Guilderland Schools Building Capacity Study (2014)

Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and
decision options for serving students in the future.

2014

KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE
PROGRAM DELIVERY STUDY:

ARE THERE OPTIONS THAT MIGHT
PROVIDE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS OR
PATTERNS TO ORGANIZE HOW THE K-12
PROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED/DELIVERED
OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS?

for the
Guilderland
Central School District

GUILDERLAND,
NEW YORK



i
PREFACE

A MATTER OF THE ECONOMY AND NOT POOR STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC
RESOURCES

The Guilderland Central School District officials have been and are concerned about the financial
resources available to support a quality educational program for their students. The district, like many in
New York State (as well as individuals and businesses), has had to reduce expenditures for staff,
programs, and general operations to deal with the recession of 2008 and its continued fallout for the near
future.

With state aid revenues likely to remain flat or slightly increasing for some districts, it is projected that
school district expenditure decisions will need to be weighed carefully since the cost of commodities and
human resources purchased will likely outpace State School Aid received. It is believed by the Board of
Education that local community members may be unable to shoulder the burden of a transfer of the
shortfall in state aid revenues to increased property taxes to raise revenue and maintain the existing
opportunities of the current student programming that the community supports and expects.

In addition, with the passage of the 2% property tax levy limit law by the NYS Legislature and Governor
in J une 2011, schools cannot go legislatively beyond that measure without over 60% of their voting
residents agreeing to do so. For upstate school districts that typically receive much of their revenues from
state aid, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain even the most basic of school programs.
Indeed, for both the short and long term, the financial forecast for many upstate school districts is not
good.

THE DILEMMA FACING COMMUNITIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARDS OF
EDUCATION ACROSS THE STATE

1. State aid to support local school districts may stay close to flat for the foreseeable future;
And,
2. The capacity for local taxpayers of a school district to shoulder more revenue responsibility
through property taxes may or may not be possible;
And,
3. School district communities, the State of New York, and the Federal perspective are expecting
higher measured achievement for all students;
And,
4. School district communities, the State of New York, and the Federal perspective are requiring the
delivery of an educational program to all students that will enable them to be productive citizens
in the workforce, and to be competitive in the global economy, as well as have the basic skills to
pursue post-high school specialized education opportunities.

EXAMPLES OF OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AT WORK AFFECTING THE
DELIVERY OF PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION IN NEW YORK STATE

A. Declining community population and a declining school-age population, 2/3 of NYS
population resides in 12 downstate counties;
B. Declining job market opportunities;
C. Any new job market opportunities often help alleviate underemployment and dont
attract large new population growth to regions or communities;
D. Growing federal budget deficit and cautious economy;


ii
E. Rural NYS experiencing a 44% less growth in property values compared to metro areas
of the State;
F. Increasing health insurance and employee pension costs;
G. Unemployment rate in rural and upstate NYS is almost one fifth higher than the
unemployment rate in metro areas of the State;
H. Global threats to the US economy by increases in international student measured
achievement;
I. Unfunded mandates expected of school districts;
J . Equity issues in how school funding by the state affects less wealthy school districts.

DUE DILIGENT PLANNING BY THE GUILDERLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THIS
STUDY

The Board of Education and the Superintendent engaged this study to help answer the question:

ARE THERE OPTIONS THAT MIGHT PROVIDE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS
OR PATTERNS TO ORGANIZE HOW THE K-12 PROGRAM IS
IMPLEMENTED/DELIVERED OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS?

At the time the study was commissioned the Board of Education and the leadership team had no pre-
conceived notions about the findings of the study or a pre-conceived advocacy for what the findings
should be.

The Board recognizes that the financial and economic projections underscore that previously successful
ways and decisions about serving pupils may not be viable solutions in this new normal caused by
economic conditions facing our region, the state and the nation.

Because of the due diligence of the Board of Education and superintendent in exploring options, the
information offered in this study provides a concrete way for the community and the Board of Education
to engage public discussion in an open and transparent fashion about how best to serve the pupils in
grades K through 12 in the future. The study holds up a mirror to various kinds of data; organizes that
data into a useable resource tool; and reports a list of scenario options for discussion and review by the
community and the Board without bias or advocacy as to what decision, if any, the Board and community
should or should not implement.

It is hoped that the study will be a valuable tool to help local decision-making deal with the dilemma
facing Guilderland as a public school district in an economy that likely will not provide increased
financial support to deliver grades K through 12 public education.

Thank you for inviting me to prepare the study as one tool to help with your on-going planning.

Dr. Paul M. Seversky
May 2014


Please note that the complete Pupil Capacity Analysis Study and the
Enrollment/Demographic Study
are on the Guilderland School District Website.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface i

Purpose of the Study 1

Methodology of the Study 1

Findings of the K-12 Pupil Capacity Analysis
Pupil Capacity of the School Buildings in Total 2
Comparison of the 2013-2014 Building Enrollments with the
Pupil Capacity of Each School Building 4
Observations 5
Grade Level Class Section Enrollments Grades K-5 in 2013-2014 13
Observations 17

Findings of the Enrollment Projection Study 22

Historical Perspective of Annual Grade Level Enrollments 22
Historical Perspective of Live Births in Albany County
and the Guilderland CSD 24
Historical Perspective of Live Births and Kindergarten
Enrollments in the Guilderland CSD 25
Enrollment Projection Estimates as of January 2014 and School
Building Pupil Capacities 30

Findings, Inferences and Observations Based on the Visits to each
Guilderland School Building and the Interviews with the Administrative Team 34

Enrollment Histories of each Elementary School Since 2007 34
2013-2014 Free and Reduced Lunch Breakfast Participation 37
Service to Pupils with Special Needs 37
The School Buildings and the Building Condition Survey Report 38
Current Capital Debt by School Building 39
The Current Elementary School Sites 40
Distance Between Each School Building 40
Teacher Day and Student Day Times 41
Shared Staff Among the School Buildings 41
Full Time Equivalent Cost for pre-K-12 Instructional Staff
in 2013-2014 42


FTE Numbers of Staff Who Have Left the District Not Including
Reduction in Force 42
Annual Professional Review Responsibilities by Building 43
Distance of Students of One School to a Neighboring Attendance Zone School 43
Inventory of Buses 44
Bus Run Data for 2013-2014 44
Inferences and Observations 45

Some Options to Explore in Delivering the Guilderland Central School District
Pre-K-12 Program Over the Next Three to Five Years 56

Summary of Major Optional Program Delivery Scenarios for Discussion 60

Scenario A Rationale 61
Scenario A Opportunities and Challenges 61
Scenario B Rationale 62
Scenario B Opportunities and Challenges 63
Scenario C Rationale 64
Scenario C Opportunities and Challenges 65
Scenario D Rationale 66
Scenario D Opportunities and Challenges 67
Scenario E Rationale 68
Scenario E Opportunities and Challenges 69
Scenario F Rationale 70
Scenario F Opportunities and Challenges 71
Scenario G Rationale Worksheet 72
Scenario G Opportunities and Challenges Worksheet 72

Preliminary Financials of the Estimated Expenditure Savings Related to
the Scenario Options if Implemented in 2014-2015 73

Copyright 2014
As to Original Text, Format, and Methodology.
Al l Rights Reserved.

Dr. Paul M. Seversky
paul@seversky.net

Authorized for the exclusi ve internal use for planni ng by the
Guilderland Central School Distri ct and its stakeholders.

1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The Guilderland Central School District Board of Education and the senior administration are
engaged in long range planning for the district. As part of their efforts, they have commissioned a
study to research data to help the school district answer the following planning question:
Are there options that might provide more cost-effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12
program is implemented/delivered over the next three years?

The goal of the analysis and study report is to provide substantiation for suggestions and insights
about the current organization and delivery of the K-12 program. The study report identifies
various options for action that the Board of Education, senior administration, and the community
may want to give further focus and consideration as they identify efficiencies to ensure the most
support of K-12 pupils in the delivery of the instructional program with the resources available.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
First, the study analyzes the use of space by the current program offering in the five
elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school of the district. The principals
provided detailed information about how the assets of each building are used in the 2013-
2014 school year to implement the grades K-12 program. The detailed space allocation data
are benchmarked to the NY State Education Departments school building capacity
guidelines as well as to the class size guidelines endorsed by the school district to deliver the
program. The school buildings pupil capacity study data and findings are in the K-12 School
Building Capacity Study published in February 2014. The pupil capacity study is posted on
the Guilderland CSD website.
Second, the study estimates future enrollment trends of the district based on historical
enrollment data, historical live data, and patterns of enrollment at each of the grade levels K-
12. The enrollment projection calculations study data and findings are in the Enrollment
Projection/Demographic Study published in March 2014. The enrollment projection and
demographic study is posted on the Guilderland CSD website.
Third, the senior administration and the building principals of the district were interviewed
to learn as comprehensively as possible the short-range and long-range objectives of
delivery of the program in the existing facilities. The meeting also provided insights to
better understand local conditions and points of view that could affect the viability of
various suggestions and options to use the current facilities to the very maximum and meet

2
program expectations for pupils. The interview meeting helped to further the understandings
about the values and policies that guide the vision of the district and the long-range planning
efforts of the district.
Fourth, a visit was made to each school building hosted by each respective principal. The
principals provided data about the scheduling patterns and use of instructional and
instructional support staff resources that now exist in the schools to implement the program.

Following are findings of the School Building Capacity Analysis and the Enrollment Projection
Study that form the foundation for the rationale of each of the program delivery options suggested
by the study. In addition, findings and inferences made based on the visit to the district are also
discussed.

FINDINGS OF THE K-12 PUPIL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Pupil Capacity of the Elementary School Buildings in Total
The combined pupil capacity of the elementary buildings is charted below. The pupil capacity is
benchmarked to how the buildings are used to implement the 2013-2014 school year program and to
the class size functional delivery guidelines and goals endorsed by the district. The functional class
size guidelines of the district are:
Kindergarten, grades 1, 2 18-23 pupils
Grades 3, 4, 5 21-25 pupils
Grades 6, 7, 8 24-26 pupils
Grades 9-12 26-27 pupils
Flexibility is exercised on a case-by-case basis regarding class sizes for advanced
course offerings at the high school.

The Guilderland Board of Education and Administration follow the district class size goals that are
outlined in the contract with the teachers to implement and deliver the program. The agreement
between Guilderland Central School District and the Guilderland Teachers Association contract
addresses class size as quoted below:
ARTICLE 11 CLUSTERING, INTER-AGE GROUPINGS, CLASS SIZE

11.1 The present clustering and/or inter-age grouping projects may be extended. Teacher
involvement shall be on a voluntary basis. In no event shall the introduction of such
projects result in the termination of a teacher.
11.2 Except in those classrooms where the above projects are underway, an attempt will
be made to maintain class size as follows:
Elementary (K-5) 20-30 students

3
Middle School (6-8) 20-30 students
High School (9-12) 15-30 students
Secondary Physical Education Classes: no more than 35
students. The average class size for any individual teacher
shall not exceed 32.
11.3 At such time as the average class size in a particular building, based upon
enrollment as of the last Friday in September, exceeds 24 in Kindergarten, 25 in
Grade 1, or 26 in each of Grades 2 and 3, a teaching assistant shall be employed to
assist the teacher or teachers of the grade level in excess of such average on the
basis of one (1) assistant for each two (2) classes and on the basis of two (2) hours
availability in the forenoon and two (2) additional hours availability in the
afternoon, the deployment of which teaching assistant(s) shall be with the
concurrence of the teacher or teachers of the same grade level and the building
principal, lacking such concurrence, shall be at the direction of the building
principal.

Therefore, the class size operational goals of the district reflect a flexibility factor in the delivery of
instruction as follows:
Grades K-2, 18-20 pupils per class which reflects a 33% to 40% flexibility factor in
implementing the program compared to the class size guideline
of 20 to 30 pupils in the teachers contract agreement.
Grades 3-5, 21-25 pupils per class which reflects up to a 30% flexibility factor in
implementing the program compared to the class size guideline of 20-30 pupils in the
teachers contract agreement.
Grades 6-8, 24-26 pupils per class which reflects up to a 20% flexibility factor in
Grades 9-12, 26-27 pupils per class which reflects up to a 13.3% flexibility factor in

Flexibility of program delivery is an important tool in serving pupils and supporting instruction.
Functional operating pupil capacity is calculated based on the class size goals of the district plus
the planning for about 5 to 8% unassigned pupil capacity. It is suggested that the functional
operating capacity estimates are best to use for planning for three main reasons. First, flexibility is
necessary on a case-by-case basis annually to ensure that the pupils of a given school year are
served with a focus on what is educationally sound for those pupils in that school year. Second,
flexibility is necessary to deal with unforeseen ebbs and flows of seasonal enrollment fluctuations.
Third, flexibility is necessary to accommodate program/curriculum improvement ideas of faculty
and staff; and new initiatives supported by grants, for example. Such initiatives and ideas often
need more space instead of more money to implement them. Class sizes for self-contained
special education classrooms are outlined by SED regulation.

4

The enrollment projections as of March 2014 suggest that Guilderland will likely have a stable K-6
enrollment over the next five years and 7-12 enrollment will likely decline. Therefore, it is
suggested that the concept of functional operating capacity be used to view the estimated use of
pupil capacity of the school buildings three to five years into the future.

Charted below is a summary of the pupil capacity of each Guilderland school building based on the
local class size guidelines and how the principals deploy the spaces to deliver the 2013-2014
program. Please see the complete Pupil Capacity Analysis Study of February 2014 posted on the
school district website for the pupil capacity details of each building.
Summary of the Pupil Capacity of Each Guilderland CSD School Building 2013-2014

School
Building

2013-2014
Enrollment
(October 1,
2013)
2013-2014
Pupil Capacity K-12
(Not including space
rented to BOCES for
regional shared
programs or to the Early
Childhood Center.)
Total Pupil
Capacity
Used in
2013-2014
As Per
Class Size
Goals
Remaining
Pupil Capacity
Available in
2013-2014
As Per
Class Size Goals
Guilderland
Grade Level
Pupil
Capacity of
Space
Currently
Rented to
BOCES or
the Pre-
School
Early
Childhood
Center
Operating Capacity
Given how the Program
is Implemented/Deployed
in the Current School
Year Guided by the Local
District Class Size Goals

Percentage
Estimated
Additional
Pupil
Enrollment
that Could be
Served Now

% of
Pupil
Capacity
Not Now
Used
Altamont
Elementary
290 318-385 75.3%-
91.2%
28 to 95 pupils 8.8%- to
24.7%

0
Guilderland
Elementary
576 546-672 85.7%-
105.5%
-30 to 96
pupils
above by
5.5% to
under by
14.3%

0
Lynnwood
Elementary
404 396-476 84.9%-
102%
-8 to 72 pupils above by
2% to
under by
15.1%

84-100
Pine Bush
Elementary
396 417-509 77.8%-95% 21 to 113
pupils
5% to
22.2%

147-175
Westmere
Elementary
445 468-576 77.3%-
95.1%
23 to 131
pupils
4.9% to
22.7%

84-100

Total K-5: 2111 2145-2618 80.6%-
98.4%
34 to 507
pupils
1.6% to
19.4%
315 to 375
pupils

Farnsworth
Middle School
Total 6-8:
1141 1527-1631 70%-75.7% 386 to 490
pupils
25.3% to
30%
24-26

High School
Total 9-12:

1736

2128-2179
79.7%-
81.6%
392 to 443
pupils
18.4% to
20.3%

26-27

Total
K-12:

4988

5800-6428

77.6%-86%
812 to 1440
pupils
14% to
22.4%
365 to 458
pupils
FINDINGS
5
If one assumes that it is prudent to have at least 5% of unassigned pupil capacity to allow
flexibility in the delivery of the program, then the pupil capacity of the elementary schools is
under-utilized by about 14%; the Middle School is under-utilized by about 25%; and the High
School is under-used by about 17% given the current method of scheduling the use of
instructional spaces.
Grade level: Maximum Class
Size as per
Teachers
Contract
Maximum Class
Size as per
School District
Discretionary
Goals Now
Practices in
2013-2014
% of Pupil
Capacity Not
Used in 2013-
2014 as
Measured by the
Discretionary
School District
Class Size Goals
% of Pupil Capacity
Not Used in 2013-
2014 as per the
Discretionary Class
Size Goals and
Accounting For a
5% Unassigned
Pupil Capacity for
Flexibility of
Program Delivery
K,1,2
3,4,5
30 23 19.4% 14.4%
30 25
6,7,8 30 26 30% 25%
9, 10, 11, 12 30 27 22.4% 17.4%

OBSERVATIONS:
The pupil capacities available at each existing elementary school is a major element in
identifying doable scenario options that may possibly allow the district to organize and
implement the Pre-K-5 program more efficiently. Other variables like the distances
between each of the buildings and sets of buildings along with the historical number of
elementary age level students who live in each geographic attendance zone will also have
major influence on crafting doable scenario options.

It is important to note that pupil capacity of a school building is directly related to class
size guidelines/goals of the district. Pupil capacity is also related to how many
instructional spaces are used for direct instruction and how many spaces are assigned to
instructional support programs which do not generate pupil capacity in an elementary or a
secondary school. The delivery of the expected curriculum program is the overall driving
factor that determines the pupil capacity of the building. The expected curriculum
program is defined and approved by the Board of Education.

Guilderland rents space to programs provided on a shared basis to consortium school
districts of the region through the Capital Region BOCES. The best place to educate
special needs pupils is their home district. However, when space or numbers of similar
pupils with similar needs do not exist, the next best place to serve special needs pupils is
in a public school setting in a program provided on a shared basis by a BOCES.
Guilderland rents elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms to the Capital
FINDINGS
6
Region BOCES to enable the availability of quality and appropriate special needs pupil
programming to Guilderland pupils as well as to pupils from member school districts of
the Capital BOCES consortium. The willingness of Guilderland to host such shared
special needs programs through BOCES suggests a strong district value and philosophy
about serving all students in an integrated and inclusionary fashion. It also underscores
school district commitment to the diligent and focused work necessary for implementing
special needs integration and inclusion programming successfully by Guilderland faculty
and staff. In addition, Pine Bush Elementary space is rented to the Early Childhood
Center. The Center serves pre-school three to five year olds.

