skyview complaint 1 part 2

Contents

Introduction

History

Original Feasibility Study Review

Feasibility Study on District Website (06)

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

Analysis of Feasibility Study on Website (06)

Building Capacity

Discussion

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

1-2

3-6

7-15

16-19

20-21

21-22

23-30

31-48

- 1 -

Introduction

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

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

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

Existing building capacity was defined in the Feasibility study (06 Web) by theDistrict as 1980 students by using an arbitrary number of22 students per class. There isno mention in the posted facilities study as to why, how and at whose direction thedecision to use 22 students per class was made. Board policy 126 indicates that thedistrict can use up to 25 students K-2 and up to 30 students 3-6 per class.

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

Per Mr. VanHorn, the board has adopted a soft cap of25 students, the same asPDE. My understanding is that maximum reimbursement by PDE under plan con is up to25 students per class. If we are applying/or state money, and completing the plan conforms at 25 students per class, this figure should have been used rather than 22perclass to calculate building capacity.

The building capacity was also affected by not including 14 modular classrooms.If they are included at 22 per class the additional building capacity of 308 students isrealized.

Kindergarten enrollment was manipulated as seen on page 61 of the study postedon the Web. Y2 of the Kindergarten class was not counted towards building capacity butincluded in enrollment projections. If you include the 50% of the Kindergartenenrollment that was omitted by the committee and not recognized by the board, this addsroughly 200 students to the building capacity. According to the Plan Con documents theexisting Kindergarten capacity is 500 students and not consistent with district capacitycalculations in the Feasibility Study.

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

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

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

- 2 -

The board has not considered or done a cost analysis on the effect of prevailingwage by applying for state funding versus no state funding with resultant decreasedconstruction costs.

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

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

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

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

- 3 -

History

On or about spring of2004, the "Facilities Advisory Committee" was selected by thesuperintendent and or Mr. VanHorn.

According to the Methacton Web site (8/17/06)-

"The superintendent was directed by the members of our Board ofSchool Directors to study the District's growth, needfor space, ability to addressthose needs over the foreseeable future. Issues to review include capacity,adequacy, equity, safety/security, flexibility, efficiency, and programmaticeffectiveness. "

The website does not identify which board members were responsible for theinitiative, and how and why they arrived at the decision to initiate the project.

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

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

According to the Board of Directors facilities review and recommendationfrom July 25, 2006,

The goal of this committee was to -

"Review the district's growth and ability to address that growth over theforeseeable future. Issues to review include capacity, adequacy, equity,safety/security, flexibility, efficiency, and programmatic effectiveness. "

This Facilities Advisory Committee was comprised of (shareholders) includingapproximately 10 administrators, 8 PTAlP arents , 3 teachers, 3 school board members, and2 committee chairmen. (See appendix a).

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

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

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

In my opinion, because this hand picked, specially selected, non-elected committee wasappointed with the majority comprised of district employees, PTA members, and teachers, itsdecision to adopt option 6 was biased.

- 4 -

The initial investigation into the fifth and sixth grade configuration wasmentioned during the presentation from July 25,2006,

"In the spring of 2005, Dr. Miller directed Betsy Rudder and Bill Kirk to dosome research into the Pennsylvania school districts that had recently moved from atraditional elementary - middle - high school configuration to an organizationalstructure that included a grades 5-6 building. "

The purposes for investigating a move into the grade 5-6 building configurationincluded -

• "To determine how and why the 23 districts in PA (who have moved into a grades5-6 building configuration) did so, and

• To determine the success or failure of their decision to make this change."

Common factors identified after the investigation were that -

• "Each district was experiencing an increase in student enrollments (thatserved as the primary reason for considering construction of a newbuilding of some type),

• The district's existing configuration (prior to constructing the facility tohouse grades 5-6) was either K-5 or K-6 in each elementary school,

• The transition into the grade 5-6 building produced the desired effect(freed up classroom in each of these existing elementary schools andexisting middle/junior high schools)

• The transition was planned for at least one year prior to the actual move."• The planning included input from all of the shareholders (parents,

faculty, administrators, and board members)."There was no mention of including input from individuals who were not

employed by the district with either no children, no children attending Methacton, seniorcitizens and or business's. These individuals constitute the majority in the district andwere not adequately represented or included, again explaining the bias in the study andthe failure to consider and compare cost effective alternatives.

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

The recommendation by the Superintendent per the presentation was -"Remains as originally recommended"1. Global look at the issue2. Elementary short of space3. Will continue to grow - will not get smaller4. K-5 building only solves part ofthe problem5. Size of the 6-8 school must be addressed

"This is the least expensive way to get the space that is sufficient for our needs,based on a realistic look at the future, and to maintain and enhance the academic programof which we are so proud".

- 5 -

This was not substantiated by any cost analysis compared with options likemodulars, renovations without an additional elementary school, and class sizeadjustments.

According to the Methacton Website (8/17/06)

The conclusion was that-"The current plan, as recommended by the Facilities Task Force appointed in

2004, in cooperation with the District's administration, represents the most costeffective way to get the space that is sufficient for our needs, based on a realistic look atthe future, while maintaining and enhancing the academic program of which we are soproud."

The Board has a Fiduciary Responsibility to consider the following;

After review of the Feasibility Study(s),

1. There was no explanation as to how, why and by whose direction the facilitiesadvisory committee was formed. There was no rational or basis as to how the committeewas chosen to be a representative cross-section of the district.

2. There was no explanation as to what process and by who recommended option6 was chosen. Was it by a vote of the committee? If so, where is the vote tally and thedocumentation of who voted for the option and why?

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

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

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

5. The Facilities Study does not substantiate the statement that this was "the mostcost effective way to get the space that is sufficient for our needs. "

6. The actual enrollment K-5 has decreased over the last 5 years. How do youjustify an expansion project with a decreasing enrollment? The enrollment projectionssignificantly overestimate enrollment for 2005-06. Does the Board recognize this?

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

- 6 -

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

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

In the study posted on the Districts Website (06) 22 students per class were used.The Boards soft cap is 25 students per classPDE uses 25 per class for their estimates.The actual existing capacity in the Plan Con documents is 25.Board policy 126 uses between 25-30 for K-6.

Who determined actual class size used in the study?Who made the decision to use a class size of 22 for the study and why?Why did the district apply for state reimbursement at the maximum of 25 students

per class yet did not use 25 students per class to determine building capacity?

The Act 34 hearing was held on 8/22/06 at Methacton.Prior to that hearing I had learned from the communications director that the

"Feasibility Study" posted on the district's Website was not, in fact, the complete originalFeasibility Study.

