This document outlines the thinking behind my decision to support a "2 1/2 school" configuration for the 2008-2009 school year (this coming fall) and my decision to support Claypit Hill and Happy Hollow as the grade 1-5 schools with Loker serving as the Kindergarten-only school. The ideas represented below are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the thinking of other individual Wayland School Committee members or the Committee as a whole.
It's important to make several points to provide some context.
First, based on declining enrollment, the decision to change from 3 to 2 1/2 schools would almost certainly have been recommended by both the Administration and the Committee for the 2009-2010 school year (a year from this fall). Against the recommendation of the Administration, and taking into account external financial pressures that are the purview of the Committee much more so than the Administration, the Committee voted to make this change one year "early." An undesirable result of this decision was a highly compressed time frame for the Administration to research and prepare information to support the determination of which of Happy Hollow and Loker (the two smaller elementary schools) would become a 1-5 school and which would become a K-only school.
Second, with the benefit of hindsight, the process would no doubt have played out differently; nonetheless, I maintain that the Administration and the Committee made sound decisions at each step along the way based on information that was known at the time.
Third, it became clear to me early on that the "which school" decision would not be clear-cut, and that reasonable people might arrive at a different conclusion. That said, the system-wide educational and financial considerations were too strong, in my opinion, to delay the decision by a year (and would not in any event have eased the "which school" decision). Having the override approved in order to maintain level educational services is of paramount concern.
From 3 elementary schools to 2 1/2
As soon as the Committee realized that the Finance Committee's guideline for the 2008-2009 school year would be about $160k below the amount needed to provide level educational services (primarily in the area of Middle School and High School co-curricular athletics and activities), it revisited its November 2007 decision to stay with 3 elementary schools for the 2008-2009 school year. During that two-month period, I heard increased concern about the size of the proposed $2.6M override from Board of Selectmen members, Finance Committee members, and other residents. The combination of the level services shortfall and the override concern led me to the 2 1/2 school conclusion, resulting in a net savings of about $300k per year. Coupled with larger than expected municipal revenues and smaller than expected health insurance increases, the Finance Committee was able to reduce the override request by $700k from $2.6M to just under $1.9M.
Happy Hollow or Loker as a 1-5 school
The Committee compiled a list of nearly 70 attributes describing the similarities and differences between Happy Hollow and Loker [note: hyperlink to the list removed 3/18/2008; list available from School Committee home page]. Those attributes fell roughly into one of four categories: safety, education, finances, and logistics. I rated safety as being the top priority, followed by education, finances, and logistics, with one school or the other having an advantage as follows (elaboration to follow).
- Safety: even*
- Education: slight favoring of Happy Hollow
- Finances: slight favoring of Happy Hollow
- Logistics: moderate favoring of Loker
The dominant safety factor concerns traffic at each of the two buildings. Based on input from the Wayland Police and Fire Chiefs, and after carefully reading a private report commissioned by families in the Loker neighborhood, I concluded (prior to the 2/25 meeting) that the two buildings would be equal from a safety standpoint in the 90% full configuration expected for 2008-2009 (all classrooms in use, 90% of seats full based on the Committee's class size policy). If there is any safety advantage, it comes with Happy Hollow's newly installed phone system, which allows teachers to dial the office or 911 from each classroom. [*note: on 3/18/2008, I changed "Safety" from "even/minimal favoring of Happy Hollow" to "even," choosing to discount the phone system attribute as essentially the same benefit can be had at Loker for very low cost.]
2. Education
The education category proved to be the hardest for me to judge (and the one where our Administrators are best equipped to comment). In the end, I valued Happy Hollow's larger classrooms (where students spend a disproportionate amount of their time), outdoor classroom, flexible gym/stage/cafeteria layout, and additional small teaching space more than Loker's overall larger space (driven by its larger cafeteria and its auditorium), larger number of full-sized classrooms (countered by the relatively inexpensive conversion of part of Happy Hollow's library and the desire to retain dedicated space for all specials), and larger/better outdoor play area (where students spend relatively little time per day).
3. Finances
The finances comparison favors Happy Hollow, albeit not by large amount relative to the $400k personnel savings that results from moving from 3 to 2 1/2 schools: perhaps $13k to $56k per year in total.
Initially, the Committee and the Administration anticipated a transportation cost savings resulting from Happy Hollow's larger number of students within walking distance. While the number of student riders will be lower under the Happy Hollow as 1-5 scenario compared with Loker as 1-5, it appears that the difference will result in at most one fewer bus (an estimated $20k savings), and perhaps more likely, the same number of buses. As enrollments decline, however, Happy Hollow as 1-5 promises to lead to a busing savings sooner than Loker as 1-5.
