More Info on Superintendents

Just a quick note to alert parents and community members to new information that has been posted about each of our three Superintendent candidates: their resumes (curriculum vitaes) and multicultural statements are all posted on the ARPS.org website. We all owe major thanks to Kathy Mazur (who is coordinating all aspects of the superintendent search) and Nina Koch (who is keeping the website updated) for adding these two pieces of information to our website during what is obviously a very, very busy time in our district. This is a great step in increasing community awareness of the candidates who we will see in the next few weeks, and I hope it will give people greater awareness of the experiences and views of each of our superintendent candidates.

Update on the Numbers

As I noted following the last meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd, the School Committee voted unanimously to request specific information regarding the costs associated with each of five plans (current configuration at 2% cuts and "worst case" scenario, the pairing plan, the 3 K to 4s and a 5/6, closing MM and keeping three K to 6 schools, closing MM and moving the 6th grade to the MS). This information was requested to be given to School Committee members today so that we would have the chance to review the information and clarify any issues prior to the meeting on Tuesday.

Although I am not allowed to discuss any of the numbers I have received until the Tuesday 7 pm meeting, I will say that we were NOT given all of the information we requested and I find that very disappointing. I hope that we will be given the information that has now been requested at two separate School Committee meetings prior to the meeting on Tuesday, but it just is not clear to me if we will receive that information prior to the meeting (which of course would allow us to look over that information, check calculations, and get clarification prior to having to discuss this meeting with the community and potentially make some recommendations going forward). I hope all parents and community members will attend the meeting on Tuesday to learn what information will be given at that time -- I believe it will be a very interesting meeting in potentially many respects. I will certainly blog about that meeting later that evening and provide a full presentation of the numbers that are presented at that time, as well as my own opinion about those numbers.

Amherst School Committee Meeting - LOCATION CHANGE

Just want everyone to know -- given the expected added interest with the unveiling of the financial realities of the five plans, we are holding the February 10th School Committee Meeting at Marks Meadow (in their auditorium). Please attend to hear the latest information -- I'll also post all the numbers on my blog later that night, and give updated information about when that meeting will be shown on ACTV.

And also remember that you should try to attend the Superintendent Forums next week: Monday, 7 to 8:30 pm (HS library) or Tuesday, 8 to 9 am (MS cafeteria) for Dr. Isabellina Rodriguez, and Wednesday, 7 to 8:30 pm (HS library) or Thursday, 8 to 9 am (MS cafeteria) for Dr. David Sklarz. The third candidate (Dr. Alberto Rodriguez) will be in town on Monday, February 23rd (7 to 8:30 pm, HS library) and Tuesday, February 24th, 8 to 9 am (MS cafeteria). It is VERY important for the School Committee to hear your thoughts about the candidates, so please try to attend an event for EACH of the three candidates.

Amherst School Committee, February 3, 2009

This was a very brief meeting just to clarify the options that the School Committee would like numbers on (from the Superintendent's office) to review at our next meeting on February 10th. Specifically, we requested three things:

1. A prioritized list of program changes, cuts, and additions that would occur for the budget with both the 2% increase recommended by the Finance Committee AND the "worst case" scenario.

2. Fiscal savings, personnel cuts, and classroom impact for each of the following FOUR options:

--Pairing K-2/3-6 (FR-CF, MM-WW)
--Three K to 4 schools, WW as a 5/6 school
--Closing MM and redistributing those kids to the other three schools (K to 6)
--Closing MM and redistrbuting those kids to the other schools (K to 5) AND moving the 6th graders to the MS

This last option is something that apparently would help relieve concerns about overcrowding in the other schools if we simply close MM, and also could have some pedagogical benefits for 6th graders (perhaps introduction to World Language, greater family involvement with the MS if it goes to a 3-year school). As the parent of a 5th grader, this plan would clearly impact me personally (especially with that 7 am bus pick up), but I am very glad that our administrative staff has worked to really explore a range of options at this critical budget time.

