Dual Campus
Feasibility Study
OCTOBER 2009
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
2
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Design of the Study
1.0 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................3
1.1 Need for the Study ...............................................................................................................3
1.2 Review of the Literature ......................................................................................................3
1.3 Methodology of the Study ...................................................................................................5
1.4 Questions of the Study .........................................................................................................5
1.5 Assumptions of the Study ....................................................................................................5
Chapter 2 – District and School Enrollment Trends
2.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................6
2.1 Enrollment Trends: Actual West Side .................................................................................6
2.2 Enrollment Trends: Projected West Side .............................................................................7
2.3 Open Enrollment ..................................................................................................................8
2.4 Summary ..............................................................................................................................9
Chapter 3 – Educational Programs, Services, and Staffing
3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................10
3.1 Student Scheduling Data and Student Course Offerings ...................................................10
3.2 Educational Support Services ............................................................................................17
3.3 Co-Curricular Programming ..............................................................................................19
3.4 Transitions..........................................................................................................................21
3.5 Summary ...........................................................................................................................21
Chapter 4 – Facilities and Transportation
4.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................22
4.1 Overview of High School Facilities ...................................................................................22
4.2 Facility Condition Assessment ..........................................................................................23
4.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................................23
4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................24
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Recommendations
5.0 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................25
5.1 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................25
Appendices
A Study Team Members ........................................................................................................26
B Bibliography ......................................................................................................................27
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
3
1.0 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to determine the feasibility of restructuring two comprehensive high
schools on the west side of Green Bay (Southwest and West High Schools) into two campuses;
one high school would serve grades 9 and 10 and the other high school serve grades 11 and 12.
1.1 Need for the Study
In November of 2006, the referendum to build a fifth high school in Green Bay was defeated.
After the referendum defeat, the Enrollment Management Task Force (ETMF) was formed to
study the issue and to provide recommendations regarding the overcrowding of schools on the
east side and student space availability on the west side. In September of 2008, the Board of
Education accepted the report from the ETMF. A number of recommendations were contained
in that report, two of which reinforced the consideration of a dual campus high school on the
west side of the District. Specifically, the report referenced a recommendation to revise
attendance boundaries for middle and high schools to utilize underused space at various high
schools and to study the development of alternative or magnet schools on the west side of the
District to better use west side secondary space. After September of 2008, the Board of
Education met a number of times to review the Task Force recommendations and to determine
potential solutions to the enrollment problem. Factors that weighed heavily on the Board were
the state of the funding sources of the State, coupled with the decline of enrollments on the west
side in a revenue cap environment. This decline in enrollments will lead to both fiscal
constraints and lost opportunities for students.
Additionally, the Board made a commitment to the community to study the potential of the dual
campus concept in an effort to be fiscally responsible. The current state of the funding formula
does not provide the District with sufficient funds to maintain programs and costs. Over the last
four years, the District has made $28 million in budget reductions, including a reduction in 185
full-time positions. The 2008-09 budget deficit was $6 million. This deficit will continue in the
future with deep, real cuts to programs and staff. The Board of Education recognized that there
may be potential in cost savings by restructuring to a dual campus at under-enrolled west side
high schools. There potentially could be some academic benefits to students as well. As it was
not known at that time as to whether these ideas would lead to financial and academic
opportunities, the Board directed the administration to study the feasibility of a dual campus.
1.2 Review of the Literature
The focus of the literature review was to investigate two important areas: school size and grade
level organization. A number of sources were used in writing this feasibility study. Members of
the study team (see Appendix A for a listing of team members) contacted researchers and authors
on this topic. There was a significant amount of current research on school size at the high
school level. There is very little current and dated research on the concept of dual campus.
The research on school enrollment size shows a moderate effect of school size on student
performance. A possible hypothesis for the relationship between smaller schools and
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
4
achievement is that larger schools are less effective in connecting with students on a more
personal level. As size increases, anonymity also increases, reducing the connectedness and
sense of belonging students may feel toward their school. Personal connections between faculty
and individual students are more difficult in a larger school. Newman et al. (2006) reported that
students and teachers at smaller schools tend to have more positive attitudes toward their school.
Byrk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, and Sebring (1993) reported that in smaller schools, students felt
that teachers were more interested in them.
The argument for building larger schools has been based on financial factors. There is a cost
savings potential for larger schools as districts can afford to have more full-time staff in a
building and less traveling time and expenses due to teachers working in more than one building.
Another advantage of larger high schools is the ability to offer a wider set of course choices to
students, particularly advanced courses. For example, in a small school there may not be enough
students enroll in an advanced course to justify allocating teacher time to the course.
School size is not an easy thing to manipulate, given the substantial investments in physical
plants of larger buildings. It is financially prohibitive to replace larger buildings with smaller
ones to solve this dilemma. Some people have suggested taking a larger physical plant and
breaking it up organizationally into two or more smaller “schools” within a school. This model
creates smaller educational units, each with a separate educational program, its own staff and
students, and its own budget, within a larger physical plant.
Schools-within-a-school attempts to simulate the effects of smaller schools while optimizing
existing buildings. However, the research on schools-within-a-school has been inconsistent and
certainly has not produced as strong of an effect as the school size research. The difficulty
comes from truly separating the “schools” both physically and operationally. The smaller units
have to be truly and completely autonomous, including administratively, to obtain any of the
effect identified by the research. The pull of economizing by sharing functions (such as
administration) is so great that the separation between the “schools” is reduced, and with it, the
advantages. (McCabe and Oxley, 1989; Oxley, 1994; McMullan, Sipe and Wolfe, 1994;
Raywid, 1996).
For several years earlier in this decade, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded many
smaller school efforts with millions of dollars, based on the research cited above. However, they
have recently stopped funding smaller schools’ grants, apparently because these schools were not
producing results. Evaluations of their funding have been unavailable up to this time. One
might conclude that smaller schools work well when created naturally, but they are difficult to
“manufacture” to get the same effect.
A review of the research indicated that there is yet to be consistent and common agreement as to
the perfect size of a school; arguments can be made for large schools’ ability to provide extra-
curricular and athletic diversity and for small schools to concentrate on serving the individual
student.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
5
Various grade level groupings have been researched with very little agreement as to the ideal
grade configurations. There are a number of schools in the Midwest that have dual campus
configurations. Some of these have reverted back to the traditional nine through twelve grade
arrangements while a number of schools continue to operate under a split grade/dual campus
model.
