There has been a lot of discussion in this community, and on this blog, about the School Committee's vote regarding the superintendent's salary, and thus I'm posting an article from today's Hampshire Gazette on this issue. I want to go on record as saying that I look forward to working with Dr. Rodriguez when he starts on July 1st, and I very much hope he can provide leadership to our schools that will move our schools in a positive direction. I hope that leadership includes a willingness to engage in a thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of both the strengths and weaknesses of all of our schools (based on objective and empirical data, not personal anecdote and intuition) as well as a commitment to looking outside Amherst to make appropriate comparisons and to learn from the experience of other districts. Regardless of his salary, and people's feelings about appropriateness of this salary given the challenging economic times for our schools, we need to support Dr. Rodriguez in his efforts to provide valuable leadership at this crucial time.
By MARY CAREY
Friday, May 1, 2009
AMHERST - School Committee members offered incoming Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez a lower salary at first, but voted to offer him the $158,000 he will be getting now, after the Florida principal said that he could not afford to take a pay cut to come to Amherst.
Minutes of the closed-door session at which board members reconsidered the vote they had taken earlier were released Thursday at the request of Town Meeting member Larry Kelley. The committee had previously offered Rodriguez a package amounting to some $10,000 less than the one he will receive.
The decision to pay a new superintendent about $24,000 more than the former superintendent has been greeted with dismay in some quarters. Critics say the School Committee should not have agreed to the sum or to pay him $15,000 for moving and housing costs.
Rodriguez is currently principal of Westland Hialeah Senior High School outside Miami. He begins his job in Amherst on July 1.
According to the minutes of the committee's March 4 meeting, Kathryn Mazur, the district's human resource director, told committee members that she had spoken to Rodriguez twice by phone and he had said he could not accept the initial salary offered.
"She then explained the details of the higher salary and the additional benefits that he had requested in order to accept the position," wrote Elaine Brighty, who was a committee member at the time and took the minutes.
Brighty moved to reconsider the salary, a move seconded by Andy Churchill, who moved to offer Rodriguez the higher salary and benefits. "After considerable discussion," the board approved them by a vote of 4-2.
Brighty, Churchill, Tracy Farnham and Michael Katz voted in favor of the higher salary. Catherine Sanderson and Michael Hussin voted against it.
"I felt we had to be careful about overextending ourselves," Sanderson said Thursday. "I was hesitant about offering that high a salary because the budget had fallen apart and the financial situation of the country has changed since we began the search. I was concerned about the appearance of giving a very high salary to someone as we ask teachers to freeze their salaries."
Sanderson said she also felt giving Rodriguez a high salary would put him at a disadvantage coming into the community, particularly when she and some others were not convinced that his experience in Florida was the best fit for Amherst.
She got the impression that Rodriguez was suggesting he would not come to Amherst if he were not offered a higher salary, Sanderson said. "But you never know what someone will do until they do it."
The other thing that influenced her vote, she said, was that the current interim superintendent, Maria Geryk, is doing such a good job.
"If he had walked, I actually felt very comfortable with the leadership that Maria is providing," Sanderson said. "I think she could have served in the interim position for another year and a half."
Michael Hussin, who was chairman of the Regional School Committee at the time but did not run for re-election to the board, said he had reconciled himself to the base salary of $158,000.
"That was the reality. I had accepted that that was what we were going to have to pay."
But he wanted to see if board members could reduce the $15,000 house and travel allowance that Rodriguez will be paid for two years.
School committee members had been back and forth several times with Rodriguez, however, and some of them said there had been enough negotiating, Hussin said.
Mary Carey can be reached at mary.carey@att.net.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Regional Meeting, April 28, 2009
This meeting took place immediately after the Amherst meeting ... leading to a 3 1/2 hour meeting.
The meeting started with several announcements by the superintendent, including an update on the district's monitoring of the swine flu epidemic, notification that website would provide updated budget information, notification that principals and other administrators had been told they would not receive more than a 2% raise, and a notification that the new assistant superintendent position had been posted (and that this position replaces two current administrative positions). Two more additional things to point out: first, parents who are interested in serving on the search committee for the new assistant superintendent should contact Maria Geryk (gerykm@arps.org) -- two parents will be selected (one elementary, one regional); second, the superintendent announced that the administration will not respond to anonymous allegations posted on blogs, but is very willing to respond to particular questions/concerns raised by parents/teachers/community members. So, I encourage people with such questions/concerns to approach Maria directly to share such information.
We then turned to discuss the budget issue, and there was a pretty long discussion about whether the Regional School Committee should vote a Tier 1 budget -- which is complex because the other towns have voted (or intend to vote) a budget at this level, yet it seems clear that Amherst can't really afford to do so. I think we will get more information on where the budget is within the next few weeks, and if it turns out that Amherst can't afford a Tier 1 budget we will have the option of moving to a new budget level.
The Regional budget cuts proposed are as follows:
Tier 1 cuts
6.20 teaching positions at the HS (which maintains class sizes of between 24 and 28)
an assistant principal at the HS
$100,000 in athletic fees/cuts
elimination of the preschool at the HS
an assistant principal at the MS
3.0 teaching positions at the MS (the elimination of an 8th grade team, leading to class sizes of 17 in 7th, and 24 in 8th)
3 other MS positions (a Math Plus teacher, an exploratory/integrated study position, an SE position)
(Again, most of these are the same that we've seen before -- with the exception of the MS team in 8th grade).