In addition, there are pragmatic benefits to collaborating on a regional basis to provide
quality instructional space for shared programming. First, any Guilderland pupils
enrolled in consortium-shared programs receive an appropriate program and are served in
their home district. Second, Guilderland receives an annual rental income for hosting the
classrooms. In 2013-2014 the total rent revenue is about $529,000. Third, Guilderland
staff benefit from daily instructional collaboration with instructional colleague specialists
of the BOCES and the Early Childhood Center. Fourth, the operating capacity of the
classrooms rented to BOCES to serve pupils from the region is counted in addition to the
allowed capacity substantiated by the K-12 enrollments of the pupils who live in the
Guilderland School District when capital/renovation projects are reviewed by the State
Education Department. Therefore, the rooms rented to the BOCES to benefit children
from the region generate additional building aid ceilings for the Guilderland buildings
that host them when capital projects are undertaken by the Guilderland School District
and its taxpayers.

A fifth benefit to Guilderland from renting un-needed classroom space is that the
district has been able to help justify keeping all five neighborhood elementary schools
open even though Guilderland CSD annual enrollments since at least 2008-2009 have
been lower than the total pupil capacity available in the five elementary schools.

Pupil Capacity as per District
Class Size Goals:
Minimum:
2145
Maximum:
2618

10% of pupil
capacity
undesignated
for flexibility
of program
delivery:
Estimated
excess
pupil
capacity in
the five
elementary
schools:

Available Unused Pupil
Capacity
Year K-5
Enrollment
2008 2194 -49 424 43 381
2009 2191 -46 427 43 384
2010 2184 -39 434 44 390
2011 2088 57 530 53 477
2012 2090 55 528 53 475
2013 2111 34 507 51 455

The table on the next page identifies the rental spaces in the five elementary schools and
the corresponding excess grade level classroom pupil capacity represented by those
spaces.

FINDINGS
7

2013-2014
Enrollment:
2011
Pupil Capacity as
per District Goals:
2145-2618
Excess Pupil
Capacity Less 10%
Unassigned Capacity
for Program Flexibility
2013 Excess
Pupil Capacity
Rented: (see table
below)
Altamont Elementary 290 318-385

345

0
Guilderland Elementary 576 546-672 0
Lynnwood Elementary 404 396-476 100
Pine Bush Elementary 396 417-509 175
Westmere Elementary 445 318-385 100
Total: 375

2013-2014 ELEMENTARY SPACE RENTED BY GUILDERLAND CSD

LYNNWOOD ELEMENTARY
BOCES 12:1:3 153 770
Rented Pupil Capacity:
84-100
BOCES 12:1:3 152 770
BOCES 8:1:3 151 770
BOCES Instructional
Support
158 720
PINE BUSH ELEMENTARY
ECEC Rental 300 830
Rented Pupil Capacity:
147-175
ECEC Rental 301 820
ECEC Rental 302 820
ECEC Rental 304 820
ECEC Rental 305 830
WESTMERE ELEMENTARY
BOCES 8:1:1 114 789 Rented Pupil Capacity:
84-100 BOCES 8:1:1 116 789
BOCES 12:1:1 152 802
BOCES 8:1:1 151 802
Rented excess elementary pupil capacity in 2013-2014: 315 to 375 pupils

If the rental opportunities were not available to Guilderland, or Guilderland decided to
curtail renting, then the future enrollment K-5 estimates, given the pupil capacity
available, suggest that one fewer elementary school is necessary to deliver the current
Guilderland K-5 program. Re-drawing the five current elementary attendance zones to
service by four elementary attendance zones would be necessary.

The study does not provide a scenario option that ends renting space to the BOCES or
the Early Childhood Education Center or for the Deaf/Hard of Hearing Program. Such a
scenario option that does end the rental of space and is a viable option given the future
enrollment projections for the district if the district wished to close a building. Currently,
the district rents the equivalent of the Westmere Elementary School. Westmeres pupil
capacity is up to 385. The District rents pupil capacity equaling about 375.

However, the renting of the space to partner educational agencies has long been part of
the Guilderland culture as a school district and a regional educational partner with other
school districts. It seems to be an intrinsic value of the district. If Guilderland made the
FINDINGS
8
value judgment to curtail renting, this section of the study gives Guilderland sufficient
data to create and pursue a scenario what if option as to how the Guilderland K-5
program could be served in fewer buildings with excess space not rented.

The Middle School architectural design includes the instructional delivery tool of 7
subject area teacher work-office rooms. The availability of such professional support
spaces are a key element for buildings that deliver a middle school program. The teacher
workrooms include adult desks with the purpose of providing professional space for
teams of teachers to meet/work together/collaborate. Such a tool allows the classrooms
to be utilized for classes throughout the day for instruction in a shared manner. For
example, when an English teacher has an assigned preparation period, a Social Studies
teacher of the team will be teaching in the classroom while the English teacher is in the
Professional Work-Office Room working on preparation or collaboration with other
colleagues. Because of declining enrollment in grades 6-8 in the recent past, the teacher
team workrooms are not used as a main tool as they once were. Instead, classrooms tend
to be assigned to one teacher. When that teacher is not with a class, the classroom is
vacant. Team meetings and collaborative planning are held in classrooms instead of the
Teacher Work Rooms.

To illustrate, here is a sample set of four rooms and how they are used in the school day
this school year.

Room
HR

10
min.
Per.
1

40
min.
Per.
2

40
min.
Per.
3

40
min.
Per.
4

30
min.
Per.
5

10
min.

Per.
6

30
min.
Per.
7

10
min.
Per.
8

30
min.
Per.
9

10
min.
Per.
10

30
min.
Per.
11

40
min.
Per.
12

40
min.
Per.
13

40
min.
356
Collab.
planning
Personal
planning

Team
Planning
Lunch duty

304

duty

357

duty

303

duty

Faculty members each teach 5 class periods plus have one supervisory duty period either
in a classroom or in the cafeteria or similar location. In addition, each faculty member is
assigned one period for collaborative planning, one period for team planning, and one
period for personal planning. All staff receive a 30 minute duty-free lunch.

In the example charted above, each room can accommodate nine 40 minute instructional
classes for a total of 36 classes daily by the four classrooms. However, only 24
classes/duty periods are assigned daily in total to the four classrooms. Assume that a
personal planning assignment is best located in the room a teacher instructs classes.
Also, assume collaborative planning and team planning requires only one setting to
accommodate a group/team of teachers. If the teacher professional workrooms were once
again used as the work location for teaming and collaboration, then, in the example
above, there are eight periods daily (four rooms x 2 periods) that could accommodate
assigned instructional classes taught by other faculty members instead of remaining
vacant.
FINDINGS
9

The Middle School serves four sets of middle school pupils in a teacher team structure
to deliver the instruction. One house serves elementary grade 6 and three houses
serve secondary grades 7 and 8. In 2013-2014, the Middle School serves 1141 pupils
with the four houses. There are 375 grade 6 pupils and 766 grade 7 and 8 pupils
enrolled.

If the Professional Work-Office Rooms were again used and classes were scheduled for
instructional use up to 8 periods a day, the Middle School conservatively can likely serve
up to an additional 329 pupils in a teaming instructional delivery model.

Not assigning just one classroom to a teacher can allow the Middle School to serve more
pupils without overcrowding. There are 59 classrooms at the Middle School. If fourteen
classrooms per period, now vacant of instruction, are used to serve pupils, then about 329
additional pupils can be served at the Middle School keeping within class size guidelines
and the facilities available for instruction. Therefore, there are scenario options listed
in the study that use the alternative pupil capacity for the Middle School.

The Pupil Capacity Study is a useful tool to help judge if the current spaces assigned to
instructional support activities are equitable across the district. The instructional support
space data of the elementary school buildings can aid in local discussion of some typical
program discussion questions such as:
o What should be the reason for the availability of a unique instructional
support space and program in an elementary building and not in other
elementary buildings?
o What currently unique instructional support spaces and services should be
in each elementary school consistently as district-wide elements of the
Board-authorized elementary program?
o What instructional support spaces and services are appropriately unique to
one or more elementary buildings and attendance zones?
o Are there other instructional support spaces or services that should be
authorized as part of the program of each elementary school building?
Each secondary school?

The chart on the next page identifies spaces assigned to instructional support activities in
the elementary buildings in the current school year. In school districts with sharply
declining elementary enrollment, it is common to find the assignment of instructional
support services to rooms that are large enough to serve instructional grade level section
classrooms. Such a practice is appropriate. When school building space is available
because of decreasing enrollment, a typical guiding rule of good principalship is when
quality instructional space is available, do not turn the lights out, do not use it for storage,
use it somehow to serve pupils. For example, in a school building with falling
enrollment, one might find speech services, that are delivered in an individual or 3 to 4
pupil group, assigned to a full sized classroom of 770 square feet or larger instead of a
more appropriate space of 200 to 400 square feet. The Guilderland pupil capacity
analysis finds the support services that are assigned to spaces, which are large enough to
FINDINGS
10
serve grade level sections, are based on pedagogical reasons. A prime example is the
space assigned for Reading Support Services. All of the rooms assigned for Reading in
all the elementary buildings are large enough to host grade level class sections. However,
in Guilderland, two to four reading teachers team in an assigned classroom to serve
pupils in two to four small groups simultaneously instead of serving pupils in smaller 200
to 400 square feet spaces as isolated individual teachers. In many cases, the reading
instructional support classroom with a team of reading teachers is located adjacent and
with internal access to the library of the school building. It seems to reinforce the theme
of literacy for all and not just an extra help service.

Instructional support space in an elementary building does not have pupil capacity
assigned to it. Only space that serves grade level sections generates pupil capacity. If
an instructional support space is changed to serve a grade level section instead of a
support service, then it does have a pupil capacity assigned to its use as a grade level
classroom. A step in the study is to work with the principals to identify spaces that are
large enough to serve instructional grade level section classrooms instead of instructional
support service and/or could appropriately share with another instructional support
service in a different location in the building without hindering the instructional support
service to pupils. The study step is important to identify if a school could likely
accommodate more class sections than it does now if enrollment increased for that
building.

The findings of the study do not suggest that there is a set of rooms that should be
re-designated to grade level sections to increase pupil capacity. The school likely could
accommodate more classes than the study is using for its analysis of pupil capacity.
However, doing so would likely require changes to the current program offering.

For example, the principals might possibly review the space currently assigned in some
schools to ESL instruction, conference rooms, Occupational/Physical Therapy, and
Special Education Resource. If these instructional support services were served in
typically sized spaces for the service provided instead of in full-sized classrooms, then
the pupil capacity of a respective building could be increased. The Reading instructional
support rooms are another example. The instructional support service of Reading is
assigned to spaces that are large enough to serve grade level class sections. Typically,
Reading is assigned to spaces of about 400 to 500 square feet. However, at Guilderland,
it is a team of two to four Reading specialists who serve pupils in small groups in the
assigned Reading instructional support space of 770+square feet.
FINDINGS
11

SUPPORT
SERVICE
ALTAMONT
ELEM.
GUILDERLAND
ELEM.
LYNNWOOD
ELEM.
PINE BUSH
ELEM.
WESTMERE
ELEM.
Library 1907 2320 2100 2000 2835
Computer Lab 820 763
Computer Lab and
Speech
743 270/270
Music 780
Music 821 700 850 830 739
Instrumental music 806 700 310 830 364
Physical Education 2520 8000 4000 5845 3758
Physical Education 2400
Cafeteria 2413 3720 2000 2660 4760
Stage 680 900 1070 740 560
Nurse 300 445 350 308 374
Psychologist 119 230 137 246 96
Speech Shared 743
Speech 140 400 128 322 268
Social Worker 370 350 280 345 150
Remedial Services
(AIS)-Math
760 280 820 763
Reading Intervention 97
Reading Intervention 87
ESL Instruction 750 117 475 414
OT/PT 821 470 770 345 783
Art 1047 870 760 770 780
Faculty Workroom 730 870 588 840 763
Reading Teachers 784 720 840 1160 723
Reading Teachers 723
IST/Conference
Room
223 270 770 789
Special Needs
Resource
730 750 730 830 763
Special Needs
Resource
730 430 480 783
Copy room 277 163 88
BOCES RENTAL
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT
720 120
BOCES RENTAL
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT
263 470
BOCES RENTAL
INSTRUCTIONAL
SUPPORT
434

* Please note that a blank next to a support service/program indicates that this school building does not
have a space assigned to the support service/program and that other elementary building(s) in the district
do have assigned space.
FINDINGS
12

There are 106 grade level classrooms serving grades K-5 in 2013-2014. Fifty-six are
sized at or above the minimum 770 square feet suggested by the SED for elementary
grade rooms. Fifty of the 106 are sized below the minimum suggested square footage.
All of the elementary classrooms meet the square footage minimum suggested
requirements to serve the class sizes defined by the school district class size goals; 18-23
for grades kindergarten through grade two, 21-25 for grades three through five. The
buildings with classrooms below 770 square feet may be challenged as the district plans
and possibly implements such example initiatives as: instructional technology teaching-
learning opportunities; integration of push-in services to the regular classroom for
special needs pupils; science-technology-engineering-mathematics curriculum (STEM);
team and consultant teaching techniques.

Classroom sizes Used to Deliver Grade Level Instruction in 2013-2014

Square Footage 900+ 800 to 899 770 to 799 700 to 769 550 to 699
SCHOOL
BUILDING
Above or at standard classroom square
footage.
Below standard classroom square footage.
Altamont 2 13
Guilderland 4 2 22
Lynnwood 3 10 5
Pine Bush 2 18 1
Westmere 4 4 6 10

The pupil capacities of the current elementary schools from smallest to largest are charted
below:

Elementary School:
Pupil Capacity Based on the Minimum-Maximum Class Size Goals of
the District and the Use of Existing Classroom Spaces in 2013-2014
Altamont 318-385
Lynnwood 396-476
Pine Bush 417-509
Westmere 468-576
Guilderland 546-672

Total: 2145-2618

2013-2014 K-5 Enrollment: 2111

Elementary Schools currently at 98.4% of pupil capacity based on the minimum district class size goals and 80.6%
pupil capacity based on the maximum district class size goals

The Middle School in 2013-2014 is at 70 to 75.7% of operating capacity benchmarked to the
class size goals of the district.

The High School in 2013-2014 is at 79.7 to 81.6%% of operating capacity benchmarked to the
class size goals of the district.

FINDINGS
13
Grade Level Class Section Enrollments Grades K-5 in 2013-2014

The tables that follow list the grade level class section sizes at each of the elementary schools.
Also listed is the range in grade level class section sizes and the average grade level class section
size at each school. The data help demonstrate the connection among the class size goals of the
district; the number of pupil residents in a respective attendance zone; and the grade level class
section sizes in each current elementary attendance zone. The chart also illustrates any equity
gaps in class section sizes among the five elementary attendance zones. The equity gaps are a
result of the size of a particular age level cohort of students who live in a current attendance
zone. The lack of pupils of an age level in an attendance zone usually hinders the effective
delivery of the program as close to the class size goals of the district.
2013-2014 SCHOOL YEAR ELEMENTARY GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION
ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2013

( ) is the number of special needs pupils integrated in the class section
with either an Independent Education Program or a 504 Plan*

GRADE LEVEL ALTAMONT
ELEM.
GUILDERLAND
ELEM.
LYNNWOOD
ELEM.
PINE BUSH
ELEM.
WESTMERE
ELEM.
KINDERGARTEN
Class size goal:
18-23
14 20 (1) 24 19 (1) 20
17 (4) 22 23 20 (1) 19 (3)
21 (1) 19 (2) 19
22 (3) 20
K Range 14-17 20-22 23-24 19-20 19-20
K Average 15.5 21.3 23.5 19.3 19.5

GRADE 1
Class size goal:
18-23
19 18 (3) 20 21 23
18 18 20 21 (4) 22 (4)
19 (2) 19 19 23 (3)
19
18 (2)
GRADE 1 Range 18-19 18-19 19-20 21-21 22-23
GRADE 1 Average 18.7 18.4 19.7 21 22.7

GRADE 2
Class size goal:
18-23
23 18 (1) 22 19 (3) 18
22 (3) 19 (5) 19 20 (1) 17
19 (1) 21 20 (1) 17
17 (3) 17 (3)
20 (1)
GRADE 2 Range 22-23 17-20 19-22 19-20 17-18
GRADE 2 Average 22.5 18.6 20.7 19.7 17.3

GRADE 3
Class size goal:
21-25
22 (1) 24 (3) 16 22 (3) 19
22 (3) 22 (4) 19 21 (1) 19
24 18 21 18 (6)
22 (1) 20 (5) 19
GRADE 3 Range 22-22 22-24 16-19 20-22 18-19
GRADE 3 Average 22 23 17.7 21 18.8
FINDINGS
14
GRADE LEVEL ALTAMONT
ELEM.
GUILDERLAND
ELEM.
LYNNWOOD
ELEM.
PINE BUSH
ELEM.
WESTMERE
ELEM.
GRADE 4
Class size goal:
21-25
17 18 26 23 (1) 20
20 (3) 20 (3) 22 22 (6) 19
16 (3) 20 (1) 25 23 (3) 18
20 (1) 19 (4)
20 (5)
GRADE 4 Range 16-20 18-20 22-26 22-23 18-20
GRADE 4 Average 17.7 19.6 24.3 22.7 19

GRADE 5
Class size goal:
21-25
17 21 (5) 18 21 (2) 20
17 (3) 22 (5) 21 21 (7) 19
19 (3) 21 (5) 18 21 (5) 21 (3)
22 (1) 20 22 (3) 19
21 (4)
GRADE 5 Range 17-19 21-22 18-21 21-22 19-21
GRADE 5 Average 17.7 21.4 19.3 21.2 19.8

* An IEP is an Individualized Education Program plan for special needs pupils. A 504 plan is
not an IEP, but a plan for moving a pupil from a special education to a regular education
placement. If a child has a disability that does not adversely affect educational performance,
then the child is not eligible for special education services. However, he/she will usually be
entitled to service/accommodations defined by a 504 plan.

The table below rank orders grade level class size average data for 2013-2014 building by
building.

