Comments on recent Commack BOE Meeetings

Commack BOE meetings in January and February 2016 included presentation of the Administrative Report (AR) by the superintendent and asst.superintendent for Business. As usual, positive aspects were stressed and not-so-positive items minimized or omitted. That is not a surprise. Somewhat disappointing however, was the almost total dearth of any pertinent questions by the BOE trustees.

Although minor, one of the misleading statements involved the reporting of the SAT scores of recent graduating classes. In an apparent attempt to show “improvement”, the AR indicated an average SAT score of 1664 for the Class of 2015, compared to a 3-year average of 1650 for the Classes of 2012, 2013, 2014. But last year’s AR indicated a 2-year average of 1655 for the Classes of 2013, 2014 and 1656 for Classes of 2011, 2012. A straightforward calculation shows that the average SAT score for Class of 2011 was 1672. So, the score for subsequent classes has retrogressed, not progressed. Providing percentile data (25%, 50%, 75%) for the most recent graduating class would be more appropriate than the manipulation of yearly averages.

The BOE continues to whine about their philosophical differences with the NYS Comptroller. The Comptroller’s opinion is not going to change; this is clear from the recent audit of the East Meadow school district. It is noted that the response of the NYS Comptroller (required by law) to the Commack Corrective Action Plan (CAP) has certainly been received by the BOE, but it has not been discussed at any public meeting, nor has it been published. We are waiting. Talking about CAPs, it is noted that the BOE recently approved a CAP (also not published) which appears to have been addressed to the External Auditor. The motivation for such a CAP was apparently a letter sent to the BOE by the External Auditor (mentioned in the most recent audit – also not published). Why the secrecy?

The AR note that the latest stress rating for CUFSD by the NYS Comptroller has worsened. Among the reasons is the decrease in the unassigned Fund Balance used to pay for the 2014-15 operating deficit. It is mystifying that the the assigned Fund Balance (over $8M) was not used rather than "emergency" funds. An explanation is in order.

One of the major omissions from the AR has to do with enrollment trends. Note: enrollment is in major decline. Total enrollment history since School Year commencing 2000 is shown in the attached chart.

Total pupil population peaked in 2008-09 at 7830. Through 2015-16, it has changed by -16.7 % (1308 pupils). Guess what? In that time period, the tax levy increased by +19.2 % and the school tax rate in Huntington increased by 28.3%. In case you’re wondering where your discretionary income is going, that percentage increase comes to a $2300 increase in yearly school tax for a property assessed at $4000.. Further, the 16.7% decrease in enrollment implies a similar increase in excess capacity.

The average K population from 2012-13 thru 2014-15 was 375. If it stabilizes at that number, total population can be expected to settle near 4500 (57% of the peak value) . That implies excess capacity in the HS and Middle school of at least 40%. Did someone mention “long”range planning?