1.3 Methodology of the Study
The study team implemented a number of methodological procedures to address the purpose of
the study. They include, but are not limited to:
1. Researching the pertinent literature and research
2. Analyzing area demographic data and trends
3. Analyzing current K-12 enrollment data
4. Analyzing projected enrollment data
5. Analyzing open enrollment data
6. Analyzing class size data
7. Analyzing school schedules
8. Analyzing programs and services
9. Analyzing course offerings
10. Analyzing special education and English language learner programming
11. Analyzing staffing
12. Analyzing facility operating costs
13. Analyzing conditions/status of each facility
1.4 Questions of the Study
There are a number of questions to assist in investigating the purpose and needs of the study
which will help provide the Board with information to determine whether to proceed with
exploring the option of a dual campus on the west side at the high school level. Those questions
are as follows:
1. What is the current status of the west side of the School District, including its enrollment
and enrollment trends, finances, programs and services, staffing, organizational
configuration, facilities and related issues at the high school level on the west side of
Green Bay?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages, both programmatically and fiscally, of the
current organizational structure versus the proposed dual campus structure?
3. What are the options and implications to the school district moving toward a dual
campus?
4. What are the recommendations relative to implementing a dual campus in Green Bay?
1.5 Assumptions of the Study
The study team identified specific operating assumptions that would help facilitate the
programming options for a dual high school campus concept. They are listed below.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
6
1. Enrollments continue to decline on the west side as student population on the east side
continues to increase.
2. Within a revenue cap environment, it will be difficult to maintain high quality,
comprehensive high schools over time within a declining student population at the west
side schools.
3. The District continues to have more students leave the school district through open
enrollment than those students who want to attend the school district from outlying
school districts.
4. Revenue caps will continue to pose financial constraints on the school district relative to
its ability to provide quality educational options for students.
5. Parents and patrons expect the District to provide a quality array of programs and
services for our student populations.
6. Parents of students in the Green Bay Schools desire that the quality of modern-day
services and programs, and organization configurations, and teaching and learning
processes be made available to the school district students.
7. The District is committed to providing high quality, cost effective programs, services and
delivery systems that best meet the needs of all students in the School District.
8. The District strives to be the school district of choice in Northeastern Wisconsin.
2.0 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the current and long range enrollment
trends on the west side of the District. Historical and projected enrollment data are provided
along with data and the impact of open enrollment on west side secondary schools.
2.1 Enrollment Trends: Actual West Side
During the past 10 years, the K-12 enrollment at west side schools has decreased from 8,434
students to 7,499, which is a 12.47% decline. However, over the past 5 years, this decline has
slowed to 4.84%. The majority of the decline has been at the secondary level. Middle school
enrollment has decreased from 1,886 students to 1,536, a 22.79% decline; high school student
enrollment has gone from 2,821 students down to 2,316 students, a 21.8% decline over the past
10 years. At the elementary level, there has been an enrollment decline of 2.19%, from 3,726
students down to 3,647. It should be noted that over the past five years, there has actually been
an increase in student enrollment at the elementary level of 6.96%, an increase of 159 elementary
students on the west side of the district. Historical data show (see Table 2.1.1) that as the
increase in K-5 enrollment is taking place during the past few years, the decrease in the middle
schools has slowed. The low enrollments that were in the middle schools are now filtering
through the high schools.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
7
Table 2.1.1
2009-10 Enrollment History - West Side of District
5-Year & 10-Year Actual Percentages
History Percentage
School Name 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 5-Years 10-Years
Beaumont 310 314 303 274 295 302 294 279 319 306 1.31% -1.31%
Chappell 262 260 264 266 234 220 229 255 217 273 19.41% 4.03%
Elmore 257 257 258 265 245 231 215 220 275 293 21.16% 12.29%
Fort Howard 310 352 279 260 271 258 289 287 333 350 26.29% 11.43%
Jackson 376 370 358 342 341 337 343 327 340 341 1.17% -10.26%
Jefferson 183 179 178 163 157 146 168 176 170 173 15.61% -5.78%
Keller 401 408 414 302 494 447 446 472 458 443 -0.90% 9.48%
Kennedy 339 294 278 296 300 293 297 291 324 337 13.06% -0.59%
King 491 483 452 416 419 403 398 389 421 430 6.28% -14.19%
Lincoln 266 261 271 233 244 250 238 256 219 196 -27.55% -35.71%
MacArthur 285 296 315 309 310 322 294 290 295 301 -6.98% 5.32%
Tank 247 230 222 219 178 184 238 221 210 204 9.80% -21.08%
Total Elem: 3,727 3,704 3,592 3,345 3,488 3,393 3,449 3,463 3,581 3,647 6.96% -2.19%
Franklin 860 875 913 914 849 792 763 696 685 705 -12.34% -21.99%
Lombardi 1,026 1,005 1,025 968 946 922 898 920 858 831 -10.95% -23.47%
Total MS: 1,886 1,880 1,938 1,882 1,795 1,714 1,661 1,616 1,543 1,536 -11.59% -22.79%
Southwest 1,578 1,538 1,488 1,484 1,443 1,429 1,459 1,422 1,367 1,300 -9.92% -21.38%
West 1,243 1,284 1,312 1,299 1,310 1,326 1,270 1,232 1,099 1,016 -30.51% -22.34%
Total HS: 2,821 2,822 2,800 2,783 2,753 2,755 2,729 2,654 2,466 2,316 -18.96% -21.80%
TOTAL: 8,434 8,406 8,330 8,010 8,036 7,862 7,839 7,733 7,590 7,499 -4.84% -12.47%
2.2 Enrollment Trends: Projected West Side
The 2009-10 enrollment projections indicate the decline in enrollment on the west side of the
District will be reversed and a moderate increase in enrollment will take place over the next 10
years (see Table 2.2.1). It is projected that the present west-side enrollment of 7,499 students
will increase by 1.68% to 7,625 students by 2019-20. The majority of this increase will take
place at the middle school level where enrollment is projected to rise from 1,536 students to
1,669, a 133 student increase (8.68%). Elementary enrollment is projected to continue to rise, as
it has over the previous five years, however it will increase at the slower rate of 3.29% over the
next five years with an overall ten-year increase of 1.73%. Due to the lower enrollments seen in
the District’s middle schools during the past five years, as these reduced numbers filter through
the high schools, high school enrollment numbers are projected to continue declining for
approximately the next five to six years. After that period, west-side high school enrollments are
projected to begin increasing.
