I was reminded of one point made by Principal Mudlock of Shafer Elementary that struck me during the Open House and that I failed to mention in light of all the strike talk last week.
In the school newsletter he notes that the current enrollment is 621 students, grades k-5 (roughly 105 per grade give or take a few).
During the open house he noted that District enrollment zoning will be changed if housing development is made at the Nazareth Speedway. Lower Nazareth could not absorb the number of anticipated students in that event. The plan would be to move all Stockertown and Tatamy from Lower Nazareth to Shafer. The timing of this would be based on development. If the development started it could be start of next year, if not in the near future. It could also be a mid-term move depending on what development began and how fast homes were ready.
He also noted that Shafer can hold up to 980 students, but the reasonable level is 800. If enrollment rises over 800 then specials would lose their classrooms and travel to the students rooms with push carts.
Looks like this move is almost inevitable given the development in the west side of Upper Nazareth and throughout Lower Nazareth.
Given this, and combined with the possible sink-hole at the proposed new middle school site, you have to wonder if a new elementary school isn't a better solution than a 5th & 6th grade building.
7 comments:
I've done some simple math with the numbers you supplied.
Moving 5th grade to the new building would reduce enrollment at approx. 105 students to 516.
With a capacity of 800 there would then be available additional capacity of 284 students.
That would be a 55% increase in student enrollment after 5th grade is moved.
Also, the facility at lower nazareth could in the future be expanded to accomodiate more students, I don't know what the exact capacity at lower is but I am sure that it is not 800 as is the case at shaefer and bushkill.
My thinking was that right now we have a HS, MS, and 3 ELEMs.
The district is planning to go to HS, MS, IM, and 3 ELEMS.
The site of the new MS is believed to have a sinkhole. This could render it unusable.
It seems we keep adding on to elementary schools and moving kids from one level to another. Why not solve the problem by building a 4th and keep elementary the way it has traditionally been k-6?
This would open up space in the middle school to be 7 & 8 (so we wouldn't have to build a new building).
The high school has been added onto and absorbed the old MS it ought to have enough space especiallly once they get done reworking everything there even more (library to classrooms, gym to library etc.).
The fourth elementary would also help keep grade sizes smaller per building, and class sizes around the 25 per they seem to target at this time.
I guess if we are going to build something more at this point, I prefer the elementary to an intermediate level building. With an IM building, 5th and 6th would then be moved to secondary time schedule, longer days, good for more time in class, not so good for 5th graders now on buses with 12th graders and pick up times as early as 6:45 a.m.
I haven't studied enrollment numbers or anything - it just seems to make more sense to me in light of the building and renovating I've read about.
The impact anticipated at Shafer is already being felt at Lower Nazareth. One only has to look at the three "portable", "temporary" classrooms already erected behind the main school building. Specialty classrooms have already gone away, and during the first weeks of school, whole classes were split because there was not enough class space (they even used the teacher's lounge as a temporary classroom).
Yes, another elementary school would help, but one has to ask, has anyone looked down the road as to how this booming enrollment is going to affect the middle and high school? Both which are already flirting with max capacity?
As tax payers, we are going to have this burden fall squarely on us from increased taxes.
However, why has the district not see fit to go after the developers to build new schools?
Having lived in other parts of the country, it was more common than not for developers to be required to build new schools to support the influx of new students into a district. Call it a cost of doing business. The municipalities are getting their cut (permits, taxes, etc.),
why should the school districts and the tax payers have to bear this burden?
The District has a $150 million (as I recall) building plan in place to address the situation. My point is that I don't know if the plan they have is the best way to address the situation. You can read the post on the building plan here: http://nocnews.blogspot.com/2006/08/municipal-government-center-dwarfed-by.html
Regarding the impact fees you mention, there is currently no way to collect them. Rep. Grucella put forward a house bill and responded to questions about it here: http://nocnews.blogspot.com/2006/05/rep-grucela-responds-to-house-bill.html
And as you mention it will fall squarely on the taxpayer and particularly hard in Nazareth where the tax base is mostly residential, not business.
Thanks for the note and comments,
Ross
The District has a $150 million (as I recall) building plan in place to address the situation. My point is that I don't know if the plan they have is the best way to address the situation. You can read the post on the building plan here: http://nocnews.blogspot.com/2006/08/municipal-government-center-dwarfed-by.html
Regarding the impact fees you mention, there is currently no way to collect them. Rep. Grucella put forward a house bill and responded to questions about it here: http://nocnews.blogspot.com/2006/05/rep-grucela-responds-to-house-bill.html
And as you mention it will fall squarely on the taxpayer and particularly hard in Nazareth where the tax base is mostly residential, not business.
Thanks for the note and comments,
Ross
Impact fees, while a good try, are not the best way to go as they are a one time collection of typically a small amount of money per house built.
When approving a large development, the local municipality should take the lead to include the requirement to build a school (or part of it) on the developer.
In another state where I lived, a developer wanted to put in a 10,000 home community. As part of the agreement to do this, the developer was required to build 3 elementary schools, 2 middle schools and a high school to accomodate the new enrollment.
Was this included in the home price? Yes. However, it made sure that the schools were built and there was zero impact on the tax payer other than additional salaries.
With the continued growth in Lower Nazareth, Upper Nazareth and Bushkill (and the growing number of For Sale signs popping up in corn fields), I have serious doubts that the existing building plan for the district will be able to keep pace with the growing enrollment.
These points are all valid.
The critical issue related to having any form of requirement on a builder is the construction lobby.
Rep. Grucella pointed out that his bill included exemptions to appease the building lobby.
The municipalities can't deny builders outright, but must work in accordance with zoning set by state. This is why the Council of Governments is critical to the land management of the greater Nazareth area.
You can read more abou that by visiting the site index and selecting CouncilofGovernments or COG, don't recall which off hand, from the list of tags on the right column.
Thanks for taking some time to read and share the information regarding what has worked elsewhere.
Post a Comment