3. An initial estimate of the time, financial, and other costs of reconfiguring the district for each of these plans (e.g., how/when could redistricting occur, would much time/cost to move teachers/books/furniture, how to move the portables, etc.).

My understanding is that the School Committee will have these numbers on Friday, so that we can review the figures over the weekend in preparation for our meeting on Tuesday. The Tuesday meeting will also be held in a larger forum -- potentially the MS auditorium (stay tuned for announcements on this). I believe there will then also be time for parents/community members to share thoughts on these plans on the 10th, but also in some parent group forums at the elementary schools in late February/early March. It sounds like we will need to vote on a plan sometime between mid-March and early April (to prepare a budget for Town Meeting), so that should give us at least a month, maybe more, to get community input and gather additional data (e.g., redistricting models), before taking a vote on the budget.

Superintendent Visit POSTPONED

Due to a death in his immediate family, the visit of Superintendent finalist Dr. Alberto Rodriguez scheduled for February 4th and 5th has been postponed. Details of the rescheduled visit will be posted as soon as they become available.

Blatant Fresh Air Program Plug

This blog posting is NOT about the schools or education in Amherst (sorry) ... but it is about something that I think would be of interest to many Amherst families -- the Fresh Air Program. This is a program in which kids from New York City children who live in disadvantaged communities come and stay in a rural/surburban town (like Amherst!) for two weeks each summer. We've hosted a Fresh Air child (Nasheen) for three summers now, and hope to have him back this year for his fourth visit (he was 6 when he started coming, so he's really grown up with my kids). It has been very rewarding for my family, and really not so much work -- he goes to day camp with one of my kids, shares a bedroom with my oldest son, and just hangs out doing whatever we are doing. Anyway, if you are interested in learning more about this program, you can check out their website: http://www.freshair.org/. I'm also glad to answer any questions -- either on line or off (casanderson@amherst.edu, 256-4977).

Why Redistricting Makes Sense

As of this fall, I will three kids in the Amherst schools -- a 6th grader, a 3rd grader, and a kindergartner. The older two attend Fort River, where they've gone since kindergarten. So, not surprisingly, they have a strong attachment to this school, their friends, the teachers, and staff. And I understand that redistricting may well move my kids (based on where we live, most likely to Crocker), and may well move some of their friends (to Wildwood, based on where they live). But as much as I'd like for my kids to stay at Fort River, with their friendship groups intact, I believe redistricting our elementary schools is essential.




As you can see on this map of our districts, many kids don't actually attend the school that is closest to their house (meaning we are probably spending more money on school buses than we need to and meaning some kids are spending more time on the bus than they should). The most glaring example of our districts being poorly configured is the cut-out that sends the kids who live in the apartment complexes closest to Crocker Farm to Crocker Farm (appropriately), but the kids who live in the houses surrounding these complexes to Wildwood (inappropriately, in my opinion). In turn, we now have four districts that look very different from one another in terms of the percent of kids on free and reduced lunch -- Wildwood has a low of 22% and Crocker Farm has a high of 54%. This is just a massive difference, and there is no way that it can't impact what occurs both in and outside of the classroom on a daily basis (again, this is no slight to the families or teachers at Crocker Farm -- or the excellent principal, Mike Morris -- a former student of mine at Amherst College!). But it just doesn't seem right or fair to have four elementary schools with such dramatically different populations.