District-wide, elementary enrollments are increasing and the low middle school enrollment
numbers are beginning to flow into the high schools. Comparing the September 3rd
Friday count
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
8
of 2009-10 and the September 3rd
Friday count of 2008-09, District elementary school
enrollments show continued growth with an increase of 110 students. Of this number, 59 were
west side students and 51 were on the east side. At the middle school level, there was a decrease
of 58 students with 7 on the west side and 51 on the east side. West side high schools saw a
decline of 149 students compared to a 56-student decrease on the east side of the District.
Table 2.2.1
2009-10 Enrollment Projections - West Side of District
5-Year and 10-Year Growth Percentages
Current Projections Growth
Percentage School
Name 2009-10 2010-
11
2011-
12
2012-
13
2013-
14
2014-
15
2015-
16
2016-
17
2017-
18
2018-
19
2019-
20 5-Years 10-Years
Beaumont 306 294 297 304 318 339 344 349 351 346 343 10.82% 12.08%
Chappell 273 271 267 261 259 264 265 272 274 274 270 -3.23% -1.14%
Elmore 293 305 310 314 314 307 297 298 301 299 300 4.85% 2.26%
Fort Howard 350 359 376 391 398 396 379 384 379 383 379 13.14% 8.15%
Jackson 341 337 355 358 360 361 363 362 357 358 356 5.89% 4.33%
Jefferson 173 174 174 183 173 161 159 158 154 153 155 -7.20% -10.31%
Keller 443 449 457 455 441 450 451 450 452 453 455 1.59% 2.79%
Kennedy 337 334 323 313 327 331 328 338 343 344 337 -1.71% -0.06%
King 430 428 405 413 418 391 396 390 385 390 387 -9.06% -10.05%
Lincoln 196 195 195 214 221 225 229 236 231 224 224 15.01% 14.11%
MacArthur 301 306 290 282 307 312 306 299 298 310 294 3.54% -2.26%
Tank 204 212 220 235 241 229 226 231 223 213 211 12.47% 3.54%
Total Elem: 3,647 3,665 3,670 3,724 3,778 3,767 3,743 3,767 3,748 3,747 3,710 3.29% 1.73%
Franklin 705 688 691 664 708 720 778 750 774 765 797 2.07% 13.00%
Lombardi 831 806 891 881 867 820 827 848 865 850 873 -1.37% 5.03%
Total MS: 1,536 1,493 1,582 1,545 1,574 1,539 1,604 1,598 1,638 1,615 1,669 0.21% 8.68%
Southwest 1,300 1,295 1,204 1,208 1,200 1,212 1,257 1,237 1,228 1,190 1,203 -6.74% -7.49%
West 1,016 986 959 973 953 957 943 955 991 1,030 1,043 -5.76% 2.67%
Total HS: 2,316 2,281 2,163 2,181 2,153 2,170 2,200 2,192 2,219 2,220 2,246 -6.31% -3.03%
TOTAL: 7,499 7,439 7,415 7,450 7,505 7,476 7,548 7,557 7,606 7,582 7,625 -0.31% 1.68%
2.3 Open Enrollment
Tables 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 below display open enrollment data for the west side secondary schools.
Data are provided for the last three years for students who have enrolled in the District from
outlying districts (see Table 2.3.1). Table 2.3.2 displays data for the last three years by
secondary schools for students who left the District. The data in these two charts show that there
is significant disparity between the students who open enroll into the District versus those who
exercise open enrollment and leave the District.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
9
Table 2.3.1
Open Enrollment-IN
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Franklin Open Enroll New 0 1 0
Open Enroll Continuing 2 0 1
Total Franklin 2 1 1
Lombardi Open Enroll New 2 4 1
Open Enroll Continuing 5 5 6
Total Lombardi 7 9 7
Southwest Open Enroll New 12 8 7
Open Enroll Continuing 21 18 11
Total Southwest 33 26 18
West Open Enroll New 7 6 1
Open Enroll Continuing 11 5 3
Total West 18 11 4
Table 2.3.2
Open Enrollment-Out
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Franklin Open Enroll New 12 11 18
Open Enroll Continuing 18 24 28
Total Franklin 30 35 46
Lombardi Open Enroll New 10 9 13
Open Enroll Continuing 16 17 32
Total Lombardi 26 26 45
Southwest Open Enroll New 15 14 28
Open Enroll Continuing 43 35 41
Total Southwest 58 49 69
West Open Enroll New 8 18 18
Open Enroll Continuing 34 32 48
Total West 42 50 66
2.4 Summary
During the past 10 years, the K-12 enrollment at west side schools has decreased substantially
leaving most west side schools under capacity. The majority of the decline has been at the
secondary level. However, over the past five years, this decline has slowed and there has
actually been an increase in student enrollment at the elementary level on the west side of the
district. The decrease in the middle schools has slowed. Low enrollments that were in the
middle schools are now filtering through the high schools. The 2009-10 enrollment projections
indicate the decline in enrollment on the west side of the District will be reversed and a moderate
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
10
increase in enrollment will take place over the next ten years. The majority of this increase will
take place at the middle and elementary school level. The District’s high schools will continue
to decline in enrollment until the increase in elementary and middle school enrollment moves up
to the high school level. Open enrollment data continue to show a trend of more students leaving
the west side secondary schools than are entering them.
3.0 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the benefits and challenges in the educational programs and
services with regard to the grade 9-12 structure and a grade 9-10, 11-12 structure.
3.1 Student Scheduling Data and Student Course Offerings
Table 3.1.1 listed below displays four year historical data and one year future data demonstrating
the decline in the number of students taking classes at each school. Table 3.1.2 shows the
decline in number of sections of coursework at each school over the last five years.
