FEASIBILITY STUDY for the MAYWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION Maywood, Bergen County, State of New Jersey Prepared By: Whitehall Associates, Inc. Educational Facilities Planning Consultants 65 Fayson Lakes Road Kinnelon, New Jersey 07405-3129 www.whitehallnj.com April, 2012 Maywood Feasibility Study - 2012/04 Page 1 of 73 Whitehall Associates, Inc. 65 Fayson Lakes Road Kinnelon, New Jersey 07405 www.whitehallnj.com April, 2012 Whitehall Associates was retained by the Maywood Board of Education to prepare a feasibility study to determine the efficacy of moving its students from Hackensack High School to Paramus High School. The team assembled for this project consisted of: ! Dr. Joseph Richardson, President ! Dr. Ernest Palestis, Project Director ! Monica Dodd-Palestis, Esq., Special Education Consultant ! Vincent Yaniro, Finance Consultant For: WHITEHALL ASSOCIATES, INC. Joseph Richardson, PhD President Maywood Feasibility Study - 2012/04 Page 2 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION H. Staff Development 33 A. History of Sending Receiving Relationship 4 I. Special Features & Awards 34 B. Input Reactions 6 J. Special Education Commentary 35 II. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN CONDUCTING STUDY VI. STUDENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AT HACKENSACK AND A. Objectives of the Study 7 PARAMUS B. Resource material Analyze 7 A. Language Arts 40 C. Activities Carried Out 7 B. Mathematics 42 C. Graduation 45 III. ENROLLMENT AND FACILITY IMPACT OF WITHDRAWAL OF D. Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) 57 MAYWOOD STUDENTS E. Advance Placement Results 51 A. Enrollment History and Phase-Out Projections 8 F. Attendance Results 54 B. Facility Impact 10 G. Drop Out Rates 56 C. Demographic Tables 11 H. Graduation Rates 59 I. Post Graduation Plans 61 IV. RACIAL ENROLLMENT IMPACT OF WITHDRAWAL OF MAYWOOD J. Suspensions and Expulsions 63 STUDENTS A. Hackensack High School 17 VI. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF WITHDRAWAL OF MAYWOOD STUDENTS B. Paramus High School 20 A. Introduction 65 B. Estimated Tuition Under the Status Quo 65 V. EDUCATION IMPACT OF WITHDRAWAL OF MAYWOOD STUDENTS C. Property Valuations 66 A. Present Program and Services at D. Budget Projections Under the Status Quo 66 Hackensack and Paramus High Schools 25 E. Tuition Assuming Maywood Withdraws from Hackensack 66 B. School Philosophy 25 F. Special Education 67 C. Goals and Objectives 25 G. Transportation 67 D. Present Class Size 26 H. Facilities 67 E. Staffing 26 I. Budget Projections F. Curriculum Offerings 29 Assuming Maywood Withdraws from Hackensack 67 G. Special Education & Other Support Services 30 J. Tax Rate Comparisons and Conclusions 67 G. Programs for Gifted/Talented 32 K. Tables 68 Maywood Feasibility Study - 2012/04 Page 3 of 73 HISTORY OF SENDING/RECEIVING RELATIONSHIP Maywood Board of Education was paying the maximum amount of It is important to note that no contract exists between Hackensack and tuition permitted by law. This was a major issue for Maywood as they Maywood. Evidence indicates that prior to the 2009-2010 school year were placed in the position of trying to develop a yearly budget often Hackensack refused to discuss the development of a comprehensive without a clear understanding of how much “back tuition” they would sending – receiving contract. be charged. 2009 – 2010 SCHOOL YEARS The MOA that Hackensack initially rejected was modified with the input of the Executive County Superintendent of Schools. However, The parties attempted to resolve certain issues in regards to tuition Hackensack once again rejected the MOA. A final meeting was rates. Three districts that send high school students to Hackensack facilitated by the executive County Superintendent of Schools. (Maywood, Rochelle Park, and South Hackensack) approached Unfortunately, despite the County Superintendent’s strong Hackensack in an attempt to negotiate tuition rates. The impetus for this recommendation that the MOA be approved by the respective boards series of negotiations was a proposed 20% increase in Hackensack of education, Hackensack again rejected it. Maywood then indicated in tuition rates. In addition, all four districts received significant cuts in July of 2010, that it would conduct a feasibility study in order to state aid. The combination of the proposed 20% increase along with the investigate alternatives that would protect the Maywood community significant cuts in state aid caused the Maywood Board of Education to and school district. make dramatic programmatic cuts to its elementary/middle school program to the detriment to the Maywood students. In response, Hackensack invited all three sending districts to a meeting which took place on September 30, 2010. The Hackensack attorney As a result of the negotiations