Picture framework includes collectively enough FTE’s to accomplish consistent delivery of the
expected curriculum and still provide flexibility to assign the staff building-by-building to deliver on the needs of pupils in each given
school year.
• Allocation of three classrooms district-wide for Pre-K at class section size of 18 pupils (6 sections half-day or 3 sections full day or a
combination of both half-day and full-day
• One/half registered nurse assigned to Northville Elementary and one to Mayfield Elementary.
• Grade Level section staffing based on implemented class sizes per classroom of:
◊ Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils; grades 2 and 3: 22 pupils; grade 4 and 5: 24 pupils
• The What if Picture has consistent ‘other instructional staff’ resources listed for each school. When final enrollments of each building are
1
.5 math, and .5 science FTE to join the teams to decide how to
deliver accelerated math, and science to those grade 8 pupils
ready begin high school courses for graduation credit
plus
12
Estimated grade level sections grades 6-8
instructional staff (FTE)
3 core teams (English, Social Studies, Science, Math); each
core team serves the same set of students each day
Special Needs/Resource/ Academic
Intervention Services/Reading
Vocal Music
Instrumental Music
Art
Social Worker
Guidance Counselor
Speech
Physical Therapist
Physical Education
Psychologist
Foreign Language
Health
Technology/Project Lead the Way
Home and Careers
Librarian
1.5
.5
1
1
.25
.25
2
.5
1.5
.5
1
1
.5
5
2
FTE
- 154 -
Estimated other instructional staff
Assumptions for the estimated staffing to implement the direct instruction or the Grades 9-12 Program:
• No new construction of additional space or renovation of existing space forecasted.
• One registered nurse is assigned to the high school.
• Grade Level section staffing based on implemented class sizes per classroom of 25 pupils for core courses
(Each core team of 4 teachers is
responsible for 111 pupils in a day across
at least 5 instructional periods; or on
average of 22.2 pupils per instructional
class period. This includes the assumption
that all 6-8 special needs pupils will be
fully integrated in all classes. It does not
take into account that there may be some
special needs pupils served in a selfcontained setting when appropriate instead
of a subject class)
ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT: 334
Grades 6-8 Middle School
(served in what is now Northville High
School)
PROGRAM: GRADES 6-8
Please note that grades 6-8 are served in the same building as Pre-K through grade 5 at Northville. Therefore, the total set of ‘other
instructional staff’ in the total building can be deployed as needed in a given school year in grades Pre-K through 8 at Northville.
◊ Grades 6: 24 pupils
◊ Grades 7,8; 25 pupils
• The instructional resource staff estimate includes enough instructional resource to deliver a middle school delivery method.
• Grade Level section staffing based on implemented class sizes per classroom of:
Subject area instructional resources
Special Needs/Resource/Academic Intervention Services
English
Social Studies
Math
General Science
409
Earth Science
Biology (Living Environment)
(All pupils take English Language
Chemistry
Arts. Therefore, 4 English teachers
Physics
will likely be responsible for about
Foreign Language
103 pupils each in a day across at
Additional subject area FTE teachers to provide College courses and Advanced Placement Courses
least 5 instructional periods; or on
Health
average of 20.6 pupils per
Art
instructional class period. This
General Music
includes the assumption that all
Vocal Music
special needs pupils will attend
Instrumental Music
English classes like all other pupils.
Technology
It does not take into account that
Driver Education
there may be some special needs
Home and Careers
pupils served in a self-contained
Engineering; Mechanical Drawing/Project Lead the Way
setting when appropriate instead of a
Business
subject class. There are two full
Physical Education and part-time Director of Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation
time equivalent teachers in addition
for subject area college courses and Social Worker
Guidance Counselor
Advanced Placement Courses.
Career Counselor
Therefore, it is highly certain that
each English teacher will likely have Speech
a daily instructional ‘load’ of about
Physical Therapist
90 pupils.)
Psychologist
Librarian
PROGRAM: GRADES
9-12
High School
(served in what is now
Mayfield High School)
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
.5
.5
.5
.5
1
2
2
1
2
2
- 155 -
Estimated
FTE
5
4
4
4
4
143
3
3
3
26.5 (7 and 8)
43.0 (9-12)
69.5
plus 1 due to unforeseen
grade level delivery issues
58.5 (Pre-K -5)
4.0 (grade 6)
62.5
plus 1 due to unforeseen
grade level delivery issues
ESTIMATED WHAT IF
SCENARIO WITH
A REORGANIZED
SINGLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Full Time Equivalents
-$79,984
+3 x (est) $65,000 = +$195,000
-1 x $80,018 = -$80,018
-2.6 x $74,987 = -$194,966
Estimated Collective Budget
Impact
(+ or – FTE’s times the average
current FTE cost in the two
school districts)
- 156 -
Please note: personnel FTE expenditures for each staff segment category equals the total of salary, employer FICA costs, employer health insurance costs, employer
retirement costs, and any other benefits (if any). Please note that the differences in cost per FTE per staff category is primarily due to the longevity differences of various
FTE’s at each respective school district; the different retirement ‘tier’ an FTE falls under based on what state ‘tier’ was in place at time of hire; along with contractual pay
guidelines.
143.6
0
3
STAFF
SEGMENT
Estimated Totals:
3
71.5
66.1
THE CURRENT
PROGRAM STAFF
COLLECTIVELY
IN THE TWO
DISTRICTS
Grades 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors,
Grades 7 through grade 8 certified teachers (including
counselors, social workers, librarians and similar
others):
Grades 9-12 certified teachers (including counselors,
Grades K-12:
counselors, social workers, librarians and similar
others):
Pre-K through grade 5 and grade 6 certified teachers
(including counselors, social workers, librarians and
similar others):
STAFF
SEGMENT
Current Program Instructional Staffing and the What If Estimated Scenario
The Full Time Equivalent Supervisory/Administrative staffing listed should be viewed in light of what type of resource
is represented and suggested to achieve sustained success in delivering the program that a reorganization will provide for
all pupils---the position titles are examples. The resources listed and suggested may or may not line up with the skill sets
of the resources currently on staff. The titles of Superintendent and Principal are specifically part of ED Law when
program administration is discussed.
•
Estimated total:
Northville:
Pre-K-5 and
Grades 6-8 in one building
High School
(at Mayfield)
9-12
Mayfield Elementary
Pre-K-5
Buildings:
5
Principal
Assistant Principal
409
1389
Principal
Assistant Principal
Principal
Building/Program
Supervision
165
334
481
Estimated Enrollment of the
Building
- 157 -
141 (not including up to 2 additional
FTE’s available due to unforeseen grade
level/subject level program delivery
needs/issues)
46
51.5
43.5
Estimated Number of Total
Instructional/Nurse Staff in
the Building
What if picture of how building level supervision and administration might be provided in a reorganized district:
There will be the need for a central office person for at least 24 months of the beginning life of the new district to be
responsible that the elements of transitioning to one district from two are diligently and comprehensively, planned,
coordinated and implemented to ensure quality delivery of the program and services of the new school district to the two
communities and their children.
•
Assumptions for the estimated staffing to implement and administer the program and services of the district:
SUPERVISORY/ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES: A What if Staffing Picture to implement and administer the program and
services of the reorganized district
Primary Resource Function
Chief Executive Officer
Grant Writer Seeks out grants for the district and helps to write them
1
1
1
1
1
1
- 158 -
Full Time Equivalent
1
0; purchase the service through the
BOCES consortium
BOCES consortium
1
Public Information Specialist Plans, coordinates, and implements an ongoing public information plan
to keep the communities well-informed about the school district
Director for Transition Develops a transition plan with other district leaders; Coordinates the
(temporary for at least 1 year) elements of that plan with the efforts of all staff; troubleshoots
unexpected challenges and opportunities as the transition from two
districts to one evolves.
Director of Instruction and Compensatory Plans, implements, and evaluates all pupil support services
Education Grants collaboratively with the building principals. The role also coordinates,
implements, and evaluates all government entitlement grants and other
grants that serve instruction.
Director of Special Education and CSE Coordinates special needs programming and chairs the district
Chair committee on the handicapped
School Business Official Chief financial officer.
Director of Building and Grounds Ensures the maintenance and upkeep of all of the facility resources of
the district.
Director of Transportation Organizes and implements all transportation services of the district.
Director of Food Services Organizes and implements all school lunch and breakfast services of the
district.
Estimated Total Central Services/Office:
7 PLUS ONE SHORT TERM TEMPORARY
Superintendent
What if picture of how district-wide central services office supervision and administration might be provided in a reorganized district:
13
Estimated Totals:
12
3
9
ESTIMATED
WHAT IF
SCENARIO WITH
A REORGANIZED
SINGLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Full Time
Equivalents
-$75,784
-1 x $75,784 = -$75,784
Impact
(+ or – FTE’s times the average
current FTE cost in the two
school districts)
- 159 -
guidelines.