Table 3.1.1 Number of Students in Attendance
Date of Report SW WHS
1/13/2006 1428 1312
1/12/2007 1422 1227
1/11/2008 1369 1184
1/9/2009 1351 1076
*futured 2009-10 1282 1010
*Verified with Zangle 2010 track at the time of Staffing in February 2009
Does not include students enrolled in Alt. Programs
(I.E. Forward Bound, GED II etc.)
Does not include those (verified) who will not return to WHS
Table 3.1.2 Number of Course Sections/Year
Year SW WHS
2005-06 365.5 314
2006-07 352 303
2007-08 345 280
2008-09 328.5 277
2009-10 309.5 257
Data does NOT include Library, Guidance, ELL or Sp. Ed.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
11
High School Credit Course Offerings
In the current structure, declining enrollment has limited course offerings for students at both
schools. For example, advanced placement offerings have been reduced or eliminated due to
declining enrollment. There are also more student scheduling conflicts created due to the
number of sections of courses offered having decreased.
In the dual campus structure, combining grade levels at each building will increase the number of
class sections at one site giving students at that site more course options and scheduling
flexibility. However, students wanting classes offered on the other campus would need
transportation.
Also available to all students in a dual campus structure will be classes that are currently held
exclusively at one campus. For example, Southwest offers Early Childhood, American Sign
Language and Chinese which are not offered at West. West will offer International
Baccalaureate and is offering Automotive Shop, and Metals classes which are not available at
Southwest.
It is anticipated that some freshmen and sophomores may take classes at the grade 11-12 school.
This will require additional transportation (shuttle service) between the two buildings. A
conservative estimate of needing one shuttle bus for periods 2-7 to run between the schools is
projected.
The table below (Table 3.1.3) describes opportunities and effects on course offerings within the
current and dual campus structure.
Table 3.1.3 Credit Course Offerings
Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9012
(Current)
Southwest has more AP offerings
Southwest offers Early Childhood
Southwest offers American Sign
Language
West will offer International
Baccalaureate (IB) courses in 2011-12
school year
West offers Automotive Shop class
West offers metals class
Will need to run smaller sections of
classes or fewer section offerings
Staffing costs of running
smaller sections
With declining enrollment,
AP course offerings at
Southwest will continue to
be more limited.
Advanced West students
do not get an opportunity
to take as many advanced
classes at their school.
Southwest technical school
students do not get an
opportunity to take metals
and automotive shop
classes at their school.
Option #2
WHS 9/10
SWHS 11/12
Students from West and Southwest
could take offerings in metals, auto
shop and early childhood at their home
school.
Shuttle Cost
+$47,790
($44.25 per shuttle round
trip x 6 shuttles x 180
days)
Students wanting classes
offered on the other
campus would need
transportation.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
12
Credit Course Offerings Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Students from West would have more
opportunities to take advanced classes.
Southwest student taking advanced
classes would have more flexibility in
their schedules.
Staffing savings when
sections are combined.
Combining grade levels at
each building increases the
number of class sections at
one site giving students at
that site more course
options and scheduling
flexibility.
Option #3
SWHS 9/10
WHS 11/12
Students from West and Southwest
could take offerings in metals, auto
shop and early childhood where
offered.
West will offer IB courses in 2011-12
school year.
Students from West would have more
opportunities to take advanced classes.
Southwest students taking advanced
classes would have more flexibility in
their schedules.
Shuttle Cost
+$47,790
($44.25 per shuttle round
trip x 6 shuttles x 180
days)
Staffing savings when
sections are combined.
Students wanting classes
offered on the other
campus would need
transportation.
Combining grade levels at
each building increases the
number of class sections at
one site giving students at
that site more course
options and scheduling
flexibility.
Table 3.1.4 below identifies the total number of FTE for regular education teachers in the current
structure. Library, guidance, ELL and special education are not included in these totals, as these
staff totals will remain consistent in the current or proposed dual campus model. As the data
indicate, in the current structure, there has been a decline of FTE over the last five years, aligning
with declining student enrollments.
Table 3.1.4 Teacher FTE/Year
Year SW WHS
2005-06 73.1 62.8
2006-07 70.4 60.6
2007-08 69 56
2008-09 65.7 55.4
2009-10 requested 61.9 51.4
Data does NOT include Library, Guidance, ELL or Sp. Ed.
Incorporating Staffing for 9-10 and 11-12 Buildings
When the 2009-10 staffing is redone with a dual campus structure (see Table 3.1.5), providing
course offerings for grades 9 and 10 at one campus, and grades 11 and 12 at the other campus, a
reduction of 3.2 FTE (regular education teachers) is achieved. At an average cost of $65,000 per
full-time teacher (salary and benefits), an approximate savings of $208,000 may be achieved. A
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
13
positive result to this is the ability of offering more course opportunities and accommodating
more student course requests. This amount differs from earlier projections for a number of
reasons. The earlier projections with higher cost savings estimates were based on 2008-09
staffing data. A complete analysis was done using actual 2009-10 staffing data and re-staffing
was completed to ensure the number of sections requested were accurate within staffing course
guidelines. In addition, decreasing enrollment and tighter staffing for the 2009-10 school year
caused for a lower FTE savings than what was previously estimated.
Table 3.1.5 Staffing Comparison: Current vs. Dual Campus Structure
Current Structure Total FTE Dual Campus Structure Total FTE
2009-10 SW 61.9 Grade 9-10 Campus 50.4
2009-10 West 51.4 Grade 11-12 Campus 59.7
TOTAL 113.3 TOTAL 110.1
One benefit of a dual campus structure is students, who were prevented from taking classes due
to low enrollment, would now have access to those classes. This is an issue particularly for
advanced placement classes. Below are some examples of how this would benefit students,
particularly at West High School.