process, a tentative “Memorandum of distributed a tuition contract; however the Hackensack proposal was not Understanding” (“MOA”) was reached. The tentative MOA was reviewed consistent with the recommendations of the Executive County by each Board of Education; however, Hackensack did not approve the Superintendent of Schools. The adjusted tuition rate issue specifically, memorandum. did not follow the recommendation of the Executive County Two subsequent meetings were conducted. Once again, the Hackensack Superintendent of Schools, who as a neutral party and representative of Board of education did not approve the MOA. Without Hackensack’s the New Jersey Department of Education attempted to resolve the approval, the sending districts could not approve the MOA themselves. tuition issue in a way that was fair to all involved. As a matter of fact, Given this impasse, an additional attempt to resolve the tuition issue the Executive County Superintendent offered “a consensus was made by the Executive County Superintendent of Schools and the recommendation” that he believed would “resolve the dispute.” County School Business Administrator. A major issue during this The complete text of the Executive County Superintendent’s resolution process was the Hackensack practice of charging “back communication follows: tuition.” As a result of charging “back tuition” to Maywood, the In accordance with the requests of the Boards of Education of Maywood Feasibility Study - 2012/04 Page 4 of 73 Maywood, Rochelle Park and South Hackensack and with the of the agreement: 2010-2011 through 2014-15. cooperation of the Hackensack Board of Education, I convened a 3. In consideration of the budget CAP rate increases each year meeting with your Superintendents and Business Administrators on in the agreement, there will no longer be any other tuition April 20, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to facilitate a rate adjustments going forward (including none for 2008- resolution of your high school tuition rates dispute. 2009 and 2009-2010). My Executive County Business Administrator, John Boreman, and It is recommended that your boards formalize this Memorandum of your school leaders and I discussed the previously proposed Understanding into a written Sending Receiving Agreement to be Memorandum of Understanding that was developed by the leaders approved by each district. during their March 3, 2010 meeting. Rather than accept the recommendations of the State of New Jersey / After listening to the informative discussions of each of your Executive County Superintendent of Schools, the Hackensack Board of Superintendents and Business Administrators and the fiscal needs of Education changed the fair and equitable recommendations and each district they presented, I am offering a consensus inserted their “agenda.” Most importantly, Hackensack refused to recommendation for your approval that will resolve the dispute. address the “adjusted tuition rate” issue, which, as noted above, under I recommend a five year written High School Tuition Agreement the County Superintendent’s proposal recommended that going forward between Hackensack, the receiving district, and the three sending from the date of the MOA the sending districts would not be subjected districts. The five year High School Tuition Agreement would cover to tuition rate adjustments, other than the state budget cap increases the years 2010-11 through 2014-15 with the following points of which would be permitted. Hackensack’s refusal to include this in the agreement. MOA was a critical change as it would continue to place Maywood in the 1. Each of the five years will include a fixed tuition rate plus position of being unable to adequately budget for the educational needs related special education costs, if any, as required by IEP’s. of its own community, thereby impacting Maywood students in a substantially negative manner. In addition, there was nothing in ! The tuition rate for 2010-2011 is agreed to be $13,125. Hackensack’s proposed contract regarding special education and other !The tuition rate for 2011-2012 will be $13,125 increased educational issues. After these and other issues were raised at the by the NJDOE budget CAP rate. meeting, the Hackensack attorney threatened that if the sending !Similarly, the tuition rate for 2012-2013 and each districts did not sign the Hackensack version of the MOA, Hackensack subsequent year through 2014-2015 will be increased by would “charge them the 15 K, sue them, and then consolidate.” the NJDOE budget CAP rate. As a result of the refusal of Hackensack to follow the recommendations 2. The 2007-2008 tuition rate adjustment will be payable to of the Executive County Superintendent of Schools, Maywood was left Hackensack by the sending districts over the five year period with no other alternative than to move forward