GRADE
LEVEL
SCHOOL AVERAGE GRADE
LEVEL SECTION
SIZE RANK-ORDERED
LOWEST TO
HIGHEST
2013-2014 School Year

NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
LOWEST AND HIGHEST
GRADE LEVEL AVERAGE CLASS
SIZE AMONG THE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
KINDERGARTEN
Class size goal:
18-23
ALTAMONT 15.5
Grade Kindergarten Equity Gap:
8 pupils;
34% difference high to low
PINE BUSH 19.3
WESTMERE 19.5
GUILDERLAND 21.3
LYNNWOOD 23.5

GRADE 1
Class size goal:
18-23
GUILDERLAND 18.4
Grade One Equity Gap:
4.3 pupils;
18.9% difference high to low
ALTAMONT 18.7
LYNNWOOD 19.7
PINE BUSH 21
WESTMERE 22.7

GRADE 2
Class size goal:
18-23
WESTMERE 17.3
Grade Two Equity Gap:
5.2 pupils
GUILDERLAND 18.6
PINE BUSH 19.7
LYNNWOOD 20.7
ALTAMONT 22.5
FINDINGS
15
GRADE
LEVEL
SCHOOL AVERAGE GRADE
LEVEL SECTION
SIZE RANK-ORDERED
LOWEST TO
HIGHEST
2013-2014 School Year

NET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
LOWEST AND HIGHEST
GRADE LEVEL AVERAGE CLASS
SIZE AMONG THE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
GRADE 3
Class size goal:
21-25
LYNNWOOD 17.7
Grade Three Equity Gap:
5.3 pupils;
23% difference high to low
WESTMERE 18.8
PINE BUSH 21
ALTAMONT 22
GUILDERLAND 23

GRADE 4
Class size goal:
21-25
ALTAMONT 17.7
Grade Four Equity Gap:
6.6 pupils;
WESTMERE 19
GUILDERLAND 19.6
PINE BUSH 22.7
LYNNWOOD 24.3

GRADE 5
Class size goal:
21-25
ALTAMONT 17.7
Grade Five Equity Gap:
3.7 pupils;
LYNNWOOD 19.3
WESTMERE 19.8
PINE BUSH 21.2
GUILDERLAND 21.4

The table on the next pagelists the on-average efficient deployment of instructional staff skills
at each grade level K-5 for 2013-2014. The table is based on the premise that the local
Guilderland operational class size goals define the efficient deployment of instructional staff.
That is, unless there is a clearly defined student need variable that requires a class size lower
than the class size goal of the district, an indicator of financial efficiency in deploying staff is
how close the average of the class sections at each grade level in a school building approaches
the district class size goal for that grade level.

For example, at grade five 25 pupils is the class size maximum goal. If the average of all of the
class sections of grade five at a school equals 20, then the on-average collective utilization of
instructional staff assigned at grade five in that school is 20 divided by 25 resulting in a
deployment efficiency indicator of 80% as defined by the maximum district class size goal. If
the average of all of the class sections of grade five at a school equals 20, then the on-average
collective utilization of instructional staff assigned at grade five in that school is 20 divided by
21 resulting in a deployment efficiency indicator of 95% as defined by the minimum district
class size goal. This approach of viewing and discussing efficient deployment of instructional
staff is not an absolute measure nor should it be an absolute decision guide. Delivering
FINDINGS
16
instruction is a human enterprise and flexibility in the implementation of instruction because of
pre-defined variables cannot be ignored. At the same time, professional instructional human
resources are the backbone of the public school enterprise funded with public resources. The
study suggests that an on-average utilization of instructional staff as benchmarked to the district
grade level class section size goal between 90% and 100% is one reasonable criterion/objective
to help define the efficient deployment of teaching staff.

In addition, viewing the utilization of staff in this manner helps the local district discussion about
weighing the cost of implementing the program guided by the minimum district class size goal as
compared to the maximum class size goal for a grade level. In the grade five example on the
previous page, the additional cost of implementing the program at grade five using the minimum
class size goal requires on average 15% more of an FTE instructor as compared to implementing
the program at grade five using the maximum class size goal. The average 2013-2014 full time
equivalent cost (all inclusive of salary and all benefits) of a K through grade 6 teacher in
Guilderland is $93,698. Therefore, implementing the program at grade 5 using the minimum
district class size goal costs an additional $14,054 on average per grade five level class section.

Only the school district can decide if there are measureable value-added learning outcomes by
delivering grade 5 with an on-average class size at the minimum goal of 21, compared to the
maximum class size goal of 25 pupils at the additional on-average per class section cost of about
$14,000. One quality study to help the discussion is the research by the Brown Center on
Education Policy at Brookings, Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State
Policy, Published May 11, 2011.
2013-2014

GRADE
LEVEL

SCHOOL

AVERAGE
GRADE
LEVEL
SECTION
SIZE

On Average
Efficient Deployment
of Instructional Staff Skill sets
Benchmarked to District Class Size
MINIMUM
Goal for the Grade Level
(average grade level class size at a
school divided by the minimum
district class size goal
for the grade level)
On Average
MAXIMUM
school divided by the maximum
K
Class
size goal:
18-23
ALTAMONT 15.5 86% 67%
PINE BUSH 19.3 107% 84%
WESTMERE 19.5 108% 85%
GUILDERLAND 21.3 118% 93%
LYNNWOOD 23.5 131% 102%
FINDINGS
17

GRADE
LEVEL

SCHOOL

AVERAGE
GRADE
LEVEL
SECTION
SIZE

On Average
MINIMUM
school divided by the minimum
On Average
MAXIMUM
school divided by the maximum
GRADE
1
Class
size goal:
18-23
ALTAMONT 18.7 104% 81%
LYNNWOOD 19.7 109% 86%
PINE BUSH 21 117% 91%
WESTMERE 22.7 126% 99%

GRADE
2
Class
size goal:
18-23
WESTMERE 17.3 96% 75%
PINE BUSH 19.7 109% 86%
LYNNWOOD 20.7 115% 90%
ALTAMONT 22.5 125* 98%

GRADE
3
Class
size goal:
21-25
LYNNWOOD 17.7 84% 71%
WESTMERE 18.8 90% 75%
PINE BUSH 21 100% 84%
ALTAMONT 22 105% 88%
GUILDERLAND 23 110% 92%

GRADE
4
Class
size goal:
21-25
ALTAMONT 17.7 84% 71%
WESTMERE 19 90% 76%
PINE BUSH 22.7 108% 91%
LYNNWOOD 24.3 116% 97%

GRADE
5
Class
size goal:
21-25
ALTAMONT 17.7 84% 71%
LYNNWOOD 19.3 92% 77%
WESTMERE 19.8 94% 79%
PINE BUSH 21.2 101% 85%

OBSERVATIONS:

Out of the 103 class sections serving grades Kindergarten through grade 5 pupils in 2013-2014, the
number of grade level sections that are:
Below the
minimum class
size goals set by
the district
At the minimum
class size goals
set by the district
At the maximum
class size goals
set by the district
Above the
maximum class
size goals set by
the district
In between the
minimum and
maximum class size
goals by the district
35 15 5 1 47
34% 15% 4% 1% 46%

FINDINGS
18
Only five K-5 elementary sections are at or above the maximum class size goals of the
district which substantiates that the district is not facing an overcrowding challenge in
serving grades K-5. 46% (47) of the 103 class sections fall within the minimum-
maximum class size goals of the district. Clearly, the class size goals of the district guide
the implementation and delivery of the program.

49% or 50 of the 103 class sections are either below or at the minimum class size goals of
the district. It suggests that the present location of the current elementary school zones
and the number of attendance zones may be inhibiting the achievement of class section
size goals in grades kindergarten through grade 5. In addition, as a by-product, the equity
of class section sizes among buildings with the same grade levels is not achieved in all
grade levels.

The plurality of grades K-5 class sections falls in between the minimum and maximum
class size goals of the district and defines a norm for the district. Therefore, the study
will begin to use the following average of the class size district goals to develop/describe
possible scenario options to deliver the program differently over the next three to five
years.

Grade Levels Minimum Goal Maximum Goal Average of the Class Size Parameters
K, 1, 2 18 23 21
3, 4, 5 21 25 23

If one applies the average of the class size district goals to the total pupils in each grade
kindergarten through grade 5, then 90 grade level sections instead of 103 could serve all
of the (2013-2014) K-5 pupils. It assumes a delivery pattern is configured that provides
enough of a grade level population at a site(s) to meet the average of the grade level
section class size goals of the district.

2013-2014
Enrollment
Average of the
Class Size Goals
Optimal Number of Sections
Needed to Deliver the
Program
K 300 23 13
1 328 23 15
2 345 23 15
3 349 25 14
4 379 25 16
5 409 25 17
Total: 90

It is important to point out that determining class size delivery is not just a mathematical
exercise of dividing the total population by the class size goal. A priority element is
deciding how best to serve a specific set of pupils given their learning skill sets and the
instructional goals for those pupils. Pedagogy and skill sets of the teacher are usually
considered primary variables. Class size is also a variable. Therefore, having some
flexibility by leaving a factor of unassigned pupil capacity for a building is a good
planning step. Therefore, the study is not suggesting that 90 Kindergarten through grade
FINDINGS
19
5 class sections is what ought to exist instead of the current 103 sections. The study is
suggesting that there may be scenario options that may require fewer than the current 103
sections, serve pupils within the class size goals of the district, and support the expected
program delivery standards.

Given that there are five elementary attendance zones with no guarantee of pupil cohort
populations at a particular grade level, the district is achieving equity (balance) of class
sizes within grade levels within each building. However, there are some equity gaps in
grade level class section sizes between and among the elementary school buildings and
the attendance zones they serve.

The grade level section equity gaps are not a result of poor resource allocation or class
section assignment. Rather, the gaps occur simply because of the lack of pupils at a
particular grade level who live within the various elementary attendance zones. Only
the district can judge what is an acceptable difference in average grade level class sizes
between and among the elementary schools.

In 2013-2014, the equity gaps between the lowest and highest grade level section class
sizes among the elementary buildings for grades kindergarten through grade five range
from 3.7 pupils to 8 pupils. There is no one configuration or plan that can guarantee that
there will be no equity gaps between grade level section class averages in one school
compared to another. However, are there grade level building configurations and/or
attendance zone change options that might reduce the equity gaps in average grade level
section sizes between and among the elementary school buildings?

Kindergarten Class Size
Equity Gap: 8 pupils
Altamont
lowest average at 15.5
Lynnwood
highest average at 23.5
34%
difference
Grade Four Class Size
Equity Gap: 6.6 pupils
Altamont
Lynnwood
27.2%
difference
Grade Two Class Size
Westmere
Altamont
23.1%
difference
Grade Three Class Size
Lynnwood
Guilderland
highest average at 23
23%
difference
Grade One Size
Guilderland
Westmere
18.9%
difference
Grade Five Size
Altamont
Guilderland
17.3%
difference

The district may begin to experience dilemma decision circumstances as enrollment in the
current five attendance zones decreases or increases. Such dilemma decisions occur when
the district must consider the best interest of children in deciding to increase or decrease the
number of grade level class sections to implement and honor its values about the class size
goals of the district. On the next page is an example using the current school year grade 4
and grade 5 enrollments at Altamont Elementary.

FINDINGS
20
Grade 4: average class size goal 23 Grade 5: average class size goal 23
Six Classroom Sections Currently at Altamont
17 17
20 17
16 19
106 pupils to serve
An alternative method of delivering instruction: Multi-age Level Delivery Model
Five Classroom Sections
Grade 4 Grade 5
22 22
22 22
Plus One Multi-age Level Classroom of 18 pupils
106 pupils served

When such enrollment circumstances occur, as illustrated above, at the same time at two or
three other grade levels at multiple schools, the district is faced with deploying more staff than
might be necessary to serve pupils within the class size goals of the district. The
implementation of a multi-age level pedagogy to deliver instruction can help assign staff in a
more cost-efficient manner without jeopardizing the commitment to the established class size
goals of the district. Each elementary FTE at Guilderland CSD on average costs $93,698
inclusive of all costs for salary and benefits in 2013-2014.

Other districts, when faced with the circumstances described above, often implement a multi-
age level delivery model. Such a model enables a school district to adhere to its class size
values and to deploy talented teaching staff efficiently. Guilderland CSD may wish to explore
and consider the multi-age delivery concept as one method to deal with dilemma decisions
regarding the number of elementary grade level sections and meeting the class size average
goals of the district.

Article 11.1 of the Teachers Contract addresses clustering and/or inter-age grouping projects.
It states:
The present clustering and/or inter-age grouping projects may be extended. Teacher
involvement shall be on a voluntary basis. In no event shall the introduction of such
projects result in the termination of a teacher.

The district may want to determine if a multi-age class section delivery model is a project.
The implementation example above allows about $93,698 to reduce budget expenditures
and/or to be used differently and reallocated to provide a different resource for pupils like an
added reading teacher, for example.

What is a multi-age level delivery model?
The multi-age instructional delivery technique uses a flexible age and curricular approach
to instruction. Students within an age range of usually a two-year span are grouped
together into classroom sections. The focus of curriculum delivery in a multi-age
classroom is using varied learning opportunities such as learning centers that emphasize a
shared learning experience with other students and the teacher. The multi-age delivery
method can help students more readily learn at their own pace with recognition of the
FINDINGS
21
varied learning styles of individual students. Recent research has shown that there are
benefits to a wide range of learners in this type of instructional model.

In addition to the potential for providing options for the instruction of students, the multi-
age model can also better handle fluctuations in student enrollment. In a traditional class
section model, a drop in students at one level can cause one classroom to end up with
higher enrollment while another may have quite lower enrollment. With a multi-age
model, student numbers that go up or down can more readily be absorbed without
negatively affecting class size equity. The option may be a tool to help ensure class size
equity among the elementary buildings of the district when the elementary enrollments in
the separate attendance zones become out of balance by age/grade level of pupils.

It is a pedagogy that requires talented and skilled teachers and the support of those
teachers with materials and in-service opportunities regarding differentiated instruction
skills.

Generally, a multi-age classroom teacher: is flexible; has skill sets to work with
differentiated learning groups; is an effective communicator with students, staff, and
parents; desires to grow professionally; demonstrates values and skills regarding adaption
and change. Generally, a multi-age classroom pupil: possesses peer leadership skills;
has the ability and desire to work independently at times; naturally has cooperative
learning skills and works well with other students; may be a student with an IEP
(Individual Learning Program plan) and can benefit from a diverse class.

The study suggests that the efficient deployment of instructional staff is defined by the
local Guilderland class size goals of the district. An indicator of financial efficiency in
deploying staff is how close the average of the class sections at each grade level in a
school building approaches the district average class size goal for that grade level. A
reasonable exception is when there is a clearly pre-defined student need variable that
requires a class size lower than the class size goal of the district at a particular grade level
at a particular school in a given year.

There are 30 grade level class size averages in the five elementary schools collectively.
In thirteen instances (43.3%), the efficient deployment of staff falls below 90%. In five
instances (16.7%), the efficient deployment of staff exceeds 100%. The data suggest
that the lack of student population at various grade levels in various attendance zones is a
challenge in implementing the program efficiently as defined by district class size
goals. Are there option scenarios that might enable a higher rate of efficient deployment
of staff?

Grade;
Average Class Size
District Goal
ALTAMONT GUILDERLAND

LYNNWOOD

PINE BUSH WESTMERE
Average grade level section size 2013-2014--On Average Efficiency of Deployment
K; 21 15.5 74% 21.3 101% 23.5 112% 19.3 92% 19.5 93%
One; 21 18.7 89% 18.4 88% 19.7 94% 21 100% 22.7 108%
Two; 21 22.5 107% 18.6 89% 20.7 99% 19.7 94% 17.3 82%
Three; 23 22 96% 23 100% 17.7 77% 21 91% 18.8 82%
Four; 23 17.7 77% 19.6 85% 24.3 106% 22.7 99% 19 83%
Five; 23 17.7 77% 21.4 93% 19.3 84% 21.2 92% 19.8 86%
FINDINGS
22

FINDINGS OF THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS
(The complete Enrollment Projection Study of March 2014 is posted on the website of the
school district).

Variables that can Influence Future School District Enrollments
The six sources of current and projected school district enrollment are:
live births within the school district and their eventual kindergarten enrollment in the
district;
new household population with children who move to the district;
new population who move to the district who are at child-bearing age and plan to begin a
family;
enrollment of students from non-public schools or from home schooling settings;
school program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the
school district in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high
school graduation;
a change by other public schools, if any, who tuition students to attend Guilderland
School District.

If there are data to suggest that one or more of the variables listed above will not continue into
the near future of the next five years in the same historical pattern, then the baseline enrollment
projections results are modified to estimate the potential impact the variable(s) may have on
future school district enrollments. The enrollment projection calculations update estimates are
based on live births within the school district and the historical pattern of grade level enrollments
since 2008. The Enrollment Project Study of March 2014 discusses the above variables and the
Guilderland School District.

Historical Perspective of Annual Grade Level Enrollments

Total K-12 enrollment in the five enrollment years since 2008-2009 has changed from 5323
pupils to 4925 in the current school year. 398 fewer pupils equate to a -7.48% change over the
past six years. The six-year average is 5120 pupils and the median is 5137. The total enrollment
in grades K-5 changed from 2194 in 2008 to the current year total of 2110; a decrease of 84 or -
3.8%. The total enrollment in grades 6-8 changed from 1222 in 2008 to the current year total of
1128; a decrease of 94 or 7.7%. The total enrollment in grades 9-12 changed from 1907 in 2008
to the current year total of 1687; a decline of 232 or 14.6%.
FINDINGS
23

CHART TWO-B: GUILDERLAND
HISTORICAL K-5, 6-8, 9-12 ENROLLMENT
2008-2013
1907
1844
1817
1721
1680
1687
2194
2088
2110
2090
2184
2191
1128
1156
1228
1222 1239 1235
y =-23.4x +2224.7
y =-20.743x +1273.9
y =-48.229x +1944.8
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
2250
2300
08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14
YEAR
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
K-5 6-8 9-12

FINDINGS
24
Historical Perspective of Live Births in Albany County and the Guilderland CSD

Figure One charts the live birth data for Albany County since 2002. The annual totals of live
births in Albany County have trended downward from 2002 to 2011; slope of -9.4. The range
over ten years is from a high of 3226 in 2002 and 2005 to a low of 3063 in 2004. Figure Two
charts the live birth data for the Guilderland School District enrollment area since 2002. Births
in the Guilderland School District enrollment area have also declined over the past eleven years,
but at slower rate than the total for the County. However, the pattern of live births in the
Guilderland School District over the recent past from 2007 through 2012, has begun to trend
upward to stable; slope of .62 as illustrated in Figure Two-A.

