On May 11, 2009 at a regularly scheduled board meeting the board of directors gave the administration the following directive “research consolidation options to include a two high school concept and a one high school concept with or without construction”. The administrative team consisting of all central administration and building administration immediately started working on gathering information for the board. Information gathered included current research, schematic drawings of possible re-configured district models, current staffing, staffing needed for each reconfiguration model, and financial information relevant to each district building. The administrative team held five meetings during the month of July discussing information gathered and compiling information needed to fulfill the school board’s directive. On July 27, 2009 the board was notified that the information requested was ready for them to pick up at district office.
Despite recent rumors and the circulation of some inaccurate information there has been no decision made to close any of our facilities at this point. The district administrative team and school board members are looking at all options that may allow our district to be more financially efficient while providing the best overall program for our students. The district has much more work to do including many more discussions internally and with community members before any decision will be made. As we proceed with this process I encourage all interested parties to look to the district for accurate information. We will be updating information on our website as we proceed and as always welcome the public to be involved with the process. In the future I will also have a blog that can be accessed through our website to make it easy for individuals in our community to post ideas and ask questions. The following is a tentative outline of our timeline and may change as information is gathered. We will update this timeline as we proceed.
| May 11, 2009 | - Board directive to the administration |
| July 27, 2009 | - Information given to board |
| Oct. 1 5:30 m
Oct. 8 5:30 m Nov. 2 5:30 pm Fall 2009 |
Work sessions with administrative team and board- Board Work Session Board Work Session Consideration for feasibility study |
All meetings dates will be updated and posted to this site as they are determined.
Dr. Timothy S. Bowers
Superintendent
August 14, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I like the idea of closing the EAHS , it make more sense they would have less travel then CV or Williamson would.You should go in that direction.
August 18, 2009 at 12:30 am
Thanks for your comments
August 26, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I attended the NTSD Board meeting on August 10th and was pleasantly surprised to see all that were in attendance. I would like to thank the board for not adhering to the 3 minute time limit for public comments—-people needed to be heard and were given that time. This is a very hard task the district has taken on, but one that needs to be addressed in order for our district to be financial responsible. I did not realize our district attendance numbers had fallen so drastically over the past ten years from approximately 2900 to 2300—that is a huge drop.
I am empathetic to the surrounding communities when they say their school is the “hub” of the community; however it does not make sense to run three schools when we can downsize to one or two. According to the studies this is a feasible solution to our shrinking attendance numbers.
My personal opinion is to downsize leaving the elementary schools as they are, combine the three high/middle schools into two and adding a Career/Technology School onto one of the high schools. This would greatly benefit our students, not only while they are in school but in their future endeavors. In making our students more marketable when they graduate, with knowledge of a chosen profession, in these tough economic times is a great foundation we can offer our children.
August 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Thank you for your comments and taking time to be involved. Please visit our website often for updates and future meeting dates and times.
September 3, 2009 at 1:07 am
I have several questions, but first understand that I am not necessarily opposed to consolidation, or “reconfiguration”.
Most importantly, why are we looking at reconfiguring the district? Two common reasons would be to save money, and to accommodate a declining enrollment. I think we need to be very cautious in either situation…
After reviewing the plans it is evident that jobs will be lost no matter which path is chosen. As one of northern PA’s largest employers we affect the local economy greatly. All of the workers in NTSD fall into one of 2 categories; they live outside the district; or they live within the district.
I live outside the district, and spend thousands of dollars at local gas stations, restaurants, and grocery stores throughout a typical year. That lost revenue by local businesses multiplied by the number of people who may lose their jobs from the first group mentioned above is likely to cause local businesses to cut jobs, or close down entirely. This would add to the economic woes in the area.
The same holds true for the second group of people, but in addition those families are likely to move out of the area to look for jobs elsewhere-thus taking their money, and NTSD students with them causing further economic woes. This also ties into the declining enrollment scenario…
In tough economic times the tendency is for people to move towards more urban areas where there may be more jobs. I know I’ve seen that in my own class room over the last 2-3 years. The economy will eventually turn around, and people will eventually come back, but if the area’s largest employer cuts back on the employment opportunities, I fear that it will take longer for our area to recover from the recession. If people in NTSD lose their jobs, or local businesses have to cut jobs, there will be more people moving out of the area-adding to a decline in enrollment-which would cause NTSD to cut back more jobs and begin the cycle all over again.
Another question I have is about the figures I saw in the model plans titled “consolidated staffing”. After every plan there is a bottom line savings based on staff, faculty, and administration cuts. There seems to be no information regarding transportation costs, or rerouting buses. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place, or perhaps that is something that has not been studied yet. If the latter is true I hope it will be soon.
The average teacher salary figure is estimated at $60K a year. I fail to see how that figure is realistic since the very top salary in NTSD for any 15 year + veteran teacher with a Master’s degree, AND 45 credit hours beyond that is $63,693. I feel that an average salary of $47K a year would be more realistic. I would also tend to think that if jobs are cut, the people who have less seniority would be more likely to be laid off-and those salaries would be even less than the median of about $47K.
I understand the process is long, and in its early stages. I just hope that every detail is thought through AND shared with the public, the administration, the faculty, and the staff members before decisions are made. We have a responsibility to do so as one of Tioga County’s largest employers.
September 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Eric, thank you very much for your response, I will try to address your questions. You are right that one of the reasons our district is looking at re-configuration is to control cost, but another important reason to look at this is to try to increase student opportunities. As you know we do not have equity throughout the district. We are one of the largest employers throughout the area but remember our primary role in the region is to provide a quality education to all of our students at a reasonable cost to our taxpayers. Unfortunately even though human resource is our most valuable resource it is also our most expensive resource. For planning, the $60,000 figure is what we use due to the cost of benefits associated with every position. You can’t simply look at salary figures there are more than $10,000 of ancillary benefit cost for each employee, such things as health benefits for example. We are going to look closer at transportation cost as we work our way through this process. If the board decides to look at one or more of the options as possibly feasible and we determine through those models where the buildings will be located we can look closer at transportation cost. It is important to remember that the majority our transportation cost is reimbursable, so as we look at transportation needs we tend to focus more on travel time for students than the associated cost. Eric thanks again for your comment. I hope you continue to stay involved. Keep an eye on our website for more information and future meeting dates.
September 4, 2009 at 12:52 pm
DR Bowers,
Two to three years ago a study on Vocational education feasibility was undertaken through the districts architects Hayes-Large. As I recall that study was rather comprehensive and included information on consolidation costs, options and more.
Before the district spends more money for yet another study how about publishing…perhaps on this blog in a PDF format the results of that study…
raising taxes year after year in not a sustainable solution in any district…especially this one. So let’s start this process by being fiscally responsible and use the information we already paid for.
September 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm
John thanks for your comments. The study that you referred to was completed in 2007 and was very specifically looking at models that would increase vocational opportunities. We included several pages from that study completed by Hayes Large in the information gathered for the board in July. You can look at that information by clicking on the “School Board” tab and selecting re-configuration study. If publishing that entire study on this blog would be helpful we could certainly consider that idea. If the board feels that one or more of the re-configuration models may be feasible and the selected model requires some sort of construction or renovation, then the Pennsylvania Department of Education would require the district to complete another architectural feasibility study before we would be eligible for reimbursement. The following link provides more information about feasibility study requirements. Thanks again for your comments and please continue to look at our website for more information as we proceed. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=56801