I am going to do a longer blog post to really summarize the whole meeting sometime on Wednesday ... but it is after midnight and I just got home from a 4 1/2 hour meeting ... so this will be short. Here are the key things we did:
1. Heard a report on the budget cuts at the regional level.
Here's the good news -- Mike Hayes (senior assistant MS principal) has done a fabulous job of making smart cuts. The cuts are, in my opinion as an SC member and a parent of a 6th grader, really minimal ... and in fact, in some ways are even improvements. No change in class size in core classes in 8th, class sizes in 7th go from 20 to 25 (under the worst budget scenarios). Two world languages (Russian, German) are cut -- but these languages are now serving a total of 11 students in 7th grade. He has even managed to find improvements -- music goes to every day (now is every other day) and there is an extra guidance counselor so there is a guidance counselor for each grade. Intervention support for math is reduced, but remains at what he feels is an appropriate level. PE is combined with health, so kids will have somewhat less PE. But overall, he's taken really smart steps to make cuts that I think will have minimal impact, and although I know no cuts are easy, I am very, very impressed with how he has put together this budget.
Here's the bad news -- the high school administration put forth two proposals. Scenario A moves us to 3 study halls, meaning kids have 12 classes and 3 study halls over the year (4 classes and 1 study hall each trimester). Class size would increase some. Scenario B moves us to 2 study halls a year, meaning kids have 13 classes and 2 study halls (like they do now) -- but the class sizes grow quite a lot (over 30 in some cases) and some electives just couldn't be taught at all at that level (e.g., can you do art to 30?). I believe three study halls a year is impossible (as did several other members of the committee), so I think we are facing huge classes at the high school in virtually all areas next year.
Some cuts to central administration were proposed (these were a bit vague still), and the two alternative high schools would be consolidated (at a savings of about $178,000).
2. We discussed a new policy on the evaluation of instructional programs -- I will post the policy on my blog tomorrow sometime (it is already available on the ARPS website). Some changes were suggested, and the policy subcommittee will revise accordingly.
I will do a longer post tomorrow, but here are the highlights!
My Goal in Blogging
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
What the Research Says Re. More High School Math/Science
NOTE: This is an entry I orginally posted in May of 2008 -- when I believe I had fewer blog readers (in my second month on the School Committee). A poster asked for me to re-post this entry, since it examines issues that we are now discussing at length, so I am following this request.
This post describes an article published in Science magazine in 2007 on a research study describing the link between high school math and science courses and success in college science courses (Science 27 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5837, pp. 457 - 458). This research examines the link between amounts of high school science (number of years of coursework in a given discipline -- biology, chemistry, physics) and high school math (number of years of math coursework, including whether math stopped at pre-calculus or calculus) and grades in college science classes (biology, chemistry, physics). Not surprisingly, more years of high school science in a given discipline was associated with higher grades in college science in that discipline (that is, the more years of coursework in high school in chemistry, the higher the grades in introductory college chemistry). However, more years of high school science in one discipline was NOT associated with higher grades in college science in another discipline (that is, more years of high school biology did not increase grades in college physics). Perhaps the most important finding, however, was that more years of high school math was associated with better grades in college science in all disciplines (that is, students who finished calculus in high school receive higher grades in college courses in biology, chemistry, and physics). For those who are visual learners, the graph showing this association is below (high school biology is in orange, high school chemistry is in green, high school physics is in blue, and high school mathematics is in grey).
So, what does this mean for the Amherst Regional Schools? I believe it means two things. First, we should be placing a strong emphasis on making sure that all students have the opportunity to finish calculus in high school, which is associated with higher grades across all core scientific disciplines in college (note: this means pushing for all kids to take algebra in 8th grade). Second, we should be placing a strong emphasis on making sure that we offer two years (one introductory year, one second or AP year) of each science discipline in high school, since students who have two years of a given discipline in high school perform better at college classes in this discipline. Amherst Regional High School now offers AP science classes in biology and physics, and we should add an AP or other second-year/advanced chemistry class to make sure that students who are interested in college chemistry have this option.
This post describes an article published in Science magazine in 2007 on a research study describing the link between high school math and science courses and success in college science courses (Science 27 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5837, pp. 457 - 458). This research examines the link between amounts of high school science (number of years of coursework in a given discipline -- biology, chemistry, physics) and high school math (number of years of math coursework, including whether math stopped at pre-calculus or calculus) and grades in college science classes (biology, chemistry, physics). Not surprisingly, more years of high school science in a given discipline was associated with higher grades in college science in that discipline (that is, the more years of coursework in high school in chemistry, the higher the grades in introductory college chemistry). However, more years of high school science in one discipline was NOT associated with higher grades in college science in another discipline (that is, more years of high school biology did not increase grades in college physics). Perhaps the most important finding, however, was that more years of high school math was associated with better grades in college science in all disciplines (that is, students who finished calculus in high school receive higher grades in college courses in biology, chemistry, and physics). For those who are visual learners, the graph showing this association is below (high school biology is in orange, high school chemistry is in green, high school physics is in blue, and high school mathematics is in grey).
So, what does this mean for the Amherst Regional Schools? I believe it means two things. First, we should be placing a strong emphasis on making sure that all students have the opportunity to finish calculus in high school, which is associated with higher grades across all core scientific disciplines in college (note: this means pushing for all kids to take algebra in 8th grade). Second, we should be placing a strong emphasis on making sure that we offer two years (one introductory year, one second or AP year) of each science discipline in high school, since students who have two years of a given discipline in high school perform better at college classes in this discipline. Amherst Regional High School now offers AP science classes in biology and physics, and we should add an AP or other second-year/advanced chemistry class to make sure that students who are interested in college chemistry have this option.
News Analysis: ABCs of the district budget crunch
Amherst Bulletin
By Nick Grabbe Staff Writer
Published on December 04, 2009
While the Amherst School Committee and parents have been hotly debating Mark's Meadow School and redistricting this year, an even more contentious problem has been lurking in the background. How is the town going to pay for all its financial commitments? In other words: How many programs and positions will be eliminated if the schools have a smaller amount of money to spend? Public discussions about school budgets can be divisive. It's easy to say, "Quality schools are crucial" or "Taxes are too high already," but it's much more challenging to fully understand what are the options and trade-offs. The following questions and answers are designed to give Bulletin readers a guide to the issues Amherst schools will be grappling with in the coming months.
Q. How big is the problem?
A. There's a estimated gap of between $2 million and $4 million in the combined Amherst and regional budgets for the fiscal year starting in July. That's the projected difference between the cost of keeping the schools as they are now and the amount of money expected to be available.
Q. Didn't the Amherst schools already take a hit this year?
A. They did. The equivalent of 55 full-time positions were eliminated because of budget cuts.
Q. Why is this happening?
A. There are many reasons, but two major ones. First, the recession has cut state revenues, which means level funding in state aid to schools is now considered a best-case scenario. Second, the settled union contracts call for salaries to increase by $1.3 million next year.