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

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

The original Feasibility Study was not available for my review until after the Act34 hearing, thus the reason for this supplemental report.

- 7 -

After review of the original July 13, 2004 Feasibility Study, I have prepared asupplemental anaJysis -

The original Feasibility Study was dated 7/13/04. I am not sure when EIassociates was asked to compile the data and prepare the study but obviously it had to besome time in advance of 7/13/04.

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

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

The 7/1312004Feasibility Study contained multiple sections-

According to the Introduction on page 1 of the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study;The Feasibility Study was commissioned by the Board of Education. When was

that done? What was the reason it was done? Was there a formal vote taken?The report was compiled using data gathered at recent meetings with District

Administration. When did these occur?Buildings were visited, and discussions with district personnel took place to

explore possible future changes. When did these visits occur and with whom?

According to the Demographics section on page 7,"Changes can occur in birth trends, in-migration patterns, internal policies,

economic climate, zoning and land use controls, infrastructure considerations and interestrates that may affect projections." "Thus, influencing factors must be monitored andanalyzed every year by the school district. Significant changes, therefore, can bequickly identified and appropriate adjustments made. "

Translation, there are many variable factors associated with projections requiringthat even short term calculations be monitored and re-evaluated. This apparently was notdone with respect to actual enrollment analysis and comparing actual enrollment toestimates.

- 8 -

AFTER REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL (7/13/04) AND EDITED WEBSITE(06) FEASffiILITY STUDY(s), THERE IS NO REASON BASED ONENROLLMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT AS CONFIGURED.

As I state repeatedly in this analysis, the K-4 and K-5 enrollment has droppedover the last five years (2001-2006), a fact that I could not find in the superintendentspresentation to the Board or considered in the Feasibility Study.

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

1. THE ACTUAL ENROLLMENT OF K-4 AND K-5 HAS DECREASED OVERTHE LAST 5 YEARS.

Analysis of Actual 5 year trend in Enrollment(Actual PDE enrollment vs. EI associates)

YEAR PDE Actual PDEActualK-4 K-5

2001-02 1953 23692002-03 1916 23522003·04 1905 23332004-05 1903 23242005-06 1912 2331

Net Decrease (-41) (-38)Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken from Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments)

available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

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

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 5 year

K-4 1953 1916 1905 1903 1912 (-41)

K-5 2369 2352 2333 2324 2331 (-38)Actual K-4, K-5 data was taken from Revised 712006 (2005 Enrollments)

available on the PDE website and from actual tabulations by Dr. Miller.

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

- 9 -

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

Feasibility Study 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04District Actual 2381 2363 2352

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

Feasibility Study 2369 2352 2353District Website Web (9/04)(06) District Actual

EnrollmentFeasibility study 2369 2352 2353

Original 7(13/04 7/13/04, (pg 11)Feasibility Study EI Actual

Enrollment

PDE Website PDEActual 2369 2352 2333(9/2005)

The actual enrollment contained in the District and EI projection models are inconsistentand do not match actual PDE enrollment. I am unable to explain this discrepancy

The primary motivating factor behind the genesis of this project was "an increasein student enrollment."

As shown K-4 and K-5 enrollment over the last 5 years has decreased.

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

- 10·

2. THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS BY THE DISTRICT, EI, ANDPDE SIGNIFICANTLY OVERESTIMATE ENROLLMENT AND SHOULD NOTBE USED TO JUSTIFY PROCEEDING WITH OPTION 6.

ORIGINAL 7/13/04FEASIBILITY STUDY -

The Original Feasibility Study from 7/13/04 contained enrollment projectionsby the District and by EI associates. After review of these projections, I have madeseveral observations

A. DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

The District Projected Student Enrollment (4/16/04)from the OriginalFeasibility Study 7/13/04,contained numerous inaccuracies and overestimatedstudent enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

District Enrollment Projections K-5 from the Original 7/13/04 FeasibilityStudy (page 10) were as follows,Blue represents actual PDE enrollment revised 7/2006 website-R d t te re presen s projec IOns

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

K-4 K-52001- Actual 301 442 376 415 424 423 1958 1953 2381 2369022002- Actual 303 433 372 391 425 439 1924 1916 2363 2352032003- Actual 289 440 389 392 409 433 1919 1905 2352 2333042004- Proj 305 465 388 415 419 420 1992 1903 2414 232405 (2412)2005- Proj 321 477 411 415 440 434 2064 1912 2498 2331062006- Proj 294 501 426 440 441 452 2102 255307 (2554)

(Generatedfrom the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, District Enrollment Projections4/16/04, page 10,) (PDE Actual taken from 9/2005 (2004 enrollments PDE website))

Actual Enrollment does not correlate with PDE actual enrollment and 2004-05 and 2006-07 totals reflect calculation errors as noted in parenthesis.

- 11 -

(District EnrollmentlProjections 4/16/04, pg. 10, Feasibility Study 7/04)R d t P . ti BI tAt I PDE II te represen s ro]ec Ions ---------- uere rresen s c ua enro men

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06K-4 1958 1924 1919 1992 2064

K-4PDE 1953 1916 1905 1903 1912ActualOver- +89 +152projection

K-5 2381 2363 2352 2414 2498


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

The District overestimated projected enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06 asfollows,

Enrollment 2004-05 2005-06

K-4 District 1992 2064K-4 PDE actual 1903 1912

Overestimation +89 +152


Overestimation +90 +167Actual PDE enrollment taken/rom PDE's website (Rev 712006)

District projections for 2004-05 overestimated enrollment as follows,K-4 - +89K-5 - +90


- 12 -

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

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

The "Model Start Year" was noted to be 7/1101.K-5 Enrollment 7/01-6/02

,7/02-6/03 7/03-6/04

DISTRICT "Actual" 2381 2363 2352(7/1/2001 start)PDEACTUAL 2369 2352 2333(9/05 rev)Difference -12 students -11 students -19 students

Where did the District obtain the numbers used in there "actual" calculations.Is it possible that these were projections from the 712001 model start year?If so, then the 2004-05 and 2005-06 projections are years 4 and 5 of the projections

generated in 2001. If not, then the actual numbers were incorrect and need to be updated.Is it possible that these were not actual enrollments but the first three years of

projections? If not why don't they correlate with actual enrollment?

OBSERVATIONS - DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

./ There were mathematical errors in calculating the totals for K-5 in2004-05 and 2006-07, with the correct calculations in parenthesis .

./ The District overestimated projected enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06 significantly .