FIGURE ONE: ALBANY COUNTY
LIVE BIRTHS 2002-2011
3220
3126
3218
3140
3176
3122 3074
3226
3063
3226
y =-9.4485x +3211.1
2000
2075
2150
2225
2300
2375
2450
2525
2600
2675
2750
2825
2900
2975
3050
3125
3200
3275
3350
3425
3500
3575
3650
3725
3800
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
YEAR
L
I
V
E

B
I
R
T
H
S

FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE
GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT AREA
2002-2012
319
353
285
303
281
316
266
294
305
329
298
y =-4.0182x +328.56
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
YEAR
L
I
V
E

B
I
R
T
H
S
Will the pattern of the
last eleven years of live
births in the district
continue over the next
five years?

FINDINGS
25

FIGURE TWO-A: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE
GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENROLLMENT AREA
2007-2012
316
298
294
305
266
281
y =0.6286x +291.13
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
YEAR
L
I
V
E

B
I
R
T
H
S
Will the pattern of the last six
years of live births in the
district continue over the next
five years?

Historical Perspective of Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollments in the Guilderland CSD

Figure Four charts the Guilderland School District kindergarten enrollment from 2004 through
2013. The data suggest a stable pattern of kindergarten enrollment over 10 years; +.09 slope.
Viewing kindergarten enrollment data over the past six years may provide a different perspective
about future kindergarten enrollments given the recent past. Figure Five charts the pattern of
kindergarten enrollment over the past six years. Since 2008, the pattern of kindergarten
enrollment is in decline (slope -4.5). Will the overall pattern of ten years of stable kindergarten
enrollment in the Guilderland District continue into the future? Will the decreasing pattern of
kindergarten enrollment growth since 2008 continue into the future?

FINDINGS
26

FIGURE FOUR: GUILDERLAND CSD KINDERGARTEN
ENROLLMENT 2004-2013
313
327
279
289
333
314
307
300
313
318
y =0.0909x +308.8
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
YEAR
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T

One way to suggest possible answers to the questions posed on the previous page is to compare
the pattern of kindergarten enrollments at Guilderland with the documented live births recorded
for the Guilderland School District enrollment area five years earlier each kindergarten
enrollment year. Figure Six on the next page illustrates the pattern of kindergarten enrollments
and the pattern of live births five years earlier each enrollment year.
FINDINGS
27

FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE
BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE GUILDERLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT
313
327
279
289
314
307
313
266
294
305
318
333
300
316
353
285
303
281
298
319
329
200
215
230
245
260
275
290
305
320
335
350
365
380
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR
N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

B
I
R
T
H
S

A
N
D

P
U
P
I
L
S
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER
WILL THE RATIO BETWEEN K
ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS
FIVE YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE
INTO THE FUTURE? WHAT
FACTORS MIGHT INFLUENCE
THE RATIO?

For, example, in 2010 there were 314 Guilderland kindergarten enrollees. Five years earlier in
2005 there were 285 live births recorded for the school district enrollment area. The resulting
live birth-kindergarten enrollment ratio is 1.101754 (110%). A limitation to the analysis is that
accurate, geocoded, annual live birth data for the school does not exist before 2002. Therefore,
comparing kindergarten enrollment numbers with births five years earlier in the district can only
reliably be done for six years; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Given the kindergarten-
live-birth ratios for 2007-2012, can the pattern of those ratios suggest what might be the
kindergarten enrollments in years 2013 through 2017? Note that from 2010 through 2012 there
are more Guilderland kindergarten enrollees than there were children born in the district five
years earlier. This suggests that new population to the district included children born elsewhere
and then enrolled at Guilderland for kindergarten. However, note also that in 2013, 300 pupils
enrolled in kindergarten, but 316 children were born five years earlier. After three years of
kindergarten-to-live-birth ratios of plus 100%, the kindergarten-to-live-birth ratio for 2013 is at
95% which is similar to the kindergarten-to-live-birth ratios for the years 2007 through 2009.
FINDINGS
28
The live birth data officially recorded by the NYS Health Department for Albany County, the
towns that make up the Guilderland School District, and for the school district enrollment area
do provide a documented population factor that can be charted and statistically used to forecast
estimated future kindergarten enrollments in the school district. There are no data to identify
specific kindergarten enrollments from 2007 through 2013 of children not born in the enrollment
area served by Guilderland and are from families who moved to the school district. Similarly,
there are no data to determine specifically how many children born in the school district
enrollment area in the years 2002-2008 moved from the area and, therefore, did not enroll in
Guilderland kindergarten classes for each year from 2007 through 2013. The study initially
assumes that the migration of students both into and out of the towns and the district will
continue in a similar manner as it has during the years since 2002.

Estimating future kindergarten enrollments is the most speculative aspect of projecting K-12
enrollments. However, analyzing historical annual kindergarten enrollments in concert with
historical annual live birth data and patterns do reveal a set of defendable estimates of future
kindergarten enrollments. These estimated future kindergarten enrollments then can be included
in the base cohort survival statistic application to project future K-12 enrollments.

Low, Mid, and High Kindergarten Enrollment Estimates
The historical kindergarten enrollments of the Guilderland School District and historical live
birth data are analyzed three ways. The three analyses form the basis for three kindergarten
enrollment forecasts. The three kindergarten forecasts are used to develop Low, Mid, and High
K-12 enrollment projection calculations. One forecast of future kindergarten enrollments
assumes that the live births in the school district enrollment area will continue in the same
pattern as it has for the past six years since 2007. It also assumes that the overall kindergarten
enrollment to live birth ratio for the years 2007 through 2013 (.994511) is a historically based
ratio that is possible to expect in the future. Forecast scenario one is the basis for the low range
enrollment projection calculations with a view of five years into the future.

A second forecast of estimated future kindergarten enrollments assumes that the live births in the
school district enrollment area will continue in the same pattern as it has for the past eleven years
FINDINGS
29
since 2002. It recognizes that the historical pattern since 2007 includes three years when the
number of kindergarteners enrolled at Guilderland exceeded the number of births recorded for
the school district five years earlier than the kindergarten enrollment year . The forecast assumes
that the historical pattern of kindergarten-to-live-birth ratios for the years 2007 through 2013 will
continue in the same pattern into the future. Forecast scenario two is the basis for the high range
enrollment projection calculations with a view of five years into the future.

A third forecast of kindergarten enrollments assumes that future kindergarten enrollments will
follow the historical pattern of kindergarten enrollments from 2004 through 2013 without
reference to historical live birth trends or kindergarten-to-live-birth ratio patterns. Forecast
scenario three is the basis for the mid range enrollment projection calculations with a view of
five years into the future.

The three methods of estimating possible future kindergarten enrollments along with the
historical grade level enrollment patterns K-12 since 2008 form the basis for low, mid and high
range Base Cohort Enrollment Projections.

Enrollment Projection Estimates and the Residential Housing Market
The residential development data from the Towns as of March 2014 suggest that there is the
potential for 160 single-family residential units, 8 apartments, plus 88 senior citizen apartments
to be built, sold, and/or rented in the Guilderland School District over the next four years, 2014-
2017.

Single
Family
Units
TOWN 2014 2015 2016 2017
Town of Guilderland

Estimated existing family-sized
residential properties added to the for
sale inventory due to Guilderland
residents choosing to move to the Mill
Hollow Senior Citizen Development
29

11
42

11
46

11
43

11

Single
Rental
Units
Town of Guilderland 4 4

FINDINGS
30
The study suggests that the estimated construction and marketing of new household units over
the next four years will add a potential of about 541 new residents to the Guilderland School
District. Of that possible new population, it is estimated that about 127 will be between the age
of 0 and 19. These 127 children may add to the public school district population over the eight
years from 2015 through 2022. It is estimated that each new housing unit on average will
include .623 school age children over the years 2015-2022. Currently, in 2013, each household
unit in the Guilderland School District has on average .337 public school pupils. Note that the
study conservatively assumes that all potential school age-pupils from the estimated residential
unit development will attend the public school and not a private setting. Actual new pupil
enrollment may be lower.

The base cohort K-12 low, mid, and high enrollment projections are recalculated by factoring the
estimated added annual pupil enrollment due to proposed housing unit housing market influences
as of March 2014.

Enrollment Projection Estimates as of J anuary 2014 and Guilderland CSD School Building Pupil
Capacity

Base Cohort Projections:

o Grades K-5 enrollment may remain stable over the next five years per
the most optimistic estimate. The most conservative estimate suggests an
enrollment of about 165 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.
o Grades 6-8 enrollment may likely decrease up to 100 pupils over the next
eight years. The most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about
40 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.
o Grades 9-12 enrollment may likely decline up to 210 pupils over the next
10 years. The most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about

o Grades K-6 enrollment may likely remain stable over the next five years.
The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 175 fewer
pupils compared to 2013-2014.
o Grades 7-12 enrollment may likely decline by up to 200 pupils over the
next ten years. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of
about 300 fewer pupils compared to 2013-2014.

FINDINGS
31
Baseline Enrollment Projections (shaded estimates used by SED for facility project submittals)
Calculation Year Grades
K-5
Grades
6-8
Grades
9-12
Total
K-12
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2110 1128 1687 4925

Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2016-2017 1963 1176 1560 4700
2018-2019 1942 1097 1576 4614
2021-2022 1970 1029 1520 4519
2023-2024 1967 1027 1476 4470

Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2016-2017 2045 1176 1560 4782
2018-2019 2053 1097 1576 4726
2021-2022 2068 1099 1520 4687
2023-2024 2070 1111 1493 4675

Baseline Cohort
High Range
2016-2017 2051 1176 1560 4788
2018-2019 2108 1097 1576 4781
2021-2022 2181 1088 1520 4788
2023-2024 2160 1146 1506 4812

Year Grades K-6 Grades 7-12
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2481 2444

Baseline Cohort
Low Range
2016-2017 2323 2377
2018-2019 2302 2312
2021-2022 2282 2236
2023-2024 2324 2145

Baseline Cohort
Mid Range
2016-2017 2405 2377
2018-2019 2414 2312
2021-2022 2434 2253
2023-2024 2436 2239

Baseline Cohort
High Range
2016-2017 2411 2377
2018-2019 2469 2312
2021-2022 2523 2265
2023-2024 2566 2246

Base Cohort Projections Plus Potential Influence of New Housing Units as of March 2014:

o Grades K-5 enrollment may increase by about 30 pupils over the next five years per the
most optimistic estimate. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about
o Grades 6-8 enrollment may likely decrease up to 80 pupils over the next eight years. The
most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about 20 fewer pupils compared to 2013-
2014.
o Grades 9-12 enrollment may likely decline up to 185 pupils over the next 10 years. The
most optimistic estimate suggests an enrollment of about 155 fewer pupils compared to
2013-2014.

FINDINGS
32
o Grades K-6 enrollment may increase by about 30 pupils over the next five years. The most
conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 135 fewer pupils compared to 2013-
2014.
o Grades 7-12 enrollment may likely decline by up to about 155 pupils over the next ten
years. The most conservative estimate suggests an enrollment of about 260 fewer pupils
compared to 2013-2014.

Baseline Enrollment Projections Plus the Estimated Influence of New Housing Units as of March 2014
(shaded estimates used by SED for facility project submittals)
Calculation Year Grades
K-5
Grades
6-8
Grades
9-12
Total
K-12
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2110 1128 1687 4925

Baseline Cohort Plus
Housing
Low Range
2016-2017 1980 1186 1583 4750
2018-2019 1976 1117 1618 4712
2021-2022 1999 1048 1549 4596
2023-2024 1987 1046 1502 4535

Baseline Cohort Plus
Housing
Mid Range
2016-2017 2062 1186 1583 4832
2018-2019 2088 1117 1618 4824
2021-2022 2098 1118 1549 4765
2023-2024 2090 1130 1520 4740

Baseline Cohort
Plus Housing
High Range
2016-2017 2068 1186 1583 4837
2018-2019 2143 1117 1618 4879
2021-2022 2211 1106 1549 4866
2023-2024 2180 1165 1532 4877
Year Grades
K-6
Grades
7-12
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2013-2014 2481 2444

Baseline Cohort
Plus Housing
Low Range
2016-2017 2343 2407
2018-2019 2343 2369
2021-2022 2318 2278
2023-2024 2350 2185

Baseline Cohort
Plus Housing
Mid Range
2016-2017 2425 2407
2018-2019 2455 2369
2021-2022 2470 2295
2023-2024 2462 2278

Baseline Cohort
Plus Housing
High Range
2016-2017 2431 2407
2018-2019 2510 2369
2021-2022 2559 2307
2023-2024 2592 2286

The study applies the range of enrollment projections from the Base Cohort Low Range Estimate
to the High Range Plus Housing Estimate to benchmark suggested building and grade level
scenario options that the district may want to explore.
FINDINGS
33
BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR
GUILDERLAND CSD
LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTION
YEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K
2014 2462 2401 4862 2476 2401 4876 2486 2401 4886
2015 2365 2408 4773 2425 2408 4833 2416 2408 4824
2016 2323 2377 4700 2405 2377 4782 2411 2377 4788
2017 2318 2343 4662 2411 2343 4754 2451 2343 4795
2018 2302 2312 4614 2414 2312 4726 2469 2312 4781
2019 2289 2322 4610 2420 2322 4742 2490 2322 4811
2020 2283 2304 4587 2433 2304 4737 2518 2304 4822
2021 2282 2236 4519 2434 2253 4687 2523 2265 4788
2022 2319 2162 4480 2435 2232 4668 2566 2221 4786
2023 2324 2145 4470 2436 2239 4675 2566 2246 4812
YEAR K-5 6-8 9-12 K-12 K-5 6-8 9-12 K-12 K-5 6-8 9-12 K-12
2014 2046 1150 1667 4862 2060 1150 1667 4876 2070 1150 1667 4886
2015 1980 1187 1607 4773 2040 1187 1607 4833 2030 1187 1607 4824
2016 1963 1176 1560 4700 2045 1176 1560 4782 2051 1176 1560 4788
2017 1955 1123 1584 4662 2048 1123 1584 4754 2088 1123 1584 4795
2018 1942 1097 1576 4614 2053 1097 1576 4726 2108 1097 1576 4781
2019 1935 1091 1585 4610 2066 1091 1585 4742 2136 1091 1585 4811
2020 1934 1077 1576 4587 2067 1094 1576 4737 2141 1106 1576 4822
2021 1970 1029 1520 4519 2068 1099 1520 4687 2181 1088 1520 4788
2022 1974 1019 1487 4480 2069 1111 1487 4668 2181 1118 1487 4786
2023 1967 1027 1476 4470 2070 1111 1493 4675 2160 1146 1506 4812

SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS INFLUENCED
BY ADDED NEW UNITS TO THE HOUSING MARKET
GUILDERLAND CSD
YEAR K-5 6-8 9-12 TOTALS K-5 6-8 9-12 TOTALS K-5 6-8 9-12 TOTALS
2014 2046 1150 1667 4862 2060 1150 1667 4876 2070 1150 1667 4886
2015 1987 1191 1617 4795 2047 1191 1617 4855 2038 1191 1617 4846
2016 1980 1186 1583 4750 2062 1186 1583 4832 2068 1186 1583 4837
2017 1981 1138 1617 4737 2074 1138 1617 4830 2114 1138 1617 4870
2018 1976 1117 1618 4712 2088 1117 1618 4824 2143 1117 1618 4879
2019 1969 1111 1622 4702 2100 1111 1622 4833 2170 1111 1622 4902
2020 1966 1096 1609 4671 2100 1113 1609 4821 2173 1125 1609 4907
2021 1999 1048 1549 4596 2098 1118 1549 4765 2211 1106 1549 4866
2022 1999 1038 1514 4552 2095 1130 1514 4739 2206 1137 1514 4858
2023 1987 1046 1502 4535 2090 1130 1520 4740 2180 1165 1532 4877
YEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12
2014 2462 2401 4862 2476 2401 4876 2486 2401 4886
2015 2374 2421 4795 2434 2421 4855 2425 2421 4846
2016 2343 2407 4750 2425 2407 4832 2431 2407 4837
2017 2349 2388 4737 2442 2388 4830 2482 2388 4870
2018 2343 2369 4712 2455 2369 4824 2510 2369 4879
2019 2329 2372 4702 2460 2372 4833 2530 2372 4902
2020 2322 2350 4671 2471 2350 4821 2557 2350 4907
2021 2318 2278 4596 2470 2295 4765 2559 2307 4866
2022 2350 2202 4552 2467 2272 4739 2597 2261 4858
2023 2350 2185 4535 2462 2278 4740 2592 2286 4877

FINDINGS
34
Charted below are the pupil capacity data for each school compared to the estimated future
enrollments by current grade level configurations.
The enrollment projection estimates suggest the following ranges of unused pupil capacity in the
current school buildings will likely exist into the future. (Note that it is assumed that the current
space rented to the BOCES will continue to be rented for regional programming.)

Pupil
Capacity
Range Based
on Minimum
to Maximum
District Class
Size Goals:
Pupil Capacity
Based on
Average District
Class Size Goals
(pupil capacity of
the space currently
rented to the
BOCES is not
included):
Estimated Enrollment
in 2016-17
(low to high
projections):
Estimated Unused Pupil
Capacity in 2016-17 with
the current grade level and
school building
configurations:

K-5 PUPIL
CAPACITY

2145-2618

2381

1963 to 2068
418 to 313;
17.6% to 13.1%
6-8 PUPIL
CAPACITY

1527-1631

1579

1176 to 1186
403 to 393;
25.5% to 24.9%
9-12 PUPIL
CAPACITY

2128-2179

2153

1560 to 1583
593 to 570;
27.5% to 26.5%

FINDINGS, INFERENCES AND OBSERVATIONS BASED ON THE VISITS TO EACH
GUILDERLAND SCHOOL BUILDING AND THE INTERVIEWS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM

o Below are the annual October enrollments of each of the five elementary buildings since
2008.