Q. Can property taxes be raised to plug the gap?
A. Only with a successful Proposition 2½ override vote. But that's not an easy task. The average annual residential tax bill in Amherst is $5,611, one of the highest in western Massachusetts. If voters approved a $4 million override of Proposition 2½, the state law limiting local property tax increases, that would increase by 11 percent, to $6,228.
Q. So will there be an override vote?
A. The Select Board has tentatively scheduled it for March 23, the day of the town election. The board will decide the amount and whether to ask voters to approve just one figure or allow voters to decide on parts of the budget individually.
Q. How big a raise will teachers receive next year?
A. The cost-of-living increase will be 3 percent. In addition, many teachers and other staff will receive "step" increases averaging 4 percent. The combined increase will average 4.1 percent in the elementary budget and 5 percent at the regional level, according to school officials.
Q. Will the teachers union be asked to "give back" some of these increases, because they were negotiated before the recession hit?
A. Probably, but any discussions will likely take place behind the scenes. The union may argue that the increases will make up for low increases in the past, and that teachers are shouldering a bigger burden because of the cuts.
Q. If school budgets are cut, will the public have a say in how?
A. A focus group made up of residents is scheduled to receive some proposals from administrators before Christmas and meet on Jan. 4. Its members are Alison Donta-Venman, Rick Hood, James Chumbley, Joe Cullen, Stan Gawle, Ernie Dalkas, Becky Demling, Jennifer Holme and Joe Gensheimer.
Q. Will there be opportunities for other people to comment?
A. Yes. A public hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 26. The Regional School Committee is scheduled to consider a detailed list of possible cuts at its meeting Jan. 12, and the Amherst School Committee on Jan. 19.
Q. There has been talk of Regional Middle School students moving to the high school. Is that possible?
A. Everything's on the table. But the fact that the superintendent is looking at this option doesn't mean a move is imminent.
Q. What about out-of-district placements for special education?
A. These cost about $1.2 million a year on the regional level. A review of special ed programs is due to begin next month.
Q. Will sports fees go up?
A. It seems likely. There's a proposal on the table to make all sports programs self-supporting, which would increase fees dramatically.
Q. Wouldn't it save money to change from a trimester system to a semester system?
A. There are different opinions on this complex issue, and the teachers union would have to agree to a change.
Q. Will there be an increase in average class sizes and elimination of low-enrollment classes? Will there be fewer electives?
A. All on the table. Some School Committee members want to hold the line on higher class sizes, but committee member Andy Churchill said Amherst may have to accept them in the short term to avoid losing programs.
Q. There's some talk about "zero-based budgeting." What's that?
A. It's a process some School Committee members are endorsing that looks not at cuts but at what it would cost if you built school budgets from scratch. It's easier with the elementary budget than at the regional level, where the participation of three other towns and elective courses complicate the process.
By Nick Grabbe Staff Writer
Published on December 04, 2009
While the Amherst School Committee and parents have been hotly debating Mark's Meadow School and redistricting this year, an even more contentious problem has been lurking in the background. How is the town going to pay for all its financial commitments? In other words: How many programs and positions will be eliminated if the schools have a smaller amount of money to spend? Public discussions about school budgets can be divisive. It's easy to say, "Quality schools are crucial" or "Taxes are too high already," but it's much more challenging to fully understand what are the options and trade-offs. The following questions and answers are designed to give Bulletin readers a guide to the issues Amherst schools will be grappling with in the coming months.
Q. How big is the problem?
A. There's a estimated gap of between $2 million and $4 million in the combined Amherst and regional budgets for the fiscal year starting in July. That's the projected difference between the cost of keeping the schools as they are now and the amount of money expected to be available.
Q. Didn't the Amherst schools already take a hit this year?
A. They did. The equivalent of 55 full-time positions were eliminated because of budget cuts.
Q. Why is this happening?
A. There are many reasons, but two major ones. First, the recession has cut state revenues, which means level funding in state aid to schools is now considered a best-case scenario. Second, the settled union contracts call for salaries to increase by $1.3 million next year.
Q. Can property taxes be raised to plug the gap?
A. Only with a successful Proposition 2½ override vote. But that's not an easy task. The average annual residential tax bill in Amherst is $5,611, one of the highest in western Massachusetts. If voters approved a $4 million override of Proposition 2½, the state law limiting local property tax increases, that would increase by 11 percent, to $6,228.
Q. So will there be an override vote?
A. The Select Board has tentatively scheduled it for March 23, the day of the town election. The board will decide the amount and whether to ask voters to approve just one figure or allow voters to decide on parts of the budget individually.
Q. How big a raise will teachers receive next year?
A. The cost-of-living increase will be 3 percent. In addition, many teachers and other staff will receive "step" increases averaging 4 percent. The combined increase will average 4.1 percent in the elementary budget and 5 percent at the regional level, according to school officials.
Q. Will the teachers union be asked to "give back" some of these increases, because they were negotiated before the recession hit?
A. Probably, but any discussions will likely take place behind the scenes. The union may argue that the increases will make up for low increases in the past, and that teachers are shouldering a bigger burden because of the cuts.
Q. If school budgets are cut, will the public have a say in how?
A. A focus group made up of residents is scheduled to receive some proposals from administrators before Christmas and meet on Jan. 4. Its members are Alison Donta-Venman, Rick Hood, James Chumbley, Joe Cullen, Stan Gawle, Ernie Dalkas, Becky Demling, Jennifer Holme and Joe Gensheimer.
Q. Will there be opportunities for other people to comment?
A. Yes. A public hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 26. The Regional School Committee is scheduled to consider a detailed list of possible cuts at its meeting Jan. 12, and the Amherst School Committee on Jan. 19.
Q. There has been talk of Regional Middle School students moving to the high school. Is that possible?
A. Everything's on the table. But the fact that the superintendent is looking at this option doesn't mean a move is imminent.
Q. What about out-of-district placements for special education?
A. These cost about $1.2 million a year on the regional level. A review of special ed programs is due to begin next month.
Q. Will sports fees go up?
A. It seems likely. There's a proposal on the table to make all sports programs self-supporting, which would increase fees dramatically.
Q. Wouldn't it save money to change from a trimester system to a semester system?
A. There are different opinions on this complex issue, and the teachers union would have to agree to a change.
Q. Will there be an increase in average class sizes and elimination of low-enrollment classes? Will there be fewer electives?
A. All on the table. Some School Committee members want to hold the line on higher class sizes, but committee member Andy Churchill said Amherst may have to accept them in the short term to avoid losing programs.
Q. There's some talk about "zero-based budgeting." What's that?
A. It's a process some School Committee members are endorsing that looks not at cuts but at what it would cost if you built school budgets from scratch. It's easier with the elementary budget than at the regional level, where the participation of three other towns and elective courses complicate the process.
