GUILDERLAND — A controversial consultant’s report led to a collegial forum on Nov. 19 as 74 district residents participated in the first summit on the future of Guilderland schools.

“We’re kind of running out of ideas for how we close revenue gaps,” Superintendent Marie Wiles told the crowd, assembled at the new Tech Valley High School on the southeast edge of the district. “That’s, frankly, why we’re here,” she said.

“We want to ask the question that is the elephant in the room,” Wiles went on.

The participants were asked to respond to a poll question on their smart phones, tablets, or other electronic devices so that the answers could be immediately tallied.

Here’s the question: “Given the school district’s current financial situation and in light of the district’s capacity and enrollment data, should the board of education consider the possibility of redistricting, school closure, regrouping grade levels, or repurposing buildings?”

“‘Consider,’ not ‘do,’” Wiles repeated several times as those in the room answered on their devices. She urged the district residents to follow their “gut reaction.”

The tally showed that 44 wanted to repurpose, for example, renting excess space; 39 wanted to redistrict, meaning redraw elementary enrollment zones; 36 wanted to close a school; 20 wanted to regroup grade levels; and 13 didn’t want to do any of those things.

“It looks like we have a pretty close response,” said Wiles.

Afterwards, the participants flocked to numbered tables with paper “mind maps” spread across the tabletops. Each group chose an “anchor” to record thoughts and phrases on the mind maps as the participants talked about the options on which they had just voted.

“We beg you to be creative,” urged Wiles. “We need creative ideas.”

She also said, “It should be engaging and hopefully a little fun…There is no expectation that you reach consensus at your table. None…The most important thing you can do is get your opinions on the paper.”

After half-an-hour, each group, except the anchor who stayed behind, migrated to a new table, where the members discussed the initial group’s comments, adding their own. They then talked about other options for the district before migrating for a third and final time to a new table where they reviewed the work of the previous two groups, and added more comments.

Everyone reconvened as a whole at the end to hear reports from the anchors and respond to the very same poll question. However, the website crashed midway through the program and, Wiles said this week, “We couldn’t do it, to show whether the will had changed after the conversation.” Technical difficulties since, she said, have prevented a tally.

The mind maps, on large sheets of paper, will be displayed at the school board’s next meeting, on Dec. 9, when the board is to review and discuss the ideas. Additionally, a summary of notes from the nine groups is to be posted on the district’s website, guilderlandschools.org.

Controversial consultant

In June, Paul Seversky, a consultant hired by the district, presented a report stating that pupil capacity at the district’s elementary schools is under-utilized by about 14 percent; at the middle school by about 25 percent, and at the high school by about 25 percent.

The report spurred strong protests from the village of Altamont.

The idea for the summit was hatched after the school board in August, by a split vote, rejected the six scenarios proposed by Seversky at the end of his report. Five of the scenarios involved closing Altamont Elementary and one involved closing Lynnwood Elementary for a savings of between $1.2 million and $2 million annually. The sixth scenario would have maintained the status quo — five elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school — at no savings. 

Seversky had originally planned to have focus groups, made up of a cross-section of the district, to discuss his six scenarios. Instead, the board backed the summit meeting, setting out to attract 100 participants.

Seventy-four came. Wiles said an excel spreadsheet was used to divide the participants into nine groups, sorted by two factors: which of the elementary-school catchment areas they live in, and whether or not they have children attending Guilderland schools. The groups ranged in size from seven to 10 members.

The most participants, 18, came from Altamont, followed closely by Lynnwood at 17 — the two schools that Seversky had closed in his scenarios. Next was Pine Bush at 15, Guilderland at 14, and finally Westmere at 10.

The problems

The nearly three-hour session began with a presentation by the superintendent, outlining three challenges facing the district — declining enrollment, excess capacity, and diminishing resources.

Guilderland had 5,645 students in 2004 and a decade later has 4,917. Wiles gave projections that she said showed, by 2013, the most students Guilderland would have are 4,877 and the least are 4,470.

On capacity, Wiles said that, in some Guilderland school buildings, full-size classrooms are used for meetings or storage or rented out while entire hallways of lockers are cordoned off at the middle school because they are not needed.