This difference in socioeconomic population in the different schools is created in part by the way we have districted -- I can't imagine that there aren't more kids on free/reduced lunch who live in the apartments (and go to Crocker) than that live in the houses surrounding those apartments (and go to Wildwood). But is also is created in part by the decision to cluster children who speak particular languages together. As a few people have questioned in their comments on earlier postings, we cluster English Language Learners (ELL) by language into the different elementary schools -- Spanish at Crocker, Chinese at Wildwood, Khmer (Cambodian) at Fort River, and Korean at Marks Meadow. Although one may disagree or agree with this clustering (I'll talk more about this later), the reality is that MANY more of the ELL kids at Crocker are on free/reduced lunch than those at the other schools: 94% of the ELL kids at Crocker are on free/reduced lunch, compared to 65% of the ELL kids at Fort River, 62% of the ELL kids at Marks Meadow, and only 37.8% of the ELL kids at Wildwood. One more point: the % of kids who are ELL at each school also varies dramatically. At Crocker Farm, there are 265 students, and 55 ELL students, meaning 21%. At Marks Meadow, there are 191 students and 34 ELL students, meaning 18%. At Fort River, there are 454 kids and 59 ELL students, meaning 13%. And at Wildwood, there are 406 kids and 37 ELL kids, meaning 9%. Thus, the biggest gap seems to be between Crocker Farm (with 54% of kids on free/reduced lunch and 21% ELL kids) and Wildwood (with 22% of kids on free/reduced lunch and 9% ELL kids).

So, why do we cluster kids by language? This decision was driven in part by cost-efficiencies, meaning it is easier to have kids who speak the same language work with a single teacher. It has also meant that it is easier to make sure that Crocker (the school with the highest % of ELL students and families) has staff who are bilingual and the resources needed to translate school materials that get sent home into Spanish. However, it is not clear whether this plan (which requires some kids to be bused out of their home district -- 42 ELLs right now are transported, plus another 13 former ELLs) will continue. My understanding is that district staff is considering whether to continue this program of language clustering (based on both educationally and financial criteria). However, it seems very clear to me that the policy of clustering Spanish speaking kids at Crocker Farm has certainly increased the number of kids on free/reduced lunch at this school, and because Crocker Farm is a relatively small school (265 students -- somewhat more than MM, but many fewer than FR and WW), even a relatively small increase in kids on free/reduced lunch being moved to this school has a pretty significant impact on the % of kids on free/reduced lunch at the school (if the same number of kids were sent to WW or FR, it would just have a much smaller impact).

Last week I posted calculations of how much (approximately) we spend per student at each of the four elementary schools. An administrator then contacted me to let me know that CF receives Title 1 funds, which are given to schools serving a certain percentage of low income kids (MM also receives some Title 1 funds, but much less, since the percentage of kids on free/reduced lunch is much smaller at this school). So, just to clarify to all, Title 1 funds are given based on the % of kids on free/reduced lunch ... so clearly CF is getting these funds (and thus their per pupil costs are reduced by this amount -- perhaps as much as $1,000 per child). MM also benefits from Title 1 funds, but at a much smaller rate (CF serves 143 kids on free/reduced lunch, compared to 69 at MM).



One final thing -- several people have suggested (on my blog, on other blogs, and in School Committee meetings) that the push to close MM is really just a way for us to redistrict, and hence closing MM is just a strategy to accomplishing the bigger goal of redistricting. I both agree and disagree with this view. On the one hand, I do think we need to redistrict -- as I've pointed out throughout this entry. But if I thought it were fiscally responsible to keep MM open for the long-term (meaning the next 5 to 10 years, not just scrapping together money and cutting programs to find a way to keep it open NEXT year), then I'd be pushing for a careful look at how to redistrict into four districts that are more equitable. But given that I don't see the numbers (increasing budget crisis, flat or declining enrollment projections) as justifying keeping MM open, I think it would be a real mistake to redistrict into FOUR districts now. Let's say we decide to redistrict this year and move kids around (this would include moving kids at ALL the schools in some way). Then, let's say that in a year or two, it becomes increasingly clear that we just can't keep MM open (the numbers drop as projected, we pay more to Charter Schools, the budget gap increases even more -- as it is projected to do, etc.). Then, if we close MM, we'd have to redistrict AGAIN, which means that the younger kids could move to three different schools during their elementary school years (e.g., I could easily imagine a kid who goes to FR now gets redistricted to MM, then moves to WW when the redistricting occurs). That is why it is really important to NOT make a decision about how best to redistrict until we have a realistic sense of whether we can sustain MM for at least the next 5 years. I think moving kids three times in three to five years is wrong, and I worry that re-disctricting before we've made the decision about whether we can keep MM open long-term could have this very unfortunate result.