Focus group to weigh in on Amherst school budgets
Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Friday, December 4, 2009
AMHERST - For the first time, a group of citizens will participate in a focus group on possible cuts to the elementary and regional school budgets.
"We want them to ask questions we haven't asked," said School Committee member Irv Rhodes.
Administrators are scheduled to provide the nine members of the focus group with information on options for reducing the budgets by Christmas. The first meeting of the group is scheduled for Jan. 4 at 7 p.m. at the Regional Middle School.
Regional School Committee member Debbie Gould said she wants an answer to the question, "What does the public want to know about the schools to better understand the budget?"
Last month, an invitation for volunteers went out, and nine people responded. All nine will be invited to the focus group, though it's not clear that all will be able to attend.
The group includes School Committee candidate Rick Hood, fiscal conservative Stanley Gawle, and Becky Demling, co-chairwoman of the Crocker Farm Parent Teacher Organization. It also includes Alison Donta-Venman, director of institutional research at Mount Holyoke College, and James Chumbley, a retired psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts. The other members of the focus group are Joe Cullen, Ernie Dalkas, Jennifer Holme and Joe Gensheimer.
The School Committee is facing an estimated gap of $2 million to $4 million between the amount it would cost to keep the same services next year and anticipated amount of money available.
A preliminary list of possible cuts is expected to be presented at Tuesday's meeting of the Regional School Committee, and of elementary cuts at the Amherst School Committee meeting Dec. 15. More detailed information about cuts is expected at the meetings of Jan. 12 and 19.
The Regional School Committee is also seeking to devise a process for allocating costs for an estimated $3.8 million in capital improvements over the next five years. The highest-priority items on a list for next year are $92,000 for caulking windows and doors and repointing leaking capstones at the middle school.
By NICK GRABBE
Friday, December 4, 2009
AMHERST - For the first time, a group of citizens will participate in a focus group on possible cuts to the elementary and regional school budgets.
"We want them to ask questions we haven't asked," said School Committee member Irv Rhodes.
Administrators are scheduled to provide the nine members of the focus group with information on options for reducing the budgets by Christmas. The first meeting of the group is scheduled for Jan. 4 at 7 p.m. at the Regional Middle School.
Regional School Committee member Debbie Gould said she wants an answer to the question, "What does the public want to know about the schools to better understand the budget?"
Last month, an invitation for volunteers went out, and nine people responded. All nine will be invited to the focus group, though it's not clear that all will be able to attend.
The group includes School Committee candidate Rick Hood, fiscal conservative Stanley Gawle, and Becky Demling, co-chairwoman of the Crocker Farm Parent Teacher Organization. It also includes Alison Donta-Venman, director of institutional research at Mount Holyoke College, and James Chumbley, a retired psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts. The other members of the focus group are Joe Cullen, Ernie Dalkas, Jennifer Holme and Joe Gensheimer.
The School Committee is facing an estimated gap of $2 million to $4 million between the amount it would cost to keep the same services next year and anticipated amount of money available.
A preliminary list of possible cuts is expected to be presented at Tuesday's meeting of the Regional School Committee, and of elementary cuts at the Amherst School Committee meeting Dec. 15. More detailed information about cuts is expected at the meetings of Jan. 12 and 19.
The Regional School Committee is also seeking to devise a process for allocating costs for an estimated $3.8 million in capital improvements over the next five years. The highest-priority items on a list for next year are $92,000 for caulking windows and doors and repointing leaking capstones at the middle school.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Root of Many Problems: Elementary School Math
There has been considerable interest on my blog on issues of math/science education in the Amherst schools, and thus I am doing yet another post on this topic. And I'm going to start by saying that I believe a problem in our district for years has been the elementary school math curriculum we used, which is called Investigations. This post will describe why I think this curricula is a problem, and how I believe it has led to other problems, and what I think we should do.
The Problem With Investigations
The Investigations curriculum is on the very far end of the "reform math" end of the spectrum (read more about this controversy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_wars). You can also google "investigations math" and read what others have said about this curriculum (including petitions in other districts to have it removed). Here is what else I think is relevant for parents/teachers/community members to know:
1. Investigations (first version) was chosen some time ago by teachers/
administrators in Amherst (about 20 years ago), and at that time, we knew less about different approaches to teaching math and there were few options.
2. The second version of Investigations was purchased in the summer of 2007 because there was extra money left over in the budget. At the time of this purchase, I was on a math curricula review committee (consisting of teachers, administrators, parents) in our district (appointed by Jere Hochman), and this committee wasn't consulted about this purchase, nor, to the best of my knowledge, were any elementary school math teachers. No other curricula were considered for adoption at that time, nor was the effectiveness of this curriculum in our district, or in any district, examined.
3. The first version of Investigations has been shown to have serious problems in terms of actually teaching math. A recent independent randomized study of 4 different curricula published by the Institute for Education Sciences (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/pdf/20094052.pdf) revealed quite clearly that Investigations is an ineffective curriculum. In fact, using a superior curricula compared to Investigations was a better predictor of math achievement than was the effect of having bigger classes (22-25 kids) rather than smaller classes (13-17). In other words, it would be better for kids to have bigger classes with a GOOD curricula than a smaller class with the Investigations curricula. Importantly, the disadvantage created by Investigations wasn't influenced by student characteristics (such as family income or race), district characteristics, or by most teacher characteristics (such as education level or math competence). Now, this study used the Investigations - first version curricula, but there isn't any evidence suggesting that the new version is in fact better!
4. I have heard from elementary school teachers in our district that Investigations is a very difficult curricula for many children to master -- it is very wordy (with less focus on strictly numbers and calculations than more traditional curricula), and thus is particularly hard for ELL students and special ed students. The Amherst district requires a lot of supplementation of Investigations with material from other curricula to help children master math, and therefore each teacher independently is often required to develop such materials (thereby decreasing both horizontal and vertical alignment in our schools). We ask elementary school teachers to teach all subjects -- reading, writing, math, science, social studies -- and asking them to also develop/find math curricula to supplement an incomplete curricula that many students struggle with just isn't a good (or fair) use of their time. In fact, a 2007 survey of all teachers in the district regarding their experience with math revealed the following: "Several teachers express dissatisfaction with the Investigations curriculum, particularly for teaching ESL students, and a desire for clearer curriculum guidelines." Note: I was on this math review council prior to my election to the School Committee in 2008, and as part of my work on this council, I compiled these survey findings (you can read these results yourself, and Jere Hochman's conclusion at: http://www.arps.org/node/214).
Problems Caused By Having a Poor Elementary Math Curricula
1. Poor math MCAS scores. The most obvious problem with having a poor elementary school math curricula is that kids don't learn a lot of math! In turn, three of our four elementary schools (all except Marks Meadow) failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on the math MCAS in 2009 in the aggregate (meaning for all students considered as a whole). In addition, in every single subgroup (meaning group of kids that is large enough to be considered as a subset at a given school), with the exception of white kids, at every schools failed to make AYP on the 2009 math MCAS -- low income kids, special ed kids, and Hispanic kids. In contrast, only Marks Meadow and Crocker Farm failed to make AYP in the aggregate in English Language Arts, and these schools both teach a high number of ELL students who are likely to struggle some with reading in English. So, to me these low MCAS math scores point to a failure of our curricula, and thus in some respects to a failure of district leadership, NOT a failure of our elementary school teachers.
2. The creation of "extensions" in 7th grade: Because we have a weak math curricula in elementary school, teachers are forced to supplement in various ways (probably easier for more experienced teachers to do than newer ones), and thus kids arrive at the middle school from 7 different elementary schools and having had probably 20ish different 6th grade teachers (and of course 20ish K to 5 grade teachers before that). In other words, children's math knowledge when they arrive at the middle school simply must vary tremendously, as each teacher has supplemented (or not) a math curricula that has been demonstrated in empirical research to be relatively ineffective. The 7th grade teachers are therefore stuck trying to teach children who have massive gaps in their preparation (not in their math ability or potential), and thus needed to work out some solution that felt fair to students (and didn't penalize students for their poor preparation). This led to the development of the "extensions" model in which all kids were kept together in one class throughout 7th grade (instead of grouping kids by math ability/preparation into different tracks), and kids who wanted to have the option of taking 8th grade honors algebra have to do extra homework assignments (called "extensions").
I believe the development of this model was created with the best of intentions ... to give all kids a chance at doing 8th grade algebra, and I believe this is a noble and laudable goal (and I commend the MS teachers/administration for attempting to solve the very difficult problem caused by uneven math preparation in our elementary schools in such a creative way). However, I think this extensions approach (again, it is a uniquely Amherst idea, not used in any other districts) has three fundamental problems.
The Problem With Investigations
The Investigations curriculum is on the very far end of the "reform math" end of the spectrum (read more about this controversy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_wars). You can also google "investigations math" and read what others have said about this curriculum (including petitions in other districts to have it removed). Here is what else I think is relevant for parents/teachers/community members to know:
1. Investigations (first version) was chosen some time ago by teachers/
administrators in Amherst (about 20 years ago), and at that time, we knew less about different approaches to teaching math and there were few options.
2. The second version of Investigations was purchased in the summer of 2007 because there was extra money left over in the budget. At the time of this purchase, I was on a math curricula review committee (consisting of teachers, administrators, parents) in our district (appointed by Jere Hochman), and this committee wasn't consulted about this purchase, nor, to the best of my knowledge, were any elementary school math teachers. No other curricula were considered for adoption at that time, nor was the effectiveness of this curriculum in our district, or in any district, examined.
3. The first version of Investigations has been shown to have serious problems in terms of actually teaching math. A recent independent randomized study of 4 different curricula published by the Institute for Education Sciences (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/pdf/20094052.pdf) revealed quite clearly that Investigations is an ineffective curriculum. In fact, using a superior curricula compared to Investigations was a better predictor of math achievement than was the effect of having bigger classes (22-25 kids) rather than smaller classes (13-17). In other words, it would be better for kids to have bigger classes with a GOOD curricula than a smaller class with the Investigations curricula. Importantly, the disadvantage created by Investigations wasn't influenced by student characteristics (such as family income or race), district characteristics, or by most teacher characteristics (such as education level or math competence). Now, this study used the Investigations - first version curricula, but there isn't any evidence suggesting that the new version is in fact better!
4. I have heard from elementary school teachers in our district that Investigations is a very difficult curricula for many children to master -- it is very wordy (with less focus on strictly numbers and calculations than more traditional curricula), and thus is particularly hard for ELL students and special ed students. The Amherst district requires a lot of supplementation of Investigations with material from other curricula to help children master math, and therefore each teacher independently is often required to develop such materials (thereby decreasing both horizontal and vertical alignment in our schools). We ask elementary school teachers to teach all subjects -- reading, writing, math, science, social studies -- and asking them to also develop/find math curricula to supplement an incomplete curricula that many students struggle with just isn't a good (or fair) use of their time. In fact, a 2007 survey of all teachers in the district regarding their experience with math revealed the following: "Several teachers express dissatisfaction with the Investigations curriculum, particularly for teaching ESL students, and a desire for clearer curriculum guidelines." Note: I was on this math review council prior to my election to the School Committee in 2008, and as part of my work on this council, I compiled these survey findings (you can read these results yourself, and Jere Hochman's conclusion at: http://www.arps.org/node/214).
Problems Caused By Having a Poor Elementary Math Curricula
1. Poor math MCAS scores. The most obvious problem with having a poor elementary school math curricula is that kids don't learn a lot of math! In turn, three of our four elementary schools (all except Marks Meadow) failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on the math MCAS in 2009 in the aggregate (meaning for all students considered as a whole). In addition, in every single subgroup (meaning group of kids that is large enough to be considered as a subset at a given school), with the exception of white kids, at every schools failed to make AYP on the 2009 math MCAS -- low income kids, special ed kids, and Hispanic kids. In contrast, only Marks Meadow and Crocker Farm failed to make AYP in the aggregate in English Language Arts, and these schools both teach a high number of ELL students who are likely to struggle some with reading in English. So, to me these low MCAS math scores point to a failure of our curricula, and thus in some respects to a failure of district leadership, NOT a failure of our elementary school teachers.
2. The creation of "extensions" in 7th grade: Because we have a weak math curricula in elementary school, teachers are forced to supplement in various ways (probably easier for more experienced teachers to do than newer ones), and thus kids arrive at the middle school from 7 different elementary schools and having had probably 20ish different 6th grade teachers (and of course 20ish K to 5 grade teachers before that). In other words, children's math knowledge when they arrive at the middle school simply must vary tremendously, as each teacher has supplemented (or not) a math curricula that has been demonstrated in empirical research to be relatively ineffective. The 7th grade teachers are therefore stuck trying to teach children who have massive gaps in their preparation (not in their math ability or potential), and thus needed to work out some solution that felt fair to students (and didn't penalize students for their poor preparation). This led to the development of the "extensions" model in which all kids were kept together in one class throughout 7th grade (instead of grouping kids by math ability/preparation into different tracks), and kids who wanted to have the option of taking 8th grade honors algebra have to do extra homework assignments (called "extensions").
I believe the development of this model was created with the best of intentions ... to give all kids a chance at doing 8th grade algebra, and I believe this is a noble and laudable goal (and I commend the MS teachers/administration for attempting to solve the very difficult problem caused by uneven math preparation in our elementary schools in such a creative way). However, I think this extensions approach (again, it is a uniquely Amherst idea, not used in any other districts) has three fundamental problems.
First, it is very, very hard for teachers (particularly in increasingly larger classes due to budget cuts) to simultaneously teach kids at such different levels of math preparation -- we are setting out to make teachers' jobs harder, and that strikes me as unfair and unrealistic (maybe this type of differentiation is possible with class sizes of 15 -- but not with nearly twice that).
Second, parents who are informed about the benefits of algebra in 8th grade (and its importance for getting to calculus in 12th grade) are requiring their kids to do extensions (and, in some cases, are working with their kids themselves to teach this material and/or paying for tutors to help their kids master material that isn't fully taught in class); other parents don't know and thus aren't requiring it. Thus, this model simply leads to tracking by parent choice/education/ knowledge, which is in some ways even worse than the old system (in which math ability/preparation had at least some influence on the recommended track).
Third, this model can lead to kids being peer-pressured to NOT do the extra homework -- I've had parents of color tell me their kids are told by peers that doing this extra work is "acting white." I can certainly imagine that stereotypes about girls being bad at math lead some 7th grade girls to opt out of extra math homework. In turn, kids who are in friendship groups with high achieving peers may do the extensions, but those who are in friendship groups with lower achieving students may choose not to do them (even if a particular child is actually quite able/ready to do such extra work). Again, letting 12-year-olds choose whether to do extra homework as a way of determining who is able to have access to 8th grade algebra seems like a very problematic approach ... at least based on my 11 1/2 year-old son, many kids in this age group don't tend to make great decisions that focus on the long-term consequences of their choices.
I believe the problems with the extension model have led both students and parents to feel more negatively about middle school math than about math either in elementary or high school (and may have contributed to greater dissatisfaction with the middle school - and potentially led more families to opt for charter/private school in 7th grade, which of course costs the district in multiple ways). The survey conducted in 2007 that I described previously also asked students and parents to assess the math curriculum. Here is what they said:
- Students in elementary and high school find math classes more challenging than those in middle school. Similarly, while students at all three types of schools are most likely to describe their math program as “good,” more students in elementary school and high school rate the math program as “excellent” than as “adequate”, whereas more students in middle school rate the math program as “adequate” than as “excellent.” Student comments, while relatively rare, focus most consistently on a perceived lack of challenge for high achieving students (for elementary and middle students), and on the extreme differences in terms of challenge of the college-prep and honors math tracks (for high school students).
- Of the parents who chose to complete the survey, most (from all three types of schools) describe their child as often or always challenged in math class. While parents at all three types of schools are most likely to describe their math program as “good,” there are also differences in responses by type of school: more than twice as many parents of elementary school children rate the math program as “adequate” than as “excellent”, more parents of middle school children rate the math program as “adequate” or “poor” than as “excellent,” and more parents of high school students rate the math program as “excellent” than as “adequate.” In addition, many of the parents who choose to provide comments on the elementary and middle school surveys note a lack of challenge in the curriculum for their child, and virtually all negative comments from parents of high school students comment on poor math instruction in the middle school.
3. The need to eliminate the option to take 9th grade biology. As it seems like everyone in Amherst knows by now, I am opposed to requiring our 9th graders to take a science course that delays the initiation of core sciences until 10th grade when this approach isn't being used in any other districts (and thus it simply isn't clear whether this is a good approach to starting high school science). Although my concerns about this requirement have been described as "teacher bashing", my understanding (from talking to many people in the district) is that these teachers were reacting in the only way they felt they could to a very real problem -- that kids came into high school with very different levels of math preparation (some had had honors algebra and were ready for geometry, and some were just starting algebra), and these kids were tracked into different science classes (honors biology for the kids who were finished with algebra, earth science for the kids who were taking algebra). The teachers felt, and I agree with them on this, that having a cohesive science curriculum for ALL 9th graders was a good idea -- and I commend the high school teachers (who I understand are superb teachers) -- for having the desire to make sure that all kids had a rich and engaging (and consistent) 9th grade science class (instead of having some kids tracked one way and some kids tracked another way).
So, the high school science teachers had what I believe was/is an admirable goal, but they were stuck -- because the biology class (which I understand was excellent in 9th grade) required kids to have had algebra FIRST, yet only 1/3 of kids coming from the middle school had had algebra (and the earth science, which was generally less successful, was taken by those kids who had NOT had algebra in middle school -- and lets remember that this class was taught for a long time by a teacher who was later fired for having child porn in his possession, which probably didn't enhance the reputation of this class). They therefore created a new course that took a portion of biology (ecology), and another new course that was interdisciplinary to expose kids to how different science fields intersected (environmental science). But the need to create these two new courses (again, not seen as required or even offered courses at any other high school) was driven in part by the very different preparation kids had in terms of math coming to the high school from the middle school (and of course the very different preparation kids had in terms of math coming to the middle school from the elementary schools). So, in a very real sense, the core of the problems I see in terms of math/science in our district are rooted in our use (for many years now) of a relatively ineffective elementary school math curriculum.
My Suggestions for Improving Math/Science in the Amherst Public Schools
1. My first suggestion is really obvious -- let's review various elementary math curricula and choose a better one!
I don't know anything about math curricula for elementary school (or any age, for that matter), but I know a lot about research and comparisons. So, I started with gathering data on what other districts use (again, using the 11 comparison schools selected by the "how are we doing" subcommittee). This research revealed the following:
- The most frequently used by these districts was Everyday Math (Evanston, Montclair, Newton, Oak Park, Princeton, Shaker Heights).
- Investigations is used by three of the schools (Chapel Hill, Northampton, White Plains).
- Think Math! (a relatively new math curriculum) is used in two of the comparison schools (Brookline and Framingham).
Then, I gathered data on whether there was objective evidence on the effectiveness of any of these curricula. I found two pieces of information:
- The "What Works Clearinghouse" reports four studies showing Everyday Math is an effective curricula (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/elementary_math/eday_math/).
- Framingham, MA, conducted a pilot test in 2008-2009 of Investigations (which they had been using) and ThinkMath!. They used each curriculum in four of their elementary schools, and had teachers rate the ease of use and quality of instruction and achievement of these curricula. According to their superintendent for curriculum and instruction, the teachers vastly preferred ThinkMath! which is now being used in all of their schools.
So, my suggestion is that the Amherst schools give considerable thought to adopting either Everyday Math or Think Math! starting in 2010. I am very glad that Dr. Rodriguez will be working, as one of his goals, on accomplishing a review of the elementary math curriculum this year, and I look forward (as a member of the School Committee and the mother of a five-year-old!) to hearing the results of that review later this year. I would be very interested in hearing from elementary school teachers who are familiar with either of these curriculum to learn their thoughts.
2. My second suggestion is to eliminate the extensions model and return to grouping students by ability/preparation in 7th grade (which virtually all other districts do), but to allow for flexible grouping (not fixed or tracked).I believe we should offer two tracks of math (a higher track and a lower track) starting in 7th grade, and that decisions about placement should be based on a combination of recommendations from 6th grade teachers, a standardized placement test at the end of 6th grade, and MCAS scores (like virtually all other districts). Teachers could then be asked to make a particular effort to identify students of color and low income students who have the potential to succeed in a higher level math classes as a way to increase representation of students who are traditionally-underrepresented in such classes in high school. There could also be some flexibility in the groupings -- students who are showing high levels of mastery in the lower track could be recommended by their teacher to move into the higher track at some point during the 7th grade year, or could move to the higher track for the start of 8th grade.
3. My third suggestion is to offer two levels of algebra in 8th grade: regular algebra and honors algebra.
Right now, we have three levels of math in 8th grade: a VERY small number of kids take geometry (those who placed into honors algebra in 7th grade - about 10 to 15 kids each year), about 1/3 take honors algebra, and then about 2/3rd take "regular math." We do NOT offer "regular algebra." I see two problems with this approach. First, I don't see how we offer honors algebra and "regular math" but not regular (non-honors) algebra -- there are probably kids in the lower math group that could succeed quite well at algebra, but aren't ready for honors algebra. Thus, moving the "regular math" class to an algebra class seems like the right way to go (again, this hasn't been possible because of the weak math preparation students arrive having -- but with a new math curricula K to 5, this should be much more feasible). Second, this model is like a pyramid, with few kids on top, more kids in the middle, and most kids at the very bottom. That isn't have math ability/preparation is typically distributed in any district/group I've heard of -- ability/preparation typically is distributed like a bell curve -- there are few kids at the top and few kids at the bottom, and most kids in the middle (the middle, in this case, would be regular algebra). So, my suggestion is to have all kids complete algebra by the end of 8th grade (a goal that many districts across the country are taking on), which would involve making sure all kids were ready at the end of 7th grade to take a real algebra course (not just pre-algebra) -- which I believe would be possible through the combination of a more rigorous (and consistent) elementary school math curriculum and a 7th grade math class in which kids were grouped by ability/preparation so that teachers could focus on teaching what kids really needed to master in a particular class.
4. My final suggestion is to require either biology or physics of all kids in 9th grade.
So, let's say we had all kids finish algebra in 8th grade ... then we should be able to require all 9th grade kids to take one of the core sciences that relies on a strong algebra basis (which should be in line with the high school teachers' goal of having a consistent 9th grade science experience). Based on my review of other districts (see an earlier blog post -- November), virtually all districts that require a particular course in 9th grade (as opposed to giving some options for 9th grade courses) require either biology (Evanston, IL; Farmingham, MI; Madison, WI; South Orange, NJ; Northampton, MA; East Longmeadow, MA; Longmeadow, MA) or physics (Brookline, MA; Cambridge, MA; Columbia, MO; Newton, MA). Those both seem like good options to me -- they teach a core science right in 9th grade, which allows kids to take three years of core science (biology, chemistry, physics -- in some order) AND allow kids to take an AP science class in any discipline they want (biology, chemistry, physics, environmental studies) without making kids double-up on science in a subsequent year (and thus sacrifice something else to do so). I would be very interested in hearing from high school science teachers at ARHS whether they think one of these courses (biology or physics) would be a better fit for the interests of our students - as well as the resources (e.g., textbooks? lab space? training to teach physics first?) needed to enact such a change.Saturday, November 28, 2009
Math in Other Districts
Given the interest in my recent posting on science courses and sequence in other districts, I've now compiled some similar data on math in other districts.
Comparison Districts Used
I have specifically chosen to focus on the 11 districts chosen by the School Committee this year as our comparison districts. I have also noted whether these districts are part of the MSAN network and whether have been identified as leading high schools by Newsweek and/or US News and World Report). The US News and World Report list specifically only includes schools in which low income, Black, and Hispanic students are performing better than the state average for such students, and thus schools on this list seem to be doing a pretty job of challenging ALL students (not just white and/or wealthy kids).
These districts are: Brookline, MA (MSAN, US News); Chapel Hill, NC (MSAN, Newsweek, US News), Evanston, IL (MSAN, Newsweek, US News); Framingham, MA (MSAN, Newsweek), Montclair, NJ (MSAN, Newsweek), Newton, MA (Newsweek, US News), Northampton, MA;
Oak Park, IL (MSAN, Newsweek); Princeton, NJ (MSAN, Newsweek, US News); Shaker Heights, OH (MSAN, Newsweek); White Plains, NY (Newsweek).
The "how are we doing subcommittee" gathered selected these districts to be somewhat similar to Amherst in terms of our population and aspirations. Four of the districts are largely wealthy (Brookline, Newton, Oak Park, Princeton), three have substantially more low income students than Amherst (Evanston, Shaker Heights, White Plains), and four of these districts are quite similar to Amherst in terms of the percentage of low income students (Chapel Hill, Framingham, Montclair, Northampton).
Questions Asked
I contacted each of the districts (the superintendent, director of curriculum, or math heads, depending on the district) and asked the following questions:
1. At what grade does math grouping occur, and what factors are used to determine grouping?
2. What percent take 8th grade algebra (and of these, what percent take 8th grade algebra and are then ready to move on to geometry in 9th)?
3. Do you offer AP statistics?
4. What percent of students take calculus?
I received responses from most districts (at least on some, if not all of these questions), and these answers are summarized in this report. I have included information about Amherst first in each response to help with making comparisons.
1. At what grade does math grouping occur, and what factors are used to determine grouping?
Amherst begins homogenous grouping at Grade 8 based on whether students choose to do extensions (additional homework as well as in class instruction and assessments), scores on these assignments, test data, and teacher recommendations.
Most schools begin homogenous grouping at Grade 6, which is when middle school begins in most districts (Chapel Hill, Evanston, Montclair, Oak Park, Princeton, White Plains). There were four exceptions to this pattern: Shaker Heights groups students as of 5th grade (they have a separate 5th/6th school), Newton and Northampton group students as of 7th grade, Framingham keeps all students in heterogeneous math classes through 7th grade (with the exception of about 2% of the students who take algebra in 7th grade), and Brookline maintains heterogeneous grouping until 9th grade (however, this district uses a rigorous curriculum in which all students take 8th grade algebra and then move to 9th grade geometry).
In addition, some schools provide opportunities for homogenous math grouping earlier than middle school. For example, Chapel Hill provides both heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping in math in elementary school, depending on the material, as does Shaker Heights.
2. What percent of students take 8th grade algebra (and of these, what percent take 8th grade algebra and are then ready to move on to geometry in 9th)?
In Amherst, roughly 35% of 8th graders take algebra, and most of these take 9th grade geometry. Two to three % of 7th graders take algebra, and then geometry in 8th grade.
These districts vary considerably in terms of the percent of students who take 8th grade algebra and are ready to move on to 9th grade geometry.
In some districts, most or all 8th graders take algebra and move on to geometry in 9th grade (80% in Chapel Hill; 80 to 85% in Princeton; 100% in Brookline).
In other districts, approximately half of 8th graders take algebra and then move on to geometry (50% in Framingham; 55% in Newton).
In still other districts, fewer than half of students take 8th grade algebra and move on to 9th grade geometry (34% in Evanston, 25% in Oak Park, 30% in Shaker Heights, 33% in White Plains).
In several districts, a relatively sizeable proportion of 7th graders take algebra and then as 8th graders take geometry or algebra II (10 to 15% of kids in Evanston; 15 to 20% in Princeton; 13 to 15% in Chapel Hill).
Information on the percentage of students in 8th grade algebra was not available from Montclair and Northampton.
3. Do you offer AP statistics?
Amherst Regional High School does not offer AP Statistics.
All of these comparison districts offer AP statistics. Some students at these schools take both AP Calculus and AP Statistics, and others choose one of these two courses.
4. What percent of students take calculus?
In Amherst, about 90 students (of 300) take a calculus course (30%).
Most schools report that between 30 and 50% of students take calculus (Brookline: 35%-38%; Chapel Hill: 40 to 50%; Evanston: 28%; Framingham: 30 to 40%; Newton: 53 to 55%; White Plains: 20%). However, in all of these other districts, students could take calculus in 12th grade but instead opt for AP Statistics (as repeatedly noted in the responses).
Information on the % of students who take calculus was not available from Princeton, Montclair, Shaker Heights, Northampton, and Oak Park.
Comparison Districts Used
I have specifically chosen to focus on the 11 districts chosen by the School Committee this year as our comparison districts. I have also noted whether these districts are part of the MSAN network and whether have been identified as leading high schools by Newsweek and/or US News and World Report). The US News and World Report list specifically only includes schools in which low income, Black, and Hispanic students are performing better than the state average for such students, and thus schools on this list seem to be doing a pretty job of challenging ALL students (not just white and/or wealthy kids).
These districts are: Brookline, MA (MSAN, US News); Chapel Hill, NC (MSAN, Newsweek, US News), Evanston, IL (MSAN, Newsweek, US News); Framingham, MA (MSAN, Newsweek), Montclair, NJ (MSAN, Newsweek), Newton, MA (Newsweek, US News), Northampton, MA;
Oak Park, IL (MSAN, Newsweek); Princeton, NJ (MSAN, Newsweek, US News); Shaker Heights, OH (MSAN, Newsweek); White Plains, NY (Newsweek).
The "how are we doing subcommittee" gathered selected these districts to be somewhat similar to Amherst in terms of our population and aspirations. Four of the districts are largely wealthy (Brookline, Newton, Oak Park, Princeton), three have substantially more low income students than Amherst (Evanston, Shaker Heights, White Plains), and four of these districts are quite similar to Amherst in terms of the percentage of low income students (Chapel Hill, Framingham, Montclair, Northampton).
Questions Asked
I contacted each of the districts (the superintendent, director of curriculum, or math heads, depending on the district) and asked the following questions:
1. At what grade does math grouping occur, and what factors are used to determine grouping?
2. What percent take 8th grade algebra (and of these, what percent take 8th grade algebra and are then ready to move on to geometry in 9th)?
3. Do you offer AP statistics?
4. What percent of students take calculus?
I received responses from most districts (at least on some, if not all of these questions), and these answers are summarized in this report. I have included information about Amherst first in each response to help with making comparisons.
1. At what grade does math grouping occur, and what factors are used to determine grouping?
Amherst begins homogenous grouping at Grade 8 based on whether students choose to do extensions (additional homework as well as in class instruction and assessments), scores on these assignments, test data, and teacher recommendations.
Most schools begin homogenous grouping at Grade 6, which is when middle school begins in most districts (Chapel Hill, Evanston, Montclair, Oak Park, Princeton, White Plains). There were four exceptions to this pattern: Shaker Heights groups students as of 5th grade (they have a separate 5th/6th school), Newton and Northampton group students as of 7th grade, Framingham keeps all students in heterogeneous math classes through 7th grade (with the exception of about 2% of the students who take algebra in 7th grade), and Brookline maintains heterogeneous grouping until 9th grade (however, this district uses a rigorous curriculum in which all students take 8th grade algebra and then move to 9th grade geometry).
In addition, some schools provide opportunities for homogenous math grouping earlier than middle school. For example, Chapel Hill provides both heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping in math in elementary school, depending on the material, as does Shaker Heights.
2. What percent of students take 8th grade algebra (and of these, what percent take 8th grade algebra and are then ready to move on to geometry in 9th)?
In Amherst, roughly 35% of 8th graders take algebra, and most of these take 9th grade geometry. Two to three % of 7th graders take algebra, and then geometry in 8th grade.
These districts vary considerably in terms of the percent of students who take 8th grade algebra and are ready to move on to 9th grade geometry.
In some districts, most or all 8th graders take algebra and move on to geometry in 9th grade (80% in Chapel Hill; 80 to 85% in Princeton; 100% in Brookline).
In other districts, approximately half of 8th graders take algebra and then move on to geometry (50% in Framingham; 55% in Newton).
In still other districts, fewer than half of students take 8th grade algebra and move on to 9th grade geometry (34% in Evanston, 25% in Oak Park, 30% in Shaker Heights, 33% in White Plains).
In several districts, a relatively sizeable proportion of 7th graders take algebra and then as 8th graders take geometry or algebra II (10 to 15% of kids in Evanston; 15 to 20% in Princeton; 13 to 15% in Chapel Hill).
Information on the percentage of students in 8th grade algebra was not available from Montclair and Northampton.
3. Do you offer AP statistics?
Amherst Regional High School does not offer AP Statistics.
All of these comparison districts offer AP statistics. Some students at these schools take both AP Calculus and AP Statistics, and others choose one of these two courses.
4. What percent of students take calculus?
In Amherst, about 90 students (of 300) take a calculus course (30%).
Most schools report that between 30 and 50% of students take calculus (Brookline: 35%-38%; Chapel Hill: 40 to 50%; Evanston: 28%; Framingham: 30 to 40%; Newton: 53 to 55%; White Plains: 20%). However, in all of these other districts, students could take calculus in 12th grade but instead opt for AP Statistics (as repeatedly noted in the responses).
Information on the % of students who take calculus was not available from Princeton, Montclair, Shaker Heights, Northampton, and Oak Park.
Summary
This comparison yielded several important findings.
Most school districts (6 of the 11) start math grouping at 6th grade (the start of middle school in most districts). Two districts group at 7th grade, and 1 district groups at 5th grade. Amherst and Framingham are the only school districts that provide no substantial math grouping until 8th grade (with the exception of Brookline, in which all 8th graders take algebra and move on to 9th grade geometry). Amherst does, however, group a very small percentage of students in 7th grade: 2 to 3% of students skip 7th grade math altogether and move into honors algebra.
Grouping is determined, in virtually all schools other than Amherst, by some combination of math grades, teacher recommendations and state/local testing scores (with teachers monitoring the student progress to help in placement especially in moving students up to a more challenging course). Amherst is the only district that also makes placement decisions based on whether students choose to participate in instruction on advanced material and perform additional homework as well as their scores on that homework.
The percentage of 8th graders taking algebra in Amherst compares favorably or at least equally to some of these districts (Evanston, Oak Park, Shaker Heights, White Plains). However, our percentage is lower than that in the over half of these districts (Brookline, Chapel Hill, Framingham, Newton, Princeton).
Amherst is the only district that does not offer AP Statistics.
The percentage of our students who graduate having had calculus compares favorably or at least equally to many of these comparison districts (Evanston, White Plains), although is lower than that in other districts (Brookline, Chapel Hill, Framingham, Newton).
Although one explanation for the overall lower math performance in Amherst (including the percent who take 8th grade algebra, the percent who take calculus in high school, the absence of an AP statistics course) compared to many of these districts is that our district is demographically different (e.g., poorer), the data does not tend to support this explanation.
Chapel Hill and Framingham are very similar to Amherst in terms of the percent of low income students, but both have a higher portion of kids taking 8th grade algebra and both of these districts offer AP Statistics.
Of the districts which are most similar to Amherst in terms of the percentage of students finishing 8th grade algebra (Evanston, Shaker Heights, White Plains), three of these districts have a higher % of low income students than Amherst.
In sum, these findings suggest that a smaller proportion of students in Amherst take 8th grade algebra than students from other districts who serve similar populations. To me, this raises the issue of whether the "extensions" model is a better approach to preparing students to take 8th grade algebra than the grouping approach used by most other districts prior to 8th grade.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Amherst superintendent eyes moving middle school students to high school
Hampshire Gazette
By NICK GRABBE
Thursday, November 26, 2009
AMHERST - The cuts needed in next year's school budget are so large that Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez is considering the option of moving students from the Regional Middle School to Amherst Regional High School.
"We're looking to see if that is a model that would save us a substantial amount of dollars," he told a joint meeting of the Amherst and Regional School Committees Tuesday. He said the probe is in its initial stage.
Rodriguez acknowledged that there would be substantial pushback from parents.
But the combination of increased staff costs and decreasing state aid requires cuts that he called "draconian," unless voters agree to raise property taxes beyond state limits next March.
Committee member Debbie Gould, of Pelham, said it's difficult to achieve cuts in the $2 million to $3 million range, while maintaining popular programs, by just trimming here and there. "In these times, we need to leave no stone unturned," she said.
Committee member Irv Rhodes, of Amherst, compared the creation of a school budget to building a house. He said he wants to tell administrators how much money is available but not to micromanage the construction.
Rodriguez continued the metaphor. "Where do you want the window?" Rodriguez said. "We need guidance as we're building the house so there's as little wasted motion as possible."
Member Farshid Hajir, of Leverett, also went with the house-budget comparison.
"I'm afraid we have a Taj Mahal we can no longer heat," he said. "I don't want a log cabin, but I hope to end up with a smaller Taj Mahal that is affordable and sustainable."
He said that if $3 million were cut from the regional budget, it would still be above the state minimum.
Rodriguez, who plans to finish budget preparation in early February, said it's important to define the "core" or "essence" of what the schools do.
"What is it that we stand for?" he said. "What programs are part of this community? Do I really need this program or is it something we can cut and maintain the overall level of services to children?"
Rodriguez said he's looking at the amount of time students spend in special education and the English language learners program, and possible changing the model for instruction.
"Some Ph.D programs are shorter," he said. "We may not be serving kids well, and these programs are costing a lot of money."
Amherst Committee member Steve Rivkin said the town should compare its programs to what other districts are doing. He said the schools should consider returning to a semester system and ending a program enabling students to attend Greenfield Community College.
But Rivkin said that class sizes should be maintained.
"Our main job is to make sure our students are learning core subjects," he said. Members Hajir and Andy Churchill were less optimistic about maintaining current class sizes. "I want the same quality and feeling but on a smaller scale," Hajir said.
Churchill reminded the committee that this year's school staffing is lower than last year's by the equivalent of 55 full-time positions.
Eighth-grade teachers are responsible for 120 students instead of 80, and the central office is having trouble keeping up, he said.
"I don't want to go to mediocrity just because we have to make budget cuts," he said.
By NICK GRABBE
Thursday, November 26, 2009
AMHERST - The cuts needed in next year's school budget are so large that Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez is considering the option of moving students from the Regional Middle School to Amherst Regional High School.
"We're looking to see if that is a model that would save us a substantial amount of dollars," he told a joint meeting of the Amherst and Regional School Committees Tuesday. He said the probe is in its initial stage.
Rodriguez acknowledged that there would be substantial pushback from parents.
But the combination of increased staff costs and decreasing state aid requires cuts that he called "draconian," unless voters agree to raise property taxes beyond state limits next March.
Committee member Debbie Gould, of Pelham, said it's difficult to achieve cuts in the $2 million to $3 million range, while maintaining popular programs, by just trimming here and there. "In these times, we need to leave no stone unturned," she said.
Committee member Irv Rhodes, of Amherst, compared the creation of a school budget to building a house. He said he wants to tell administrators how much money is available but not to micromanage the construction.
Rodriguez continued the metaphor. "Where do you want the window?" Rodriguez said. "We need guidance as we're building the house so there's as little wasted motion as possible."
Member Farshid Hajir, of Leverett, also went with the house-budget comparison.
"I'm afraid we have a Taj Mahal we can no longer heat," he said. "I don't want a log cabin, but I hope to end up with a smaller Taj Mahal that is affordable and sustainable."
He said that if $3 million were cut from the regional budget, it would still be above the state minimum.
Rodriguez, who plans to finish budget preparation in early February, said it's important to define the "core" or "essence" of what the schools do.
"What is it that we stand for?" he said. "What programs are part of this community? Do I really need this program or is it something we can cut and maintain the overall level of services to children?"
Rodriguez said he's looking at the amount of time students spend in special education and the English language learners program, and possible changing the model for instruction.
"Some Ph.D programs are shorter," he said. "We may not be serving kids well, and these programs are costing a lot of money."
Amherst Committee member Steve Rivkin said the town should compare its programs to what other districts are doing. He said the schools should consider returning to a semester system and ending a program enabling students to attend Greenfield Community College.
But Rivkin said that class sizes should be maintained.
"Our main job is to make sure our students are learning core subjects," he said. Members Hajir and Andy Churchill were less optimistic about maintaining current class sizes. "I want the same quality and feeling but on a smaller scale," Hajir said.
Churchill reminded the committee that this year's school staffing is lower than last year's by the equivalent of 55 full-time positions.
Eighth-grade teachers are responsible for 120 students instead of 80, and the central office is having trouble keeping up, he said.
"I don't want to go to mediocrity just because we have to make budget cuts," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