Wiles went over several methods of defining capacity: the State Education Department allows 25 to 27 students per room; Guilderland contracts set secondary classes at 15 to 30 students per section and primary classes at 20 to 30 students; the district’s class-size goals are 18 to 23 students in kindergarten through second grade, 21 to 25 students in third through fifth grades, 24 to 26 students in sixth through eighth grades, and 26 to 27 students in ninth through 12th grades.

Four schools currently have enrollment below the most stringent, district-set goals: Altamont, Pine Bush, Westmere, and Farnsworth Middle School.

On diminished resources, Wiles said that the state’s Foundation Aid to Guilderland has been flat since 2009 and that the gap elimination adjustment subtracted $19.2 million in aid since 2010.

Additionally, Guilderland has not gone over the tax levy limit, imposed by the state in 2011.

To close multi-million dollar budget gaps, Guilderland has cut 227.6 posts since 2009, a number Wiles called “unbelievable.”

The budget gap for the upcoming school year is now projected at “only” $129,200, Wiles said, far less than the multi-million-dollar gaps in recent years, largely because retirement contributions are less, she said. She called this a “small breather,” predicting it “will be short-lived.”

Ideas for solutions

Discussions at the Nov. 19 forum were intense, intimate, and intricate.

After months of Altamont residents speaking to the school board about the drawbacks of closing a school, some at last week’s forum described advantages.

Sharon Marion, a Guilderland graduate, told her group, “I was the last of the big classes.” She was an elementary student when the district closed the Fort Hunter school, she said, and, as a student at Lynnwood, she was moved to Guilderland Elementary School.

“I was fine,” said Marion. “I want you as parents to hear your children are fine…My parents just said, ‘You are going to another school,’” she recalled, stating their was no protracted discussion.

She called it “a really good experience” and said she knew “twice as many kids” when she got to the middle school.

“I was opposed to Altamont being closed,” said Renee Panetta, referring to it as a village school. Panetta works as the district’s recycling coordinator.

“I think you’ll hear from parents with kids at Pine Bush, or Lynnwood, they have a community, too,” responded Amy Steward, who served as the group’s anchor. She also said she was assuming the role of “devil’s advocate.”

She jotted down both her thoughts and Panetta’s as Panetta went on to explain, she meant that, as a village school, Altamont serves an area distant from other district elementary schools that are more closely clustered.

Panetta said she, too, had been shifted as an elementary student from Fort Hunter to Lynnwood. “I was fine,” she said.

“I’m against closing any elementary school,” said Katie Fahrenkopf, an educator. “The National Education Association recommends 15 students as the optimum level.”

“What district has that?” asked Catherine Wilson.

“Redistricting,” said Jean McCullough, “that’s the way to go.”

No conclusions yet

Asked this week what school leaders — board members and administrators attended — had learned from the summit, Wiles said, “We heard a lot of familiar ideas. We heard variations on a theme.”

She went on, “We have tons of data.”  This includes “18 giant sheets of mind maps the board needs to digest” as well as feedback forms that almost all the participants filled out.

The last two questions on the forms provoked detailed responses, said Wiles. One asked at what point would you consider restructuring — if taxes were too high, if programs were lost, or never. The other question solicited advice for the school board.

The board’s communication committee will meet on Monday, Wiles said, and the board will have its first conversation on the summit on Dec. 9. “We generated ideas but don’t have a conclusion,” said Wiles. “It’s up to the board to look at what the next step is.”

The board may decide to create an advisory committee or task force, Wiles said.

The district is currently beginning work on its budget for the 2015-16 school year so decisions won’t be made in time to affect next year’s spending plan, she said.

A year from now, Wiles anticipates two factors will lead to changes reflected in the 2016-17 budget: “a meaningful conversation about significant changes” and another large budget gap after next year’s “breather.”

Wiles conceded it was difficult to fully record the summit’s group conversation with phrases jotted on a mind map, but said, in addition to the big sheets, there are notes from the anchors and the feedback forms.

She believes the district reached its goal by engaging a cross-section of the community.

“One piece I did hear,” said Wiles, “is that doing nothing isn’t an option.”

She concluded, “Our schools are an integral part of the community. The community needs to be at the table for solutions.”