Yes for Valley Stream school consolidation

The four school boards of the Valley Streams have considered district consolidation, on and off, for at least 15 years. An extensive report was prepared in 1995 that failed to convince enough of the 19 school board members of the four districts that district consolidation was in the best interests of students and community. Thus, the community did not have the opportunity to vote on the issue. Over the past four years of my seven-year tenure as superintendent of schools of the Valley Stream Central High School District, I have advocated for district consolidation. Thus, my position is not “new” as a result of my upcoming retirement.

School consolidation will result in financial savings, though not as great as some people believe and, most importantly, improved educational opportunities for the vast majority of Valley Stream children.

The combined 2010-11 school year budgets of the four districts amount to approximately $200 million. Though I have not been authorized to conduct a thorough financial analysis of the savings that would result from consolidation, I estimate (conservatively) that the savings would be $3-5 million, approximately 2 to 3 percent of the total budgets. There would be a need for only one superintendent of schools instead of four, as well as one chief business official, one director of special education, and one assistant superintendent for instruction, with concomitant salary reductions. However, a district of approximately 10,000 students, grades K-12, would require additional “lower-level” administrators in special education, school business, and instruction.

The area of facilities and maintenance would become more efficient with one director of facilities and a unified maintenance department. There would be a reduction in the four districts’ clerical staff in that districtwide operations would require but one business office, personnel office, special education office and instructional office. Though these salary savings are considerable, they pale in terms of the total personnel costs associated with operating a school district with personnel-related costs accounting for approximately 80 percent of school budgets. Most of the $200 million budget is school building-related, meaning the salaries of the principal, assistant principals, teachers and support staff, including clerical and custodial. In that there is a continuing need to operate 10 elementary schools and four secondary schools (unless enrollment declines), most costs will remain.

Given the significant number of cooperative purchasing agreements which currently exist among the four school districts and the use of other governmental cooperative contracts, I doubt there are all that many dollars which can be saved through larger-scale purchasing efforts. However, the unified district would achieve additional savings since it would need but one attorney, auditor, internal auditor, claims auditor, district treasurer, district clerk, etc. And, $3-5 million of savings, on a yearly basis, is nothing to sneeze at.

The primary issue regarding district consolidation has always been the differing tax rates that exist among the three elementary districts as a result of their different assessed valuations, meaning, for example, that District 30 benefits by having the Green Acres shopping center as a major taxpayer, whereas neither District 13 nor District 24 has any singular commercial taxpayer equal in size to the mall. Thus, consolidation would benefit some residents more so than others, but no one has calculated how much that would be.

Yes, consolidation would provide greater efficiencies in operations and cost savings. For many, this is a sufficient reason to consolidate. I believe the more important reason is educational.

We lack the consistency of instructional priorities (and specific, focused strategies) that K-12 districts have. Though the four superintendents articulate on a regular basis regarding instructional needs and priorities, each school board has its own priorities which direct their respective superintendents and allocate their financial resources. I could provide several examples, but the areas of mathematics and special education are paramount.

This past spring, Newsday reported that some local school districts have a much larger percentage of their eighth graders participating in high school level algebra than do other school districts, including us, and algebra is universally accepted as a gateway course to higher mathematics and college. Valley Stream’s percentage of eighth graders participating in algebra is 35 percent, which is currently very respectable. However, it is and cannot be higher because we are not able to accelerate all of our seventh graders, since the math curricula in grades 5 and 6 would have to be compacted (or accelerated) to properly prepare students for the grade 8 algebra Regents exam. Thus, a large number of our students do not have the same opportunity to participate in higher level math courses in high school as do students in some neighboring communities. If we were to attempt to accelerate more of our seventh graders without their having had the benefit of gradual acceleration at an earlier grade level, our students would be unsuccessful. The same case can be made for accelerating science.

When the superintendents of the four districts and their directors of special education recently met with a state representative to discuss how we could “smooth the transition” of special education students from grade 6 to grade 7, we recognized how different the sixth-grade programs are within the three elementary districts and how different the program is between grade 6 and grade 7. Such differences make transitions incredibly difficult for our more vulnerable students.

And, creative minds could probably configure a K-12 district that has a real middle school (or two) educating students in grades 6-8, another way to ease the transition from a single elementary teacher classroom to a fully departmentalized secondary school.

Thus, why not just consolidate? We already have one teachers’ contract for all four school districts, as well as one contract with our clerical personnel and nurses. There would most certainly be challenges in coordinating the contracts of building administrators and custodial personnel given the differences that exist within the salary levels of the four districts, but these are not insurmountable. There would most certainly be a challenge in designing the new Board of Education, which would not have 19 board members; thus, some board members would not continue as (unpaid) trustees. Parent leaders might fear that a larger school district would be less responsive to their individual and organizational advocacy. This may be true, but I believe the advantages to students of consolidation far outweigh this concern, given that the most vital parental relationships exist between parents and their child’s own school, not with the larger school district.

Nothing will — or should — happen without the strong and determined interest of Valley Stream community members, parents and non-parents alike. Given the troubled economy, there is no better time than now to initiate this change. And, the academic bar will continue to be raised, both globally and regionally. Valley Stream’s children should not be held back.

Dr. Marc Bernstein is superintendent of the Valley Stream Central High School District.