Utility savings due to the closing of a section of the K-only school favor Happy Hollow as the 1-5 school, by about $13k per year ($11k in reduced electricity, $2k in reduced heating gas). The difference is driven in large part by the location of the "cordon" at each school: Loker's at the entrance to the upstairs wing would cut off dramatically more space due in large part to the gym, compared with Happy Hollow's at the entrance to its much smaller wing. The increased energy efficiency at Happy Hollow due to its new roof and imminent new windows promises to increase the advantage, but by my estimation, no more than perhaps $1k per year.
Because of the presence of the gym and of bathrooms in Loker's "closure wing" (neither of which exist in Happy Hollow's closure wing), the possibility for space rental in a Loker K-only school is much more promising. However, it's important to note (a) that I would only support rental for a select set of uses (e.g., pre-school, day care, special education services), (b) that our revenue estimates (with no particular tenant identified) are $6k per room for 2-6 rooms ($12k-$36k), and (c) that the utility savings would then disappear.
The cost differences above are recurring. In addition, it's necessary to consider one-time costs such as the conversion of Happy Hollow's large library into a classroom plus a library comparable in size to Loker's ($5k), the installation of cordons ($5k per cordon in either building), and any others (in the event of Loker being the 1-5 school and additional classroom space being needed, $45k to convert Loker's auditorium to a classroom similar to what was once done at Claypit Hill). These costs are small relative to the recurring costs.
It's worth making a comment on sunk costs (the recent Happy Hollow roof, the imminent Happy Hollow windows, the less recent Loker gym). Some residents have argued that the electorate might think that it had been "tricked" into renovating Happy Hollow, only to have the building "close," thereby putting the upcoming override at risk. While I appreciate that such a perception on the part of some is possible and perhaps even likely, my response is that it will be years (if at all) before either building is fully closed, that roof and window renovations for Loker will be requested in the next 5-10 years so that our investment in that facility is maintained, and that sunk costs should therefore not be a factor.
4. Logistics
Logistics considerations favored Loker as the 1-5 school in two main areas: the larger number of students who would be transferred (340 versus 325, a difference of a bit less than 5%) and the larger cafeteria (where students spend a relatively small percentage of their time). On balance, in my opinion, these factors plus Loker's lobby outweighed Happy Hollow's building flow (the circular configuration of the main hallway) and traffic flow (but not safety) advantages. I judged parking (adequate at both buildings for day to day operation, crowded at both buildings for special events), driving distances to Claypit Hill, and 2005 Boston Magazine rankings to be comparable.
Conclusion
On balance, neither school dominated the other in any of the four categories. That said, in my opinion, Happy Hollow is equal to or slightly preferred to Loker on the three more important categories (safety, education, and finances), trailing Loker only in the fourth category, logistics.
I'll repeat my earlier statement--the decision was not clear-cut. That's in large part a testament to the fantastic work of the Administration, the PTOs, and the community to create comparable and excellent educational experiences at all three of our elementary schools.
I certainly won't begrudge anyone for thinking that I made the wrong decision. I'll offer, however, that I made my decision openly, honestly, and with the best interests of the district as a whole in mind.
In November, I agreed with the other Committee members that moving from 3 to 2 1/2 schools was not warranted for the 2008-2009 school year given that we would have a level services budget. In January, I learned that that the level services assumption had not come to pass, and had in the meantime heard much more about override approval concerns. I supported the Committee's selection of Happy Hollow as the 1-5 school based on an understanding that the budget time line required a decision at that point, and I supported the Committee's decision to preserve services and reduce the override by changing to 2 1/2 schools. Upon hearing the concerns about the "which school" decision from many residents, and upon learning that we could take longer with the decision (the result being increased pressure on our Administrators), I supported an extended period of information gathering and public comment.
Throughout the process, I worked to create as accurate a comparison of the buildings as possible, I responded to everyone who wrote or called (more than 100 people), and I grappled with how to trade off the various building attributes. I did not make up my mind until the February 25 meeting.
In the end, I am proud of the way that the Committee proceeded, I am proud of the way that our chair, Barb Fletcher, led the proceedings, and I am proud of the thought and effort put in by our Administrators. It is a testament to this latter group and the team that they have in place that the education of Wayland's children did not miss a beat during an intense 3-month period.
Thank you.
If you have any questions or comments, call me at 508-353-3175 or
send me email at dieffenbach @ alum.mit.edu.