Table 3.1.6 Enrollment Opportunities
Course 2009-10 Staffing at
Southwest Only
2009-10 Staffing at
West Only
Result of Dual Campus
Structure
AP Statistics 1 section (26 requests) 1 section (9 requests) Two sections offered at the
11/12 campus
AP Calc BC
Calculus 2/CEP
1 distance learning section
(4 requests)
1 distance learning
section- hosting site (6
requests)
1 section offered at the
11/12 site
AP Psychology 2 sections (37 requests) 1 section (14 requests) Two sections offered at the
11/12 campus
Advanced Art 1 1 section (10 full-year & 4
semester requests)
0 sections (5 full-year & 2
semester requests)
1 section offered at the
11/12 campus
Student System Scheduling Impact
The current structure allows for the Zangle student system to function within the parameters as
they are presently set up. Implementing a dual campus model would take a significant amount of
programming resources and time to plan, test and implement conversion logic. Costs would vary
depending on timing of the school year when the conversion to the student system would take
place. To minimize costs and be ready for a future school year, planning, testing and
implementation would need to occur prior to December 1st when the student system data are
rolled to a future school year (cost range = $69,000-$91,000). As timelines for implementation
are delayed throughout a school year, the cost impact becomes greater. Additional
transportation/enrollment mapping changes would need to be completed as a result of merging
the two schools and if the conversion of the student system is completed after the year end roll to
the future school year, costs would be even more significant (cost range $94,000 - $160,000). In
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
14
addition, outsourcing some of the related work is likely and will result in higher costs. Table
3.1.7 outlines work that would need to be completed and potential scenarios with related costs
for completing this work.
Table 3.1.7 Student System Conversion
Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1:
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9-12
(Current)
No changes necessary None The student system is presently
configured appropriately
Option #2:
Dual campus
conversion:
Existing
mapping
parameters;
set-up and
training
completed
prior to December 1
Set-up (programmer) plus adjust reports
Testing (programmer, super-users)
Edulog changes
Additional clerical time to adjust data
Training
Zangle technical support
Monitoring and support
Minimum costs:
$4,000
$12,000
$14,000
$7,000
$12,000
$5,000
$15,000
Total Minimum
Cost: $69,000
Total Maximum
Cost: $91,000
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $8,000; If
additional mapping parameters
changes were needed, other than
remapping current West and
Southwest areas, an additional
cost of $14,000 would be
incurred.
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $16,000
Cost reflects remapping West and
Southwest transportation
parameters.
Cost does not include potential
addition to work related to school
choice
Continued monitoring and support
is necessary due to conversion and
new methods for data conversion
and entry.
Option #3:
Existing
mapping
parameters;
set-up and
training
completed
after
December 1
Set-up (programmer) plus adjust reports
Minimum costs:
$4,000
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $8,000; If
additional transportation mapping
changes were needed, other than
remapping current West and
Southwest areas, an additional
cost of $14,000 would be
incurred.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
15
Student System Conversion Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
and before
scheduling is
initiated
Testing (programmer, super-users)
Edulog changes
Additional clerical time to adjust data
Training
Zangle technical support
Monitoring and support
$12,000
$14,000
$9,000
$12,000
$5,000
$15,000
Total Minimum
Cost: $71,000
Total Maximum
Cost: $93,000
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $16,000
Cost reflects remapping West and
Southwest transportation
parameters.
Cost does not include potential
addition to work related to school
choice
Continued monitoring and support
is necessary due to conversion and
new methods for data conversion
and entry.
Option #4:
Existing
mapping
parameters;
set-up and
training
completed
after
scheduling is
initiated
Set-up (programmer) plus adjust reports
Testing (programmer, super-users)
Edulog changes
Additional clerical time to adjust data
Training
Master schedule changes
Zangle technical support
Monitoring and support
Minimum costs:
$4,000
$12,000
$14,000
$9,000
$12,000
$8,000
$5,000
$15,000
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $8,000; If
additional transportation mapping
changes were needed, other than
remapping current West and
Southwest areas, an additional
cost of $28,000 would be
incurred.
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $16,000
Cost reflects remapping West and
Southwest parameters.
Cost does not include potential
addition to work related to school
choice
Continued monitoring and support
is necessary due to conversion and
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
16
Student System Conversion Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Total Minimum
Cost: $79,000
Total Maximum
Cost: $115,000
new methods for data conversion
and entry.
Option #5:
Existing
mapping
parameters;
set-up and
training
completed
after Year-
End
Set-up (programmer) plus adjust reports
Testing (programmer, super-users)
Edulog changes
Additional clerical time to adjust data
Training
Master schedule changes
Enrollment changes
Schedule changes
Zangle technical support
Monitoring and support
Minimum costs:
$4,000
$12,000
$14,000
$9,000
$12,000
$16,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$15,000
Total Minimum
Cost: $94,000
Total Maximum
Cost: $160,000
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $8,000; If
additional transportation mapping
changes were needed, other than
remapping current West and
Southwest areas, an additional
cost of $58,000 would be
incurred.
If outsourcing is needed, cost
would increase to $16,000
Cost reflects remapping West and
Southwest parameters.
Cost does not include potential
addition to work related to school
choice
Continued monitoring and support
is necessary due to conversion and
new methods for data conversion
and entry.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
17
3.2 Educational Support Services
Special Education
The overall special education enrollment has been declining at West over the past several years,
consistent with decreasing special education enrollment at Franklin. Special education
enrollment has been more consistent over the same time period at Southwest.
It may be more difficult to staff certain special education course offerings, if the course numbers
are low. With the current decline in special education enrollment at the west side feeder schools,
there will likely be a corresponding decrease in special education teaching positions. This will
require some adjustment in how special education is delivered at West High School.
With a dual campus arrangement, there will be greater flexibility in assigning special education
teachers based on student need. With more sections at each grade level, there will be more
options for focused teacher support. For example, instead of covering the curriculum for team
taught sections over four grade levels, teachers can focus more directly on a limited range of
curriculum options, and develop more expertise in each area. Any cost differences would be
minimal, and there may be some cost reductions due to less duplication of course offerings
across two sites.
Program for Deaf/Hard of Hearing Students (DHH)
For years, Kennedy, Lombardi, and Southwest have been identified as the school sites for
students with hearing impairments who require the services of a teacher for the hearing impaired
and an educational interpreter. Many of the students enrolled at these three sites are under
tuition contracts with districts in the surrounding area. Some declines in enrollment have been
noted in the past few years.
Maintaining the current campus arrangement will have no impact on services for students with
hearing impairments. These students can continue to be supported at Southwest. It should be
noted that student interest is high in the sign language courses offered at Southwest for foreign
language credit, based on the number of sections offered and student enrollment. With many
regular education students fluent in sign language, it provides for meaningful interaction among
all students at Southwest. Without the DHH program at Southwest, interest in sign language
classes may decrease.