School
Year:
ALTAMONT GUILDERLAND LYNNWOOD PINE
BUSH
WESTMERE
2008 283 529 443 484 451
2009 293 537 435 479 445
2010 303 558 434 448 439
2011 294 548 405 435 414
2012 292 578 399 403 416
2013 290 586 405 396 446

Charted below are the enrollments of each elementary building from 2008-2013.
FINDINGS
35
Altamont Elementary
283
293
303
294 292 290
y =0.6571x +290.2
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
YEAR
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

Guilderland Elementary
529
537
558
548
578
586
y =11.371x +516.2
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
YEAR
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

Lynnwood Elementary
443
435 434
405
399
405
y =-9.3429x +452.87
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
YEAR
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

FINDINGS
36
Pine Bush Elementary
484
479
448
435
403
396
y =-19.457x +508.93
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
YEAR
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
Westmere Elementary
451
445
439
414 416
446
y =-3.9143x +448.87
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 YEAR
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

Below is a rank ordering of the slope of the trend line describing the annual enrollment pattern of
each elementary school from 2008 to 2013. A negative slope signifies that over six years the
pattern of annual enrollment in the school has decreased.

School: Slope of the pattern of six years of annual enrollments:
Guilderland 11.4
Altamont .66
Westmere -3.9
Lynnwood -9.3
Pine Bush -19.5

The data illustrate that the decline in total district K-5 enrollment over the past six years has
occurred in three of the five elementary attendance zones. In such studies as this one,
researching to see if there is a large continuous decline or a large continuous increase in
enrollment over time in one or more attendance zones or geographic areas of a school district is a
FINDINGS
37
base step in the development of possible building use/program delivery scenario options for
school-community consideration.
Guilderland Altamont Westmere Lynnwood Pine
Bush
Enrollment change from 2008 to 2013 +57 +7 -5 -38 -92
Percentage change in enrollment 08
to 13

+10.8%

-2.5%

-1.1%

-8.6%

-19%

o 2013-2014 Free and Reduced Lunch

SCHOOL Enrollment
9/13
Free and reduced
percentage
Number of free and reduced
pupils enrolled
Altamont 291 20.27 59
Guild Elem 577 13.69 79
Lynnwood 426 13.85 58
Pine bush 414 7.73 32
Westmere 483 16.77 81
Middle School 1,136 10.83 123
High School 1,722 9.64 166

District 5049 11.8% 598
Elementary Buildings 2191 14.1% 309

O Service to Pupils with Special Needs:

Special Needs
Program
2013-2014 8/19/13 2012-2013 10/3/12 2011-2012 10/5/11
#served in
the home
district by
the home
district
#served
outside the
home
district (by
others, not
the home
district)
#served in
the home
district by
the home
district
#served
outside the
home
district (by
others, not
the home
district)
#served in
the home
district by
the home
district
#served
outside the
home
district (by
others, not
the home
district)
15:1:1 22 19 22
12:1:2 12 4 10 6 8 6
9:1:3 17 32 12 40 17 37
6:1:1 12 14 17
6:1:2 9 8 14
Residential 12:1:4 and
6:1:1
4 4 4
autistic 84 23 86 9 76 17
Others not in a set
nomenclature as identified
above. (Including 504
pupils)*
8/23/13
152
9/1/12
190
9/1/11
180

Emotionally,
intellectually, learning,
multiply disabled

342

2

334

6

333

9
CPSE pupils 47 32 38
*An IEP is an Individualized Education Program plan for special needs pupils. A 504 plan is not an IEP, but a plan
for moving a pupil from a special education to a regular education placement. If a child has a disability that does not
FINDINGS
38
adversely affect educational performance, then the child is not eligible for special education services. However,
he/she will usually be entitled to service/accommodations defined by a 504 plan.

o The School Buildings:

A Building Condition Survey is a requirement of all New York State school districts.
The last survey was completed and filed in 2010. The Building Condition Survey is
developed by a licensed architect or engineer and filed with the State Education
Department. It outlines possible building conditions that may need attention over the
next five to ten years. It is a tool for long-range facility planning. All of the Guilderland
CSD buildings received a satisfactory rating as per the SED Overall Building Rating
Scale.

Excellent: System is in new or like-new condition and functioning optimally; only routine maintenance and
repair is needed.
Satisfactory: System functioning reliably; routine maintenance and repair needed.
Unsatisfactory: System is functioning unreliably or has exceeded its useful life. Repair or replacement of some
or all components is needed.
Non-Functioning: System is non-functioning, not functioning as designed, or is unreliable in ways that could
endanger occupant health and/or safety. Repair or replacement of some or all components is
needed.
Critical Failure: Same as non-functioning with the addition that the condition of at least one component is so
poor that at least part of the building or grounds should not be occupied pending needed
repairs/replacement of some or all components is needed.
Below is a summary chart of the results of the latest (2010) Building Conditions Survey
developed by CSArch of Albany, architect for the district. It summarizes the estimated minimal
work in each of the buildings of the district based on the Conditions Survey. The Survey is a
public document available from the District or the State Education Department.

Building Overall
Rating
December,
2010
Est. Capital
Construction
expenses
anticipated
through
15-16
Altamont Satisfactory $225,000
Guilderland Satisfactory $18,400
Lynnwood Satisfactory $611,000
Pine Bush Satisfactory $559,400
Westmere Satisfactory $61,650
Farnsworth MS Satisfactory $316,695
High School Satisfactory $837,000

In November 2013, the Guilderland CSD community supported a referendum for $17,324,650.
Charted below are the priority items included in the capital project that address many of the
items identified in the 2010 Building Conditions Survey and other priorities identified by the
Board and administration with the help of the districts architect.

FINDINGS
39
$14,032,950 for renovations to electrical, heating and ventilation, roofing, plumbing and site systems
throughout the districts seven school buildings. This facet of the project will address the following:
-- Roof replacement
-- Parking lot paving
-- Ventilation systems
-- Window rehabilitation
-- Soffit replacement
-- Traffic patterns and bus parking
-- Doors and ADA-compliant door hardware
-- Floor replacement
-- Kitchen equipment
-- Boiler replacement and upgrades
-- Building temperature control systems
-- Water main piping replacement
-- Electrical panel and circuit upgrades
$1,483,000 devoted to safety and security improvements centered around effectively controlling visitor
access and enhancing classroom security. This facet of the project will address the following:
-- Lobby modifications at all school buildings, with extensive changes at Lynnwood Elementary
School and Guilderland High School
-- Additional security cameras
-- Additional door access swipe card readers
-- Additional classroom and office locksets/keying
-- Visitor management and tracking software
-- Computer server upgrades
$1,808,700 for technology infrastructure and program upgrades to enhance instructional opportunities
for students. This facet of the project will address the following:
-- Additional mobile labs
-- Upgrades to network switches
-- Wireless access points for each classroom
-- District-wide replacement of uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) with battery backup
-- Classroom technology upgrades

o Current capital debt of the district:

ISSUED MATURITY DEBT AS OF 6/30/13
Farnsworth Middle School 2006 2020 $3,190,907
Farnsworth Middle School 2013 2020 $8,627,268
$11,818,175
District wide 2012 2023 $9,014,400
$9,014,400
District wide 2010 2025 $23,182,463
$23,182,463
District wide 2012 2032 $6,233,244
$6,233,244
TOTAL: $50,248,282

FINDINGS
40
o Charted below is information about the current school sites:

Altamont Guilderland Lynnwood Pine
Bush
Westmere Middle
School
High
School
Year Built 1953 1955 1965 1994 1953 1970 1953
Square Footage 51,980 78,540 61,300 73,540 82,920 253,275 340,340
Total acres of the school
building site:
11 42 31 16 18 64 69
(67
useable)
Acres now used for
playfields:
4 4.5 6 5 3 10 16
Acres not used currently: 4.8 34.2 22.1 7.5 11.1 38.2 29.2
Wetlands or Retention
Ponds
2 6 2
Est. Number of
acres that could support
additional classrooms in the
future if necessary.
4.8 34.2 22.1 3.5 11.1 26.2 25.2

o The mileages between the eight school buildings of the district are charted below. The
district boundaries serve 50.01 square miles.

Altamont Guilderland Lynnwood Pine
Bush
Westmere Middle
School
High
School
and
District
Office
Bus
Garage
3.9 3.8 4.5 5.5 6 5.1 .5
High
School
and District
Office

3.8

3.9

4.7

5.4

6.2

5.2

Middle
School
8.5 2 4.4 5.5 2.2
Westmere 9.5 2.4 5.5 6.5
Pine Bush 7.6 4.1 2
Lynnwood 6.6 3.1
Guilderland 7.1

FINDINGS
41
o Teacher day and student day times:

SCHOOL Teacher day
begins
Teacher day
ends
Student day
begins
Student
dismissal
Student
buses
depart
Student late
bus
Altamont 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00
Guilderland 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00
Lynnwood 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00
Pine Bush 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00
Westmere 7:40 3:25 7:50 2:05 2:10 3:00
Farnsworth MS M,T,Th: 8:30 4:15 8:45 3:25 4:05
W: 8:30 4:30
F; 8:00 3:30
High School M,T,Th; 7:25 3:10 2:25 2:20 3:20
W; 7:25 3:45
F; 7:25 2:25

School Length of
Teacher day
Length of
Student Instructional Day
Altamont 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min
Guilderland 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min
Lynnwood 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min
Pine Bush 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min
Westmere 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 15 min
Farnsworth MS 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 40 min
High School 7 hrs 45 min 6 hrs 55 min

o Shared Staffing Among the Eight School Buildings:

SHARED POSITION Altamont Guilderland Lynnwood Pine Bush Westmere Middle School High School
Music .8 .2
Music .4 .6
Music .5 .5
Music .2 .4 .4
Music .5 .5
Music .4 .4 .2
Speech .6 .4
PT Assistant .5 .5
OT Assistant .6 .4
OT .4 .4 .2
OT .5 .5
Reading .4 .6
Reading .6 .4
Social Worker .5 .5
Social Worker .5 .5
Social Worker .5 .5
Foreign Language .2 .4
ESOL .2 .8
ESOL .5 .5
Physical Ed. .4 .6
Physical Ed. .1 .3 .5
Physical Ed. .5 .5
Physical Ed. .2 .8
Art .3 .7
Art .2 .2 .2
Art .4
Art .3 .7
TOTAL: 2.6 3.6 5.3 3.4 2.7 3.8 6.1
FINDINGS
42

o Full Time Equivalent Cost for Instructional Staff in 2013-2014:

Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others):
TOTAL
FTE
TOTAL
SALARY
TOTAL
FICA
TOTAL
HEALTH
INSURANCE
OTHER
BENEFITS
TOTAL
RETIREMENT
Total COST for
ALL K-6 FTEs
2013-2014
193.4 $12,935,455 $989,562 $2,000,547 $93,685 $2,102,011 $18,121,260

7 through grade 12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others):
TOTAL
FTE
TOTAL
SALARY
TOTAL
FICA
TOTAL
HEALTH
INSURANCE
OTHER
BENEFITS
TOTAL
RETIREMENT
Total COST for
ALL 7-12 FTEs
2013-2014
243.25 $16,489,967 $1,261,482 $2,550,273 $119,161 $2,679,620 $23,100,503

Average Cost per Full Time Equivalent Kindergarten through grade 6 certified instructional staff
in 2013-2014: $93,698

Average Cost per Full Time Equivalent grade 7 through grade 12 certified instructional staff in
2013-2014: $94,966

Average Cost per Full Time Equivalent Kindergarten through grade 12 certified building level
administrative staff in 2013-2014: $151,235
o FTE Numbers of Staff Who Have Left the District for All Reasons Except Reduction in
Force:

Guilderland CSD
TOTAL
OVER 4
YEARS
2012-
2013
2011-
2012
2010-
2011
2009-
2010
STAFF SEGMENT
Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers
(including counselors, nurses and similar others)
5 3 10 10 28
Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including
counselors, nurses and similar others):
10 7 13 13 42
Grades K-12:
Teacher Assistants (certified) 14 12 7 19 52
Teacher Aides (civil service) 4 12 4 3 23
Grades K-12: OT/PT (civil service) 0 1 0 1 2
Social worker (civil service) 0
Nurse (civil service) 2 0 3 0 5
K-12 certified administrators: 3 2 5 3 13
Civil Service:
Supervisors of any support function 1 2 0 1 4
Bus drivers 6 3 2 5 16
Bus aides 1 6 1 3 11
School lunch workers 6 8 8 6 28
Operations and Maintenance workers 4 4 5 3 16
Secretaries 2 4 4 5 15
Business Office not secretarial 0
Technology support staff 1 3 1 0 5
TOTAL: 255

FINDINGS
43
o Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Responsibilities by Building 2013-
2014:

SCHOOL
# TENURED
STAFF
# NON-
TENURED
STAFF
# OBSERVATIONS/
EVALUATIONS
# OF SUPPORT
STAFF EVALS
Altamont 25 1 53 17
Guilderland 44 3 97 18
Lynnwood 34 3 77 17
Pine Bush 31 2 68 16
Westmere 34 3 77 17
Farnsworth 96 6 210 55
High School 138 5 291 67

o Charted below are the distances of the current students of various elementary schools
who live farthest from other school buildings that serve other attendance zones.

Distance of the home of the
current student attending this
school who lives the farthest from
the school

Miles:
Altamont Elementary If the elementary school listed to the
left is closed, how many miles would
the current student who lives the
farthest from Altamont have to
travel to get to
Guilderland Elementary 11

Miles of this student from his/her
home to Altamont:4.12
Lynnwood Elementary 10.03
Pine Bush Elementary 10.89
Westmere Elementary 13.21
Farnsworth Middle School 11.94

Guilderland Elementary If the elementary school listed to the
farthest from Guilderland have to
travel to get to
Altamont Elementary 10.06

home to Guilderland:3.05

Lynnwood Elementary If the elementary school listed to the
farthest from Lynnwood have to
travel to get to

home to Lynnwood:4.22
Guilderland Elementary 7.07

Pine Bush Elementary

home to Pine Bush:2.76
If the elementary school listed to the
farthest from Pine Bush have to
travel to get to

Westmere Elementary If the elementary school listed to the
farthest from Westmere have to
travel to get to

home to Westmere:3.73

FINDINGS
44
o Inventory of Bus Equipment used for regular to and from AM and PM pupil
transportation (not counting spare vehicles):

Vehicle Size Number Number of Pupils on Each Bus for
Route Planning*
Total Pupils Able to be
Served:
66 passenger 57 45 2565
48 passenger 32
34 passenger 28
30 passenger 20 20 400
28 passenger 20

Total:

77

Total:
( possible in a single
district-wide bus run)
2965
*Typically these are the pupil load numbers used for planning of routes.

o Bus Run Data for 2013-2014:

Altamont Elementary Attendance Zone
Earliest pick up 6:56
Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 45 minutes
Number of bus runs AM to school 8
Number of bus runs PM to home 10

Guilderland Elementary Attendance Zone

Lynnwood Attendance Zone

Pine Bush Attendance Zone

Westmere Attendance Zone

Middle School

FINDINGS
45
High School
Estimated longest pupil ride on a bus 44

Summary:
Total number of regular bus routes in the district in the AM (Not special ed or private school) 49
Total number of regular bus routes in the district in the PM (Not special ed or private school) 49
Percentage of transportation aid expected as a revenue for 2013-2014 based on transportation
expenses submitted for 2012-2013: (2013-2014 Trans. Aid divided by the expenditures submitted for
2012-2013 for aid payable in 2013-2014)

57.9%
Total 2013-2014 transportation budget minus cost for special runs, midday runs to the BOCES
center, field trips, extracurricular and athletic trips, and other trips including any late bus runs.
(Result: total cost for am to school and pm home.)

$3,850,843
Estimated average cost per one way bus route
for AM to school and PM to home transportation in 2013-2014:
$39,294
Estimated average local Guilderland taxpayer cost per one-way bus route: $16,543
Estimated average state support of each Guilderland one-way bus route: $22,751
Where the estimates come from: Take the total transportation budget NOT INCLUDING SPECIAL RUNS FOR
SPECIAL NEEDS, FIELD TRIPS, VOCATIONAL CENTER RUNS, ATHLETIC AND CO-CURRICULAR
RUNS which can vary yearly based on student programs and needs; divide that resulting expenditure number by the
number of roundtrip bus runs to and from school in 2013-2014

Inferences and Observations:

The condition of the school buildings is good. They are clean, look to be well maintained
overall, and there seems to be no obvious major infrastructure issues. To a guest
observer there are areas in some of the schools whose exterior and interior finishes may
have reached their life cycle.

The faculty, staff, and pupils of the buildings practice good housekeeping as evidenced
by the overall neat, organized condition of the classrooms and instructional support
spaces.

The Building Condition Survey Report data do not suggest that there are district school
buildings with current building conditions that could present a danger to health and
safety. In such studies as this one, researching to see if there is a building with
immediate infrastructure issues that challenge the health and safety of pupils and staff is
a first step in the development of possible building use/program delivery scenario
options.

Parenthetically, there were a few instructional support spaces observed during the visits
that have doors without glass to allow one to view inside the space when pupils and
adults are present together. (Examples: a health room, a psychologist office.) It is
common practice in public schools to ensure that all spaces where pupils are served have
a means of visibility from outside the space for the safety of pupils and staff.
FINDINGS
46

The total outstanding capital debt of the district as of J une 30, 2013 is $50,248,282.
The debt retirement timeline suggests good planning and an opportunity as the district
plans its long-range facility plan. About 24% of existing debt is retired by 2018. The
recent approval of a $17 million capital improvement project by the community is timed
well, given that about $12 million of existing debt will be satisfied by J une 30, 2020.

Debt retired in 2020 -$11,818,175

Debt retired in 2023 -$9,014,400
Debt retired in 2025 -$23,182463
Debt retired in 2032 -$6,233,244

Commissioners Regulations require that the daily sessions for students in full-day
kindergarten and grades 1-6 must be a minimum of five hours, exclusive of time for
lunch. The daily sessions for grades 7-12 must be a minimum of five and one-half hours,
exclusive of time for lunch. Guilderland elementary pupils receive 5 hours and 45
minutes of daily instruction exclusive of lunch; Guilderland secondary pupils receive at
least 6 hours and 10 minutes of daily instruction exclusive of lunch.