./ The actual district enrollment on page 10 of the Original FeasibilityStudy (7/13/04), from 2001-2004 does not correlate with PDE actualnumbers suggesting the possibility that these were projections fromthe 7/1/2001 "model start year"

- 13-

B. EI ASSOCIATES PROJECTED ENROLLMENT

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

EI Associates projected enrollment, page 11, 7113/04 Feasibility StudyK 1 2 '" 4 K-4 K-4 5 K-5 K-5-'

EI PDE EI PDEActual Actual

2001- Actual 310 421 378 431 413 1953 1953 416 2369 2369022002- Actual 303 431 367 394 421 1916 1916 436 2352 2352032003- Actual 293 440 390 393 407 1923 1905 430 2353 2333042004- Proj 369 491 384 415 403 2062 1903 418 2480 2324052005- Proj 401 504 429 409 425 2168 1912 414 2582 233106

(PDE actual enrollment taken/rom the 7106revisions to 2005 enrollment onPDE Website)

EI Associates overestimated projected enrollment -

According to the 7/13/04 Feasibility study, on page 11, enrollment wasoverestimated in 2004-05 and 2005-06 by EI Associates as follows,

EI overestimate in 2004-05,K-4 -------------------------------- +159K-5 -------------------------------- +156

EI overestimate in 2005-06,K-4 -------------------------------- +256K-5 -------------------------------- +251

OBSERVATIONS - EI ASSOCIATES ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

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

./ EI associates projections in the first two years of projectionssignificantly overestimated enrollment when these should statisticallybe the most accurate.

~ ...

- 14-

C. PDEPROJECTEDENROLLMENT

The PDE projections found on page 12 ofthe 7/13/04 Feasibility studyillustrate a dramatic overestimation in enrollment,

PDE Projected enrollment, naze 12,7/13/04 Feasibility StudyK 1 2 3 4 K-4 PDE Error 5 K-5 PDE Error

Actual Actual2001- Actual 310 421 378 431 413 1953 1953 416 2369 2369022002- Actual 303 431 367 394 421 1916 1916 436 2352 235203

2003- Proj 359 405 377 392 403 1936 1905 +31 438 2374 2333 +41042004- Proj 369 491 354 403 401 2018 1903 +115 420 2438 2324 +114052005- Proj 401 504 430 378 413 2126 1912 +214 418 2544 2331 +21306


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

2003-04K-4 ------------------------ +31K-5 ------------------------ +41

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

2005-06K-4 ------------------------ +214K -5 ------------------------ +213

OBSERVATIONS - PDE ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

./ PDE's estimates are too inaccurate to be used to determine the needfor the building project .

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

- 15 -

D. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

The District overestimated elementary enrollment in their projections (4/16/04) inthe 7/13/04 Feasibility Study.

Comparing the Actual District 2005-06 data from the Web, by school, to DistrictEnrollment Projections (4/16/04) in the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, I have generated the followingcharts,(District Enrollment ProjectionslElementary School, 4/16/04 from the 7/13/04 FeasibilityStudy, (pa1Zes8, 9))

Original Feasibility Website 2006 ERRORStudy (7/13/04)District Projections Actual District Data(4/16/04)2005-06 2005-06 2005-06

Arrowhead 454 442 +12 (overestimate)

Eagleville 472 431 +41 (overestimate)

Woodland 440 415 +25 (overestimate)

Audubon 520 580 -60 (underestimate)

Worcester 611 465 +146 (overestimate)

Overestimate total +164(overestimate)

The district then posted the "Feasibility Study" on their Website (2006).I learned recently from the communications director Angela Lynch, that this was

not the complete study and contained excerpts chosen by the superintendent from theexecutive summary given to the board from 11123/04 and from Dr. Miller's presentations.There was nothing on the site stating that these were selected excerpts by Dr. Millergiving the impression that this was the complete study.

I then attempted to obtain the original, complete 7113104Feasibility study fromthe district prior to the Act 34 Hearing. I was told to fill out a request and was notallowed to review the entire study until after the hearing.

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

- 16 -

FEASmnJTY STUDY DISTICT WEB SITE 2006 (11123/04 excerpts)

According to the District Website (11/04) Feasibility Study projections ofenrollment both K-4 and K-5, the following charts have been generated,

A. October 2004 - PDE Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study)R d t PDE . t d II t Bl tAt I PDE 11 te represen s projec e enro men- ue represen s cua enro menK 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 Actual Error K-5 Actual Error

K-4 K-4 K-5 K-52004- 339 500 378 412 397 412 2026 1903 +123 2438 2324 +11405200s- 368 513 436 400 421 407 2138 1912 +226 2545 2331 +214062006- 339 557 448 462 409 432 2647072007- 333 513 486 475 472 420 2699082008- 340 504 448 515 485 484 2776092009- 347 514 440 475 526 498 2800102010- 354 524 448 466 485 540 2817112011- 361 535 457 475 476 498 2802122012- 367 545 467 484 485 488 2836132013- 374 555 475 495 494 498 289114

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

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

K-4 ----- (2004-05) overestimate of 123 students(2005-06) overestimate of 226 students

K-5 ---- (2004-05) overestimate of 114 students(2005-06) overestimate of214 students

- 17 -

B. October 2004-EI Associates Projected enrollment, K-4 -K-5 (FromFeasibility study Web)

Blue represents actual numbers (PDE) ---Red represents projected enrollment (EI)

K 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 Actual Over K-5 Actual OverPDE estimate PDE estimateK-4 K-5

2000- 275 443 393 389 422 394 1922 1922 2316 2316012001- 310 421 378 431 413 416 1953 1953 2369 2369022002- 303 431 367 394 421 436 1916 1916 2352 2352032003- 293 440 390 393 407 430 1923 1905 2353 2333042004- 363 359 372 400 408 424 1902 1903 2326 232405

2005- 368 513 312 394 410 419 1997 1912 +85 2416 2331 +85062006- 339 557 446 330 404 421 2497072007- 333 513 484 472 339 415 2555082008- 340 504 446 512 484 348 2634092009- 347 514 438 472 526 497 2793102010- 354 524 446 464 484 539 2811112011- 361 535 455 473 476 497 2796122012- 367 545 465 482 485 488 2832132013- 374 555 473 501 505 507 291614

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

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

The table also illustrates that for the five years (2001-02 to 2005-06) there was anactual DECREASE in student enrollment K-4 and K-5 as follows

K-4 ----- Decrease in enrollment of 41 studentsK-5 ---- Decrease in enrollment of 38 students

- 18 -

./ EI Projections overestimated enrollment for (2005-06) K-4 and K-5 by85 students •

../ The "Actual" enrollment in the EI 2004 model for 2003-04 and 2004-05 are different from the actual PDE enrollment.

