HBCSD Corruption

The Misleading Information:

(1)         Decision Insite’s enrollment projections were released in May 2015 three months after the February 2015 school board meeting decision to move 150 third grade students from Valley School to View School.  The new Decision Insite May 2015 enrollment projections predicted a 58-student increase at HBCSD in 2015-2016 school year.

(2)        In April 2015 (one month before the new May 2015 DI enrollment projections were released) total district enrollment had dropped by 12 students since the start of the school year (September 2014).  Did Decision Insite consider this decline before making the projection of significant increase in district enrollment in their May 2015 projections?  (Exhibit DI-40a)

(3)         The actual HBCSD enrollment for 2nd graders in the 2014-2015 school year was 159 students at April 2015, one month before DI’s May 2015 “Conservative 5 Year Projections” was released.  The 159 2nd graders in the 2014-2015 school year would become the 3rd graders for 2015-2016 school year.  Although there had been a decrease of four 2nd grade students from September 2014 to April 2015, DI’s May 2015 Enrollment Projections increased the amount of 2nd graders moving to 3rd grade in September 2015 by eight additional students for a total of 167 3rd graders projected for 2015.   (Exhibit DI-41b)

(4)         DI projected 167 3rd grade students in the 2015-2016 school year.  The estimate of 167 3rd grade students in 2015-2016 school year matched the actual number of third graders in the 2014-2015 school year.   The district’s stated fear was of going over the 24:1 classroom threshold for third grade in the 2015-2016 school year.   HBCSD could actually enroll a total of 168 third grades students before exceeding the 24:1 ratio. 

(5)         Offering full-day transitional kindergarten (TK) and kindergarten is supposed to increase enrollment in a school district because it attracts working parents with small children.  HBCSD began offering full-day kindergarten in 2011 which acted to increase enrollment at HBCSD.  It is believed that Manhattan Beach Unified School district did NOT offer full-day TK and K.

(6)         Decision Insite’s May 2015 enrollment report used the heading “Conservative 5 Year Projection – Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten”.   However, DI’s projections for TK and K on the May 2015 enrollment report did not reflect any less TK and K students in the district when “Assuming Return to Half-day Kindergarten”.   In fact, DI’s projections for TK and K enrollment used higher projections than the historic average at HBCSD for full-day TK and K enrollment.  How would returning to half-day Kindergarten result in MORE TK and K students each year at HBCSD in the future as Decision Insite indicated on their May 2015 enrollment projections?  (Exhibit DI-41a)

(7)         The May 2015 enrollment report used the heading “Conservative 5 Year Projection – Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten”.  The heading “Conservative 5 Year Projection” on the report had the effect of alluding to a possibly HIGHER actual enrollment increase in the future, thus a need for the district’s $59M bond without DI actually predicting more students.   See May 2015 Decision Insite 5-year projections for HBCSD.  (Exhibit DI-41a)

(8)         Decision Insite’s May 2015 “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten” had projected 30 TK students/year from 2015 to 2019.  At September 2015, eight months before the June 2016 bond vote, actual TK enrollment was only 17 students.  (Exhibit DI-41a)

(9)         Decision Insite’s May 2015 “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten” had projected 143-145 Kindergarten students/year from 2015 to 2019.   At September 2015, eight month before the June 2016 bond vote, actual Kindergarten enrollment was only 127 students.  (Exhibit DI-41a)

(10)     Decision Insite’s May 2015 “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten” had projected a total of 1,517 students enrolled at HBCSD as of September 2015.  The actual count at HBCSD was 1,427 students in September 2015.   A difference of 90 students less than projected by DI only four months earlier in May 2015. 

(11)     All indications from the California Department of Finance demographic unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District predicted that enrollment was significantly DECLINING in Los Angeles County and in ALL coastal communities in California.  In addition there were no new multi-unit housing developments planned for Hermosa Beach that would possibly increase the district’s student count.  How then did Decision Insite determine that enrollment was rising in Hermosa Beach right before the district’s $59M bond vote?

(12)     Given the dramatic change to Decision Insite’s enrollment projections in four months (from May 2015 to September 2015), why didn’t HBCSD school board members request an updated enrollment projection in the spring of 2016 before the district’s $59M bond vote so taxpayers AND school board members could make a better-informed decision as to the need for the district’s $59M bond?