01-05-2001 'Need' to expand Fox Lane High School is based on dubious numbers

To the Editor:

Much of the case for new construction at Fox Lane High School is based on a simple but false premise: increasing current student population by 40 percent translates into a need for 40 percent more classroom sections.

I studied the "Master Schedule 2000-01" listing all the courses, where and when they meet, and the number of students in each. Using these real numbers and extrapolating accordingly in no fashion demonstrates that current class sizes would increase across the board, dictating the need for 40 percent more scheduled class sections.

In fairness to the committee it is my understanding, that. the statistical model" it used "did not include the "Master Schedule" I studied.

The data the committee ran with was a self- interested, massaged model from the principal, Richard Kraemer, that matter-of-factly argues a 40 percent student increase translates into a 40 percent increase in class sections.

Why is this wrong?

To illustrate my point, if the two current AP Spanish classes, one with 11 and the other with 15 students, increased 40 percent to 15 and 21 students respectively, would it make sense to add two additional sections? Would we really need four sections of AP Spanish for 36 students? That would be an average class size of nine.

Yet this is essentially what the committee is recommending, as I see it. if not, please correct me.

When I add 40 percent more students to each of the current class sections in math, English, social studies, foreign language business and English as a Second Language, one-third still are under 20 students!

As student population decreased from its peak in the mid 1970's, the school district's use of the facilities has changed. It has naturally grown accustomed to a low utilization of available space. Now that gradually more students are entering the system, the administrators expect the taxpayer to reward their built-in inefficiencies with new construction (not to mention additional monies to catch up with deferred maintenance that will free up more budget dollars for pay increases).

If any bond referendum is necessary, and it may be, the current analysis designed by the administration and wholly accepted by the facilities committee, the board, The Record-Review and the public needs further scrutiny - as does my analysis.

I urge interested taxpayers, teachers, committee members and administrators to use The Record Review as the forum to thoughtfully examine the building use issues facing us all. When done publicly and in writing, it's easier to take the time to verify and thoughtfully digest our core issues and assumptions.

A bond issue that is specific and flushed out publicly before it goes into the paid public relations mode of fear and intimidation stands a greater chance of getting wide public support - including mine.

Phil Christe
Mount Kisco