C. February 2005 - EI Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility StudyWeb)

BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollment RED reflects EI projected enrollmentParenthesis is error, indicating overestimate by districtK 1 2 3 4 K-4 Actual K-4 5 K-5 PDE Actual K-5

2000-1 275 443 393 389 422 1922 394 23162001-2 310 421 378 431 413 1953 416 23692002-3 303 431 367 394 421 1916 436 23522003-4 293 440 390 393 407 1923 430 2353

2004-5 381 357 372 405 409 1924 1903 (+21) 426 2350 2324 (+26

Ratios

2005-6 368 513 310 395 416 2002 1912 (+90) 420 2422 2331 (+91\2006-7 339 557 446 329 406 2077 4272007-8 333 513 484 473 338 2141 4172008-9 340 504 446 514 486 2289 3472009-1 347 514 438 473 528 2300 4992010-1 354 524 446 465 486 2275 5242011-1 361 535 455 474 477 2303 4992012-1 367 545 465 483 487 2347 4902013-1 374 555 473 503 507 2412 510

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

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

In 2004-05, EI overestimated K-4 enrollment by -------- 21 studentsIn 2004-05, EI overestimated K-5 enrollment by -------- 26 studentsIn 2005-06, EI overestimated K-4 enrollment by --------- 90 studentsIn 2005-06, EI overestimated K-5 enrollment by ------- 91 students

- 19 -

C. District Projections (September 2004) found in the 11/04 presentation on theWeb overestimated enrollment.

District Enrollment (September 2004) HJA Revised 1217104K 1 2 3 4 K-4 K-4 5 K-5 K-5

Actual ActualPDE PDE

2001-02 310 421 378 431 413 1953 1953 416 2369 23692002-03 303 431 367 394 421 1916 1916 436 2352 23522003-04 293 440 390 393 407 1923 1905 430 2353 23332004-05 321 412 372 400 408 1913 1903 424 2337 2324

2005-06 368 513 358 394 410 2043 1912 419 2462 23312006-07 339 557 446 379 404 2125 ------ 421 2546 ------

The districtsactualnumbers in2004-05 do not match theactualPDE numbers.

The District overestimates enrollment for 2005-06, the first year of projections asfollows,

K-4 ------------------------- +131K-5 --------------------------- +131

PDE Actual Enrollment 2001-2006 K-4, K-5) including error in Districts estimatesYear K 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 K-5 Error Error

District DistrictK-4 K-5

2001-02 310 421 378 431 413 416 1953 23692002-03 303 431 367 394 421 436 1916 23522003-04 292 433 389 389 402 428 1905 23332004-05 314 416 371 398 404 421 1903 23242005-06 307 447 373 381 404 419 1912 2331 131 over 131 over

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

- 20-

IN EVALUATING THE ORIGINAL FEASffiILITY STUDY FROM7113/04,

1. The District Projected Student Enrollment (4116/04) from the OriginalFeasibility Study 7113104, contained numerous inaccuracies and overestimatedstudent enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06 as follows,

District projections for 2004-05 were overestimatedK-4 ----------------- +89K-5 ----------------- +90

District projections for 2005-06 overestimated enrollmentK-4 ----------------- +152K-5 ----------------- +167

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

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

2005-06Arrowhead -------------------------------------- +12 (overestimate)

Eagleville --------------------------------------- +41 (overestimate)

Woodland --------------------------------------- +25 (overestimate)

Audu bon ----------------------------------------- -60 (underestimate)

Worcester ---------------------------------------- +146 (overestimate)

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

EIoverestimated projected enrollment -According to the 7/13/04 Feasibility study, on page 11, enrollment was

overestimated in 2004-05 and 2005-06 by EI is as follows,EI overestimated in 2004-05,

K-4 -------------------------------- +159K-5 -------------------------------- +156

EI overestimated in 2005-06,K-4 -------------------------------- +256K-5 -------------------------------- +251

- 21 -

4. The PDE projections found on page 12 of the 7/13/04 Feasibility studyillustrate a dramatic overestimation in enrollment,


2003-04K -4 ------------------------ +31K -5 ------------------------ +41

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

2005-06K -4 ------------------------ +214K-5 ------------------------ +213

IN EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY POSTED ON THEDISTRICTS WEBSITE 2006 (11104 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY)

EI associates in their October 2004 enrollment projections overestimatedenrollment as follows,

2005-06K-4 -------------------------- +85K-5 ---------------------------- +85

EI Associates in their November 2005 enrollment projections overestimatedenrollment as follows,

2004-05 (may be a mixture of actual and projection)K-4 --------------------------- +21K-5 ------------------------- +26

2005-06K-4 --------------------------- +90K-5 ----------------------- +91

- 22-

PDE in their October 2004 enrollment projections overestimated enrollment asfollows,

2004-05K-4 --------------------------- +123K-5 ----------------------- +114

2005-06K-4 ---------------------- +226K-5 ------------------------- +214

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

2004-05K -4 --------------------------- +10~5 ------------------------ +13

2005-06K-4 ---------------------------- +131K-5 --------------------------- +131

The projections in 2005-06 overestimate enrollment from between 85 and200+ students.

- 23 -

EXSISTING BUILDING CAPACITY WAS ARBITRARILY DECREASEDIN 'rnrs STUDY.

EXSITING BUILDINGCAPACITY -

Building Capacity = Classrooms x Number of students per class.

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

According to the Methacton Website (8/17/06)The conclusion was that -"The current plan, as recommended by the Facilities Task Force appointed in

2004, in cooperation with the District's administration, represents the most costeffective way to get the space that is sufficient/or our needs, based on a realistic look atthe future, while maintaining and enhancing the academic program 0/ which we are soproud. "

According to School Facilities and Construction on PDE's website,

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

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

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

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

As noted on page 57 of the Feasibility Study on the Web,"The school district projected enrollment data shows an increase in student

population over the projected timeframe. The elementary grades have surpassedexisting building capacity. The secondary grades will reach existing district buildingcapacity levels within the projected timeframe. "

The legend key defines the following-PDE existing building capacity - K-5 = 2250District existing building capacity- K-5 = 1980

- 24-

What the key fails to include is that the "District Capacity" is based ou only22 students per class, and that existing moduJars and ~ of the KindergartenCapacity were excluded from the capacity calculations.

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

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

There are 100 elementary classrooms as noted on the district website. Using 22students per class the building capacity should be 2200 students excluding modulars.Using PDE capacity of25 students per class, this number should equal 2500 students.Some of the classrooms either are not being utilized or are only partially utilized.

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

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

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

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

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

Extrapolating district figures, if it was determined that the maximum number ofstudents in a graded classroom was only 20, the district's existing building capacitywould be less than or equal to 1800. If the maximum number of students per class was30 than the existing building capacity would be 2700. The point is, capacity variesaccording to whatever class size is chosen.