An atypical instructional resource not regularly available in this new normal of public
school programming is that each elementary school in the Guilderland School District
has a full-time professionally certified Library Media Specialist as part of the
instructional faculty. Commissioners Regulation 91.2 requires school library media
specialists for all secondary schools. There are no State Education Requirements to
employ library media specialists for an elementary school.

Guilderland is commended for its values about school library media specialist services in
the five elementary schools. At the present time, each elementary library media specialist
is not assigned classes of elementary pupils to deliver a library skills curriculum. Instead,
the majority of the service day for the library media specialist is available for teachers to
arrange for pupils to use the library as a tool for pre-planned lessons with the help of the
library media specialist. Library/Media skills are addressed when such visits are
scheduled throughout the school year. For example: below is one elementary library
media specialists service schedule. It is typical of the schedules of the four other
elementary library/media specialists.

Library
Schedule
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
7:45-8:15
Open library/book
exchange
Open library/book
exchange
Open library/book
exchange
Open library/book
exchange
Open library/book
exchange
8:15-9:00
9:00-10:00
10:00-11:00
11:00-12:00 Lunch/Planning

Lunch/Planning Lunch/Planning Lunch/Planning
12:00-1:00 Lunch/Planning
1:00-2:00
2:00-3:25 Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning

There are 25 time slots (shaded) for the library/media specialist and teachers to serve
pupils for pre-planned lesson plan delivery, collaboratively. There is no current year or
FINDINGS
47
historical data kept by building as to how many of the service time slots are actually
scheduled for collaborative delivery of pre-planned lessons between the library/media
specialist and elementary classroom teachers. Is collaboration occurring? Yes. In
viewing one example of a weekly schedule, there were 9 time slots (or 36%) out of 25
available not yet scheduled for the week. Is it possible that the 9 were ultimately
scheduled for collaborative lessons. Yes. However, there are no historical data to chart
the pattern of service over time.

The question commissioned for the study is: Are there options that might provide more
cost-effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12 program is
implemented/delivered over the next three years? In keeping with the mission of the
study, a germane question regarding library/media specialist services is: Can the
outstanding resource of a full time library/media specialist in each elementary school
building be deployed differently to serve pupils with more instructional/learning
opportunities and enhance the curriculum/program even further? Given the current on
average total cost per elementary full time equivalent instructional staff member, the five
media specialists assigned to the current five elementary schools represents about
$468,490 in public school resources.

The next section below suggests one way the district might want to deploy the services of
the five elementary media/library specialists. It is not the only way. Hopefully, it will
encourage district discussion about possible new opportunities for pupils that can be
made available from such a strong curriculum staff resource already in place. The
suggestion is based on viewing the existing resource differently. For example:

Current
number of
time slots
designated for
elementary
open
library/book
exchange on a
Monday
through
Friday:
Current number
of time slots
designated for
collaborative use
of the library by
a classroom
teacher and the
media specialist
Monday through
Friday:
Sample
number of
time slots
designated for
elementary
open
library/book
exchange on a
six-day cycle
pattern:
Number of
grade level
class
sections
currently in
each
elementary
school:
Sample number of
time slots designated
for scheduled library
as a special for all
pupils on a six-day
cycle pattern given
the current number of
class sections in each
building in 13-14:
Sample number of
time slots available
for teacher-librarian
as-scheduled
collaborative use of
the library by a
classroom teacher
and the media or
other purpose on a
six-day cycle
pattern:
5 25 30 Westmere-
24

24

6
Altamont-15 15 15
Guilderland-
28

28

2
Lynnwood-
18
18 12
Pine Bush-
19

19

11

The middle and high school arrange instruction using an A, B, C, D day schedule (4-day
pattern). School days are designated A-D days instead of using the nomenclature
Monday through Friday. Such an organization technique is very helpful in making sure
that all pupils receive instruction in classes that do not meet every day (ex. physical
FINDINGS
48
education, science labs, music lessons) on a consistent basis. School vacations or
emergency closings due to poor weather could cause pupils to miss instruction in such
classes for multiple days. If a snow day occurs on an A day, then the day students return
to school remains an A day.

The five elementary schools use a 5 day Monday through Friday nomenclature schedule
pattern. Therefore, if a snow day occurs on a Tuesday and the pupils return to school the
next day, Wednesday, then the students will have missed instructional services like
library or physical education that may have been scheduled on Tuesday. They will not
be served again until the next scheduled weekday for that subject thus interrupting the
continuity of instruction.

In addition, the elementary program specialsart, music, and physical educationcan
be delivered with existing staff resources and achieve more equity and consistency if a
four or six-day nomenclature cycle is implemented.

Presently, elementary pupils receive one art class of 40 minutes, two music classes of 30
minutes each, and three physical education classes of 30 minutes each in a five-day
Monday through Friday schedule nomenclature. Typically, when pupils are in specials,
the elementary classroom teacher is assigned to planning time. The contract with the
Teachers Association requires that:
Each unit member will be assigned no fewer than 50 minutes of planning time
on the required meeting day (i.e. general faculty meeting day) and no fewer
than 110 minutes of planning time on each of the four non-meeting days of a
typical school week. This planning time would include personal planning as well
as other professional responsibilities as outlined in Article 10.1.3.

Article 10.1.3 states that:
With regard to the time available after the close of the student day but before the
close of the teacher day, one day each week will be designated the required
meetings day by the building principal. The remainder of this time, with the
exception of meetings and/or activities involving parents or students which shall
be scheduled when needed, may be utilized for lesson preparation, unit planning,
grading of papers, attending meetings which are voluntary* in nature, parent
meetings, helping students, professional collaboration and/or other such activities
at the discretion of the individual teacher. *Note: Meetings for which classroom
teachers receive stipends are excepted from this provision.

Therefore, 50 of the 110 minutes of planning time for elementary teachers is consistently
available/scheduled at the end of the school day after the students are dismissed.
Currently, however, the scheduling of the other 50 minutes of planning time is not
consistent in length of time on any one day. For example, in one elementary school, the
during the student day planning time of 50 minutes is scheduled for 30 minutes on
Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; 70 minutes on Wednesday, and three 10 minute
segments at three times during the Monday-Friday.

FINDINGS
49
In addition, the physical education State requirement for the elementary curriculum is
120 minutes per week or over 36 weeks of school (177 days minimum) or 4320 minutes.
Currently, 90 minutes of physical education are provided in a Monday through Friday
week (3240 minutes potentially in a year). Changing to a six-day cycle (or even
multiples of 2 or 4) schedule, for example, at the elementary buildings would allow 30
cycles to schedule 50 minute physical education and other special classes over the
school year. The 50-minute suggestion is based on the need to provide 50 minutes of
planning time during the student day for elementary instructional staff. In addition, the
example below suggests a redeployment of the five library/media specialists to provide
a scheduled library special for all pupils in each elementary building on a consistent
basis to allow a library/media skills curriculum to be implemented K-5.

For example, a pattern to deploy the existing staff resources could be:

Day A: Physical education Day D: Art
Day B: Music Day E: Physical Education
Day C: Physical education Day F: Library/Media Skills

Such a pattern would provide 4500 minutes potentially for physical education in a school
year which meets the Commissioners Regulation of 4320 minutes. There are no minutes
required by the Commissioner for music, art, or library instruction. Currently,
elementary art is provided for 40 minutes in a Monday through Friday schedule or 1440
minutes in a school year. With the example 6-day cycle pattern, pupils can receive 1500
minutes of specials art instruction in a school year. Currently, elementary music is
provided for 60 minutes (two 30 minute classes) in a Monday through Friday schedule or
2160 minutes in a school year. With the example 6-day cycle pattern, pupils can receive
1500 minutes of specials music instruction in a school year. The 6-day cycle example
(with library becoming a specials), has fewer minutes in a school year for the music
specials offering. One consideration for the district to analyze is the instructional value
of two classes of only 30 minutes each compared to a block of 50 minutes to deliver the
expected music curriculum.

It is suggested that the district could gain efficiencies and more for pupils with the
existing staff resources if all the school buildings were on the same day cycle and/or on
day cycles that were multiples of each other. (Example: 2, 4, 6-day cycle; or 3 or 6-day
cycle.) One efficiency achieved is the continuity of instruction for elementary pupils
when there is a vacation or emergency school closing. Special areas like library,
physical education, art, music, and remedial services which normally do not meet every
day will be provided uninterrupted.

The district implements the efficient practice of shared staffing among the buildings to
help ensure breadth of program offerings for all pupils in a cost-effective manner across
the district. In the current 2013-2014 school year, 27.5 full time equivalent staff
members are shared among the seven school buildings. Another possible major
efficiency with a common day cycle (or multiples thereof) in all the school buildings
should make the scheduling of such shared staff easier and more understandable. A
common day schedule across the district could allow even more opportunities in sharing
FINDINGS
50
of staff to meet instructional needs of each respective building. A common day schedule
likely will drive more flexibility since the scheduling of such staff now must deal with an
elementary Monday through Friday pattern and a middle/secondary 4-day cycle pattern
that are incongruent.

Also, a common day cycle pattern (or multiples thereof) among the schools should make
it easier for families with elementary and secondary children in the same household to
keep track of the school days offerings and expectations for their children.

On-average each full time equivalent instructional position that serves the K through
grade 6 program in the current school year equates to a total expenditure of $93,698;
grades 7-12 instructional FTE, $94,966; building level administrator, $151,235.

From 2009 through the 2012 school year, 135 certified instructional staff and 120 civil
service support staff have left the district for all reasons (example: retirement, relocation)
except reduction in force. The on-average annual total of 63-64 FTE suggests that
normal attrition might mitigate some or all reductions in force that may come about from
organizing the program and use of buildings differently.

The district has developed a pupil transportation service delivery model such that no
pupil rides on a bus longer than about 50 minutes.

The 2013-2014 average cost per one-way bus route for AM to school and PM to home
transportation is $95,540. The average state support of each Guilderland one-way bus
route is $55,320. The local taxpayer average cost for each Guilderland one-way bus
route is $40,220.

Instructional technology is present and used by the teaching staff in the buildings. It is
recommended that the district continue its long-standing on-going practice of analyzing
its technology plan and revising it as necessary to reflect the future goals of the district in
supporting instruction with technology.

The use of technology to deliver learning is often a prime variable in school building
planning and use. Bandwidth (size of data lines), types of equipment, staff training,
and pedagogical impact on learning outcomes given the investment are important topics
that once decided usually translate into brick and mortar decisions. The technology
plan of the district will give insights as to the provision of computers for student
instruction and video enhanced instructional tools for teachers in the future. The
technology plan is often a major part of a districts blueprint in defining the vision and
the instructional goals of infusing technology in the curriculum. It also can give direction
as to what are the program delivery roles of all the instructional spaces in each school
building including the classrooms, library and computer labs as they interrelate with
technology to support learning and instruction.

Over the past three school years, Guilderland has served 84% -87 % of all special needs
students in the home district by Guilderland staff.
FINDINGS
51

The concept of neighborhood schools is valued by the community and the school
district community.

Out of the seven school sites, five have ample property over 11 acres each for potential
expansion in the future. Generally, site guidelines require elementary schools (K-6) to
have at least three acres plus one acre for each one hundred pupils, or fraction thereof.
Altamont and Pine Bush have an estimated 4.8 and 5.5 acres available for future new
construction respectively. The other three elementary schools have between 11 and 34
acres available. Secondary schools (7-12) are required to have at least ten acres plus one
acre for each one hundred pupils, or fraction thereof. Both secondary school sites have
over 27 acres of available land for possible facility needs in future generations.
In a move to strengthen teaching and to have a positive impact on student learning, New
York State has mandated a comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and
building principals. The 2010 Education Law 3012-c requires each classroom teacher
and building principal to receive an Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR)
resulting in a single composite effectiveness score and a rating of 'highly effective,'
'effective,' 'developing' or 'ineffective.'

It requires that all evaluators must be trained and an appeals process must be locally
developed between the district and the respective bargaining unit.

These new Regulations have tight timelines and have placed considerable pressure on
school districts to integrate them into their evaluations systems.

This new mandate has an impact on the classroom teachers. It also significantly affects
the building level administrator who is responsible for the evaluations of his/her staff. It
requires the supervisor to observe each teacher two times, use newly-designed teacher
practice rubrics, conference with the teacher, monitor the collection of student test data,
help teachers develop Student Learning Objectives for courses that do not end with state
assessments, write a comprehensive and detailed assessment report on each teacher,
develop and create individualized improvement plans for struggling teachers and manage
all appeals if they were to occur.

The decision about the number of staff a single building supervisor should evaluate in a
given year is a local determination. Initial training sessions sponsored by the State
Education Department suggested that the number of staff a single supervisor should
evaluate in a given year is 12. Generally, one finds 25 to 45 staff assigned to a
building supervisor (principal) with a common assignment of 25 to 35.

FINDINGS
52
The APPR supervisor-evaluations ratios in 2013-2014 in the Guilderland District are:

School Number of
Building
Supervisors
Assigned
Number
of Staff
Number of
APPR
Evaluations
APPR STAFF TO
SUPERVISOR
RATIO
Plus number of
support staff
annual
evaluations
Altamont 1 26 53 1:26 17
Guilderland 1 47 97 1:47 18
Lynnwood 1 37 77 1:37 17
Pine Bush 1 33 68 1:33 16
Westmere 1 37 77 1:37 17
Farnsworth 6 102 210 1:17 55
High School 7 143 291 1:20 67
District-Wide Administrators 2013-2014 APPR Responsibilities
Spec. Ed., PE/Health/Athletics, Music, Art, WLC/ESL
Staff Tenured staff

Non-
Tenured
Staff
Number of
APPR
Evaluations
Plus number of support staff annual
evaluations
Special Education 7 1 8 16
PE/Health/Athletics 20 3 49 1.5
Music 24 48 .5
Art 10 1 22 .5
WLC/ESL 22 4 56 .5

It is suggested that the APPR Staff-to-Supervisor Ratio be addressed with any scenario
option the district may choose to implement to organize and deliver the program
differently.

The research of best teaching-learning practices suggests that contact time with teachers
is a prime ingredient for pupil learning success. Charted below is the elementary and
secondary teacher contact time with pupils currently in 2013-2014. Generally, 85 to 90%
of assigned instructional time in a teacher workday is viewed as reasonable student
instructional contact time.
Time before
student day
begins
(students
not
present):
Preparation
Time: 110
minutes per day

Total Possible
Elementary
Student
Classroom
Teacher Daily
Contact Time
Elementary Student
Classroom Teacher Daily
Contact Time; % of
Contractual Work Day
Once Pupils Arrive Until
They Depart the School
Elementary
Teacher Day
7 hours and 45 minutes
less 30 minutes for
lunch; 7 hours and 15
minutes
(435 minutes)
10 minutes 35 minutes (on
average) per day
during the student
day
6 hours and
15 minutes 30
minutes for
lunch +5
minutes for PM
bus dismissal
supervision

(350 minutes)

90%
(315 minutes/350
minutes)
75 minutes after
pupil buses leave
at 2:10
% of Teacher Total Work
Day (435 minutes) with
Direct Instructional
Contact with Pupils

80.5% (350/435)
Elementary
Pupil School
Day
6 hours and
15 minutes 30
minutes for lunch +5
minutes for PM bus
dismissal (350 minutes)

FINDINGS
53

Time
before
student
day begins
(students
not
present):
Preparation
Time

Total Possible Middle
School Student
Classroom Teacher
Daily Contact Time
Including the District
Assigned Activity
Period (as per contract)
Middle School Student
Classroom Teacher
Daily Contact Time %
of Contractual Work
Day Once Pupils
Arrive
6-8 Middle
School
Teacher
Day
less 30 minutes for lunch;
(435 minutes)
5 minutes 80 minutes
per day
plus may have an
assigned activity period of
40 minutes
(410 minutes)

86.6%
(355 minutes/410
minutes)
6-8 Middle
School
Pupil
School
Day
less 30 minutes for lunch
(370 minutes); 6 hours
and 10 minutes plus
may participate in an
activity period of 40
minutes
(410 minutes)

Time
before
student
day
begins
(students
not
present):
Preparation
Time

Total Possible High
School Student
Classroom Teacher
Daily Contact Time
District Assigned
Activity Period is not
a contractual
obligation
High School Student
Classroom Teacher Daily
Contact Time % of
Contractual Work Day Once
Pupils Arrive
9-12 High
School
Teacher
Day
7 hours and 45
minutes less 30
minutes for lunch; 7
hours and 15 minutes
(435 minutes)
0 86 minutes
per day
5 hours and 49
minutes 50 minute
optional activity
period
(299 minutes)
77.7%
(299 minutes/385 minutes)

80.2%
(349 minutes/435 minutes)
With pupils who take part in the
optional academic period
9-12 High
School
Pupil
School Day
6 hours and 55 minutes less 30 minutes for
lunch; 6 hours and 25 minutes
(385 minutes)

7 hours and 45 minutes less 30 minutes for
lunch plus 50 minutes optional activity period
(435 minutes)

The nearest clusters of schools to each other are charted below:
Westmere, Guilderland Within 2.4 miles of each other
Pine Bush, Lynnwood Within 2 miles of each other
Altamont, Lynnwood Within 6.6 miles of each other
Pine Bush, Lynnwood, Altamont Within 2 to 7.6 miles of each other

Middle School and:
Guilderland 2 miles
Westmere 2.2 miles
Lynnwood 4.4 miles
Pine Bush 5.5 miles
Altamont 8.5 miles

FINDINGS
54
An assumption of the study is that doable scenario options might be suggested by
looking at adjacent sets of elementary attendance zones. The assumption is based on the
value of least change impact with regard to the geographic region students would attend
in a scenario option compared to where they attend now. The least change impact with
regard to the transportation of students in a scenario option is usually a major
consideration. Other variables like pupil capacities of each of the buildings and the
historical number of elementary age level students who live in each geographic
attendance zone also have major influence on designing doable scenario options.

As discussed above, the distances between existing elementary school buildings is a basic
and major criterion to develop possible doable scenario options to deliver the K-5
program in possibly more efficient ways or patterns with a focus on least change impact
especially with regard to pupil transportation.

Charted on the next page are the distances that the students who live the farthest from
their current (2013-2014) attendance zone school travel to their school. Also listed is the
additional distance these same students would travel to attend another current
elementary school building in the district.