With a split campus, most DHH sections can be divided equally across grade levels. However,
in 2009-10, five sections contain a combination of 9-12th
grade students. There may not be
enough students to offer five classes at both campuses. Therefore, there is the potential for
additional costs. These additional costs would include a 0.5 FTE DHH teacher, and 0.6 FTE
educational interpreter, for total costs of $60,000.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
18
Table 3.2.1 Educational Support Services
Special Education (excluding DHH) Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9-12
(Current)
The overall special education enrollment
at West over the past several years has
been consistent with decreasing special
education enrollment at Franklin.
Special education enrollment has been
more consistent over the past several
years at Southwest.
None, or minimal It may be more difficult to
staff certain special education
offerings, if the course
request numbers are low.
With the current decline in
enrollment at the west side
feeder schools, there be a
likely decrease in special
education teaching positions.
This will require adjustments
on how special education is
delivered.
Option #2
WHS 9/10
SWHS 11/12
With students being grouped at West for
grades 9/10 and Southwest for grades
11/12, there will be greater flexibility in
assigning special education teachers
based on student need. With more
sections at each grade level, there will be
more options for focused teacher
support. For example, instead of
covering the curriculum for team taught
sections over four grade levels, teachers
can focus more directly on a more
limited range of curriculum options, and
develop more expertise in each area.
Minimal, although
there could be some
cost reductions due to
less duplication of
efforts across two
sites.
West High is the feeder site
for any students with visual
impairments. There may be a
need for additional equipment
to be purchased, based on
grade levels of students with
visual impairments.
Typically, the numbers of
students with visual
impairments is small, so it is
unlikely to impact Option #2.
Option #3
SWHS 9/10
WHS 11/12
With students being grouped at SW for
grades 9/10 and West for grades 11/12,
there will be greater flexibility in
assigning special education teachers
based on student need. With more
sections at each grade level, there will be
more options for focused teacher
support. For example, instead of
covering the curriculum for team taught
sections over four grade levels, teachers
can focus more directly on a more
limited range of curriculum options, and
develop more expertise in each area.
Minimal, although
there could be some
cost reductions due to
less duplication of
efforts across two
sites.
West High is the feeder site
for any students with visual
impairments. There may be a
need for additional equipment
to be purchased, based on
grade levels of students with
visual impairments.
Typically, the numbers of
students with visual
impairments is small, so it is
unlikely to impact Option #3.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
19
Table 3.2.2 Educational Support Services
Deaf/Hard of Hearing Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9-12
(Current)
For many, Kennedy, Lombardi and
Southwest have been identified as the
school sites for students with hearing
impairments who require the services
of a teacher for the hearing impaired
and an educational interpreter. Many
of the students are under tuition
contracts with districts in the
surrounding area. Some declines in
numbers have been noted in the past
few years.
Cost is predicated on
enrollment, often driven
by contracts with other
districts.
Maintaining the current
campus arrangement will
have no impact on services
for students with hearing
impairments. We can
continue to support student
needs for high school
students at Southwest. It
should be noted that sign
language classes have
become a very desirable
foreign language offering
at Southwest. Without the
DHH program at
Southwest, interest in the
sign language classes may
be decrease.
Option #2
WHS 9/10
SWHS 11/12
With a split campus, most DHH
sections can be divided equally across
grade levels. However, in 2009-10,
five sections contain a combination of
9-12th
grade students.
Additional 0.5 FTE DHH
teacher; additional 0.6
FTE educational
interpreter
Total costs approximately
$60,000
There may not be enough
students to offer five
classes at both campuses.
Option #3
SWHS 9/10
WHS 11/12
With a split campus, most DHH
sections can be divided equally across
grade levels. However, in 2009-10,
five sections contain a combination of
9-12th
grade students.
Additional 0.5 FTE DHH
teacher; additional 0.6
FTE educational
interpreter
Total costs approximately
$60,000
There may not be enough
students to offer five
classes at both campuses.
Student Services
The dual campus option would not affect the staffing for student services personnel. The number
of students needing service would not change. As a result, the FTE for counselors, school
psychologists and school social workers would remain the same.
3.3 Co-Curricular Programming
The advantage to merging the two schools will be stronger athletic and co-curricular teams. By
adding a second freshman team in areas of high participation athletics, students will have the
ability to develop their skills. However, as students move up to the junior-varsity and varsity
level, less skilled athletes will lose their opportunity to continue their development and ability to
participate in these sports.
There are some savings which can be realized under this category with a dual campus option.
Merging grades would create duplication of coaches in most of the athletic programs and
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
20
advisors in some activities. For instance, there would not be a need to have two varsity football
coaches. The proposal, though, includes some expansion of riders and costs to support an
intramural program that is recommended to be implemented to encourage interest at the lower
grades and the addition of freshman teams within certain sports. The cost savings are merely
estimates for it is difficult to determine student interest in sports and activities.
When looking at merging sports, one option would be to shift varsity sports to the grade 11-12
building and junior varsity/freshman sports to the grade 9-10 school. This shift will require a
shuttle service to be provided after school each day. Another option is to have each sport
offering housed at one site. For instance, all football teams would practice and play at
Southwest, and all soccer teams would practice and play at West. This option creates continuity
of programming and a cohesive team culture. There will be increased costs in transportation, as
students would need to be transported to the respective school where their sport/activity is
housed. Activities that are more associated with upper classmen participation would be merged
into one group and housed at that school, thus reducing the number of riders needed.
Table 3.3.1 Athletics
Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9-12
(Current)
Current levels of programming would
remain in place.
Both schools currently offer full
Varsity and JV level programming.
Freshmen levels are not consistently
supported through all sports.
Minimal Future participation at
Freshmen and JV levels
may continue to be
adversely impacted by low
participation.
Option #2
Dual campus
split sport
level
programs
Lower level programs would be
housed at the 9-10 site.
Varsity programs housed at 11-12 site.
Intramural offerings would be limited
by facility and time availability.
+$15,934
Shuttle service to schools.
-$174,875
Elimination/consolidation of
co-curricular riders
+$20,000
Expansion of intramural
offerings
-$55,715
Changes in administrative
support
Challenges in developing
continuity of programs
would exist with levels of
sports split from one site
to two.