This concept is illustrated in the K-5 projected student enrollment graph onpage 57 of the Feasibility study posted on the Districts Website;

At first glance it appears that the enrollment/projections K-5 far exceeded thedistrict's "existing building capacity" of 1980. (Using 22 students per class)

One must remember that this building capacity is dependent upon an artificialrestriction of 22 students per "graded" classroom and also reflected removing Yz ofkindergarten student capacity.

If the artificial restriction was 25 students per graded classroom the district'sexisting building capacity would be 2250( extrapolating district figures), excludingmodulars.

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

- 25 -

B. Modular Classrooms were excluded from Capacity Calculationsartificially decreasing Building Capacity.

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

In this study, modulars were excluded which dramatically effected the capacity.There is no explanation as to who made that decision and why.

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

Assuming 100 usable classroomsClass Size - 20 students/class= 2000 student building capacityClass Size - 25 students/class = 2500 student building capacityClass Size - 30 students/class = 3000 student building capacity

Modulars ------------------------------ Additional Capacity10 Modulars with 20 students/class = 200 student building capacity10 modulars with 22 students/class = 220 student building capacity10 modulars with 25 students/class = 250 student building capacity

15 modulars with 20 students/class = 300 student building capacity15 modulars with 22 students/class = 330 student building capacity15 modulars with 25 students/class = 375 student building capacity

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

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

If the 100 classrooms could be fully utilized, with 22 students -22 students per class x 100 classes = Building Capacity of 2200 students14 modulars at 25 students per modular = 350 students

The Existing Building Capacity would be 2200 + 350 = 2550 students, withoutcounting Yz of the Kindergarten enrollment. This number exceeds current enrollment by200 students.

- 26-

If the Board applies its arbitrary "soft cap" of25 students/class then-Using district figures,25 students per class = Existing Building Capacity of2250 students14 modulars at 25 students per modular = 350 students

The Existing Building Capacity would be 2250+350=2600This number exceeds projected district capacity past 2013-14

C. Kindergarten Enrollment was manipulated in the study and contributedto an artificially reduced Building Capacity.

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

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

D. Elementary Capacity was arbitrary and varied significantly

According to the District Functional Building Capacity from the 7/13/04 FeasibilityStudy, page 17, the capacity of each elementary school is as follows,

Woodland - 360Arrowhead - 360Eagleville - 360Audubon - 360Worcester - 360The total elementary building capacity was 1800

According to the Districts Web Site, under "latest enrollment projections 6/14/06"the Building Capacity of each of the Elementary Schools is noted as follows,


- 27-

According to PDE Existing Functional Building Capacity from the 7/13/04,Feasibility Study, page 17,


According to the Plan Con A documents, the existing building capacities for each ofthe elementary schools is as follows,

Woodland - 550Arrowhead - 525Eagleville - 550Audubon - 550Worcester- 550Plan Con A (FTE) = 2725

According to the Districts Web Site, the District Existing Building Capacity, on page57, of the 11/04 executive summary, « ) = estimated)

(Woodland - 396)(Arrowhead - 396)(Eagleville - 396)(Audubon - 396)(Worcester- 396)Total elementary building capacity was 1980

Why are there at least 5 different calculations for existing building capacity?

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

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

- 28-

After evaluating school capacities, I have generated the following charts,

Arrowhead Eagleville Audubon Worcester WoodlandExisting Functional 360 360 360 360 360Capacity (7/13/04Feasibility Study, pg. 17(20 per class)District Elementary 440 440 440 440 440Capacity (Website 05-06)(22 per class)PDE Existing Building 450 450 450 450 450Capacity (Feasibility Study7/13/04, page 17)(25 per class)Plan Con A Capacity 525 550 550 550 550(application)(25 per class)

District Enrollment 454 472 520 611 440estimate (Feasibility study7/13/04, pg 8,9)2005-06Actual District 442 431 580 465 415EnrollmentlElementary(Web) 2005-06Error in (est.) Enrollment +12 +41 -60 +146 +25

OBSERVATIONS -./ District enrollment calculations significantly overestimated enrollment in the K-5

elementary schools ../ Why didn't the district use the Plan Con A capacity numbers (25 students per class) to

calculate the existing building capacity K-5?./ Why didn't the district use the 525 to 550 capacity that they used to apply for state

funds to illustrate the classroom situation on their website and in the originalFeasibility study?

./ The district blended requirements for "state funding" from the plan con process withthe study projections affecting the outcome.

The building capacity varied significantly as follows -I

Original 7/13/04 Feasibility study (District) ------------- 1800 studentsWetisite Feasibility study (11/2004) --------------------- 1980 studentsDistrict website (2005-06) ----------------------------------- 2200 studentsOriginal 7/13/04 Feasibility Study (PDE) --------------- 2250 studentsPlan Con A documents -------------------------------------- 2725 students

,

- 29-

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

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

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

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

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

./ If the district used the capacities found in their application for state funding, namelythe Plan Con A documents, even without modulars and Kindergarten manipulations,there would be no need to proceed with the project as currently configured.

./ How can the district apply for state money based on the maximum student class size of25 but yet determine a lack of capacity and the need of the project by using only 22students per class?

./ If the district used 25 students per class for there capacity calculations as they did totake full advantage of state funding, then there would be no need for the project

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

Couple this with an actual enrollment decline seen on page 10 even before actual 2004-2006 numbers were available.

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

Jul/Ol-June/02 Jul/02-Jun/03 JuI/03-Jun/04

K-5 enrollment 2381 2363 2352Page. 10 (F.S)

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

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

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

- 30-

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

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

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

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

- 31 -

DISCUSSION -

THE BOARD HAS AN OBLIGATION TO FULFILL THEm FIDUCIARYRESPONSffiILITY TO THE TAXPAYER BY NOT APPROVING rnrsPROJECT IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

1. THE FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS BIASED ANDNOT A REPRESENTATIVE CROSS-SECTION OF THE DISTRICT.

The Facilities Advisory committee was created and chosen without a formal board vote.The participants were chosen by the superintendent and or Mr. VanHorn.

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

This committee was comprised of (shareholders) including approximately 10administrators, 8 PTAIParents, 3 teachers, 3 school board members, and 2 committee chairmen.(See appendix). All had a stake in the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 32-

2. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT BASED ONENROLLMENT INCREASES

A. The 5 year actual enrollment K-4 and K-5 is decreasing.

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

I have pointed this out to the Board and the Board President. His response on8/15/06 was that they are going ahead with the project.