Distance of the
home of the
current student
attending this
school who lives
the farthest from
the school

Miles:
Miles now
traveled by
the student
to current
home
school:
ADDITIONAL
TRAVEL
DISTANCE in
Miles for this
student to the
alternative
building:

Altamont If the elementary school listed to
the left is closed, how many miles
would the current student who
lives the farthest from Altamont
have to travel to get to
Guilderland 11 Altamont:
4.12

6.88

Miles of this
student from
his/her home to
Altamont:4.12
Lynnwood 10.03 5.91
Pine Bush 10.89 6.77
Westmere 13.21 9.09
Middle
School
11.94 7.82
Guilderland If the elementary school listed to
lives the farthest from
Guilderland have to travel to get
to
Altamont 10.06 Guilderland:
3.05
7.01

Miles of this
student from
his/her home to
Guilderland:3.05
Lynnwood 6.15 3.1
Pine Bush 7.28 4.23
Westmere 1.35 -1.7
Middle
School
2.51 -0.54
Lynnwood
If the elementary school listed to
lives the farthest from Lynnwood
Altamont 4.20 Lynnwood:
4.22
-0.02

Miles of this
student from
his/her home to
Lynnwood:4.22
Guilderland 7.07 2.85
Pine Bush 6.82 2.6
Westmere 9.62 5.4
Middle
School
8.34 4.12
Pine Bush
lives the farthest from Pine Bush
Altamont 9.04 Pine Bush:
2.76
6.28

Miles of this
student from
his/her home to
Pine Bush:2.76
Lynnwood 3.39 0.63
Westmere 4.59 1.83
Middle
School
4.19 1.43
FINDINGS
55
Westmere
lives the farthest from Westmere
Altamont 13.02 Westmere:
3.73
9.29

Miles of this
student from
his/her home to
Westmere:3.73
Lynnwood 9.10 5.37
Pine Bush 10.25 6.52
Middle
School
6.04 2.31

The chart is a handy tool to discuss least impact issues related to the various scenario
options suggested by the study for review and discussion by the Board, school leadership
and the community. The data charted are about the current students of each current
attendance zone who live the farthest from the neighboring schools in other attendance
zones. Therefore, all other students in a given attendance zone would travel less than the
mileage listed in the ADDITIONAL MILEAGE column to a neighboring attendance
zone school.

Within the past two years, the district has implemented a swing zone attendance area
between Guilderland Elementary and Westmere Elementary to help mitigate school
building overcrowding that might result from unexpected new resident enrollment. Once
the district decides on a reconfiguration option, if any, for the schools, it is suggested that
the district explore establishing swing or buffer zones for all elementary buildings that
allow the school district to assign students to either of two elementary schools depending
on enrollment numbers. The district may not necessarily have to implement the policy
regularly. However, establishing such a district-wide policy before it is absolutely
needed helps inform the community and becomes a tool if pupil populations shift 5 to 10
years after a reconfiguration of attendance zones takes place.

A buffer-swing zone is a residence geographical area that may be served by two or
more elementary buildings depending upon the yearly enrollment who live in each of the
schools attendance zones. The district creates policy that allows buffer zones to help
achieve equity of school population sizes to enable adherence to class size goals as much
as is possible. Because of possible overloading of grade levels in elementary buildings, it
is necessary to have flexibility with student placement. The creation of buffer zones
allows for flexibility and still maintains a reasonable transportation pattern. Typically,
the following considerations are reviewed when it may be necessary to reassign buffer-
zone pupils.
o Special program needs of the pupil
o Any previous reassignment
o Length of residence in the district
o Siblings in School ( Normally siblings are not split between buildings
unless there are extenuating circumstances relating to special program
needs or parents and the school agree on the appropriateness of such an
arrangement.

FINDINGS
56
SOME POSSIBLE OPTIONS TO EXPLORE IN DELIVERING THE GUILDERLAND
SCHOOL DISTRICT Pre-K-12 PROGRAM
OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS

An important asset to the district in engaging an outside guest consultant is that the district
receives a perspective not influenced by the history of the district, or by knowledge of the
preferences of various school district community stakeholders. This study holds up a mirror in
an unbiased manner to: collect and analyze the pupil capacity data of the existing school
buildings; inventory and review the program deployment in those facilities; and estimate future
pupil enrollments. The results of the analyses provide for a data driven rationale in looking at
other ways to organize the delivery of the Pre-K-12 program. The purpose of the study is to
offer suggestions that could answer:
Are there options that might provide more cost-effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-
12 program is implemented/delivered over the next three years?

The Board of Education and senior administration do have knowledge of the districts history, its
culture, and the preferences held by school district stakeholders. They are ultimately responsible
and are most able to determine, with engagement of the district community, which delivery
option, adapted delivery option, or set of options for the future will be best--as judged by local
values-- to deliver instruction to the children of the district.

The charts that follow list and describe various scenarios that singly or in combination with
others listed or not listed may define the best option to implement in order to deliver the pre-K
through grade 12 program in the future. The baseline variables that guide the identification of
the scenarios are the current pupil capacity assets of the Guilderland school buildings; the current
class size goals of the district; the current educational program; and the estimated future
enrollments of the district over the next three to five years. Other related example variables
analyzed to suggest the doable scenario options for community/Board review include: equity
gaps in grade level section class sizes currently; the condition of the buildings; historical annual
enrollment changes in each of the elementary schools; the school sites; distances between each
school building; the culture of sharing instructional staff among the schools; the values of the
district regarding pupil transportation time; the values of the district and community about
neighborhood schools. Even though it is not cited specifically in each scenario, the district may
FINDINGS
57
wish to explore the possible benefits of implementing a multi-age instruction delivery model
when appropriate. Combined grade level classes can help decrease the equity gap in average
class sizes among the elementary schools. The pedagogy can provide learning opportunities for
various pupils, and at the same time, help ensure that there is full use of instructional staff talent
as benchmarked to the class size goals of the district.

In addition, it is recommended that Guilderland continue its practice of reviewing the
instructional opportunities and efficiencies that can be realized with various sharing
arrangements between and among the school districts in the BOCES through the BOCES
delivery model. It is suggested that there very well may be instructional opportunities for all
pupils and cost-efficiency benefits to be gained through collaborative sharing with other districts
through BOCES on a year-to-year basis depending upon yearly enrollments and the parameters
of the program offered by Guilderland.

Each of the scenario options B through F inherently allow the program to be delivered with
reduced costs. Each of the scenarios identifies school buildings that would not be used or used
differently to serve Guilderland students. Potential facility cost savings for each scenario with
fewer buildings is estimated at the end of the study. Such facility expenditure savings usually
include: operation and maintenance staffing, cafeteria staffing, utilities, building supplies, and
insurance. These savings are offset by resources necessary to protect the building as an asset to
the district. Such necessary resources usually include those needed for: keeping the building at
about 40-45 degrees; ongoing boiler inspections; systems functional upkeep; daily security; play
fields upkeep; parking lot upkeep (no grass growing in parking lots); and ongoing insurance
coverage.

None of the scenario options suggests using the high school differently. The high school
currently is at about 80% capacity, but there is not enough available capacity to host the 8
th
grade
and allow flexibility with including unassigned pupil capacity, for example. It is estimated that
in three years, grade 8 enrollment may be about 426 pupils and grade 9-12 enrollment may be
1618 pupils (totaling 2044 possible pupils 8-12). The pupil capacity of the high school is
between 2128 and 2179 depending upon the implementation of district class size guidelines and
FINDINGS
58
goals. If 9-12 enrollments decrease more than expected over the next 5 to 8 years, hosting the 8
th

grade might be a consideration in the future.

Each of the scenario options B through F identifies an estimated range of instructional Full Time
Equivalents that might not be needed based on the enrollment projections for the district, the
minimum class size goals of the district, and how the grade level configurations would be served
in various buildings. The potential personnel savings of each scenario option are estimated by
multiplying the estimated fewer building supervisory FTE positions times the average cost
including benefits of $151,235, and multiplying the estimated fewer elementary instructional
positions times the average cost including benefits of $93,698 and $94,966 for fewer secondary
instructional FTEs. Note that average FTE costs are all inclusive of salary, FICA, health
insurance, other benefits if any, and retirement system payments. The same method is applied
regarding potentially fewer secretarial (FTE =$53,236 all-inclusive), and nursing (FTE =
$66,497 all-inclusive) staff positions. Not until an option, if any, is chosen to implement can the
estimate of personnel savings be refined. Even when an option is chosen, personnel savings will
not necessarily reflect actual savings. Only after factoring in the normal retirement of personnel
and/or the normal exiting of district employment for other reasons will personnel savings be
accurate.

All of the options focus primarily on using facility resources already in place. Common to each
scenario is the assumption that the district wishes to continue the district class size goals in place
for grades kindergarten through grade 12. The study does not take the liberty of ignoring those
values in the analyses or in the suggestions for program delivery options. The development of
the scenarios uses the average class size goal for the various grade levels as charted below.
Grade Levels Minimum Goal Maximum Goal Average of the Class Size Parameters
K, 1, 2 18 23 21
3, 4, 5 21 25 23
6, 7, 8 24 26 25
9-12 26 27 26

All of the options assume the current location of classrooms rented to BOCES remain where they
are located. Often rented classrooms for BOCES shared programming can be moved from one
similar building to another without jeopardizing the quality of the program delivery. Therefore,
FINDINGS
59
such movement is a flexibility factor for the home district if in a given year a given attendance
zone may need to use rented classrooms to serve resident pupils. The total space currently rented
to the BOCES across the district is equivalent to the pupil capacity of one stand-alone school
building. In addition, the current assignment of spaces to instructional support services is
assumed unchanged. The re-assignment of such instructional spaces to other appropriately sized
spaces within a building is another flexibility factor if in a given year a given attendance zone or
grade configuration may need to add a class section to serve resident pupils.

The following chart of scenarios reflects those options the study suggests to be educationally
sound and cost-effective avenues to pursue given the data and inferences gained throughout the
research for the study. The local perspective is the only perspective that is important in the final
balance of determining what is educationally sound and cost-effective for Guilderland. The
scenarios are not listed in any priority order or advocacy order. The value judgment that
balances how the scenario options might best serve the pupils of Guilderland and how the
scenario options might best reduce operating expenditures must rest with the local Board and
the community it serves and not with a guest consultant. The study is a tool and a roadmap to
help the local public policy discussion necessary to identify/develop an option, if any, to
implement.

The scenario option charts are provided in a format such that this document can be used as a tool
to analyze and add to each possible scenario as the school community ponders what actions
should be taken, if any. Local school district community discussion and analysis of the
perceived instructional impact of each scenario will likely identify additional Opportunities and
Challenges not listed in the charts. Some elements of one scenario can be combined logistically
with elements of another to produce another scenario option.

FINDINGS
60
All of the Scenario Options listed:
Adhere and reflect the class size goals currently followed by the Guilderland School
District.
Reflect the low to high future enrollment projections for 2016-2017 and 2018-2019.
Reflect the pupil capacities of the current school buildings and the current programs
provided.

SCENARIOS FOR CONSIDERATION BY
THE GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION:
Are there options that might provide more cost-
effective ways or patterns to organize how the K-12
program is implemented/delivered over the next
three years?
A
L
T
A
M
O
N
T

G
U
I
L
D
E
R
L
A
N
D

L
Y
N
N
W
O
O
D

P
I
N
E

B
U
S
H

W
E
S
T
M
E
R
E

F
A
R
N
S
W
O
R
T
H

M
I
D
D
L
E

H
I
G
H

S
C
H
O
O
L

Scenario A: Continue the current pattern of
delivery.

K-5

K-5

K-5

K-5

K-5

6-8

9-12

Scenario B: Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not
use Altamont for pupils.

K-5

K-5

K-5

K-5

6-8

9-12

Scenario C: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve
all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.
Do not use Altamont for pupils.

K-4

K-4

K-4

K-4

5-8

9-12

Scenario D: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve
all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.
Do not use Lynnwood for pupils.

K-4

K-4

K-4

K-4

5-8

9-12

Scenario E: Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at
Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at
Guilderland. Do not use Altamont for pupils.

3-5

K-2

3-5

K-2

6-8

9-12

Scenario F: Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at
Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at
Guilderland. Serve Grade 5 at the Middle
School Building. Do not use Altamont for
pupils.

K-2

3-4

K-2

3-4

5-8

9-12

Scenario G: Worksheet.other?

FINDINGS
61
SCENARIO A:
Continue the current pattern of delivery.
RATIONALE:
No change from current practice.
Pupil Capacity Available
(Benchmarked to local class size average of the minimum and maximum goals and the instructional program
offerings of 2013-2014)
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based on
Average of the Min and
Max Class Size Goals
of the District
Estimated
K-5
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Estimated
Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
K-5 Enrollment
In 2018-2019

Estimated
Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
351

1980 - 2068

83.1% - 86.8%

1976 - 2143

83% - 90%
Guilderland
(576)
610

Lynnwood
(404)
436

Pine Bush
(396)
463

Westmere
(445)
522

Total K-5: 2382

Middle School 6-8
(current enrollment:
1141)
1579 1186

75.1% 1117

70.7%
High School 9-12
1736)
2153 1583 73.5% 1618 75.2%

SCENARIO A: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Continue the current pattern of program delivery.
OPPORTUNITIES: CHALLENGES:
No changes.
Many grade level class sizes will
continue to be below the district class
size goals.
Continue value of neighborhood
schools.
About 20 to 25% unused middle school
capacity over the next three years.
Therefore, there is pupil capacity space
to add new programs or special ed
programs not now in the district.
There is instructional space available to
rent to BOCES for regional programs.
Difficulty in maintaining equity of grade level class sizes
among the elementary buildings.
Many grade level class sizes may continue to be below
district class size goals.
Not fully using available instructional talent because the
total of a particular grade level enrollment in a respective
attendance zone is not adequate to meet efficiently and
academically the class size goals of the district.
Increased cost of grade level delivery of instruction due to
staffing levels serving fewer pupils than the number defined
by the class size goals of the district.
Resource allocation; affordability.
Upkeep of 7 instructional buildings. The Middle School
will have about 25% unused pupil capacity in three years.

FINDINGS
62
SCENARIO B:
Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use Altamont for pupils.
RATIONALE:
Estimated future enrollments in three to five years suggest that fewer than five elementary
buildings may be necessary to serve the expected K through grade 5 population.
The centralization of what are currently five attendance zones to four attendance zones will
help diminish the current class size inequity in class section sizes at K-5 grade levels without
jeopardizing district standards of quality.
The district can probably reduce fixed budget expenditures and help keep the tax levy at a
moderate acceptable level.
The district can use existing resources to add program elements that may now be missing
without asking for more revenue from taxpayers.
Why Altamont?
Altamont is the smallest pupil capacity school.
Its attendance zone has the smallest K-5 enrollment.
Geographically, it is the most outlying school building from the others.
(Benchmarked to local class size goals and the instructional program offerings of 2013-2014)
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based
on Average of
the Min and Max
Class Size Goals
of the District
Estimated
K-5
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Est. Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
K-5
Enrollment
In 2018-2019

Est. Pupil
Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
0

1980 - 2068

97.5% - 101.8%

1976 - 2143

97.3% - 105.5%
Guilderland
(576)
610

Lynnwood
(404)
436
Pine Bush
(396)
463

Westmere
(445)
522

Total K-5: 2031

Middle School 6-8
(current
enrollment: 1141)
1579 1186

75.1% 1117

70.7%

FINDINGS
63
SCENARIO B: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use Altamont for pupils.
Continue value of neighborhood schools, but with
larger neighborhoods.
Lower the expense of operating one existing
building.
Equity of grade level class sizes and efficient use
deployment of staff addressed with more pupils
available to be served by four attendance zones
instead of five.
Ample room to rent to the BOCES at the Middle
School.
Revenue from selling or renting a building.
In 2013-2014, there are103 grade level classes
serving pupils in grades K-5. Adhering to the
average of the minimum and maximum class size
goals of the district, this scenario option will likely
require:
o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2016-
2017: 94 to 98. An estimated five to nine fewer
FTEs may be needed with four attendance
zones instead of five.
o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2018-
2019: 94 to 101. An estimated two to nine
fewer FTEs may be needed with four
attendance zones instead of five.
The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer
school building and the potential of four to eleven
fewer instructional FTEs including one principal
and library media specialist may allow:
existing staff resources to be re-deployed to
provide increased instructional support
services for pupils; and/or
a reduction to the overall expenditure of the
school district to deal with the pattern of
reduced state aid to the school district
without changing current class size goals.
The closing of one school building for use by
students.
Re-draw attendance areas to be served by 4
elementary schools.
Re-design the existing transportation routes
to meet the expectations the district has for
pupil transportation.
The middle school has about 25% unused
pupil capacity.
If the high enrollment projections in three
years are achieved, the elementary schools
may be close to or at pupil capacity unless
fewer classrooms are rented to BOCES.
Market a building to the private or
government sectors.
Moth balling one potentially unused
building. Part of savings will be needed to
properly take care of the asset even though it
is not being used.

FINDINGS
64
SCENARIO C:
Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of Grade 5 at the Middle School Building.
RATIONALE:
The centralization of what are currently five attendance zones to four K-4 attendance zones and
centralizing the service to grade 5 pupils will help diminish the current class size inequity in class
section sizes at K-5 grade levels without jeopardizing district standards of quality.
The Middle School Building has significant unused pupil capacity. Guilderland CSD did serve
grade 5 pupils at the Middle School Building in the past.
The district can use existing resources to add program elements that may now be missing without
asking for more revenue from taxpayers.
Why Altamont?
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based
on Average of
the Min and Max
Class Size Goals
of the District
Estimated
K-4
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Est. Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
K-4
Enrollment
In 2018-2019

Est. Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
0

1606 - 1694

79.1% - 83.4%

1593 - 1760

78.4% - 86.7%
Guilderland
(576)
610

Lynnwood
(404)
436
Pine Bush
(396)
463

Westmere
(445)
522

Total K-4: 2031

Middle School 5-8
(current enrollment
6-8: 1141)

1579
Estimated
5-8
Enrollment
In 2016-17

1533 - 1524

97.1 - 96.5%
Estimated
5-8
Enrollment
In 2016-17

1445

91.5%

FINDINGS
65
SCENARIO C: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Continue value of neighborhood schools, but with larger
neighborhoods.
Lower the expense of operating an existing building.
deployment of staff addressed with more pupils available
to be served by four attendance zones instead of five.
In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving
pupils in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the
minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this
scenario option will likely require:
o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2016-2017: 78-
82 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 92-96.
An estimated seven to eleven fewer FTEs may be
needed with four K-4 attendance zones and grade 5
served at the middle school building.
o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2018-2019: 78
to 85 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; a total of 92-
99. An estimated four to eleven fewer FTEs may be
The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school
building along with the potential of six to thirteen fewer
instructional FTEs including one principal and one media
library specialist may allow:
existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide
increased instructional support services for pupils; and/or
a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school
district to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the
school district without changing current class size goals.
The middle school would have more options of how best
to serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example:
Grade 5 served in self-contained classrooms in a
dedicated wing of the middle school.
Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle
school.
Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject
teachers serve the same set of pupils in grades 5 and 6.
Students would have four transitions instead of three in
thirteen years.
The closing of one school building for
use by students.
Re-draw attendance areas to be served
by 4 elementary schools.
Re-design the existing transportation
routes to meet the expectations the
district has for pupil transportation.
If the high enrollment projections in
three years are achieved, the
elementary schools will be
comfortable at 87-90% capacity.
government sectors.
building. Part of savings will be
needed to properly take care of the
asset even though it is not being used.
More instructional space available to
rent to BOCES for regional
programming.
Students would have four transitions
instead of three in thirteen years.
The middle school would have more
options of how best to serve pupils in
grades 5-8. For example:
Grade 5 served in self-contained
classrooms in a dedicated wing of the
middle school.
Grades 6-8 served as they are now
served in the middle school.
Apply a teaming model where two
teams of core subject teachers serve
the same set of pupils in grades 5 and
6.
the same set of pupils in grades 7 and
8.

FINDINGS
66
SCENARIO D:
RATIONALE:
The centralization of what are currently five attendance zones to four K-4 attendance zones and
centralizing the service to grade 5 pupils will help diminish the current class size inequity in class
section sizes at K-5 grade levels without jeopardizing district standards of quality.
Why Lynnwood?
Lynnwood is located only two miles from Pine Bush Elementary.
Both Lynnwood and Pine Bush have decreasing enrollments over the past six years.
Pine Bush has a larger pupil capacity than Lynnwood.
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based
on Average of
the Min and Max
Class Size Goals
of the District
Estimated
K-4
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Est. Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
K-4
Enrollment
In 2018-2019

Est. Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
351

1606 - 1694

82.5% - 87.1%

1593 - 1760

81.8% - 90.4%
Guilderland
(576)
610

Lynnwood
(404)
0
Pine Bush
(396)
463

Westmere
(445)
522

Total K-4: 1946

Middle School 5-
8 (current
enrollment 6-8:
1141)

1579
Estimated
5-8
Enrollment
In 2016-17

1533 - 1524

97.1 - 96.5%
Estimated
5-8
Enrollment
In 2016-17

1445

91.5%

FINDINGS
67
SCENARIO D: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
neighborhoods.
deployment of staff addressed with more pupils available
to be served by four attendance zones instead of five.
In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving
pupils in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the
minimum and maximum class size goals of the district, this
scenario option will likely require:
o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2016-2017: 78-
82 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 92-96.
An estimated seven to eleven fewer FTEs may be
o Estimated total K-4 class sections in 2018-2019: 78 to
85 plus 14 sections to serve grade 5; a total of 92-99.
An estimated four to eleven fewer FTEs may be
building along with the potential of six to thirteen fewer
a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district
to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school
district without changing current class size goals.
The middle school would have more options of how best to
serve pupils in grades 5-8. For example:
Grade 5 served self-contained classrooms in a dedicated
wing of the middle school.
Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle
school.
Students would have four transitions instead of three in
thirteen years.
The closing of one school building for
use by students.
Re-draw attendance areas to be served
by 4 elementary schools.
elementary schools will be
comfortable at 87-90% capacity.
government sectors.
building. Part of savings will be
needed to properly take care of the
asset even though it is not being used.
More instructional space available to
rent to BOCES for regional
programming.
Students would have four transitions
instead of three in thirteen years
The middle school would have more
options of how best to serve pupils in
grades 5-8. For example:
Grade 5 served in self-contained
classrooms in a dedicated wing of
the middle school.
Grades 6-8 served as they are now
served in the middle school.
the same set of pupils in grades 5
and 6.
the same set of pupils in grades 7
and 8.

FINDINGS
68
SCENARIO E:
Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland.
RATIONALE:
The centralization of grades K,1,2 at two sites and grades 3,4,5 at two sites will help mitigate class
size equity gaps. Such a grade configuration model also provides pedagogical opportunities.
(Princeton Model)
Why Altamont?
Westmere and Guilderland are within 2.4 miles of each other. Pine Bush and Lynnwood are
within 2 miles of each other.
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based
on Average of
the Min and
Max Class Size
Goals of the
District
Estimated
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Est. Pupil
Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
Enrollment
In 2018-
2019

Est. Pupil
Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
0

Lynnwood
(404)
Westmere
(445)
436

958
K-2

909 - 996

94.9% - 104%
K-2

947 - 1057

99% - 110% 522
Pine Bush
(396)
Guilderland
(576)
463

1073
3-5

1055

98.3%
3-5

995 - 1051

92.7% - 97.9% 610
Total K-5: 2031

Middle School
6-8 (current
enrollment:
1141)
1579 1186

75.1% 1117

70.7%

FINDINGS
69
SCENARIO E: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland.
neighborhoods.
Equity of grade level class sizes and efficient deployment of
staff addressed with more pupils available to be served by
two K-2 and two 3-5 attendance zones instead of five K-5
zones.
Assignment of instructional staff as teams to buildings based
on skill sets focused on early childhood education or
intermediate elementary education.
In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving pupils
in grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and
maximum class size goals of the district, this scenario option
will likely require:
o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2016-2017: 89-93.
An estimated ten to fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed
with a K-5 Princeton Model of grade configuration.
o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2018-2019: 89 to
96. An estimated seven to fourteen fewer FTEs may be
needed with a K-5 Princeton Model of grade
configuration.
building along with the potential of nine to sixteen fewer
A reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district
to deal with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school
district without changing current class size goals.
The middle school has ample space to rent to the BOCES for
regional shared programming.
The closing of one school building
for use by students.
Re-draw attendance areas to be
served by 4 elementary schools
configured with the Princeton Model
of delivery.
The middle school has about 25%
unused pupil capacity.
elementary schools may be close to
or at pupil capacity unless fewer
rooms are rented to BOCES.
government sectors.
Moth balling one potentially
unused building. Part of savings will
be needed to properly take care of
the asset even though it is not being
used.
It is likely that classrooms rented to
BOCES may have to be relocated to
other elementary settings in the
school district.

FINDINGS
70
SCENARIO F:
Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland.
Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils.
RATIONALE:
The centralization of grades K,1,2 at two sites and grades 3,4 at two sites and grade 5 at the
Middle School Building will help mitigate class size equity gaps. Such a grade configuration
model also provides pedagogical opportunities. (Princeton Model)
Why Altamont?
Westmere and Guilderland are within 2.4 miles of each other. Pine Bush and Lynnwood are
within 2 miles of each other.
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based
on Average of
the Min and
Max Class Size
Goals of the
District
Estimated
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Est. Pupil
Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
Enrollment
In 2018-
2019

Est. Pupil
Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
0

Pine Bush
(396)
Guilderland
(576)
463

1073
K-2

909 - 996

84.7% - 92.8%
K-2

947 - 1057

88.3% - 98.6% 610
Lynnwood
(404)
Westmere
(445)
436

958
3-4

707

73.8%
3-4

647 - 703

67.5% - 73.4% 522
Total K-4: 2031

Middle School 5-
8 (current
enrollment 6-8:
1141)

1579
Estimated
5-8
Enrollment
In 2016-17

1533 - 1524

97.1 - 96.5%
Estimated
5-8
Enrollment
In 2016-17

1445

91.5%

FINDINGS
71
SCENARIO F: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland.
Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use Altamont for pupils.
neighborhoods.
Equity of grade level class sizes and efficient deployment of staff
addressed with more pupils available to be served by two K-2 and
two 3-4 attendance zones and grade 5 served at one central school
building instead of five K-5 zones.
Assignment of instructional staff as teams to buildings based on skill
sets focused on early childhood education or intermediate elementary
education.
In 2013-2014, there are 103 grade level classes serving pupils in
grades K-5. Adhering to the average of the minimum and maximum
class size goals of the district, this scenario option will likely require:
o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2016-2017: 75 to79 plus
14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 89-93. An estimated ten to
fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed with a K-4 Princeton
Model of grade configuration, and grade 5 served at the
middle school building.
o Estimated total K-5 class sections in 2018-2019: 75 to 81 plus
14 sections to serve grade 5; total of 89-95. An estimated eight
to fourteen fewer FTEs may be needed with a K-4 Princeton
Model of grade configuration and grade 5 served at the middle
school building.
The expenditures reduced from operating one fewer school building
along with the potential of ten to sixteen fewer instructional FTEs
including one principal and one media specialist may allow:
existing staff resources to be re-deployed to provide increased
instructional support services for pupils; and/or
a reduction to the overall expenditure of the school district to deal
with the pattern of reduced state aid to the school district without
changing current class size goals.
The middle school would have more options of how best to serve
pupils in grades 5-8. For example:
Grade 5 served in self-contained classrooms in a dedicated wing of
the middle school.
Grades 6-8 served as they are now served in the middle school.
Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject teachers
serve the same set of pupils in grades 5 and 6.
Apply a teaming model where two teams of core subject teachers
serve the same set of pupils in grades 7 and 8.
Students would have four transitions instead of three in thirteen
years.
More space available to rent to BOCES for regional programming
The closing of one school
building for use by students.
Re-draw attendance areas to be
served by 4 elementary schools
configured with the Princeton
Model of delivery.
Re-design the existing
transportation routes to meet
the expectations the district has
for pupil transportation.
Market a building to the
private or government sectors.
Moth balling one potentially
unused buildings. Part of
savings will be needed to
properly take care of the asset
even though it is not being
used.
Students would have four
transitions instead of three in
thirteen years.
The middle school would have
more options of how best to
serve pupils in grades 5-8. For
example:
Grade 5 served in self-
contained classrooms in a
dedicated wing of the middle
school.
Grades 6-8 served as they
are now served in the middle
school.
Apply a teaming model
where two teams of core
subject teachers serve the
same set of pupils in grades
5 and 6.
Apply a teaming model
where two teams of core
subject teachers serve the
same set of pupils in grades
7 and 8.

FINDINGS
72

WORKSHEET SCENARIO G:

RATIONALE:

(Benchmarked to local class size average of the minimum and maximum goals and the instructional
program offerings of 2013-2014)
Location
(Total K-5
current
enrollment:
2111)
Pupil
Operating
Capacity Based on
Average of the Min and
Max Class Size Goals
of the District
Estimated
K-5
Enrollment
In 2016-17
Estimated
Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2016-17
Estimated
K-5 Enrollment
In 2018-2019

Estimated
Pupil Capacity
Use with this
Scenario in
2018-2019
Altamont
(290)
351

1980 - 2068

1976 - 2143

Guilderland
(576)
610

Lynnwood
(404)
436

Pine Bush
(396)
463

Westmere
(445)
522

Total K-5: 2382

Middle School 6-8
1141)
1579 1186

1117

High School 9-12
1736)
2153 1583 1618


FINDINGS
73

PRELIMINARY FINANCIALS FOR EACH SCENARIO OPTION IDENTIFIED IN THE PROGRAM/FACILITY USE STUDY. Please
note: At this juncture of the process by Guilderland CSD in deciding how best to serve the pupils of the community within the next three to
five years, it is recommended that a careful, thoughtful analysis be focused first on what the vision is for the student program. Once the six
scenario options are narrowed to a prime set, then further analysis of potential annual cost savings should be undertaken. At that time,
specific affected staff FTEs following seniority and other guidelines will be identified along with the specific costs associated with those
FTEs.

Another potential savings is cost avoidance of planned capital improvements for a building that is identified to close in the respective
scenario options. It is suggested that planned capital expenses that do not directly maintain the integrity of the structure, parking lots, or
infrastructure systems can likely be avoided. Estimated avoidance capital expenses are best identified by the architect of the district in
collaboration with the district leadership.

SCENARIOS FOR DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION BY THE
GUILDERLAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Are there options to the current practice that might
provide more efficient ways or patterns to organize how
the grades K-12 program is implemented/delivered over
the next three years?

(Not listed in priority or advocacy order.)
ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS TO THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE SCHOOL
DISTRICT BUDGET
STAFFING
BASED ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM
CLASS SIZE DISTRICT GOALS

Estimated Staffing Expenditure Changes
(Estimated as of January 2014subject to district
enrollment at the time of implementation-
benchmarked to 2016-2017 enrollment estimates)

BUILDING
OPERATION
EXPENSES

Estimated cost savings do not includepotential local
costs, if any, for adaptations/renovations, if any, to
re-configuretheschools to servethepupils as
outlined in each scenario.

Estimated Building Operations
Expenditure Changes

SCENARIO A: Continue the current pattern of program
delivery.

$0

$0

SCENARIO B: Serve K-5 in four schools. Do not use
Altamont for pupils.

Estimated reduction of current expenditures:
$1,160,227 to $1,524,893
Staff: Average
Cost/FTE:
Est. Expenditure
Reduction:
Operations and Maintenance
Staffing:
$201,045
1 principal $151,235 $151,235 School Lunch Staffing: $28,250
1 media
specialist
$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100
1 secretary $53,236 $53,236 Building Supplies: $55,000
1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $360,395
Grade level
teachers:
$93,698 Less Cost to Maintain the
Closed Building:
-$43,450
5 teachers/ high enrollment est. $468,490 :
9 teachers/low enrollment est. $843,282 Estimated Building Operation
Savings:

$316,945
Estimated Staffing Savings: $833,156-$1,207,948
FINDINGS
74



DISTRICT BUDGET
STAFFING
BASED ON THE


BUILDING
OPERATION
EXPENSES


Expenditure Changes

SCENARIO C: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of
Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use

$1,337,497 to $1,712,289
Staff: Average
Cost/FTE:
Est. Expenditure
Reduction:
Staffing:
$201,045
1 media
specialist
$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100
1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $360,395
Grade level
teachers:
Closed Building:
-$43,450
7 teachers/high enrollment est. $655,886
11 teachers/low enrollment est. $1,030,678
Estimated Building Operation
Savings:

$316,945
Estimated Staffing Savings: $1,020,552-$1,395,344

SCENARIO D: Serve K-4 in four schools. Serve all of
Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use
Lynnwood for pupils.

$1,397,097 to $1,771,889
Staff: Average
Cost/FTE:
Est. Expenditure
Reduction:
Staffing:
$231,490
1 media
specialist
$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $98,900
1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $427,995
Grade level
teachers:
Closed Building:
-$51,450

11 teachers/low enrollment est. $1,030,678 Estimated Building Operation
Savings:

$376,545
FINDINGS
75



DISTRICT BUDGET
STAFFING
BASED ON THE


BUILDING
OPERATION
EXPENSES


Expenditure Changes

SCENARIO E: Serve K-2 at Lynnwood and 3-5 at Pine
Bush. Serve K-2 at Westmere and 3-5 at Guilderland. Do
not use Altamont for pupils.

$ 1,618,591 to $1,993,383
Staff: Average
Cost/FTE:
Est. Expenditure
Reduction:
Staffing:
$201,045
1 media
specialist
$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100
1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $360,395
Grade level
teachers:
Closed Building:
-$43,450
Savings:
$316,945

SCENARIO F: Serve 3-4 at Lynnwood and K-2 at Pine
Bush. Serve 3-4 at Westmere and K-2 at Guilderland.
Serve Grade 5 at the Middle School Building. Do not use

$ 1,618,591 to $1,993,383
Staff: Average
Cost/FTE:
Est. Expenditure
Reduction:
Staffing:
$201,045
1 media
specialist
$93,698 $93,698 Utilities: $76,100
1 nurse $66,497 $66,497 Subtotal: $360,395
Grade level
teachers:
Closed Building:
-$43,450
Savings:

$316,945

FINDINGS
76

Potential Impact of the Scenarios on the Current Cost of Pupil Transportation

Currently, it takes 82 regular bus routes in the morning to transport pupils to school. It takes 82 regular bus routes to transport pupils home in the
afternoon. It is possible that the resource now in the school budget that supports the total 164 regular bus routes will be sufficient to implement the
transportation plan for the various school building configuration options.

The 2013-2014 transportation costs to provide the 164 single bus routes for AM and PM transportation to school and home totals $5,851,256. The
average cost per single bus route is $35,678, all inclusive. In 2013-2014, Guilderland receives 86% of the transportation expenditures made in 2012-
2013 as State transportation aid. The local cost per regular bus route on average is $4,995; the State support of each regular bus route on average is
$30,683.

The scenarios require new attendance zones and/or fewer attendance zones to be determined. Until the Board focuses on one or two scenarios, the
study cannot state that it will take fewer, the same or more bus routes to implement the scenarios. For example, some of the scenario options
centralize grade levels district-wide. This may allow fewer student-day time schedules among the grade levels and buildings. The study is cautious
about estimating savings or any added expenditures to the transportation program at this time. Where grade levels are served, and where the
attendance zone lines are drawn, will define the pupil transportation plan. When and if the Board focuses on one or two scenarios for possible
implementation, then the district transportation staff can implement the routing software to suggest safe and economical routes after a preliminary
determination is made about possible attendance zone boundaries. Even at that point, the Board has options.

For example, if there are savings with a configuration scenario compared to the current transportation expenditures, the district and community may
wish to use those savings to reduce travel time on buses with more routes or use the savings to add to the academic program. Each fewer route
equals about $4,995 in less revenue needed annually from the local tax levy. Similarly, any added route to serve pupils safer, or in a more timely
way adds about $4,995 annually in expenditure that is covered by the local tax levy.

Elementary School Attendance Zones of Guilderland Central School District 2013-2014
Gray: Altamont; Green: Lynnwood; Red: Pine Bush; Moss: Guilderland; Blue: Westmere

Guilderland Schools Building Capacity Study (2014)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Guilderland Schools Building Capacity Study (2014)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and

decision options for serving students in the future.

Вам также может понравиться