The Nov. 10 Manhasset Board of Education (BOE) meeting was for the sole purpose of discussing feedback from the community resulting from the October meeting when the BOE and Manhasset School District unveiled their conceptual plan for renovation and capital spending to the tune of over $62,000,000. At the October meeting they stressed they were there to listen-they wanted input from the community.

Their wish was granted. It's difficult to get a consensus from a diverse community but it seemed a majority of residents had reservations about the cost of the project. As a result of their dialogue with the public the district hired Michael Conte of Syntax Communications to conduct a phone survey to determine voter attitudes regarding school district and potential referendum issues over the evenings of Oct. 23-26. Basically, he was hired to poll the community to ascertain if the bond issue had a chance of passing and if not, why.

The complete study included 202 registered voters from the Manhasset School District with a margin of error of +/- 6.92 percent. There was grumbling among the approximately 75 residents in attendance and questions were asked: "How was the poll conducted?" "Is 200 a meaningful number?" "Don't thousands live in Manhasset?" Michael Conte explained that he had also been hired earlier this year to conduct a phone survey regarding the Manhasset Library bond issue where "the results of the library survey predicted the referendum would pass by a two to one margin, which it did." Mr. Conte said that for the school bond issue between 2,000 and 3,000 calls were made. He said the survey takes shape as it progresses and if one has too much input from one group (parents with children in the schools 40 percent) then one goes elsewhere (residents with no children in the schools 60 percent).

Superintendent Dr. Lawrence Bozzomo encouraged everyone to stick to the topic of feedback in general and the phone survey in particular as residents settled back to hear the results. Mr. Conte divided the survey questions into Qualitative (questions heard most frequently) and Quantitative (public's perceptions of the project). In his qualitative analysis he listed the recurring questions in three areas: cost, middle school and construction.

The frequently asked questions relating to cost were: Can we break down the budget into components? What is the cost estimate "basis"? What is the specific tax impact (in dollars) that an 8 percent school tax increase represents? Can we reduce the wish list without sacrificing instructional goals? Can we achieve our goals with another plan that is less costly than the conceptual plan? What other plans have been discussed?

The frequently asked questions pertaining to the Middle School were: Will sixth graders participate in advanced/accelerated classes? What does special classrooms mean? Will the 6th grade function like grades 7-8 and change classes each period and so on? Will elementary class size guides apply to 6th grade, and will K-5 class size decrease? How will sixth-graders be oriented to the Middle School? What if there is no bond issue?

The frequently asked questions regarding construction were: What are the plans to minimize disruption? When will work be conducted? What is the timeline? What are the construction impacts on athletics and other program spaces? Will we hire a construction manager?

Overall the community wants to compel the board to answer its questions with specifics. And the community wants reassurance that the juggling of the middle school will result in a better instructional environment as has been touted.

In the quantitative analysis the phone survey attempted to determine how the community feels about the Manhasset School District, especially residents who are likely to vote. Three areas are covered: overall performance, academic performance, and management and leadership. It is not specific performance but how it is perceived, like Ed Koch asking, "How 'm I doing?" Mr. Conte said a negative rating here is more meaningful than a positive one.

The Manhasset School District received a very high approval rating from the electorate, with almost 70 percent approving or strongly approving vs. 14 percent disapproving. These are exceptionally high numbers and hold true across most demographics. This approval jumps to 88.5 percent if one has children in the schools and to 94.1 percent if one's children are in the seventhto ninth grades. Approval is 62 percent if one has lived in the area for over 20 years which bodes exceptionally well for the district because generally the longer one lives in an area the lower the satisfaction.

Academic performance scored 83.7 percent for those very satisfied or somewhat satisfied vs. 1.5 percent dissatisfied. Respondents with children in school were 100 percent satisfied or very satisfied and among that group those with children in the 4th-6th grades were 53.8 percent very satisfied. "These responses indicate the community significantly respects the school system," said Mr. Conte.

Management and leadership scored 61.9 percent for those satisfied but of that number only 4.5 percent are very satisfied, and 21.8 percent are dissatisfied. Regarding board leadership 59.4 percent are satisfied vs. 17.8 dissatisfied. Among 60 and over voters 43.3 percent are satisfied vs. 31.3 percent dissatisfied.

The quantitative analysis continued covering overcrowding (41.4 percent serious concern vs. 28.3 percent somewhat serious) and taxes (63.4 percent serious concern). The concern for spending outweighed the overcrowding issue.

The quantitative analysis focusing on the sixth grade move to the middle school showed 49 percent agree, about one third without reservation. That leaves a majority of 50.4 percent who disagree or have reservations. "Reaction is mixed as to why people agree with reservations, but a majority of those that disagree think the sixth graders are better suited to the elementary school environment." Among parents 31 percent agree, 20.7 percent agree with reservations, and 41.1 percent disagree. Many believe the current sixth grade environment is OK. Michael Conte found that since a good part of the conceptual plan hinges on moving the sixth grade, foundationally, there is a problem with the plan. If the bond fails and the elementary population grows then support for the plan may increase.

An important fact was illuminated by the survey. The community does not buy into many of the value statements presented in the conceptual plan. "On almost every statement tested about 40-45 percent disagree or disagree strongly, suggesting a very difficult sell for the conceptual plan."

Examples of those value statements are: 1. It's about time we make a significant investment in our secondary school and had a real Middle School. 2. The district has made its case for why the project is needed. 3. The reorganized grade groupings and new school will enhance student opportunities and performance. 4. The need for secondary school expansion and improvement is inevitable, and we should do it now because it's only going to cost more later.

When the phone survey tested the ballot 58.9 percent would not support the current conceptual $62.5 million bond vs. 31.2 percent who would. "Perhaps the most significant challenge is that only 43.7 percent of those with children in Manhasset schools would support the referendum vs. 46 percent who would not." A referendum generally gets approved because the parents approve and on that basis alone the referendum will not pass.

Finally, the quantitative analysis asks why the referendum will not pass: Too large and expensive (16.8 percent), taxes too high already (39.5 percent), better, cheaper plan can be created (15.1 percent) and reassessment has increased my taxes (7.6 percent).

According to the survey the issue is not value; the issue is money. The community has said to the district that they must do better and create a less expensive plan. Many are strong and clear in the definition of what they like and do not like. Throughout the long evening-the meeting lasted until 11:30 p.m.- residents made statements, sought clarification and asked questions. When someone asked 'if money was not a factor how would the other issues have fared?" there was laughter because the current level of concern is that the value issue does not equal $62 million dollars. Put another way, there is healthy skepticism about the plan and incredulity at the cost to implement it.

Regina Rule said, "The board has received a message from the community-slow down the spending, you are reaching too far into our pockets. How do we evaluate what you say we need? What is a framework for how to evaluate the needs? Do we do it on a line by line basis?" Cheryl Schwab asked that a number be put on the plan-"What will it cost me?" Joan Viscardi said "we all want much for our children but we cannot afford this plan. To get a better response from the community the plan should be presented honestly and clearly."

So, it is back to the drawing board where Dr. Bozzomo intends to "value engineer the project" and return to the community with the results.