Less effective/efficient use
of facilities.
Option #3
Merge to
9-10/11-12
campuses-
Programs
Site-Based
All levels (Varsity, JV, Freshmen)
would be housed at one site.
Continuity of programs would be
enhanced by keeping all levels
together.
Promotes more efficient/effective use
of facilities.
+$15,934
Shuttle services to schools
+$20,000
Expansion of intramural
offerings
-$174,875
Elimination/consolidation of
co-curricular riders
Continuity of
programming.
Creation of cohesive team
culture.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
21
Athletics Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Increased intramural opportunities.
-$55,715
Changes in administrative
support
Table 3.3.2 Activities
Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9-12
(Current)
Current levels of programming would
remain in place.
Minimal Activities and clubs will
continue to be supported
based on participation
numbers.
There would be challenges
in promoting participation
for clubs/activities
drawing from both
schools.
Option #2
Dual campus
split sport
level
programs
Activities run at appropriate school site
based on data grade level participation
(e.g. National Honor Society)
-$23,595
Elimination of riders
+$15,934
Shuttle services to schools
Student clubs would not be
adversely affected.
The cost savings that would be realized by implementing a dual campus option for co-curriculars
would be $84,772.
3.4 Transitions
One of the School District’s priority foci of student engagement has led to a number of programs
and services to assist students in connecting with schools and helping them transition during the
critical stages in their school lives. A number of these programs and services concentrate on the
eighth and ninth grade transition period and during freshmen year when national data show that
it is the most difficult year for students in high school. Link Crew, an eighth grade to ninth grade
transition program is operating at each of the four high schools. At the ninth grade, schools offer
student support structures for struggling students which include a freshmen study base, closed
lunch with academic support and other unique programs (e.g., Fresh Start at West). Each of
these programs is designed to make the transition to the school year successful. The dual
campus concept will create another transition for students to a new school. The School District
will need to consider supports to assist with this transition.
3.5 Summary
The cost savings associated with dual campus under this section of the report will be realized in
staffing the schools and combining co-curricular activities resulting in a reduction of co-
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
22
curricular riders. Additionally, courses not run due to low enrollments may be available to
students if they choose to travel to the other school.
Costs would increase in the area of transportation for shuttle service, during the day and after
school for athletics and activities, and possible increases in special education staffing.
4.0 Introduction
This section describes the facilities and transportation consideration if the District remained
status quo with its west side high schools or moved to a dual campus option.
4.1 Overview of High School Facilities
The building capacities at Southwest and West High Schools are similar. Southwest’s capacity
is 1,471 students and West’s is 1,363; which is a difference of 108 students. Both schools have a
similar number of general classrooms and science labs. West High School has a main
gymnasium and a smaller gymnasium with a total size of 24,138 sq. ft. Southwest has one main
gym with a total square footage of 19,744. The seating capacity of the Commons at both schools
is 400. West High School has a larger auditorium with a seating capacity of 1,500 compared to
Southwest’s auditorium with a seating capacity of 800. Southwest High School has an area
where a District Early Childhood program is operated and students use this area in conjunction
with their early childhood education classes. West High School does not have a similar area.
Southwest is the only high school in the District that has a pool. There is an automotive shop
located at West in the technical education area. Southwest no longer has an area dedicated for an
automotive shop. There is a football and track stadium located at both high schools. Both
schools have a spectator seating area on one side of the field with a capacity of approximately
1,500. However, Southwest has recently added a visitor seating area with a capacity of 1,000
bringing the total seating capacity at the stadium to 2,474. Southwest has parking spaces for 469
cars compared to 300 parking spaces at West High School. There would need to be available
parking for approximately 750 cars for a 1,000-1,100 students at the grade 11-12 campus. It’s
not clear at this time as to whether there is enough space to accommodate the additional parking
at Southwest. It is known that West High School does not have the space to accommodate the
additional spaces.
Table 4.1.1
High School Facilities
Southwest West
Building Capacity 1,471 1,363
Number of General Classrooms 28 28
Number Science Rooms 10 9
Size of Main Gym (sq. ft.) 19,744 15,871
Auxiliary Gym (sq. ft.) 0 8,267
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
23
High School Facilities
Southwest West
Physical Education and Co-Curricular Indoor Areas (sq. ft.) 43,635 39,371
Seating capacity of Commons 400 400
Seating capacity of Auditorium 800 1,500
Classroom and area for Early Childhood Education 1 0
Automotive shop 0 1
School pool 1 0
Seating capacity for football stadium 2,474 1,560
Number of parking spaces 469 300
Size of school site (acres) 35.0 11.6
4.2 Facility Condition Assessment
The referendum approved on February 15, 2000, provided for significant renovations to both
Southwest and West High Schools. At that time, modifications to the physical structure of the
buildings were done to accommodate curricular changes, different learning styles, modern-day
teaching methods, technology up-grades, etc. The renovations at both schools were designed to
provide flexibility for accommodating multi-purpose functions. Both Southwest and West High
Schools meet present health, life safety and accessibility statutes and codes.
Air-conditioning and modern-day mechanical and electrical systems were included in the
renovation of both high schools. Currently, each school has several sections of roofing that are
in need of replacement.
Both sites for the two high schools are undersized. The recommended size for a high school site
is 40 acres, plus one additional acre for each 100 students of estimated capacity. The Southwest
site is 35.5 acres compared to the recommended site size of 54.5 acres. The West High School
site is 11.6 acres with a recommended site size of 53.6 acres. It should be noted that the West
High football field, practice field and tennis courts are located on park property belonging to the
City of Green Bay. Fisk Park is a 21.4 acre site.
The overall physical condition of the building structures at both Southwest and West High
Schools is very good.
4.3 Transportation
There are significant fiscal implications on transportation when considering a dual campus
option. Table 4.3.1 below shows the potential impact on the status quo and dual campus
structure. Presently, 70 ninth and 10th
grade students are being bussed to West High School.
With restructuring, 480 existing West High School ninth and tenth grade students would be
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
24
bussed to Southwest. This is a difference of 410 students that would require an additional 8
busses.