Analysis of 5 year trend in Enrollment

(Actual Enrollment from PDE website 712006 and EI in Feasibility stuYear EI PDE EI PDE

K-4 K-4 K-5 K-52001-02 1953 1953 2369 23692002-03 1916 1916 2352 23522003-04 1923 1905 2353 23332004-05 1924 1903 2350 23242005-06 ------ 1912 ------ 2331

Decrease (41) (38)

dy)

There has been an actual decrease in enrollment over the last 5 years.Either the Board and/or its President doesn't recognize this or they are failing to

consider it.Either way, there is no justification for a building project when enrollments

are going:down K-5.

During the July presentation to the Board the recommendation by theSuperintendent per the presentation was -

"Remains as originally recommended"6. Global look at the issue7. Elementary short of space8. Will continue to grow - will not get smaller

In light of the decrease in actual enrollment, there is no need for a project ofthis scope and in this configuration. If Woodland Elementary is configured in a K-4mode, we will then be committed to the 5_6th grade building for which there is nojustification.

- 33-

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

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

DISTRICT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

The District Projected Student Enrollment (4/16/04) from the OriginalFeasibility Study 7/13/04, contained numerous inaccuracies and overestimatedstudent enrollment in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

District Enrollment Projections K-5 from the Original 7/13/04 FeasibilityStudy (page 10) were as follows,

Red represents projectionsBl 1PDE 11 f . d 7/2006 11 b .ue represents actua enro ment rom revise enro ments we siteDistrict K 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 PDE K-5 PDEStatistic District Actual District Actual

K-4 K-52001- Actual 301 442 376 415 424 423 1958 1953 2381 2369022002- Actual 303 433 372 391 425 439 1924 1916 2363 2352032003- Actual 289 440 389 392 409 433 1919 1905 2352 2333042004- Proj 305 465 388 415 419 420 1992 1903 2414 232405 (2412)2005- Proj 321 477 411 415 440 434 2064 1912 2498 2331062006- Proj 294 501 426 440 441 452 2102 255307 (2554)

(Generated/rom the 7113104Feasibility Study, District Enrollment Projections4116104,page 10,)

(PDE Actual taken from 912005 (2004 enrollments PDE website))

Actual Enrollment does not correlate with PDE actual enrollment and 2004-05 and 2006-07 totals reflect calculation errors as noted in parenthesis.

- 34-

(District EnrollmentlProjections 4/16/04, pg. 10, Feasibility Study 7/04)R d t P . f BI tAt I PDE II te represen s rOlec IOns--------------- ue re rresen s c ua enro men

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06K-4 1958 1924 1919 1992 2064


K-5 2381 2363 2352 2414 2498


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



There were mathematical errors in calculating the totals for K-5 in 2004-05and 2006-07, with the correct calculations in parenthesis.

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

K-5 Enrollment 7/01-6/02 7/02-6/03 7/03-6/04DISTRICT "Actual" 2381 2363 2352(7/1/2001 start)PDEACTUAL 2369 2352 2333(9/05 rev)Difference -12 students -11 students -19 students

Where did the District obtain the numbers used in there "actual" calculations.Is it possible that these were projections from the 7/2001 model start year?If so, then the 2004-05 and 2005-06 projections are years 4 and 5 of the projections

generated in 2001. If not, then the actual numbers were incorrect and need to be updated.

~ ..

- 35 -

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

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





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

K-5 by +90.2005-06 -----------------K-4by + 152

K-5 by +167.

B. EI ASSOCIATES PROJECTED ENROLLMENT

In the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, page 10,EI Associates actual and projectedenrollment are inaccurate and significantly overestimate enrollment .

EIA . t . t d II t 11 7/13/04 F ibilitSt dssocia es projec e enro men, pa ge , easi I ity ulyK 1 2 ,., 4 K-4 K-4 5 K-5 K-5.J

EI PDE EI PDEActual Actual

2001- Actual 310 421 378 431 413 1953 1953 416 2369 2369022002- Actual 303 431 367 394 421 1916 1916 436 2352 2352032003- Actual 293 440 390 393 407 1923 1905 430 2353 2333042004- Proj 369 491 384 415 403 2062 1903 418 2480 2324052005- Proj 401 504 429 409 425 2168 1912 414 2582 233106

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

- 36-

EI Associates overestimated projected enrollment -According to the 7113/04 Feasibility study, on page 11, enrollment was

overestimated in 2004-05 and 2005-06 by EI Associates as follows,EI overestimate in 2004-05,

K -4 -------------------------------- +159K-5 -------------------------------- +156

EI overestimate in 2005-06,K -4 -------------------------------- +256K -5 -------------------------------- +251

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

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

C. PDE PROJECTED ENROLLMENT

The PDE projections found on page 12 of the 7/13/04 Feasibility studyillustrate a dramatic overestimation in enrollment,

PDE Projected enrollment, page 12, 7/13/04 Feasibility StudyK 1 2 3 4 K-4 PDE 5 K-5 PDE

Actual Actual2001- Actual 310 421 378 431 413 1953 1953 416 2369 2369022002- Actual 303 431 367 394 421 1916 1916 436 2352 235203

2003- Projections 359 405 377 392 403 1936 1905 438 2374 2333042004- Projections 369 491 354 403 401 2018 1903 420 2438 2324052005- Projections 401 504 430 378 413 2126 1912 418 2544 233106


- 37 -


2003-04K-4 ------------------------ +31K-5 ------------------------ +41

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

2005-06K-4 ------------------------ +214K-5 ------------------------ +213

PDE's estimates are too inaccurate to be used to determine the need for thebuilding project.

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

D. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

The District overestimated elementary enrollment in their projections (4/16/04) inthe 7113/04 Feasibility Study.

Comparing the Actual District 2005-06 data from the Web, by school, to DistrictEnrollment Projections (4/16/04) in the 7/13/04 Feasibility Study, I have generated the followingcharts,(District Enrollment Projections/Elementary School, 4116/04 from the 7/13/04 FeasibilityStudy, (pages 8, 9))

Original Feasibility Website 2006 ERRORStudy (7/13/04)District Projections Actual District Data(4/16/04)2005-06 2005-06 2005-06

Arrowhead 454 442 +12 (overestimate)

Eagleville 472 431 +41 (overestimate)

Woodland 440 415 +25 (overestimate)

Audubon 520 580 -60 (underestimate)

Worcester 611 465 +146 (overestimate)

Overestimate total +164(overestimate)

- 38 -

The district then posted the "Feasibility Study" on their Website.I learned recently from the communications director Angela Lynch, that this was

not the complete study and contained excerpts chosen by the superintendent from theexecutive summary given to the board from 11123/04 and from Dr. Miller's presentations.There was nothing on the site stating that these were selected excerpts by Dr. Millergiving the impression that this was the complete study.