4
9
THE CURRENT
PROGRAM STAFF
COLLECTIVELY
IN THE TWO
DISTRICTS
2010-2011
Full Time
Equivalents
Directors of school lunch, transportation, and facilities
operation and maintenance
K-12 certified administrators including all district
administrators including the business official if she/he
serves in a civil service position
STAFF
SEGMENT
Current Program Supervisory/Administrative Staffing and the What If Estimated Scenario
TRANSPORTATION: It is suggested that the school transportation programs as staffed continue for the newly
reorganized school district. Within the first two years of the new school district it is suggested that the district review,
analyze and study the delivery of transportation services to identify ways, if any, that the service can be delivered more
efficiently.
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS: It is suggested that the school buildings and grounds operations and maintenance resources
as staffed in each building continue for the newly reorganized school district. Within the first two years of the new school
district it is suggested that the district review, analyze and study the delivery of building services to identify ways, if any,
that the service can be delivered more efficiently. For example, such an analysis can identify how best the new district can
use differentiated staffing to achieve expected standards in cleaning; planned and scheduled maintenance of systems and
equipment; availability of on-staff skill sets for electricity, plumbing, painting, refrigeration, and heating, ventilating and air
conditioning to efficiently and cost-effectively operate the buildings of the district.
•
•
- 160 -
SCHOOL LUNCH: It is suggested that the school lunch programs as staffed continue for the newly reorganized school
district. Within the first two years of the new school district it is suggested that the district review, analyze and study the
delivery of school lunch services to identify ways, if any, that the service can be delivered more efficiently.
•
Initially, the newly organized district can re-craft the overall supervision of school lunch, transportation and building and
operations.
•
Assumptions:
What if picture of how transportation, food service and buildings operation and maintenance
is provided in the reorganized school district:
The What if scenario includes 3 libraries.
Other pupil supervisory/monitor/instructional support duties.
The What if scenario includes Academic Intervention services and at least one computer lab in each school
building.
It is suggested that the 4 teacher assistants be tentatively designated to serve these purposes.
•
Assumptions: Teacher Assistants
It is suggested that the remaining 3.89 teacher aides remain as a resource for these duties.
•
It is suggested that 3 teacher aides be tentatively designated to serve these 3 libraries.
•
- 161 -
The What if scenario includes 3 full day pre-kindergarten classes and 20 special needs/resource/AIS/reading
classrooms.
It is suggested that 23 teacher aides be tentatively designated to serve these 23 classes.
•
Assumptions: Teacher Aides
The two school districts currently deploy 4 NYS certified Teacher Assistants. There are 29.89 civil service teacher aides currently in
the two school districts.
What if picture of how a reorganized district might deploy teacher aides and teacher assistants:
4
4
1
5
4
3
Total: 14; 12.5 currently on staff
Total: 4 FTE’s; currently there are 5 FTE’s
- 162 -
It is suggested that the business office requires at least:
9 One Treasurer
9 One accounting support person for payroll.
9 One accounting support person for accounts payable.
9 One accounting support person for the accounting of employee benefits like health insurance, assistant
treasurer, and internal auditor
Business Office:
3
4.5
Northville Prek-5 and
Grades 6-8
High School
District Office
Directors of Cafeteria,
Transportation, Building
and Grounds
2
3
Mayfield Elementary
Secretary FTE’s
Assigned
Administrators/Supervisors/
Guidance/Social Workers
Location
Suggested deployment of secretarial support:
It is suggested that each school building should have at least two secretaries. Administrators, supervisors, guidance counselors and
social workers are provided secretarial services.
What if picture of how a reorganized district might deploy secretaries, business office support staff and school building based
technology technicians:
Secretarial Support:
4
2
5
2
19.5
Totals:
+$7896
-1.0 x $64,427 = -$64,427
Impact
(+ or – FTE’s times the
average current FTE cost in
the two school districts)
+1.5 x $48,215 = +$72,323
- 163 -
guidelines.
20
14
12.5
Secretarial
Business Office
Accounting
Technology Technicians
Suggested FTE’s
Current FTE’s
Staff Segment
Total: 2 FTE’s; currently there are 2
It is suggested that the district employ 2 technology personnel, one that coordinates the technology program of the district and
provides staff training; and 1 that provides technological equipment support. The reorganized district may wish to
explore receiving the building site based service instead as part of a BOCES Aidable service through the Regional
Information Center.
Technology Support:
- 164 -
*Part-time hourly bus drivers, bus aides and school lunch workers now at Northville not counted in current or estimated FTE count above; hourly service is assumed to
continue if the districts reorganized into one.
STAFF
FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS
ESTIMATED FULL TIME
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE
SEGMENT
IN THE TWO SCHOOL
EQUIVALENTS IN A
CHANGE IN A REORGANIZED
DISTRICTS
REORGANIZED DISTRICT
DISTRICT BENCHMARKED TO
BENCHMARKED TO THE
INCLUDING PUPIL PROGRAM
THE TOTAL OF THE BUDGETS
ENHANCEMENTS
OF THE TWO SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN 2010-2011
Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers
63.5 including 1 undesignated FTE’s
(including counselors, social workers, librarians,
66.1
due to unforeseen grade level issues
teacher certified nurses and similar others):
Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including
70.5 including 1 undesignated FTE’s
counselors, nurses and similar others):
71.5
due to unforeseen subject program
delivery issues
3
3
0
3
3
3
SUBTOTAL
-$79,984
K-12 certified administrators
9
9
Directors of school lunch, transportation, facilities
4
3
SUBTOTAL
-$75,784
4
4
Teacher Aides (civil service payroll)
29.89
29.89
SUBTOTAL
0
Secretarial
12.5
14
Business Office Accounting
5
4
Technology Trainer/Technician
2
2
SUBTOTAL
+$7896
Bus drivers
Continue current delivery plan
Bus aides
ESTIMATED TOTAL NET CHANGE IN BUDGET EXPENDITURE BENCHMARKED TO 2010-2011
-$147,872
SYNOPSIS
The What if scenario—including student program enhancements--- is an estimated -$147,872 less in expenditure for staffing in a
reorganized school district than the amount expended in 2010-2011 in total by the two districts separately—without the
student program enhancements.
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2010-2011
5
2009-2010
1
2008-2009
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
2007-2008
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
counselors, nurses and similar others)
Grades K-12:
Teacher Aides (civil service)
Grades K-12:
OT/PT (civil service)
Social worker (civil service)
Nurse (civil service)
Civil Service:
Bus drivers
Bus aides
Secretaries
Business Office not secretarial
STAFF SEGMENT
2009-2010
NORTHVILLE
2008-2009
MAYFIELD
2010-2011
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
1
1
3
5
15
15
TOTAL OVER 4 YEARS
FTE NUMBERS OF STAFF WHO HAVE LEFT THE DISTRICTS FOR ALL REASONS
EXCEPT REDUCTION IN FORCE
2007-2008
- 165 -
NOVEMBER 2011
DECEMBER 2011
JANUARY 2012
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
- 166 -
Based on the Program Vision Ideas of the Community
Advisory Joint Committee for Opportunities for All Pupils
OPTION ONE and OPTION TWO
A ‘What if’ Financial Picture of a
Reorganization of the Two School Districts
into One
- 167 -
Assumption: The organization of the two districts into one will allow other expenditure reductions not identified as major elements below.
For example, currently there are two expenditures for the required services of a yearly external audit. In all likelihood the yearly external audit
for the new district will cost less than what is now collectively spent by the two school districts separately. Simultaneously, the newly
organized school district may have additional expenditures like the need for one or two more tubas because more pupils take advantage of a
more comprehensive band program. Such flexibility of reducing existing planned expenditures to support reasonable and appropriate new
expenditures should be acknowledged at this stage of studying a possible reorganization. At this point in the road toward formal consideration
of reorganization by the communities, the expenditures, revenues and property tax implications are viewed with an accurate, but global view by
the study.
Assumption: A 3.5% inflation rate is prudent to expect.
Assumption: Ensuring that all pupils have access to interscholastic activities and co-curricular opportunities at a level higher and more diverse
than now available by the two districts separately is an important value and goal by the community advisory joint Committee. This goal is
reflected in the estimated first year expenditure budget with the inclusion of 10% more financial resources for such opportunities beyond what
was budgeted by the two districts separately in 2010-2011 before state aid for schools was reduced so significantly.
Assumption: Implementation of the attached grade level configuration program delivery plan and the use of the current buildings. It is this
grade level plan and use of building plan that the estimated first year budget is based on.
Assumption: The attached program elements Pre-K through 12 vision was developed with the insights and advice of the community advisory
joint Committee. It is this program that the estimated first year budget is based on.
1. Estimated first year expenditure budget of a newly organized school district in 2012-2013.
Therefore, the financial plan framework suggested by the study reflects this explicit guidance by outlining a financial
blueprint that ends the budget and property tax reliance on reorganization incentive aid terminating in the same year that
the aid stops coming to the newly organized school district.
The Community Advisory Committee members from both school districts along with the Boards of Education and the
superintendents asked that the study identify a financial roadmap for a possible reorganized school district that has
financial sustainability after the special reorganization state aid ends in 14 years.
Guiding Financial Plan Assumption:
609,084
27,955
200,000
+
+
+
$28,125,051
33,862
+
-$147,872
+$123,774
$26,363,585
+ 914,663
$27,178,248
- 168 -
Assumption: The newly organized school district will receive $1,983,646 in legislatively defined school district reorganization incentive aid in
the first year of reorganization. The schedule of reorganization aid as per current legislation and state policy over the next fourteen years for
one reorganized district is:
Assumption: School district state aid, federal aid, and other revenues (not including property tax revenues) received by the two school districts
in 2011-2012 will be equal to what will be received in the first year of a reorganization. The two school districts separately received
$13,064,483 in revenues not including property taxes in 2011-2012. It is estimated that baseline revenues, not including reorganization
incentive aid and property taxes, will total the same in the first year for the reorganized school district.
2. Estimated first year revenue budget of a newly organized school district:
*If a reorganization of the two districts is approved by both communities, the new district will begin for the 2013-2014.
Subtotal
Estimated difference in the staffing budgets of the two school districts separately and with
the estimated staffing budget of the reorganized district. The staffing levels are based on
the program vision developed with the help of the Community Advisory Joint Committee
as described in the What if Program/Staffing scenario. This total savings results from the
act of serving the pupils collectively.
Estimated resources to organize and implement the details of the reorganization
Amount to meet the 2010-2011 level of expenditures for the co-curricular, music/drama,
and interscholastic offerings budgeted separately by the two districts plus 10% for added
programming.
Estimated expenditure for transportation based on the grade level configurations of the
program and the location of the various school buildings.
Estimated expenditure for Pre-K-5 before school program and 6-8 after school program at
Northville
Estimated expenditures to address developing new labor contracts.
Net estimated expenditure budget for the first year of the newly organized district in
*2012-2013:
Total of the 2011-2012 school budgets of the two separate school districts.
Anticipated inflation for 2012-2013 of at least 3.5%.
Profile of the major elements of the first year’s expenditure budget of the newly organized school district:
Reorganization Aid in Addition to Regular State School Aid
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,785,281
$1,586,917
$1,388,552
$1,190,188
$991,823
$793,458
$595,094
$396,729
$198,365
$0
- 169 -
Assumption: The newly organized school district will receive the highest of the building aid percentages of the current two school districts on
all facility debt incurred previously by each school district. Mayfield has the highest building aid ratio of 91.4%. Therefore, building aid for
existing debt of Northville will receive state building aid at the 91.4% level. Currently, the building aid ratio for Northville is 78.7%. Please
note that any new facility debt that the communities approve in the future for the newly organized district will receive 95% to 98% in building
aid state support. Charted below are the existing long term bond borrowings for facility capital projects as of June 30, 2012 (principal and
interest) of each of the two districts.
Assumption: The newly organized school district will receive in 2013-2014 an additional $573,617 in transportation aid to support the
preliminary transportation plan developed by the two districts. The transportation routing plan has a guiding goal that there are no pupils on a
bus longer than 1 hour and that all K-5 pupils are anticipated to attend the local community elementary school. Requests will be honored from
parents who live closer to a different elementary school and wish their children to attend the closer school.
Assumption: It is expected based on the fiscal conditions profile contained in the study that the two districts will have collectively $3,800,000
in cash from existing approved reserves and any fund balances from unspent budgeted funds from the 2011-2012 budgets on June 30, 2012.
Assumption: The newly organized school district ‘from day one’ needs to identify a financial framework plan to help ensure financial
sustainability and to deal with unknown economic variables of the future ‘without surprises’ as the reorganization incentive aid eventually
declines to $0 after fourteen years.
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
(aid ratio of
78.7%)
(aid ratio
of
91.4%)
$1,487,993
$1.521,526
$1,573,889
$1,350,000
$2,620,000
2012
2013
2014
2015
Thereafter
$36,014
$37,773
$38,962
$40,723
$47,369
Estimated Annual Additional Building Aid Revenue
based on all debt receiving 91.4% state aid times
the approved Aidable expenditure amount of the project by SED
(i.e. the bond percentage)
$7,175,000
+$1,080,000
250,000
1,150,000
300,000
700,000
650,000
750,000
3,000,000
Suggested Amount:
75,000
300,000
Total estimate of the 2011-2012 regular state, federal aid revenues. Does not include fund balance
allocation to reduce the tax levy or transfers from reserves.
(Estimated new ‘regular’ transportation state aid on additional bus routing. *)
Estimated annual additional building aid due to a common building aid ratio applied to all existing
bond debt of the two individual school districts.
Cash from the two districts on June 30, 2012
Year 1 of the reorganization incentive aid
+3,800,000
+1,983,646
+ 517,721
+ 36,014
$13,064,483
Profile of the major elements of the first year’s revenue budget of a newly organized school district based on 2011 current law.
Reserve:
Encumbrances (purchase orders still open)
Unemployment Insurance
Worker’s Compensation
Liability
Employees’ Retirement Contributions
Tax Certiorari
Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve
Capital Reserve (Voter approval to establish and fund. ($3,000,000 at least.)
Repair Reserve (Voter approval to establish and fund; public hearing to spend.)
Mandatory Reserve Fund (currently at Northville; possibly is ‘Debt Service Fund Balance’ instead)
Insurance
Property Loss and Liability
Tax Reduction
Total Reserves:
Unrestricted undesignated fund balance subject to 4% of subsequent year’s budget)
- 170 -
Assumption: Listed below is a recommended list of reserves the newly organized district should achieve at a minimum over the first seven
years of its existence as a new district as suggested by Patrick Powers, CPA of D’Arcangelo and Co.
$315,080
$330,475
$340,875
$356,282
$414,426
Northville
Mayfield
Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
- 171 -
Assumption: As of June 30, 2011 the two school districts have $10,310,546 in debt for existing school facility community approved projects.
It is prudent to pre-pay this debt as reorganization incentive aid funds may allow. The financial scenario below includes the pre-payment of
$4,000,000 of existing capital project debt over the first 10 years of the reorganized school district. In this way, the newly reorganized school
district can reduce a known obligated future expenditure without using local property tax revenue. The debt ends more quickly. However, the
state building aid revenue on the debt still comes in to the new district at the yearly scheduled matching the original term of the bonds. As the
state building aid revenue is received through 2025 on the advanced ‘mortgage’ pay-down payments, the revenue can be placed in an approved
capital reserve for future projects or is available as may be necessary to moderate the property tax levy through 2026 and beyond.
For example, it is suggested that over the first 24 months the newly organized school district analyze the current method of delivering
transportation, operation and maintenance, and cafeteria services. An ongoing annual formal review of the program delivery elements should
be part of the culture. For example, the program vision includes 20 full time equivalent positions across the K-12 curriculum to serve special
needs pupils, academic intervention services, and reading. If the estimated pupil population that is expected to need such services does not
enroll, then a staffing adjustment needs to be made. Comprehensive short term and long term planning communicated with the school district
community is suggested to be a critical element for the newly organized school district.
Assumption and Expectation: The newly organized school district will identify annually at least $78,572 in on-going
efficiencies to deliver the program over the next 14 years. Thus, over 15 years the reorganization incentive aid used
initially to reduce the tax levy is reduced to $0. Therefore, the reorganization aid is not relied on for the financial future of
the district after it is phased out starting in 2026. Instead, financial efficiencies that are implemented over 15 years
because of reorganization is the prime factor in moderating the reliance on the property tax to deliver the program.
A Suggested Financial Framework to Manage the Reorganization Incentive Aid Revenues of the Newly Organized District Over
Fifteen Years.
Net estimated revenues not including property taxes for the first year of the newly organized
district:
$19,401,864
*This is an expenditure driven state aid. It is paid by the state in the year following the expenditure and will be paid to the new district in 2013-2014. The reorganization
incentive aid in year one only will supply the $517,721 revenue for the 2012-2013 budget. This is a prime example of how the incentive aid helps to enable the
establishment of reorganized school districts.
$18,844,637
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,785,281
$1,586,917
$1,388,552
$1,190,188
$991,823
$793,458
$595,094
$396,729
$198,365
$0
Total Annual
Reorganization
Incentive Aid
$6,076,883
$365,925
$562,217
$640,788
$719,359
$797,930
$678,136
$558,343
$438,549
$318,756
$198,962
$79,168
$359,375
$239,581
$119,794
$0
Incentive
Aid
Allocated to
Reserves
$517,721
$517,721
Incentive Aid
Allocated to Enable
First Year Cost for
Transportation Plan
$4,000,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
Incentive Aid Allocated
to Pay Down the
Existing Building Bond Debt
of the two districts now the
responsibility of the
new district
(Advanced Payment of
Existing Debt)
$8,250,033
$1,100,000
$1,021,429
$942,858
$864,287
$785,716
$707,145
$628,574
$550,003
$471,432
$392,861
$314,290
$235,719
$157,148
$78,571
$0
Incentive Aid
Allocated to Reduce
the Tax Levy
- 172 -
The following page duplicates the official calculations of each school district for the property tax rates specific to each school district
community for 2011-2012. It also estimates the 2012-2013 property tax rates for the combined school district community if the communities
chose to reorganize the two districts into one school district based on the estimated expenditures and revenues outlined on the previous pages.
TOTALS:
$3,800,000
$3,800,000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Cash from ‘closing the books’ of
the two school districts allocated
to reserves of the newly organized
school district
Year
The suggested financial framework is charted below:
6,325,017
223,337,328
36,214,467
2,144,700
112,852,937
196,900
381,071,349
Northville
Mayfield
Northampton
Hope
Bleecker
Benson
Edinburg
Total
6,325,017
223,337,328
36,214,467
2,144,700
112,852,937
196,900
381,071,349
264,119,833
7,446,105
41,540,954
1,469,610
314,576,502
Assessed
Value
Apportionment
August-11
0.71
0.66
0.93
1.00
0.93
0.55
0.71
0.66
0.79
0.90
Equalization
Rate
School Tax
Levy
Percent of
Tax Levy
8,908,475
5,225,513
1.746456%
338,389,891
5,225,513
66.339435%
38,940,287
5,225,513
7.634024%
2,144,700
5,225,513
0.420456%
121,347,244
5,225,513
23.789445%
358,000
5,225,513
0.070184%
510,088,597
100%
10.24 Tax Rate on $1000 of Market Value
371,999,765
6,605,589
85.028882%
11,281,977
6,605,589
2.578749%
52,583,486
6,605,589
12.019134%
1,632,900
6,605,589
0.373236%
437,498,128
100%
Full
Value
DATA
91,261
3,466,576
398,917
21,971
1,243,121
3,667
5,225,513
5,616,658
170,342
793,935
24,654
6,605,589
Tax Levy
Dollars
14.43
15.52
11.02
10.24
11.02
18.63
21.27
22.88
19.11
16.78
2011-2012
Tax Rate
$13,406,833
Estimated tax levy for the first year of a reorganized district:
- $ 1,100,000
Estimated reorganization incentive aid applied to property taxes:
517,721
- $
- $13,100,497
Estimated ‘regular’ state/federal aid/other revenue for the first year:
(Same amount from 2011-2012 budget year—does not include
allocation of a fund balance or transfers from reserves to reduce the
tax levy.)
Estimated reorganization incentive aid applied to first year costs
for transportation:
$28,125,051
Estimated budget for the first year of a reorganized district:
“WHAT IF” PROPERTY TAXES IF THE TWO COMMUNITIES CHOSE TO REORGANIZE THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE:
264,119,833
7,446,105
41,540,954
1,469,610
314,576,502
Total
Accounts
Mayfield
Mayfield
Northampton
Johnstown
Broadalbin
Total
Town
Assessed
Value
Tax Levy
August-11
2011-2012 Tax Rates for the Two Districts Separately
- 173 -
Mayfield
Northampton
Johnstown
Broadalbin
Mayfield
Northampton
Hope
Bleecker
Benson
Edinburg
Northville
Town
Assessed
Value
Apportionment
August-12
270,444,850
230,783,433
41,540,954
1,469,610
36,214,467
2,144,700
112,852,937
196,900
695,647,851
Equalization
Rate
0.71
0.66
0.79
0.90
0.93
1.00
0.93
0.55
Full
School Tax
Percent of
Value
Levy
Tax Levy
380,908,239
13,406,833
40.197718%
349,671,868
13,406,833
36.901305%
52,583,486
13,406,833
5.549200%
1,632,900
13,406,833
0.172322%
38,940,287
13,406,833
4.109417%
2,144,700
13,406,833
0.226333%
121,347,244
13,406,833
12.805925%
358,000
13,406,833
0.037780%
947,586,724
100%
$71,000
$66,000
$93,000
$100,000
$93,000
$55,000
$14.43
$15.52
$11.02
$10.24
$11.02
$18.63
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
2012-2013
Tax Rate
19.93
21.44
17.91
15.72
15.21
14.15
15.21
25.72
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1510
$1510
$1510
$1510
- 174 -
2011-2012 Property Taxes
Tax Levy
Dollars
5,389,240.92
4,947,296.34
743,971.98
23,102.92
550,942.67
30,344.09
1,716,868.98
5,065.10
13,406,833
Current Tax Year 2011-2012
Example True Value
Corresponding
2011-2012 Tax Rate
(estimated market
Assessed Value
Per $1000 Assessed Value
value)
$100,000
$71,000
$21.27
$100,000
$66,000
$22.88
$100,000
$79,000
$19.11
$100,000
$90,000
$16.78
Sample property taxes for a home with a $100,000 market (true value):
Total
Accounts
Mayfield
School District
Town
Mayfield
Northampton
Johnstown
Broadalbin
Hope
Bleecker
Benson
Edinburg
Assessed
Value
Tax Levy
August-12
270,444,850
230,783,433
41,540,954
1,469,610
36,214,467
2,144,700
112,852,937
196,900
695,647,851
2012-2013 "WHAT IF" PROPERTY TAXES IF THE TWO COMMUNITIES CHOSE TO REORGANIZE THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE
DATA
OPTION TWO: ‘Roadmap’ of a What if Financial Picture Tied to Tax Rates of 2011-2012
and the Program/Staffing Picture that Results from that Financial Picture
- 175 -
Page 8 illustrates the potential property taxes for a reorganized district that delivers instruction at the grade levels suggested by the Community
Advisory Joint Committee in the current school buildings also suggested by the Joint Committee. Page 8 also reflects the estimated property
taxes that likely may provide the vision of an enhanced instructional program for Pre-K through grade 12 as illustrated in the reference, A
If the Boards decide to change the focus (for the sake of discussion) of the objective to: determine if a centralization can
increase efficiencies and lower costs for the overall operation by forming one centralized district and at the same time
provide enhanced educational opportunities, then below is a financial tool that may help the districts in their discussion.
The study was commissioned based on the above objective and the research and methodology are guided by the objective.
Objective of the school districts: determine if a centralization of the Mayfield and Northville Central School Districts would provide
enhanced educational opportunities and at the same time increase efficiencies and lower costs for the overall operation by forming one
centralized district.
The Mayfield and Northville Central School Districts submitted a grant application to achieve a reorganization study with the following
objective:
Reorganized
School
District
ESTIMATED FOR THE 2O12-2013 SCHOOL YEAR IF THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS
REORGANIZED INTO ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Town
Example
Corresponding
2012-2013 Tax Rate Per $1000 Assessed Value
2012-2013 Estimated Property
True
Assessed
based on the tax levy reflective of the outlined
Taxes on a $100,000 market
Value of a
Value
financial plan for the newly organized school district
value (‘true value’) home
home
for 2012-2013
$100,000
$71,000
$1415
Mayfield
$19.93
$100,000
$66,000
$1415
Northampton
$21.44
$100,000
$79,000
$1415
Johnstown
$17.91
$100,000
$90,000
$1415
Broadalbin
$15.72
$100,000
$93,000
$1415
Hope
$15.21
$100,000
$100,000
$1415
Bleecker
$14.15
$100,000
$93,000
$1415
Benson
$15.21
$100,000
$55,000
$1415
Edinburg
$25.72
DATA
- 176 -
Assumptions about Expenditures and Revenues
‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School District with the Student
‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School that Keeps Property Tax
Program Enhancements Envisioned by the Community Advisory Joint
Rates in Each Town at no More than when the Districts were Separate
Committee
in 2011-2012
Assumption: The program elements vision for Pre-K through 12 was
developed with the insights and advice of the community advisory joint
Committee. It is this program that the estimated first year budget is based
on.
Committee
in 2011-2012
Assumption: Implementation of the attached grade level configuration program delivery plan and the use of the current buildings. It is this grade level plan
and use of building plan that the estimated first year budget is based on.
Assumption: Ensuring that all pupils have access to interscholastic activities
and co-curricular opportunities at a level higher and more diverse than now
available by the two districts separately is an important value and goal by the
community advisory joint Committee. This goal is reflected in the estimated
first year expenditure budget with the inclusion of 10% more financial
resources for such opportunities beyond what was budgeted by the two
districts separately in 2010-2011 before state aid for schools was reduced so
significantly.
Assumption: A 3% inflation rate is prudent to expect.
Assumption: The organization of the two districts into one will allow other
expenditure reductions not identified as major elements below. For example,
currently there are two expenditures for the required services of a yearly
external audit. In all likelihood the yearly external audit for the new district
will cost less than what is now collectively spent by the two school districts
separately. Simultaneously, the newly organized school district may have
additional expenditures like the need for one or two more tubas because
Below is a calculation of property taxes that starts with the premise that both districts would at least equal the property taxes at the 2011-2012
levels if they decide to reorganize. In order to have both districts at least equal the 2011-2012 property tax levels, the estimated tax levy
in a newly organized school can be no higher than $9,700,000.
DATA
‘What if’ Program/Staffing Picture of a Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One and in A ‘What if’ Picture of How the Program is
Delivered and How the School Buildings are Used in a Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One.
- 177 -
Committee
in 2011-2012
Assumption: School district state aid, federal aid, and other revenues (not including property tax revenues) received by the two school districts in 20112012 will be equal to what will be received in the first year of a reorganization. The two school districts separately received $13,064,483 in revenues not
including property taxes in 2011-2012. It is estimated that baseline revenues, not including reorganization incentive aid and property taxes, will total the
same in the first year for the reorganized school district.
Assumption: The newly organized school district will receive $1,983,646 in legislatively defined school district reorganization incentive aid in the first year
of reorganization.
Assumption: The newly organized school district ‘from day one’ needs to identify a financial framework plan to help ensure financial sustainability and to
deal with unknown economic variables of the future ‘without surprises’ as the reorganization incentive aid eventually declines to $0 after fourteen years.
Assumption: It is expected based on the fiscal conditions profile contained in the study that the two districts will have collectively $3,800,000 in cash from
existing approved reserves and any fund balances from unspent budgeted funds from the 2011-2012 budgets on June 30, 2012.
Assumption: The newly organized school district will receive in 2013-2014 an additional $517,721 in transportation aid to support the preliminary
transportation plan developed by the two districts. The transportation routing plan has a guiding goal that there are no pupils on a bus longer than 1 hour
and that all K-5 pupils are anticipated to attend the local community elementary school. Requests will be honored from parents who live closer to a different
elementary school and wish their children to attend the closer school.
Assumption: The newly organized school district will receive the highest of the building aid percentages of the current two school districts on all facility
debt incurred previously by each school district. Mayfield has the highest building aid ratio of 91.4%. Therefore, building aid for existing debt of
Northville will receive state building aid at the 91.4% level. Currently, the building aid ratio for Northville is 78.7%. Please note that any new facility debt
that the communities approve in the future for the newly organized district will receive 95% to 98% in building aid state support. Charted below are the
Assumption: Town tax rates will not rise above those for 2011-2012.
Assumption: As of June 30, 2011 the two school districts have $10,310,546 in debt for existing school facility community approved projects. It is prudent
to pre-pay this debt as reorganization incentive aid funds may allow. The financial scenario below includes the pre-payment of $4,000,000 of existing
capital project debt over the first 10 years of the reorganized school district. In this way, the newly reorganized school district can reduce a known obligated
future expenditure without using local property tax revenue. The debt ends more quickly. However, the state building aid revenue on the debt still comes in
to the new district at the yearly scheduled matching the original term of the bonds. As the state building aid revenue is received through 2025 on the
advanced ‘mortgage’ pay-down payments, the revenue can be placed in an approved capital reserve for future projects or is available as may be necessary to
moderate the property tax levy through 2026 and beyond
more pupils take advantage of a more comprehensive band program. Such
flexibility of reducing existing planned expenditures to support reasonable
and appropriate new expenditures should be acknowledged at this stage of
studying a possible reorganization. At this point in the road toward formal
consideration of reorganization by the communities, the expenditures,
revenues and property tax implications are viewed with an accurate, but
global view by the study.
DATA
Subtotal
Estimated difference in the staffing budgets of the two school districts separately and with the estimated staffing budget of the
reorganized district. The staffing levels are based on the program vision developed with the help of the Community Advisory
Joint Committee as described in the What if Program/Staffing scenario. This total savings results from the act of serving the pupils
collectively.
Estimated resources to organize and implement the details of the reorganization
Estimated difference in the estimated staffing budgets of the program enhancement vision developed by the Community Advisory
Joint Committee and the estimated staffing budgets reflective of the financial goal to retain town tax rates at the 2011-2012 levels.
Total of the 2011-2012 school budgets of the two separate school districts.
Anticipated inflation for 2012-2013
147,872
0
- 178 -
- $2,629,166
+
$26,363,585
+0
$26,363,585
Profile of the major elements of the first year’s expenditure budget of the newly organized school district where tax rates do not
supersede 2011-2012 town tax rates of the separate school districts:
To achieve the scenario where property taxes in each town of the reorganized district fall below those of
2011-2011, $2,629,166 of resources now listed in the ‘What if’ Program/Staffing Picture of a
Reorganization of the Two School Districts into One would need to be reduced or eliminated or added
revenue from state/federal aid would need to be received. The likelihood of additional government
aid beyond 2011-2012 levels is unlikely.
existing long term bond borrowings for facility capital projects as of June 30, 2012 (principal and interest) of each of the two districts.
Assumption: The newly organized district should achieve at a minimum over the first seven years of its existence as a new district as suggested by Patrick
Powers, CPA of D’Arcangelo and Co.
Assumption and Expectation: The newly organized school district will
Assumption and Expectation: The newly organized school district will add
identify annually at least $78,571 in on-going efficiencies to deliver the
$78,571 to the annual total tax levy each year over the next 14 years. Thus,
program over the next 14 years. Thus, over 15 years the reorganization
over 15 years the reorganization incentive aid used to reduce the tax levy is
incentive aid used to reduce the tax levy is reduced to $0. Therefore, the
reduced to $0. Therefore, the reorganization aid is not relied on for the
reorganization aid is not relied on for the financial future of the district after
financial future of the district after it is phased out starting in 2026.
it is phased out starting in 2026. Instead, financial efficiencies that are
implemented over 15 years because of reorganization is the prime factor Any resources gained from on-going efficiencies because of combining into
one district will be used to provide student program enhancements to help
in moderating the reliance on the property tax to deliver the program.
ensure that a comprehensive, and competitive program is offered the
students of the district.
DATA
24,632
+
609,084
+
27,955
+
170,000
$24,418,218
+
•
$9,700,000
Estimated tax levy for the first year of a reorganized district:
- 179 -
“WHAT IF” PROPERTY TAXES IF THE TWO COMMUNITIES CHOSE TO REORGANIZE THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE
AND ALL TOWN TAXPAYERS OF THE SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT EXCEED THE PROPERTY TAX RATES
OF 2011-2012:
• Estimated budget for the first year of a reorganized district
guided by tax rates primary and programming second:
$24,418,218
• Estimated ‘regular’ state/federal aid/other revenue for the first year:
-$13,100,497
(Same amount from 2011-2012 budget year—does not include
allocation of a fund balance or transfers from reserves to reduce the
tax levy.)
• Estimated reorganization incentive aid applied to first year costs
for transportation:
- $ 517,721
• Estimated reorganization incentive aid applied to property taxes:
- $ 1,100,000
Amount to meet the 2010-2011 level of expenditures for the co-curricular, music/drama, and interscholastic offerings budgeted
separately by the two districts plus 10% for added programming MINUS $ 11,382
Estimated expenditure for transportation based on the grade level configurations of the program and the location of the various
school buildings.
Estimated expenditure for Pre-K-5 before school program and 6-8 after school program at Northville
Estimated expenditures to address developing new labor contracts.
Net estimated expenditure budget for the first year of the newly organized district in 2012-2013:
DATA
Total
Accounts
Value
Apportionment
August-12
270,444,850
230,783,433
41,540,954
1,469,610
36,214,467
2,144,700
112,852,937
196,900
695,647,851
Equalization
Rate
0.71
0.66
0.79
0.90
0.93
1.00
0.93
0.55
Full
School Tax
Percent of
Value
Levy
Tax Levy
380,908,239
9,700,000
40.197718%
349,671,868
9,700,000
36.901305%
52,583,486
9,700,000
5.549200%
1,632,900
9,700,000
0.172322%
38,940,287
9,700,000
4.109417%
2,144,700
9,700,000
0.226333%
121,347,244
9,700,000
12.805925%
358,000
9,700,000
0.037780%
947,586,724
100%
DATA
Tax Levy
Dollars
3,899,178.65
3,579,426.59
538,272.40
16,715.23
398,613.45
21,954.30
1,242,174.73
3,664.66
9,700,000
2012-2013
Tax Rate
14.42
15.51
12.96
11.37
11.01
10.24
11.01
18.61
- 180 -
OPTION TWO: Elements of a Program/Staff Scenario of a
Reorganization that Keeps Property Tax Rates in Each Town that are at
Most Equal to the 2011-2012 Rates
Mayfield Elementary
30
(On average 21.5 pupils per class
grades K-5 across the district. It
481
does not take into account that there
may be some special needs pupils
served in a self-contained setting
when appropriate instead of a grade
165
OPTION ONE: ‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School District with
the Student Program Enhancements Envisioned by the Community
Advisory Joint Committee
Mayfield Elementary
30
(On average 21.5 pupils per class
481
grades K-5 across the district. It
does not take into account that there
may be some special needs pupils
served in a self-contained setting
when appropriate instead of a grade
165
ELEMENTARY PRE-K THROUGH GRADE 5
Comparison of ‘What If’ Program/Staff Reorganization Pictures:
Option One: Reorganization focused on a comprehensive vision for student programming, and then balancing the resulting property
tax levy rates with the help of the incentive aid;
Option Two: Reorganization focused on the balancing of property rates benchmarked to the 2011-2012 year with the help of the
incentive aid, and then the resulting student programming.
Town
Mayfield
Northampton
Johnstown
Broadalbin
Hope
Bleecker
Benson
Edinburg
Value
Tax Levy
August-12
270,444,850
230,783,433
41,540,954
1,469,610
36,214,467
2,144,700
112,852,937
196,900
695,647,851
- 181 -
PLUS ESTIMATED OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF ASSIGNED TO ONE OR BOTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AS NEEDED IN A
GIVEN SCHOOL YEAR
OPTION ONE: ‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School District
with the Student Program Enhancements Envisioned by the
Reorganization that Keeps Property Tax Rates in Each Town that
Community Advisory Joint Committee
are at Most Equal to the 2011-2012 Rates
FTE
FTE
Est. Budget Impact of OPTION TWO Picture
Pre-K
3
3
10
8
-2 x $74,987
Vocal Music Instrumental Music
3
2
-1 x $74,987
Art
2.5
2.5
Foreign Language
1.5
0
-1.5 x $74,987
Social Worker
1.5
1
-.5 x (est) $65,000
Guidance Counselor
1.5
1
-.5 x $74,987
Speech
1.5
1.5
.75
.75
Physical Therapist
.75
.75
Physical Education
3
2
-1 x $74,987
Psychologist
1
1
Librarian/Enrichment
1.5
1.5
1 undefined FTE for unforeseen grade level delivery issues
1
0
-1 x $74,987
Total: -$557,409
GRADES 6-8 MIDDLE SCHOOL
OPTION ONE: ‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School District with the Student
Program Enhancements Envisioned by the Community Advisory Joint Committee
Reorganization that Keeps Property Tax Rates in Each
Town that are at Most Equal to the 2011-2012 Rates
2.5 English teachers
3 core teams (English, Social Studies, Grades 6-8 Middle School
Grades 6-8 Middle School
2.5 math teachers
Science, Math); each core team serves (served in what is now
(served in what is now Northville High School)
2.5 science teachers
Northville High School)
the same set of students each day
2.5 social studies teachers
ESTIMATED
(Each core team of 4 teachers is responsible for
12
ENROLLMENT: 334
111 pupils in a day across at least 5 instructional
plus
periods; or on average of 22.2 pupils per
Each teacher teaches 5 classes
.5 math, and .5 science FTE to join
instructional class period. This includes the
per day. Therefore, 2.5
the teams to decide how to deliver
-1 x $74,987
assumption that all 6-8 special needs pupils will
be fully integrated in all classes. It does not take accelerated math, and science to those teachers per subject will be able -2 x $80,018
to provide 13 sections of classes
grade 8 pupils ready begin high
into account that there may be some special
at about 25 to 26 pupils each.
school courses for graduation credit
needs pupils served in a self-contained setting
1
when appropriate instead of a subject class)
DATA
- 182 -
PLUS ESTIMATED OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF ASSIGNED TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AS NEEDED IN A GIVEN SCHOOL YEAR
OPTION ONE: ‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School District with the
OPTION TWO: Elements of a Program/Staff Scenario of a Reorganization
that Keeps Property Tax Rates in Each Town that are at Most Equal to the
Student Program Enhancements Envisioned by the Community Advisory
2011-2012 Rates
Joint Committee
FTE
FTE
5
4
-1 x $80,018
Vocal Music Instrumental Music
2
1.5
-.5 x $80,018
Art
1.5
1
-.5 x $80,018
Social Worker
.5
.5
Guidance Counselor
1
.5
-.5 x $80,018
Speech
1
.25
-.75 x $80,018
.25
.25
Physical Therapist
.25
.25
Physical Education
2
1.5
-.5 x $80,018
Psychologist
.5
.5
Foreign Language
1.5
1
-.5 x $80,018
Health
.5
.5
Technology/Project Lead the Way
1
1
Home and Careers
1
.5
-.5 x $80,018
Librarian
.5
.5
.5
0
.5 undefined FTE for unforeseen grade level delivery issues
-.5 x $80,018
Total: -$675,122
DATA
Each teacher teaches 5 classes per day. Therefore, 3.5 core
teachers per subject will be able to provide at least 18
sections of classes at about 22 to 23 pupils each. Because
of the inclusion of laboratory experience with science, 4
core science teachers are estimated.
OPTION TWO: Elements of a Program/Staff Scenario
of a Reorganization that Keeps Property Tax Rates in
Each Town that are at Most Equal to the 2011-2012
Rates
High School
- 183 -
GRADES 9-12 HIGH SCHOOL SUBJECT AREA INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES
OPTION ONE: ‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School
FTE
OPTIONE TWO: Elements of a Program/Staff Scenario of a
District with the Student Program Enhancements Envisioned
by the Community Advisory Joint Committee
FTE
Special Needs/Resource/Academic Intervention Services
5
4
-1 x $80,018
English
4
3.5
-.5 x $80,018
Social Studies
4
3.5
-.5 x $80,018
Math
4
3.5
-.5 x $80,018
4
General Science
4
Earth Science
Biology (Living Environment)
Chemistry
Physics
Foreign Language
2
2
Additional subject area FTE teachers to provide College courses 2
2
and Advanced Placement Courses
Health
1
1
High School
(All pupils take English Language Arts. Therefore, 4 English teachers will likely be
responsible for about 103 pupils each in a day across at least 5 instructional periods; or on
average of 20.6 pupils per instructional class period. This includes the assumption that all
special needs pupils will attend English classes like all other pupils. It does not take into
account that there may be some special needs pupils served in a self-contained setting when
appropriate instead of a subject class. There are two full time equivalent teachers in addition
for subject area college courses and Advanced Placement Courses. Therefore, it is highly
likely that each English teacher will have a daily instructional ‘load’ of about 90 pupils.)
OPTION ONE: ‘What if’ Picture of a Reorganized School District with the Student
Program Enhancements Envisioned by the Community Advisory Joint Committee
DATA
GRADES 9-12 HIGH SCHOOL
1
.5
1
2
1
.5
.5
.5
.5
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
FTE
.5
1
0
.25
.25
.25
.5
.5
0
-.5 x $80,018
-.5 x $80,018
Total: $816,241
-.5 x (est) $65,000
-1 x $80,018
-1 x $80,018
-.25 x $80,018
-.25 x $87,150
-.25 x $87,150
FTE
Est. Budget Impact of OPTION TWO
Picture
2
1.5
-.5 x $80,018
.5
-.5 x $80,018
0
-1 x $80,018
.5
-.5 x $80,018
.5
-.5 x $80,018
1
2
-1 x $80,018
- 184 -
TEACHER AIDES AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS
FTE
FTE
Est. Budget Impact of OPTION TWO
Picture
Teacher Aides
29.89
29.89
Teacher Assistants
4
4
Art
General Music/Vocal Music/Instrumental Music
Technology
Driver Education
Home and Careers
Engineering; Mechanical Drawing/Project Lead the Way
Business
Physical Education and part-time Director of Athletics, Physical
Education and Recreation
Social Worker
Guidance Counselor
Career Counselor
Speech
Physical Therapist
Psychologist
Librarian
.5 undefined FTE for unforeseen grade level delivery issues
DATA
Director for Transition
(temporary for at least 1 year)
Public Information Specialist
Superintendent
Grant Writer
District-wide
supervision/administration
resources:
BOCES consortium
0
BOCES consortium
1
1
BOCES consortium
OPTION TWO: Reorganization
focused on the balancing of
property rates benchmarked to
the 2011-2012 year with the help
of the incentive aid, and the
resulting student programming
elements
1
BOCES consortium
4
Principal
Principal
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Principal
Principal
Assistant Principal
5
Principal
Total: -$123,774
-1 x $123,774
Est. Budget Impact of
OPTION TWO Picture
-1 x $123,774
- 185 -
Est. Budget Impact of OPTION
TWO Picture
OPTION TWO:
Reorganization focused on
the balancing of property
rates benchmarked to the
2011-2012 year with the
help of the incentive aid,
and the resulting student
programming elements
Principal
OPTION ONE: Reorganization
focused on a comprehensive
vision for student programming,
and balancing the resulting
property tax levy rates with the
help of the incentive aid
Estimated FTE Total School Buildings:
Mayfield Elementary
Pre-K-5
Northville:
Pre-K-5 and
Grades 6-8 in one building
High School(at Mayfield)
9-12
Building Supervisory/Administrative Resources:
OPTION ONE:
Reorganization focused on a
comprehensive vision for
student programming, and
balancing the resulting
property tax levy rates with
the help of the incentive aid
DATA
SUPERVISORY/ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES:
1
Director of Food Services
District-wide business office support
resources:
Treasurer
Payroll
Accounts Payable
Employee benefits, assistant treasurer,
internal auditor
1
1
1
1
15
.5
1
1
.5
11
-.5 x $64,427
-.5 x $64,427
Total: -$144,645
-1 x $48,215
-1.5 x $48,215
-.5 x $48,215
- 186 -
Est. Budget Impact of
OPTION TWO Picture
Total: -$247,548
-.5 x $123,774
-.5 x $123,774
OPTION TWO: Reorganization
focused on the balancing of
property rates benchmarked to
the 2011-2012 year with the help
of the incentive aid, and the
resulting student programming
elements
2
2
2.5
3.5
1
Estimated FTE Total Secretarial Services:
District-wide secretarial support
resources:
Mayfield Elementary
Northville Prek-5 and Grades 6-8
High School
District Office
Directors of Cafeteria, Transportation,
Building and Grounds
OPTION ONE: Reorganization
focused on a comprehensive
vision for student
programming, and balancing
the resulting property tax levy
rates with the help of the
incentive aid
2
3
4
4
1
7
1
.5
.5
Director of Operations
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
Estimated FTE Total Central
Services/Office:
1
1
Director of Instruction and
Compensatory Education Grants
Director of Special Education and CSE
Chair
School Business Official
Director of Building and Grounds
Director of Transportation
DATA
2
District-wide technology support resources
School Lunch
Transportation
2
3
Total: -$64,427
-$2,629,166
-$123,774
-$247,548
-$144,645
-$64,427
Instructional Technology Support
Total Estimated Expenditure Difference:
PreK – grade 5 program
Grades 6, 7, 8 program
Grades 9-12 high school program
Teacher Aides/Teacher Assistants
Building Supervision/Administration
District Office Supervision/Administration
Secretarial
Business Office
Transportation
Food Service
- 187 -
No Change in Property Tax Rate in Northville Benchmarked to the 2011-2012 Tax Year:
OPTION TWO
-$557,409
-$675,122
-$816,241
and the
Estimated Expenditure Change Between the Comprehensive Student Program Vision
Developed by the Community Advisory Joint Committee: OPTION ONE
Comparison of ‘What If’ Program/Staff Reorganization Pictures:
One: Reorganization focused on a comprehensive vision for student programming, and balancing the resulting property tax levy rates
with the help of the incentive aid;
Two: Reorganization focused on the balancing of property rates benchmarked to the 2011-2012 year with the help of the incentive aid,
and the resulting student programming elements
Estimated Staffing Expenditure
Continue current staff resource allocation for at least the first to two years of the newly reorganized
school district.
4
Estimated FTE Total Business Office
Services:
DATA
Mayfield
Northampton
Hope
Bleecker
Benson
Edinburg
Northville
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$71,000
$66,000
$93,000
$100,000
$93,000
$55,000
$14.43
$15.52
$11.02
$10.24
$11.02
$18.63
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1510
$1510
$1510
$1510
2011-2012 Property Taxes
Reorganized
School
District
Mayfield
Northampton
Johnstown
Broadalbin
Hope
Bleecker
Benson
Edinburg
Town
$71,000
$66,000
$79,000
$90,000
$93,000
$100,000
$93,000
$55,000
$14.42
$15.51
$12.96
$11.37
$11.01
$10.24
$11.01
$18.61
2012-2013 Tax Rate Per $1000 Assessed Value
first based on the tax levy, and the resulting program
plan second for the newly organized school district
for 2012-2013
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Example Corresponding
Assessed
True
Value
Value of
a home
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
$1024
- 188 -
2012-2013 Estimated Property
Taxes on a $100,000 market
value (‘true value’) home
Sample property taxes for a home with a $100,000 market (true value) assuming that all taxpayers in all the towns before the
reorganization of the two separate school districts into one reorganized school district
will have tax rates that do not exceed the tax rates of 2011-2012:
Mayfield
Northampton
Johnstown
Broadalbin
Town
Mayfield
School District
Current Tax Year 2011-2012
Example True Value
Corresponding
2011-2012 Tax Rate
(estimated market
Assessed Value
Per $1000 Assessed Value
value)
$100,000
$71,000
$21.27
$100,000
$66,000
$22.88
$100,000
$79,000
$19.11
$100,000
$90,000
$16.78
DATA
APPENDIX
“QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS”
TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT TIMELINE AND GOVERNANCE TOPICS
RELATED TO SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
(please note that timelines can vary)
TIMELINE
Question #1: What happens when the study is completed?
Answer#1: Upon completion, the draft of the feasibility study is forwarded to the State Education
Department (SED) for review. After review by the department (two-three weeks) the study is returned to
the consultants to make any changes as recommended by SED. Once finalized, the approved study is sent
to each of the Boards of Education for review. At this point, the individual Boards determine if they will
accept the report. When that happens, the consultants make arrangements with the individual Boards of
Education to present the findings in each of the school districts. (Note: This process may take place during
September and October and is completed by the beginning of November.)
Question #2: What do the Boards have to do next?
Answer #2: Each Board decides to move forward, or not. Supposing a positive vote of each Board,
they then decide to undertake statutory reorganization process. This now brings SED into the process and
from this point on, the Department will guide the districts through the reorganization process. (This
happens during the month of January.) By the beginning of February, an advisory referendum (straw vote)
takes place in each of the school districts. If the votes are positive, formal next steps are begun,
commencing with a Board resolution from each district requesting the Commissioner of Education to “lay
out” the new centralized district and make recommendations relative to conducting the formal vote.
Question #3: What are the requirements at this point to get to the formal vote?
Answer #3: February becomes a very busy month! Each Board, by formal resolution and through
supporting documentation from the BOCES District Superintendent, requests the Commissioner to
authorize the formation of a new centralized district. The Commissioner’s Order laying out the new
district is posted in the respective districts. Next, the Boards submit Statutory Petitions requesting the
Commissioner to call a special meeting to vote on the proposed centralization. There are two petitions:
A) Petition signed by 100 qualified voters (or 10% of the student enrollment of the proposed
combined district) requesting Commissioner to call a special meeting of the combined district to vote on
centralization.
B) Second Petition signed by 100 qualified voters (or 10% of the student enrollment) for each
district to be designated as a special election district requesting the Commissioner establish an alternative
voting site in each such district.
The Commissioner then issues an order calling for a special meeting in each district for a centralized
referendum. (This has to take place within 30 days following the receipt of the petitions requesting a
vote.) Legal notices must be provided regarding the special vote (at least 10 days prior) and information
must be provided for absentee ballots. By the beginning of March (within the first week/week and a half
to meet the deadline) the referendum is held in each district voting on the centralization proposition, the
number of board members to serve in each district and the term of office of the members.
Question #4: What happens next, assuming a positive vote?
Answer #4: In March (continuing with this timeline), the Commissioner would order a special meeting
to be held to elect a new Board of Education. Notice is posted at least 10 days prior to vote. Candidates
for the new Board would obtain petitions through the BOCES District Superintendent. By the middle of
April, BOE candidates would meet with the District Superintendent to determine placement on the ballots
- 189 decision options for serving students in the future.”
APPENDIX
for voting and absentee ballots would be prepared. By the first week of May, the special meeting would
be held to elect the new Board of Education of the newly centralized district. (Note: these dates provide
an approximate rendering of the process. There may be adjustments to the dates as determined by SED
and the districts.)
Question #5: When does the new district begin business?
Answer #5: This happens very quickly. The BOCES District Superintendent holds an organizational
meeting; members take oath of office and prepare for new school year. Of most importance is the
development of the budget and holding a special meeting to vote on the new budget. (This may happen on
the statewide voting date for school budgets.) The new district officially begins operation on July1, 2012.
Question #6: What if one of the districts voted not to centralize? How would this affect the other district
and could they still move forward?
Answer #6: If one of the districts decided not to move forward, the reorganization process is
terminated.
Question #7: How long can the study be used if there is an initial negative vote?
Answer #7: Supposing the two districts decided to move forward at a later date, the study would be
considered useable by the districts for one year.
GOVERNANCE
The following are excerpts from a Guide to the Reorganization of School Districts in New York State. A
complete version can be found at:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/sch_dist_org/GuideToReorganizationOfSchoolDistricts.htm
CENTRALIZATION OF DISTRICTS AND GOVERNANCE
This form of reorganization has been the most common. The procedures for centralization provide that a
new school district be created encompassing the entire area of the school districts to be merged.
The new central district becomes operational only after the centralization order is approved by the
qualified voters in each school district included in the centralization. If each district approves the order by
a majority vote, the new district will begin operation on July 1, following the vote. If approval of the
order is defeated in any district included in the proposed centralization, the new district is not created, and
the question may not be voted upon again for one year.
If the order is presented a second time, and is approved, the new district begins operation. If the order is
defeated a second time — or if it is not brought to referendum within two years of the initial referendum
— then the original order becomes null and void.
New Board of Education for the New District:
The new district is governed by a board of education comprising five, seven or nine members. The new
board is elected at a special meeting called by the Commissioner of Education after the new district is
approved at referendum. The number of board members (5, 7 or 9) and their term of office (3, 4 or 5
years) may be voted upon at the same time as the referendum on establishing the district, or may be
decided at a separate meeting.
The boards of education of the districts included in the centralization continue their responsibilities until
the new district begins operation and the business affairs of their former districts have been completed,
usually August 1.
- 190 -
APPENDIX
COMMITTEE:
REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE AID:
ESTIMATE IF THE COMMUNITIES DECIDED
TO REORGANIZE THE TWO INTO ONE
DISTRICT
MAYFIELD CS
NORTHVILLE CS
July 2011
- 191 -
APPENDIX
REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE AID
In New York State, when two or more school districts reorganize, the new district receives two forms of
state aid not available to the predecessor districts. They are Reorganization Incentive Operating Aid and
Reorganization Incentive Building Aid.
REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE OPERATING AID
(Section 3602(14(d) and (d-1) of Education Law)
For school districts that merge after July 1, 2007, Incentive Operating Aid is available for 14 years
starting with the first year of operation as a reorganized district.
For five years after reorganization, aid payable is equal to the sum of 40% of 2006-07 formula operating
aid for each of the predecessor districts, based upon the data file that was created for the February 15,
2007 State Aid Database Gen Report.
Incentive Operating Aid for the first five years as a reorganized district =
.40 X (2006-07 Formula Operating Aid)
2006-07 Formula Operating Aid =
(2006-07 Selected Operating Aid per Pupil X Total Aidable Pupil Units or TAPU)
After receiving Reorganization Incentive Operating Aid for five years, the additional 40% apportionment
will be reduced by 4 percentage points each year until the apportionment reaches zero in the 15th year of
reorganization. The sum of Selected Operating Aid per pupil multiplied by TAPU plus Incentive
Operating Aid may not exceed 95% of the district's Approved Operating Expenses (line 74) used for aid
calculations in the current school year.
ESTIMATING REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE OPERATING AID
FOR A MERGED DISTRICT
An initial estimate of Reorganization Incentive Operating Aid payable may be calculated by retrieving the
most current General Aid Output Reports (GEN), for districts considering a reorganization, from the NYS
Education Department State Aid website at https://stateaid.nysed.gov/ . Section VII of the GEN, which is
partially completed for all districts, specifies the Reorganization Incentive Operating Aid calculation (line
73 on the most current web published GEN Report). Reorganization Incentive Operating Aid potentially
payable to each district expected to be part of a merger, should be added together to determine an estimate
of the total incentive operating aid payable to a presumed successor merged or reorganized district for a
period of five years. Thereafter, the incentive operating percent on line 76 will decrease by .04 annually
until it reaches zero in year 15.
REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE BUILDING AID
(Section 3602(14) of Education Law)
Incentive Building Aid is 30 percent of the Building Aid otherwise paid on an approved building project.
Aid is paid on eligible projects (those initiated after reorganization) for which the general construction
contract is signed prior to July 1, 2010 or within ten years of the effective date of the reorganization,
whichever is later. In no case, however, may the sum of regular Building Aid (including the 10%
incentive) and Reorganization Incentive Building Aid exceed 95% of approved building expenditures, or
98% for high need school districts. For high need districts, the 98% also includes the impact of the High
Need Supplemental Building Aid Ratio adjustment.
- 192 -
APPENDIX
REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE OPERATING AID
Districts:
Base Aid as per SED (GEN report line 73):
Mayfield
Northville
$3,817,425
$1,141,690
Total base $4,959,115
Anticipated first year of reorganization:
Therefore, last of 14 years of incentive aid:
2012-2013
2025-2026
MERGER YEAR
EST. INCENTIVE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2026-2027
TOTAL BASE AID INCENTIVE AID %
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
$4,959,115
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
36%
32%
28%
24%
20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,983,646
$1,785,281
$1,586,917
$1,388,552
$1,190,188
$991,823
$793,458
$595,094
$396,729
$198,365
$0
Total est.first five years:
Total est. incentive aid
over 14 years:
$9,918,230
$18,844,637
- 193 -
APPENDIX
Labor Relations Implications
Of School District Centralization
(July 20, 2011)
The following information is based on guidance materials from the State Education
Department and general principles of public sector employment law. This document does
not contain legal advice and should not be considered a legal opinion. For legal advice,
the districts should contact their respective attorney counsels.
1. Q: If two or more school districts centralize into one school district, what happens to the
employees of the former school districts?
Each teacher employed by a former school district becomes an employee of the new school
district. Employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law by a former school district may
have varying rights in the new school district, depending on their civil service class (competitive,
non-competitive, labor, etc.).
2. Q: What happens to the collective bargaining agreements of the former school districts?
The terms of those agreements may become elements of new agreements with the new school
district. The new school district and the new bargaining units’ bargaining agents must make a
good faith effort to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements.
3. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of teachers?
Teachers are credited with seniority earned within a particular tenure area. When school districts
centralize, the seniority lists are merged so that the new school district has only one seniority list
per tenure area.
4. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service
Law?
Competitive class employees are credited with seniority in accordance with the Civil Service Law.
Other employees may have seniority rights set forth in their collective bargaining agreements.
5. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer teachers?
The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce teaching positions on the basis of
seniority within a particular tenure area. If a teaching position is abolished, the affected
individuals are placed on a preferred eligible list for a period of seven years.
6. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer civil service employees?
The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce competitive class positions on the
basis of seniority as set forth in the Civil Service Law. Current collective agreements that cover
civil service employees may have additional reduction in force references.
- 194 -
APPENDIX
7. Q: What happens to the administrators of the former school districts?
Although the guidance materials from the State Education Department specifically reference the
seniority rights of teachers, there is reason to believe the seniority rights of school administrators
could be handled in a similar manner. However, since school administrator tenure areas may vary
from district to district, the actual impact of these rights by individual job title/role is a case-bycase analysis.
8. Q: What happens to the superintendents of the former school districts?
Superintendents of the former districts do not have any statutory rights to that position in the new
district. The new school district board of education may select its own new superintendent.
When the superintendent of a district included in the reorganization has an employment contract,
that contract becomes an obligation of the newly reorganized school district. If the newly
reorganized district determines not to employ the superintendent of a former school district, the
new district may discharge the contractual obligation by paying the salary which he or she would
have earned, less any income obtained from employment elsewhere during the term of the
contract.
9. Q: What happens to the retirement benefits of the employees of the former school districts?
Retirement benefits associated with the retirement system remain unchanged. Retirement benefits
associated with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement are governed by the
terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. Individuals who are already
retired from a school district may have certain retiree health insurance protections contained in
Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009. Chapter 504 prohibits reduction of health insurance for retirees
and their dependents unless there is a corresponding reduction of benefits or contributions for the
corresponding group of active employees.
10. Q: Are there other considerations relating to labor relations?
When two or more school districts centralize into a new school district, it is possible that the local
bargaining units are represented by different bargaining agents. It is important for the school
districts and local bargaining units to work with their labor relations experts.
Since the success of any centralization endeavor depends largely on the participation of all affected
stakeholders, it is important for the districts to provide labor union representatives with appropriate
opportunities to discuss the impact of centralization on the rights of bargaining unit members. Often such
opportunities come before a formal reorganization public referendum and sometimes before the nonbinding ‘straw vote’ among the communities.
- 195 -
"Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving
students in the future."
Dr. Paul M. Seversky
Mr. Doug A. Exley
Mr. Sam A. Shevat
The SES Study Team focuses its work on customized studies that deal with identifying opportunities to
provide quality educational programs more effectively and in a cost-effective manner. The major areas
of the Team’s services are school reorganization through centralization analyses, and the identification
and analysis of collaborative functional sharing opportunities between school districts.
The SES Study Team, in an impartial manner, provides research, direction and facilitation through a guided process. The study
process emphasizes a data-driven analysis and community involvement to identify possible options to serve pupils in the future.
The common elements followed by the Team to achieve customized studies include:
• A focus on answering a set of questions by school district and community stakeholders;
• Inclusion of, and sensitivity to, all points of view from the communities involved;
• An approach that begins with the collection of data, a review of major findings, sharing of perceptions,
recommendations based upon challenges and opportunities, and the modeling of potential options;
• The central role of school district instructional, instructional support, and administrative staff in providing
comprehensive data for the study to use to answer the study question(s) posed by the client district(s);
• Public transparency of the work and data developed, compiled, and analyzed by the Study Team;
• The creation of a study report that becomes the prime useable tool by members of the communities as they decide how
best to educate their children in the future.
The Study Team brings a combined 105 years of public education experience to working with and helping school districts
identify options in serving pupils and their communities. Each team member has served as a teacher, principal and superintendent
of a K-12 school district. Doug and Sam each has served as a superintendent of a reorganized district through centralization. Paul
has served as a superintendent of a district that explored reorganization and in a regional capacity as a Deputy District
Superintendent of a BOCES. Sam has worked for a college to administer programs for public school pupils; Paul has taught
graduate level courses in educational administration for 23 years; and Doug serves as a council member at a local university. The
Study Team Members have provided consultant services to public school districts since 1998.
Contact the SES Study Team to discuss your school district's specific study project.
Paul.Seversky at ses-studyteam dot org
Doug.Exley at ses-studyteam dot org
Sam.Shevat at ses-studyteam dot org

Merger Study Data - Mayfield Central School District

Transcription

Similar documents

Tunes on Tuesday - 2016 - Northville Parks and Recreation

1 - Harris Real Estate and Auction

Cottswood Interiors 8x7.7_00043894

History Walking Tour Brochure - Things to do in Fulton County, NY

INNOVATIONS NHS - Northville Educational Foundation

Mayfield School Newsletter

Northville Record, January 19, 2012

Intro to POPEI - Handout

Eenie Meenie “Uni” Mo.