Presently, at Southwest High School, 358 eleventh and twelfth grade students are being bussed.
With the restructuring, 582 existing Southwest eleventh and twelfth grade students would be
bussed to West High School. This is a difference of 224 students that would require an
additional 4 busses.
West side high school restructuring would require a total of 12 additional busses to transport
students. The 2009-10 annual cost per bus, including mileage, is $32,825, which results in a
total cost of $393,900 for 12 busses. This cost is anticipated to increase by approximately 6.5%
annually using the past 5-year average transportation cost increase.
Table 4.3.1 Transportation
Opportunity/Status Cost Effect Remarks
Option #1
WHS 9-12
SWHS 9012
(Current)
Currently, 70 West High School
students in grades 9 & 10 and 351
Southwest High School students in
grades 11 & 12 are transported to their
respective schools.
Minimal Nine busses are used to
transport students to two
high schools
Option #2
WHS 9/10
SWHS 11/12
This option is not so dissimilar to
Option #3. Variances in grades are not
so significant to cause either an
increase or decrease in bussing costs
Significant
$393,000 additional
+6.5% annual rate increase
Twelve additional busses
would need to be added,
which would result in cost
increases with an annual
rate increase averaged at
+6.5%
Option #3
SWHS 9/10
WHS 11/12
Under this option, an additional 480
grade 9 & 10 West High School
students would need transportation to
Southwest High School.
Additionally, under this option, 582
grade 11 & 12 Southwest High School
students would need transportation to
West High School
Significant
$393,000 additional
+6.5% annual rate increase
Twelve additional busses
would need to be added,
which would result in cost
increases with an annual
rate increase averaged at
+6.5%
4.4 Summary
The current west side high school facilities are in excellent condition, mechanically sound, and
could accommodate a dual campus option. Over the years, each facility has been renovated and
each can accommodate specialized programming that is unique to that school. Examples of this
include the automotive and metals shop at West and the early childhood center at Southwest.
Transporting students outside of their current attendance area from their home to school and back
will add significant transportation costs. Parking at the grade 11/12 campus will provide
challenges.
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
25
5.0 Summary and Conclusions
From a financial perspective, implementing a dual campus option will not result in significant
cost savings to the District. The table below illustrates the significant costs and savings under
each category contained in this report.
Table 5.0.1 Estimated Expenditures/Savings of a Dual Campus Option
Category Savings/Expenditures
Student Scheduling Data & Student Course Offerings
Shuttle service during the day
Staffing
Student system impact
+$47,790
-$208,000
+$160,000
Educational Support Services
Special Education
+ 1.0 DHH teacher
+$60,000
Co-Curricular Programming -$194,656
Transportation
Transporting to and from school
+$393,000
Total* $258,134
*Total costs indicated above are estimated, large impact costs. Incidental costs are not included (e.g. uniforms,
school logos, etc.)
Public forums were held during the spring of 2009 at each of the two campuses to introduce the
idea, answer questions and concerns and to gauge public response to the idea. Overall the
response was not favorable.
5.1 Recommendations
The study team recommends that the Board of Education not pursue the dual campus option as a
solution to resolve the enrollment issue facing high schools on the west side. It is projected that
significant savings by combining the campuses will not be realized to the extent that would make
this a viable option. Additionally, public reaction, primarily from parents of current and future
west side high school students, has not been supportive of the proposed restructuring. The
School District cannot afford to lose more students to open enrollment where a significant
number of families have indicated they would pursue if dual campus were implemented.
It is further recommended that the District engage West and Southwest parents and community
members in processes to deepen understanding of the revenue and enrollment issue and assist in
finding other alternatives and solutions to the enrollment issues facing the west side high
schools. Looking forward, it is the hope of all involved that, through the spirit of collaboration
and problem solving, the quality of programs and services at these schools can be improved
within a cost containment environment.
DZ:tn G:\Dave\Dual Campus\Feasibility Study.docx
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
26
Dual Campus Feasibility
Study Team Members
Sandy Beyer, Associate Principal – West High School
Amanda Brooker, Manager of School and Community Relations
Margaret Christensen, Executive Director of Learning-West Quadrant
Bryan Davis, Principal – Southwest High School
Mike Donart, Transportation Manager
Kurt Gundlach, Activities Director – Southwest High School
Kim Pahlow, Executive Director of Learning-Southwest Quadrant
Mary Pfeiffer, Former Executive Director of Instruction-Southwest and West
Todd Sobrilsky, Activities Director – West High School
Mike Stangel, Director of Facility Planning and Related Services
Luke Valitchka, Principal – West High School
Jim VanAbel, Associate Principal, Southwest High School
Jerry Wieland, Executive Director of Educational Services
David Zadnik, Assistant Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer
DUAL CAMPUS FEASIBILITY STUDY APPENDIX B
SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT – OCTOBER 2009
27
Bibliography
Bryk, A.S., Easton, J.Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S.G., & Sebring, P.A. (1993). A view from the
elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. A report of the Steering Committee,
Consortium on Chicago School Research (Reports – Evaluative). Chicago, IL: Consortium
on Chicago School Research.
Daresh, J.C., (1984). School Size, Grade Level Organization, and School Management Trends. A
Briefing Paper Presented to the Task Force. Oak Hills Local Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio.
McCabe, J.G., & Oxley, D. (1989). Making big high schools smaller: A review of the
implementation of the house plan in New York City’s most troubled high schools. New York:
Public Education Association; Bank Street College of Education.
McMullan, B.J., Sipe, C.L., & Wolfe, W.C. (1994). Charter and student achievement: Early
evidence from school restructuring in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Center for Assessment and
Policy Development.
Newman, M., Garrett, Z., Elbourne, D., Bradley, S., Noden, P., Taylor, J., et al. (2006). Does
secondary school size make a difference?: A systematic review. Educational Research
Review, 1(1), 41-60.
Oxley, D. (1994). Organizing schools into small units: Alternatives to Homogeneous grouping.
Phi Delta Kappan, 75(7), 521-526
Raywid, M. (1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools,
and other small schools. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Rigney, C.E., (1985). A Comparison Between Two Types of Secondary School Structures in the
State of New Jersey and the Impact Several Variables Have on That Structure. Doctoral
Dissertation, The Graduate School of Education, Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey.