tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post7020130570114112639..comments2023-09-29T06:32:16.005-04:00Comments on My School Committee Blog: Amherst Meeting, January 13, 2008Catherine A. Sandersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-45454987301325184742009-01-24T10:41:00.000-05:002009-01-24T10:41:00.000-05:00I’d originally planned to stop posting until the n...I’d originally planned to stop posting until the numbers became clearer, but was drawn back in to clarify the odd belief that MM parents somehow felt our other schools were not communities. I’m bowing out again, but want to try to make my views as clear as possible one last time in this forum.<BR/><BR/>Despite Catherine’s insistence it’s “simply” a question of running the numbers “every which way”, I don’t believe such an important decision should be based on information derived from any single volunteer and their calculator.<BR/><BR/>Information on state cuts will be coming in, and our paid professionals will provide numbers about the impact. Those, I believe, are the only numbers worth considering when something as drastic as closing a school is on the table.<BR/><BR/>If those actual numbers show that all arts and music for the district will be cancelled and that bus fees will have to be instituted and there are no viable alternatives on the table, I will not argue against the closing of MM.<BR/><BR/>If the numbers are somewhere in-between, when weighing all options, I want the committee and the community as a whole to consider the specific educational value of the small school and the impact of the closing on the other schools. I don’t believe the pulse of Amherst should be based on the smattering of voices represented here, hearsay (people talking to Catherine on the side) or assumptions about what parents want and why. If you’re closing a school, parents should be asked about their preference, anonymously, but as a whole.<BR/><BR/>The small school advantage (most often defined as below 300) remains real. The 2006 study I cited is about one thing – the students, their performance and achievement related to school size. The older study Catherine references is about finding a compromise between school size and cost effectiveness. It does NOT claim, as she stated, that the best school size for students is 300-500. It says, instead that this is the best compromise.<BR/><BR/>In study after study, smaller schools show advantages over mid-size (300-500) and large schools (500+). The most commonly agreed upon figure for an “optimal” elementary school size is 300-400. Eliminating MM will also put two of our schools (FR and WW) out of that range, likely permanently.<BR/><BR/>Though I disagree with Catherine’s assumptions, am disappointed by a public official making conclusions about extreme decisions before all the facts are in, and find some (not all) of her arguing tactics flawed, disingenuous and (occasionally) unnecessarily derogatory in tone, I again thank her for creating this blog and leaving it open to all opinions.Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-43417046706159137612009-01-23T21:13:00.000-05:002009-01-23T21:13:00.000-05:00Catherine -If you review the posts, the conversati...Catherine -<BR/><BR/>If you review the posts, the conversation was about quality of education and at what size -- never about cost efficiencies. The study did not make the point you claimed it did, so in response, you're attempting to shift the ground to a different point -- something I've noticed you do often.<BR/><BR/>Changing horses in midstream can be an effective rhetorical device to try to muddy the waters -- it is not an effective technique to get at the truth. <BR/><BR/>As for your other point -- how utterly bizarre! MM parents won't be "forcing" anyone to do anything! We're in a minority, as you point out, and in any case, the decision, as far as I know, belongs to the School Committee.<BR/><BR/>Another of the increasingly sad efforts to villainize MM Parents for trying to prevent a rush to judgment -- another tactic that comes up often in your posts. At least you're no longer accusing us of "romanticizing" the small school!<BR/><BR/>If and when the choice realistically comes down to the odd scenario you describe, ask again.Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-84748967172309126722009-01-23T18:36:00.000-05:002009-01-23T18:36:00.000-05:00Glad you found it ... and sorry for not being clea...Glad you found it ... and sorry for not being clearer about what it meant -- I assume that as a School Committee member, I actually do need to balance needs for achievement with cost efficiencies, and thus was encouraged that this review of research reveals that 300 to 500 student elementary schools best achieve this balance. If a study revealed, for example, that the "optimal size" is 180 students -- should we then push to build 4 more elementary schools so that all students could go to an "optimally sized" school?!? The reality is, we also need to weigh how much running schools of various sizes costs, and how much it costs per child (and MM is very high on these numbers).<BR/><BR/>A parent at one of the other schools called me today with an interesting proposition -- would the MM families who want to keep their school open (and see a small school option as vitally important) be willing to get rid of a principal (have that job simply overseen by the superintendent), and get rid of music and art and a librarian in their school ONLY (let's assume that making those cuts would achieve a balanced budget)? Because if we choose to keep MM open, those families are in effect forcing other families to incur these costs for their own kids. Just another way of thinking about how to balance the needs of various families/kids.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-73694824339106087822009-01-23T16:04:00.000-05:002009-01-23T16:04:00.000-05:00Found it!The study can be found as a PDF at http:/...Found it!<BR/><BR/>The study can be found as a PDF at http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Publications/Revisiting_Economies.pdf. (anyway I can more efficiently post a link?)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it doesn't say, near as I can tell, "moderate size schools are best" rather that they're the best compromise between size and achievement. Lower sizes produce better achievement.<BR/><BR/>From the Intro:<BR/>“More recent research on student performance in schools indicates that small may be beautiful. “All else held equal, small schools have evident advantages for achievement, at least among disadvantaged students”<BR/><BR/>Page 4 defines 300-500 as a “moderately” sized school. It does NOT say this is an “optimal” size in the sense of achievement but only as “a balance economies of size with the negative effects of large schools.” In other words the best balance of achievement versus size – not the optimal size for education.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, on p 20 it sites surveys that define “small” schools as “under 200.”<BR/><BR/>I admit my review is cursory, but so far it seems to back the contentions of the original review I posted. I will take a close look.Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-32754265373118722442009-01-23T15:51:00.000-05:002009-01-23T15:51:00.000-05:00Stefan -- I am going to attempt to post the link t...Stefan -- I am going to attempt to post the link to this article on my blog -- it says "moderate size schools are best" and it suggests that number is 300 to 500.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-43618425543322396512009-01-23T15:48:00.000-05:002009-01-23T15:48:00.000-05:00Hi Catherine -I haven't been able to find the sour...Hi Catherine -<BR/><BR/>I haven't been able to find the source you mentioned online -- I'll try other sources.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile is that "ideal" number you mentioned -- 300-500 -- from memory or a quote? Honestly, all the material I have been able to find online consistently puts the cap for "maximum" "optimal" or "ideal" at 400.<BR/><BR/>If that's the case, according to your numbers, closing MM would leave only one school at that figure -- CF at 370 kids.<BR/><BR/>FR would be 477, WW 455<BR/>both outside the "maximum" arguably a point against closing MM - for the sake of the other schools.Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-4403329888524310072009-01-23T13:12:00.000-05:002009-01-23T13:12:00.000-05:00Thanks for the cite -- I'll try to find it. Meanw...Thanks for the cite -- I'll try to find it. <BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Debra Heath, the woman who wrote the brief I quoted responded to my email. She was unable to offer further insight on at what point a school becomes large (I can post the whole letter if you like) but did say, "Chicago studies have found that schools with fewer than 350 students are 1.25 times more likely to pursue a systematic approach to improvement compared with other schools, and they also tend to get more positive reports about leadership, parent involvement and professional community/orientation."Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-68001462108268556092009-01-23T12:12:00.000-05:002009-01-23T12:12:00.000-05:00Stefan, and others, The paper I was recalling is a...Stefan, and others, <BR/><BR/>The paper I was recalling is as follows -- you can Google this and read it yourself, but here is the cite:<BR/><BR/>Matthew Andrews, William Duncombe, John Yinger. 2002. "Revisiting Economies of Size in American Education: Are We Any Closer to a Consensus ?" Economics of Education Review 2, 1: 245-262. <BR/><BR/>This article summarizes a lot of research on class size, and concludes that the ideal elementary school is between 300 and 500 students. Which we could have if we closed MM.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-86841623942542000842009-01-23T11:26:00.000-05:002009-01-23T11:26:00.000-05:00Eep! Just saw the new post. Haven't read the let...Eep! Just saw the new post. Haven't read the letter in the Bulletin yet, but it seems like a mess.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I emailed Debra Heath, who compiled the brief I cited, for some clarification on school size numbers, and I will post if/when she writes back.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, I did find these two other references (note the phrase maximum):<BR/><BR/>“the figure most commonly accepted (for small school size) is 300 or less.”<BR/>http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Advantages_Small/<BR/><BR/>“research suggests a maximum of 300-400 students for elementary schools”<BR/>http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/size.cfmStefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-75749138709667563872009-01-23T10:59:00.000-05:002009-01-23T10:59:00.000-05:00Hi Catherine -Thanks for the info.From what I goog...Hi Catherine -<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the info.<BR/><BR/>From what I googled, she passed away in 2002 and at least one of her articles,New Small Learning Communities: Findings<BR/>From Recent Literature, is no longer available for free. If you do have the time to find the site, that would be terrific.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the studies I have been able to find don't suggest the bell graph you describe, with smaller schools performing as good or better -- though I imagine the numbers may change by the time you reach 50 students or so. :)Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-40964788023929147262009-01-23T10:48:00.000-05:002009-01-23T10:48:00.000-05:00Stefan -- I'm working at home today, so I don't ha...Stefan -- I'm working at home today, so I don't have a specific cite - but it is a summary by Kathleen Cotton, who you can probably google to get the cite? Briefly, what I remember is the school size-achievement issue is a U-shaped relationship -- 300 to 400 seems ideal, and both smaller and larger are less good (for obviously very different reasons). If I can find the cite quickly, I'll post it.<BR/><BR/>CatherineCatherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-43000160355362082542009-01-23T10:35:00.000-05:002009-01-23T10:35:00.000-05:00Hi Catherine -You're welcome!While it's true the b...Hi Catherine -<BR/><BR/>You're welcome!<BR/><BR/>While it's true the brief defines "effective" size as 350-400 the only definition of "small school" is "less than 350" not "300-400".<BR/><BR/>Another study I've been reviewing defines small as "less than 250."<BR/><BR/>In the brief I cited, there is no reference to what number constitutes a large school. Do you have sources for your statement that the studies referenced define large schools as "in the thousands?"Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-61047995442759304612009-01-23T09:59:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:59:00.000-05:00Hi, Stefan, Thanks for the nice comment about the ...Hi, Stefan, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the nice comment about the forum my blog provides, and for providing the research link about the benefits of small schools. I've actually read this literature on the impact of school size myself (as part of my work last year on the school reconfiguration committee), and I just want to be clear about what this research says -- small schools are indeed better, but they are defining small as 300 to 400 students (in fact, this size school at the elementary level is seen as ideal), and large as in the thousands -- 3,000 to 5,000 (as you might see in very large urban schools). So, there is absolutely no data that I've read or seen (including the link that you sent) that suggests kids benefit more from being in a school with 180 kids (the size of MM) more than a school the size of our other schools (which, if MM closes, will be between 350 and 475 kids).Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-3095281687256473442009-01-23T09:27:00.000-05:002009-01-23T09:27:00.000-05:00I’d posted so much here I was planning to bow out ...I’d posted so much here I was planning to bow out at least until Feb 10, but I want to make it absolutely clear I’ve never said or implied that FR or any of the other schools are NOT communities. Nor have I said that large schools are impersonal or that teachers and staff don’t know the names of the children. I have said that the children have an easier time apprehending the entirety of the community when the school is smaller.<BR/><BR/>I have also said that small schools offers a unique and valuable choice which we should be extremely cautious about eradicating from the district.<BR/><BR/>For those of us who insist we look at facts, the fact is that hundreds of studies have born out the small school difference. As an example a 2006 Research Brief on elementary school-size in Chicago reviewed dozens of studies conducted in a range of settings about this issue. The brief can be found online at: http://www.rda.aps.edu/RDA/Documents/Publications/05_06/ES_School_Size.pdf<BR/><BR/>It concludes that academic achievement in a small school is often superior to large schools. It also concludes that student attitudes toward school are better, that small schools have lower incidences of negative social behavior, and that all these effects are especially positive for minority and low-income students.<BR/><BR/>I understand we don’t have the money to keep the status quo, but I’m offended by the notion that it’s “quibbling” to suggest we base extreme decisions on accurate numbers. Redistricting will alter all our communities, but eliminating MM will destroy (likely permanently) an entire community, an institution, and a valuable choice.<BR/><BR/>What if it becomes a question of reducing, not eliminating the arts and music? What if it’s art OR music? What if… etc. etc. How many of us would be willing to close a school then? I only suggest we use solid facts before insisting there are only two options.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks to Catherine for making this forum available to all of us.Stefan Petruchahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14060585506610642904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-75227009497390020852009-01-23T06:36:00.000-05:002009-01-23T06:36:00.000-05:00I second that thought! I have been a Fort River p...I second that thought! I have been a Fort River parent for over 10 years and it IS a community! And the fact that it is a K-6 school makes it even more so...it has been amazing to watch all those kids grow and fantastic for my sixth graders to be able to turn around and volunteer in the classrooms of their former kindergarten teachers, etc. We, also, might be redistricted under any scenario but I would rather change schools and keep a K-6 environment than keep Marks Meadows open to benefit a relatively few children, many of whom leave after a year or two because they are graduates students and not tax-paying homeowners in town.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-91047873135648930502009-01-22T23:10:00.000-05:002009-01-22T23:10:00.000-05:00Since this seems to be an open forum for commentar...Since this seems to be an open forum for commentary ... I am a Fort River parent. While I sympathize with the MM community, I take offense at the implication that because FR is larger it is impersonal or any less of a community than MM. When I walk in our school I know all the teachers and most of the kids. Our fall event is a sight to behold with all the kids and parents mingling in the fields and playground - enjoying the community that is our school. <BR/><BR/>Yet I understand that there is a good chance that this community will be pulled apart when redistricting or pairing of schools occurs - because it looks like it's coming. And as much as this stinks - reality is reality. Do what needs to be done to preserve our schools in spirit. Keep as much as we can of our special programs. Make it fair for all the kids. We will rebuild our communities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-65001599908476753582009-01-22T22:55:00.000-05:002009-01-22T22:55:00.000-05:00Looking over the blog I am struck over and over ag...Looking over the blog I am struck over and over again at how many have lost perspective on the issues at hand. We have a serious budget crisis looming. You can quibble about the lack of accuracy of the numbers but the basic fact is we don't have enough money to keep the status quo. So painful as it is difficult decisions will have to be made. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line: closing a school will save the most money. It will also involve redistricting - which will be painful for ALL students in ALL schools, because the communities in ALL the schools will be disrupted. It is also the right thing to do. <BR/><BR/>My kids will probably be redistricted to another school. We are all sad about that. But I would rather see that happen than sacrifice the things that make the Amherst school system so special - Art, music, instruments, support - even in a diminished capacity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-71837792813008944502009-01-22T20:59:00.000-05:002009-01-22T20:59:00.000-05:00Hi, Daniela, By all means, have families donate to...Hi, Daniela, <BR/><BR/>By all means, have families donate to the schools -- I know we could use the money (for books, art supplies, musical instruments, etc.). I certainly did not mean to imply that families shouldn't donate to the schools -- many families/community members already do donate to the schools in many ways (money, time), and I'm sure the schools would welcome such donations at any time (financial gifts are regularly and formally accepted during many School Committee meetings). But the reality is, unless many families make a commitment to regularly commit a very sizeable sum to our schools each year, that just isn't going to have a major impact on our budget because those donations aren't predictable -- and again, can't pay for staff. If you would like to spear-head such an effort, I commend you! But the reality is, these are very tough economic times for many families, and I'm just not sure how realistic it is to expect many/most/even some families to donate at the level you suggest ($1,000 per child). At Fort River, the Parent Council recommends a donation of $20 per child each year to pay for events/activities/teacher support ... and we have found that fewer than 50% of families choose to donate even that relatively small amount (and we raise only $6,000 to $7,000 per year). <BR/><BR/>Best, <BR/>CatherineCatherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-8465846231125609632009-01-22T20:12:00.000-05:002009-01-22T20:12:00.000-05:00Dear Catherine, I would have plenty of additiona...Dear Catherine,<BR/><BR/> I would have plenty of additional questions for the answers/replies you give to my points, but I only have one that I would like to clarify.<BR/><BR/>You mention that 80% of the school budget is for paying salaries (which, correctly, cannot be paid out of donations). This means that 20% is not salaries. Out of a school budget of about $ 20 Millions for the Amherst schools, 20% is about $ 4 Million. <BR/><BR/>Thus, I am not sure why you say that if we were to ask families to contribute towards the $ 1.4 Million budget deficit, the donations could not be used. After all $ 1.4 Million is smaller than $ 4 Million; unless there are other `catches' I am not aware of.<BR/><BR/> Best,<BR/> Daniela CalzettiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-13487337729076396022009-01-22T06:39:00.000-05:002009-01-22T06:39:00.000-05:00Not to mention that Crocker Farm houses the presch...Not to mention that Crocker Farm houses the preschool, and the facility is distinctly set up to support that program. Closing CF would then involve the renovation of another school to house the preschool. In addition to the aforementioned fact that there isn't enough room to house all the CF kids in the other schools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-38413970271637817322009-01-21T20:45:00.000-05:002009-01-21T20:45:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous, Closing CF isn't an option largely...Dear Anonymous, <BR/><BR/>Closing CF isn't an option largely because it isn't possible to fit the kids into the other schools -- we need 60 to 63 classrooms (depending on class size) ... closing MM (and moving the portables to CF) gives us 63 classrooms. Closing CF gives us only 57. The kids just won't fit in the other three schools -- and your numbers are off on the school enrollment of each -- MM has 191 students this year (180 projected for next year), and CF has 265 (projected for 268 next year). So, CF actually has 70 to 80 students more than MM. <BR/><BR/>Another key reason that closing MM makes more sense is that MM doesn't have the capability (even with the portables) of having two classes per grade (just 12 classrooms total). CF has 16 classrooms, meaning even now, they have 2 or 3 classrooms per grade (which helps even out small variations in a given grade). <BR/><BR/>In addition, closing MM makes more sense for several other reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. To minimize time on the bus (which is also $$ for bus driver time and fuel), it is better to have 3 schools that are in different parts of the district. Having two schools (WW, MM) relatively close therefore means VERY long bus rides for many kids (who live in South Amherst).<BR/><BR/>2. CF is the newest of our schools, and thus is in very good shape (as you note). If you haven't seen CF, you should walk through it -- it is in GREAT shape compared to all the other schools (and has much more land than MM for playground/field area). <BR/><BR/>3. U Mass now pays nothing for the kids who go to MM and live in graduate (tax-free) housing ... they say the trade is they "give us MM." Some people believe it is possible that closing MM could then lead us to be able to charge U Mass for those kids we are educating for free, which could then be a net benefit to the schools' budget (closing CF doesn't create this benefit).<BR/><BR/>But the big reason is that we just can't fit the kids in MM, WW, and FR -- that is the big reason.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-46846566036104390512009-01-21T20:30:00.000-05:002009-01-21T20:30:00.000-05:00Dear Daniela, I am glad that you are finding the i...Dear Daniela, <BR/><BR/>I am glad that you are finding the information in my blog useful, and thank you for your thoughts about the current situation. As a parent with kids that will be the Amherst elementary schools next year, I certainly wish the budget situation was different than it is. That being said, I just want to respond briefly to a few of your points.<BR/><BR/>1. We are going to have a budget deficit of at least a million, possibly more. That is the reality, and that is the reality for next year and the year after as well (others have referred to the FCCC report, so I won't go into those details). So, this is not a temporary situation -- we are spending more money than we have, and things will get worse as we lose more and more over the next few years to the Chinese charter school (about $250,000 now per year, estimated to climb to $750,000 in five years). That is the reality, so I just don't see the current situation as short-term or transient -- and thus I'm trying to think about the long-term future of our schools, not just a year or two.<BR/><BR/>2. The projections of kids in our schools is clearly flat at best, and probably declining. And the other kids can absolutely fit in the other schools for the foreseeable future -- those schools are under what they were even as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, and both Wildwood and Fort River are due for renovations (by the state), which could allow them to handle even more kids, if needed. Another likely possibility, with regionalization in a few years, is moving the 6th graders to the middle school, if unexpected crowding occurred. It just isn't realistic to assume that closing MM will lead to crowding -- it will actually lead many of the kids now at MM to have SMALLER classes next year (because the class size projections for three of the grades at MM are very large next year, but not large enough to break into two classes -- meaning they would be larger than any of the other classes at that grade in the district).<BR/><BR/>3. As a parent at Fort River, I really disagree that the other plans "share the pain." My kids will feel plenty of pain (trust me, they tell me all the time!) if they have to move from Fort River, which is a distinct possibility if we close MM and therefore redistrict. We bought our house where we bought it so our kids could go to that school, I served as Parent Council president for three years at Fort River, and I chaired a playground committee at Fort River to build an $80,000 playground. We would be very, very sad to leave that school, and yet I know that given where we live, we would very likely move to Crocker. Again, many Wildwood families would move to Crocker as well. And even for families that don't have to move themselves, everyone would experience a loss because kids would be separated from their friends (this would be much more so for kids in WW and FR, since MM kids would move together and most or even all CF kids would stay in the same school). Remember, the proposal is NOT to close MM and just spread those kids at random to the other schools -- the proposal is to close MM and redistrict the entire town, which yes, would cause pain all around. <BR/><BR/>4. I'm not sure about your point in terms of keeping classes intact -- the SC has already said that all MM classes would move together to a different school (obviously WW) ... that doesn't mean all MM kids would be in the same CLASS at WW, but it does mean they would all be at the same SCHOOL together (and again, that is in contrast to kids now at FR and WW). In terms of the district configuration, as you can see from the map on my blog entry -- MANY kids do not now go to the school closest to where they live. The most obvious example of this is the huge number of kids who are closest to CF, but go to WW. If you got rid of that issue right there, the equity across the district would be vastly improved (because CF is the poorest school and WW is the wealthiest school). What is not apparent from the map is there is a huge group of kids at CF who live in the Boulders apartment complex ... and yet the houses that surround the Boulders go to WW! That could be easily solved with redistricting, and I continue to say that is the morally right thing to do (and yes, it could be done without closing MM, but then kids could potentially have to move multiple times if we then close MM in a year or two).<BR/><BR/>5. In terms of the issue of cost-savings ... you are 100% right that closing MM isn't going to solve a million+ budget problem. There are going to be other cuts, and that is clearly the reality. But closing MM will save $600,000 to $700,000 (you say it is just a few extra FTEs, but those are actually some of the most well-paid positions in the schools, so saving those positions isn't small change). So, closing MM gets us about half, maybe more, towards creating a balanced budget. To me, it would be irresponsible to overlook this. We would (very likely) also have to cut other things (e.g., music) and add other things (e.g., bus fees), and that is a sad reality.<BR/><BR/>But if we are going to do those things anyway (a point you make, and I think is probably right, sadly) ... what else could we possibly cut to save another $600,000 to $700,000? The only solution is staff ... and that will mean more teachers (leading to larger classes) and other support people (e.g., guidance counselors, therapeutic aids, etc.). This is actually a pretty easy thing to run the numbers on -- and what I've heard from various people in the schools is that "the schools will be unrecognizable next year" if we have to suffer through cuts of a million plus. So, as a School Committee member, it would be impossible for me to ignore the cost savings that are projected to come from closing MM -- which could get us at least half of the way there (and yes, this would be a continuing savings, because we would not have to pay for the administrative staff for four elementary schools again).<BR/><BR/>6. There is no way we can legally require -- or even suggest! -- that families pay $1,000 per child. Frankly, I think relatively few families would be willing/able to do this. More importantly, we can't pay for teachers or staff out of donations at all, so while donations can help pay for some things (e.g., musical instruments, library books, art supplies), they can't pay for any staff ... which is 80% of our budget and hence is where we are all going to really feel the pain next year. So, although that is a creative idea, it just isn't plausible.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for the considerable thought you've clearly given this - and I hope you can attend the meeting on February 10th when we learn what the real projections look like for all the plans.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-30492876850021003612009-01-21T19:51:00.000-05:002009-01-21T19:51:00.000-05:00I am just wondering why is we are so set on closin...I am just wondering why is we are so set on closing MM that it has not been talked about closing CF? I understand the building is much newer and more updated, but the cost savings are substantially higher than closing MM. We don't pay much, if anything to run MM and there are only about 50 more kids at CF than MM. That district is the one that needs the most work done on it anyways. With MM being able to hold 240 kids and the other schools have been said to have enough room to hold all the MM kids, this seems more logical to do. Even being a temporary solution. We can still hold onto the building and continue to house the preschool but with costs much less than closing MM would be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-43176973816168257432009-01-21T11:37:00.000-05:002009-01-21T11:37:00.000-05:00Dear Catherine, thank you for starting this blog...Dear Catherine,<BR/><BR/> thank you for starting this blog. By reading your postings and<BR/>those of others, chiefly the emails from Stefan, I have learned a lot<BR/>of additional information on the issue of the budget crisis, its<BR/>potential impact on the Amherst school system, and the various options on the table.<BR/><BR/>I also want to thank Stefan for reporting a different point of view<BR/>from yours. I always find it essential to hear different sides of a story.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I moved to the area with my family a couple of years<BR/>ago. Our two children both attend Mark's Meadow. To provide a little<BR/>bit of context to what I am going to say below, we moved from<BR/>Baltimore, where our children where in the private school system (and<BR/>would have remained in the private system, hadn't we moved here). At<BR/>the time UMass was trying to attract both my husband and myself over here, we had a competing offer from one of the Universities of<BR/>California. Although the offer from UC was a lot more attractive to us<BR/>both professionally and economically, what ultimately brought us here to Amherst was the *high quality* of its public schools.<BR/><BR/>We were thus rather alarmed when we learned that the budget situation <BR/>is going to require serious re-thinking of the structure of the public schools, with likely major cuts to resources. <BR/>Like every parent in the Amherst school system, we would like to preserve as much as possible the quality of the education it provides. <BR/>I am also hoping (but this could simply be wishful thinking) that, in the wake of President Obama's committment to the schools in his inauguration speech, the future may actually be less bleak than it looks today. <BR/><BR/>Thus, it may be important to take decisions that are not a one-way road. <BR/>Closing a school is such one-way road, since once accomplished, it cannot be undone. Once the know-how and the expertise of its body of teachers and staff is lost or disbanded, and the building is given back to UMass, I don't see a realistic way to get things back together. <BR/><BR/>One of the reasons to avoid drastic decisions is that the search for<BR/>the Superintendent is still ongoing. I would prefer to leave to<BR/>him/her (and his/her expertise and better judgement) the final<BR/>decision of what to do with the schools. Closing Mark's Meadow is a far more `final' move than any of the other alternatives currently on<BR/>the table, and would present the incipient Superintendent with a `fait accomplit' that she/he may or may not agree with.<BR/><BR/>Another reason is the actual budget savings that such closure will <BR/>accomplish. From direct experience (although I am an astronomer, I was<BR/>also in a managerial position in my previous job in Baltimore), I have<BR/>learned that when a plan for a re-organization is not done by experts, figures tend to look more optimistic than they will be in reality.<BR/>For example, you point out that the Mark's Meadow building belongs to<BR/>UMass, and the University (accordingto what I understand) picks up much of the tab for the costs. Thus, very little (if any) savings here. <BR/><BR/>The cuts in the number of classes can be, as easily, accomplished by<BR/>similar cuts at any of the other schools (or from all schools), and<BR/>some re-districting (something you are very much hoping for, from what<BR/>I read) to rebalance the classroom numbers. Indeed, the other options<BR/>currently on the table `spread the pain' of such cuts among all<BR/>schools.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the only potential saving from closing a school like Mark's<BR/>Meadow would come from the additional staff usually present at a school (administrative staff, nurse, librarian, etc.). I believe that in the case of Mark's Meadow, we are talking of a handful of FTEs (Full Time Employees).<BR/>I doubt that such a small number of FTEs can be the `make or break' of<BR/>the budget, especially if we are talking of a $ 1 Million-plus<BR/>problem. But I am ready to be surprised. <BR/>I am certainly eager to learn how the various options on the table will pan out in terms of actual savings from each. In the end, I firmly believe that any decision must be based on as accurate a budget projection as possible.<BR/><BR/>I am sure that, like me (and others who have posted on your Blog), all the other parents in the Amherst school system are very concerned about the impact that the inevitable redistricting following a school closing will have on their children.<BR/>Forgive me if I am skeptical about the `keeping most classes intact',<BR/>as you portray in one of your letters. Any serious redistricting with an eye on efficiency (needed in a time of budget crunch) is likely to disband most, if not all, current classes. Your statement on `having children attend the nearest school to their home' clashes with your statement about class integrity. I would perhaps much favor some flexibility in the attendance of alternate district schools, to help those parents with concerns about their own district school (e.g., those you mention as being concerned about the small size of Mark's Meadow).<BR/><BR/>However, what concerns me the most is not which solution will ultimately be adopted, but the fact that none of the solutions<BR/>currently being considered solves the budget problem, and none<BR/>produces a long-term substainable system. I have seen many numbers<BR/>being tossed around, but most of them appear to only account for about 1/2 (at most) of the $1-$1.4 Million deficit. Your cry `Where are we going to find those money?' is a well posed question, and one that has not been fully addressed yet.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that the Town of Amherst will ultimately not need to `decide <BR/>between closing Mark's Meadow or keeping the arts and music programs in the other schools' (another of your sentences). <BR/>It will likely be necessary to cut those arts and music (and other)<BR/>programs anyway, if the remaining ~$ 600K will have to be found.<BR/>A realistic future within the framework of cutting so much money <BR/>calls for larger classrooms *and* vastly less resources. <BR/>I suspect that offering new language programs (Chinese or other languages) may end up not being realistic, as Stefan already pointed out. And may also end up not being effective.<BR/>I have met and spoken with a few (not many, but there aren't many to start with) of the parents of children at one charter school here. The language offerings are one, but not the only one, of the criteria for preferring a charter school. Some parents have mentioned the `small size' and `more individual attention' as one factor for their preference.<BR/>I suspect that those parents are unlikely to be lured back to the `standard' schools, with larger classes and less resources, in exchange of a language offering that may evaporate in a near future at the next budget cut. <BR/><BR/>None of my statements above answers the basic question of `where to find the money'. I have a suggestion, that I am going to elaborate below, although I suspect that it will be hugely unpopular. <BR/><BR/>The only straightforward calculation that can be done in this situation is that each single child in the Amherst School system carries about $ 1,000 "debt" (for lack of a better word) towards the system. <BR/>One could envision a *temporary* tuition system that tries to recover much of that debt from the families of the schoolchildren. That same system could be set-up to be scaled according to family income (thus, avoiding to unduly penalize families of lower income). <BR/>I would like to stress the word *temporary* to signify that this should be considered an exceptional measure, subject to yearly review and a high threshold for being renewed. <BR/><BR/>This works under the assumption that the budget may actually get better in the not-so-far future, and yesterday's Presidential speech certainly gives me hope.<BR/><BR/>This temporary solution would accomplish one important goal:<BR/>preserve, through `rocky' times, the high quality of the Amherst Schools, and maintain access to the resources they need to accomplish their mission.<BR/><BR/> Sincerely,<BR/> Daniela CalzettiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-40782714324744458562009-01-18T20:41:00.000-05:002009-01-18T20:41:00.000-05:00I'm just wondering if they redistrict will they st...I'm just wondering if they redistrict will they still bus kids across town for ESL? Our elementary schools will never really be diverse until this ends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com