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

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

October 2004 EI Associates Actual and Projected enrollment (in students)(K-4 and 5 (from Feasibility Study on Website 06)

Blue represents actual numbers (PDE) Red represents projectionsK 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 K-5 Actual Actual

EI EI K-4 K-52000- 275 443 393 389 422 394 1922 2316 1922 2316012001- 310 421 378 431 413 416 1953 2369 1953 2369022002- 303 431 367 394 421 436 1916 2352 1916 2352032003- 293 440 390 393 407 430 1923 2353 1905 2333042004- 363 359 372 400 408 424 1902 2326 1903 232405

2005- 368 513 312 394 410 419 1997 2416 1912 2331062006- 339 557 446 330 404 421 249707

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

EI associates estimates/projections overestimated enrollment significantly for2005-06 as follows -

K-4 --- EI overestimated by 85 students (2005-06)K-5 ---- EI overestimated by 85 students (2005-06) _

(This is significant because this is the first year of projections which statisticallyshould be the most accurate.)

- 39-

October 2004 - PDE Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study Web)Red represents PDE projected enrollmentBl tAt I PDE II tue represen s c ua enro menK 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 Actual Error K-5 Actual Error

K-4 K-4 K-5 K-52004- 339 500 378 412 397 412 2026 1903 +123 2438 2324 +114052005- 368 513 436 400 421 407 2138 1912 +226 2545 2331 +214062006- 339 557 448 462 409 432 2647072007- 333 513 486 475 472 420 2699082008- 340 504 448 515 485 484 2776092009- 347 514 440 475 526 498 2800102010- 354 524 448 466 485 540 2817112011- 361 535 457 475 476 498 2802122012- 367 545 467 484 485 488 2836132013- 374 555 475 495 494 498 289114

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

K-4 ----- (2004-05) by 123 students(2005-06) by 226 students

K-5 ----- (2004-05) by 114 students(2005-06) by 214 students

- 40-

February 2005 - EI Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study Web)BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollmentRED reflects estimated EI associates enrollmentParenthesi . . di b di tarent esis IS error, III icatmg overestimate >y istncK 1 2 3 4 K-4 (est Actual K-4 5 K-5 (est PDE Actual K-5

2000-1 275 443 393 389 422 1922 394 23162001-2 310 421 378 431 413 1953 416 23692002-3 303 431 367 394 421 1916 436 23522003-4 293 440 390 393 407 1923 430 2353

2004-5 381 357 372 405 409 1924 1903 (+21) 426 2350 2324 (+26)

Ratios

2005-6 368 513 310 395 416 2002 1912 (+90) 420 2422 2331 (+91)2006-7 339 557 446 329 406 2077 4272007-8 333 513 484 473 338 2141 4172008-9 340 504 446 514 486 2289 3472009-1 347 514 438 473 528 2300 4992010-1 354 524 446 465 486 2275 5242011-1 361 535 455 474 477 2303 4992012-1 367 545 465 483 487 2347 4902013-1 374 555 473 503 507 2412 510

EI associates in 2005 again overestimated enrollment in the first year of theirprojections (2005-2006)

K-4 of 90 and K-5 of 91

PDE Actual Enrollment 2000-2006 K-5) including error in EI estimatesK 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 K-5 ErrorK-4 ErrorK-5

2000-01 276 443 393 389 422 394 1922 23162001-02 310 421 378 431 413 416 1953 23692002-03 303 431 367 394 421 436 1916 23522003-04 292 433 389 389 402 428 1905 23332004-05 314 416 371 398 404 421 1903 2324 21 over 26 over2005-06 307 447 373 381 404 419 1912 2331 90 over 91 over

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

- 41 -

The data confirms the following,

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

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

October 2004 - PDE Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study Web06)

K 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 Actual Error K-5 Actual ErrorK-4 K-4 K-5 K-5

2004- 339 500 378 412 397 412 2026 1903 +123 2438 2324 +114052005- 368 513 436 400 421 407 2138 1912 +226 2545 2331 +21406

2004-05 data demonstrate an overestimation in,K-4 of 123 studentsK-5 of 114 students

2005-06 data demonstrate an overestimation in,K-4 of 226 studentsK-5 of 214 students

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

October 2004 EI Associates Actual and Projected enrollment (in students K-4 and5) from Feasibility Study on Website demonstrated significant overestimation inenrollment

October 2004 EI Enrollment ProjectionsK 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 K-5 Actual Actual

EI EI K-4 K-52005- 368 513 312 394 410 419 1997 2416 1912 233106

BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollmentRED reflects estimated EI associates enrollment

The error in the October 2004 projections are as follows K-4 and K-5 (2005-06) data demonstrate an overestimation of

K-4 of 85 studentsK-5 of 85 students

The first year estimates should be the most accurate statistically. To overestimateby 85 students adds doubt to the credibility of the projections.

- 42-

February 2005 - EI Enrollment Projections (From Feasibility Study \Veb)K 1 2 3 4 K-4 Actual K-4 5 K-5 PDE Actual K-5

2004-5 381 357 372 405 409 1924 1903 (+21 426 2350 2324 (+26'

Ratios

2005-6 368 513 310 395 416 2002 1912 (+90 420 2422 2331 (+91'BLUE reflects actual PDE enrollmentRED reflects estimated EI associates enrollmentParenthesis is error, indicating overestimate by districtEI associates again overestimated enrolJment in 2005-06 by 90 and 91.

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

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

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

The board also apparently did not consider an actual decrease in enrollment K-4and K-5 over the last 5 years. This is contrary to the Board's fiduciary responsibility.I made the Board aware at a public meeting that the enrollment for K-5 is declining.

PDE Actual Enrollment 2000-2006 (K-5) including decrease in enroll menK 1 2 3 4 5 K-4 K-5 Decrease Decrease

K-4 K-52001-2 310 421 378 431 413 416 1953 23692002-3 303 431 367 394 421 436 1916 23522003-4 292 433 389 389 402 428 1905 23332004-5 314 416 371 398 404 421 1903 23242005-6 307 447 373 381 404 419 1912 2331 (-41) (-38)

t

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

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

There is no basis for the current proposed project based on enrollment concerns.In my opinion, moving forward with this project base on decreasing

enrollment and estimates that are unreliable is not consistent with the BoardsFiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer.

- 43 -

C. THE EXISTING BUILDING CAPACITY USED TO JUSTIFY THEPROJECT IS ARBITRARY AND MISLEADING.

1. The existing building capacity was arbitrarily decreased and set at 22students per "graded classroom." . ,

This decrease creates the illusion that the district is over physical capacity and is ajustification for the project.

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

Existing Building Capacity = Classrooms x Number of students per class.

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

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

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

As noted on page 57 of the Feasibility Study,"The school district projected enrollment data shows an increase in student

population over the projected timeframe. The elementary grades have surpassedexisting building capacity. The secondary grades will reach existing district buildingcapacity levels within the projected timeframe. "

The legend key defines the following-PDE existing building capacity - K-5 = 2250District existing building capacity - K-5 = 1980

The district and board are not considering the actual enrollment per PDE thatshows a 5 year actual decline in enrollment K-5 of38 students.

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

Now the district uses a class size of 22 that is contrary to its own Board policy126, and lower than the "soft cap" of25 students per class, in order to justify a need forthe project.

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

- 44-

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

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

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

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

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

This means that, if it was determined that the maximum number of students in agraded classroom was only 20, the district's existing building capacity would be less than1800. If the class size was determined to be 30, the capacity would be 2700.

This concept is illustrated in the K-5 projected student enrollment graph onpage 57 of the feasibility study;

At first glance it appears that the enrollment projections K-5 far exceeded thedistrict's "existing building capacity". (1980 students)

One must remember that this building capacity is dependent upon an artificial andarbitrary restriction of22 students per graded classroom and does not include modularclassrooms.

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

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

According to the District's Website, there are 100 Elementary Classrooms. Ifthese classrooms were fully utilized, then actual capacity would be as follows,

100 classrooms with 20 students per class -------------------- 2000 student capacity100 classrooms with 22 students per class -------------------- 2200 student capacity100 classrooms with 25 students per class -------------------- 2500 student capacity100 classrooms with 30 students per class -------------------- 3000 student capacityIt appears that either not all the classrooms are being utilized or they are only

being partially utilized.

- 45 -

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

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

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

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

Class size with total classroom utilizationClass Size - 20 students/class = 2000 building capacityClass Size - 25 students/class = 2500 building capacityClass Size - 30 students/class = 3000 building capacity

Modulars10 Modulars with 20 students/class = 200 students10 modulars with 22 students/class = 220 students10 modulars with 25 students/class = 250 students

15 modulars with 20 students/class = 300 students15 modulars with 22 students/class = 330 students15 modulars with 25 students/class = 375 students

The "existing building capacity" at 25 students per classroom if 14 modularsare included would be at least 2600. This exceeds the current enrollment by almost200 students.

If the district abides by there arbitrary "soft cap" of 25 students/class then -25 students per class = 2250 students14 modulars at 25 students per modular = 350 studentsA calculated arbitrary capacity if 14 modulars are used with 25 students per class

= 2600 students.

If you add the 200 for Kindergarten tbe "existing capacity" is 2800 students.

This number exceeds projected district capacity past 2013-14.

- 46-

3. The Feasibility Study underestimated capacity for Kindergarten by 50%.

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

The true existing capacity for the 10 Kindergarten classes is 400.This would add 200 students to the "existing building capacity".Kindergarten enrollment was fully counted in enrollment projections but only 12

of the student enrollment in the Kindergarten grade or roughly 200 students at 20 perclass were used in the "building capacity". This is illustrated on page 30 of theFeasibility Study posted on the District's Website.

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

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

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

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

The 6-8 projected enrollments (all models) at only 22 students per classroom donot exceed PDE or District building capacity over the next 7 years.

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

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

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

The projections show that there has been a decrease in enrollment K-5 which didnot increase overall enrollment.

For example, actual PDE enrollment 6-8 and 9-12 for 2000-2006 is as follows,

At IE IJ t 68 PDEc ua nro men - ver6 7 8 6-8 Increase per

year2000-01 401 385 358 11442001-02 408 424 390 1222 782002-03 426 409 438 1273 512003-04 443 434 429 1306 332004-05 442 440 459 1341 352005-06 435 435 444 1314 -27

(Actual 6-12 data was taken/rom Revised 712006(2005Enrollments) availableon the PDE website.)

- 47-

AtuiE II t 9 12 PDEc a nro men - per9 10 11 12 9-12 Increase Increase Total Total Increase

per year 6-8 per increase K-12 K-129-12 year 6-12 per year

2000-01 337 355 317 303 1312 48122001-02 402 362 359 308 1431 119 78 197 5022 2102002-03 412 388 350 353 1503 72 51 123 5128 1062003-04 449 399 390 354 1592 89 33 122 5231 1032004-05 454 438 390 391 1673 81 35 116 5338 1072005-06 476 464 431 390 1761 88 -27 61 5413 75

(Actual 6-12 data was taken/rom Revised 712006(2005 Enrollments) availableon the PDE website.)

The above charts illustrate the following -1. The increase in overall enrollment has fallen over the last 5 years.2. The increases in both 6-8 and 9-12 enrollments have fallen over the last 5

years.3. The increases in enroJIment are not due to K-5 but due to 6-12 enrollment4. The decline in enrollment in 2005-06 for 6-8 will eventually affect theoverall number.5. The numbers confirm that building capacity for 6-12 will not be reached

unless the Board arbitrarily decreases class size.

In summary, the facilities advisory committee was appointed, not elected, with themajority being district employees. This was not a true cross-section of the district with75% of the voter/taxpayer base not represented on the committee. This in my opinioncreated bias in the selection of the options and limited any discussion on cost effectivealternatives.

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

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

Existing building capacity was defined in the Feasibility study (06 Web) by theDistrict as 1980 students by using an arbitrary number of22 students per class. There isno mention in the posted facilities study as to why, how and at whose direction thedecision to use 22 students per class was made. Board policy 126 indicates that thedistrict can use up to 25 students K-2 and up to 30 students 3-6 per class.

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

Per Mr. VanHorn, the board has adopted a soft cap of 25 students, the same asPDE. My understanding is that maximum reimbursement by PDE under plan con is up to25 students per class. If we are applying/or state money, and completing the plan con

- 48-

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

The building capacity was also affected by not including 14 modular classrooms.If they are included at 22 per class the additional building capacity of 308 students isrealized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The board has not considered or done a cost analysis on the effect of prevailingwage by applying for state funding versus no state funding with resultant decreasedconstruction costs.

The board had not publically considered other alternatives to the "recommendedoption 6" including the use ofmodulars, expanding the Woodland project by adding moreclass space, student relocation, converting modulars to permanent classroom space andmanipulating class size. They have a fiduciary responsibility to do so prior to approvingthis project.

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

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

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

211 ountry View LnLansdale Pa 19446

skyview complaint 1 part 2

Documents

actual enrollment

enrollment capacity

kindergarten enrollment

district enrollment

existing building capacity

additional building

actual pde enrollment

analysis of feasibility