Tier 2 cuts
All of the Tier 1 cuts, plus the elimination of both the librarian and a guidance counselor at the MS, and 3.30 more teaching positions at the HS (which would be very problematic in terms of kids getting into the classes they prefer, particularly in 11th/12th grade).
Tier 3 cuts
All of the Tier 1 and 2 cuts, PLUS the loss of another (7th grade) team at the MS and another 5.0 positions at the HS.
The superintendent recommended that we not go beyond Tier 1 cuts -- that anything further than these cuts would have a very negative impact on the educational experience of our 7th to 12th graders.
We then turned to new business, and I made a motion (which Steve Rivkin seconded), which was as follows:
This is a critical time for the Amherst schools as we prepare to welcome our new superintendent, manage a growing budget crisis, and contemplate regionalization. A number of parents have expressed concerns about the education provided in the middle school, and I believe it is essential that the school administration engage in a rigorous review of how well our middle school is succeeding in our district's mission to meet the needs of "every child, every day." This is not, for the record, a new area of concern within our community, and thus I want to specifically note that I appreciate the leadership the new middle school principal, Glenda Cresto, has brought to this school since last summer -- this motion is by no means a criticism of her leadership, competence, or commitment to excellence. I therefore propose that the school administration conduct a comprehensive and anonymous survey of all stakeholders in the middle school, including teachers, staff, parents, and students. This survey should include specific questions regarding each course of study within the middle school (math, social studies, english, world language, science, etc.), including satisfaction with the level of intellectual engagement and challenge, provision of appropriate amounts of feedback on written assignments, and creation of a warm and supportive environment. Results of this survey could be shared with Dr. Rodriguez on his arrival to help inform him about both strengths and areas of concern within our middle school. Given that we have less than 8 weeks remaining in our school year, and it is unlikely that stakeholders will have adequate amounts of time/energy to devote to such a survey in the last week or two of school, I propose that a survey be administered in mid to late May, with the results to be compiled in June. I hope my fellow Regional School Committe members will join me in supporting this motion.
We had a fair amount of discussion about this motion, with Irv, Andy, Marianne, Tracy, and Michael Katz raising serious concerns about my proposal for various reasons. These reasons included the lack of time remaining in this school year, the inability of our staff to conduct such a survey, and the problem with focusing entirely on the MS. The preference generally expressed was to consider this survey as a goal for next year. Steve spoke strongly in favor of this motion, and made the point that the survey would have to be done in a spring (in order to get information from parents/kids who had experience for a whole year in the MS) and hence delaying meant we lost a whole year in which actual kids could benefit from such results. He also noted that conducting such a survey is not hard, and that many districts do this regularly, and that he and I had attempted to get this on the agenda -- without any success -- for over a year. Andy then suggested tabling the motion for two weeks, during which time I could gather sample surveys and Maria could discuss the feasibility of doing a survey with her staff. Steve and I voted against tabling the motion, largely because I am concerned that waiting two weeks to move on this deprives us of valuable time -- and feel pretty confident that two weeks from now the committee will ultimately vote down doing a survey. But we lost this vote, 2 to 5, with the other five members present voting to table this motion for two weeks. The good news is that at least we will discuss doing this survey in two weeks -- and again, I am hopeful that my fellow committee members will agree that this survey could provide our new superintendent with valuable information. If you agree that this survey should be done this spring -- before the end of the school year -- please feel free to convey these thoughts to the superintendent (gerykm@arps.org) and/or the school committee (schoolcommittee@arps.org).
The meeting started with several announcements by the superintendent, including an update on the district's monitoring of the swine flu epidemic, notification that website would provide updated budget information, notification that principals and other administrators had been told they would not receive more than a 2% raise, and a notification that the new assistant superintendent position had been posted (and that this position replaces two current administrative positions). Two more additional things to point out: first, parents who are interested in serving on the search committee for the new assistant superintendent should contact Maria Geryk (gerykm@arps.org) -- two parents will be selected (one elementary, one regional); second, the superintendent announced that the administration will not respond to anonymous allegations posted on blogs, but is very willing to respond to particular questions/concerns raised by parents/teachers/community members. So, I encourage people with such questions/concerns to approach Maria directly to share such information.
We then turned to discuss the budget issue, and there was a pretty long discussion about whether the Regional School Committee should vote a Tier 1 budget -- which is complex because the other towns have voted (or intend to vote) a budget at this level, yet it seems clear that Amherst can't really afford to do so. I think we will get more information on where the budget is within the next few weeks, and if it turns out that Amherst can't afford a Tier 1 budget we will have the option of moving to a new budget level.
The Regional budget cuts proposed are as follows:
Tier 1 cuts
6.20 teaching positions at the HS (which maintains class sizes of between 24 and 28)
an assistant principal at the HS
$100,000 in athletic fees/cuts
elimination of the preschool at the HS
an assistant principal at the MS
3.0 teaching positions at the MS (the elimination of an 8th grade team, leading to class sizes of 17 in 7th, and 24 in 8th)
3 other MS positions (a Math Plus teacher, an exploratory/integrated study position, an SE position)
(Again, most of these are the same that we've seen before -- with the exception of the MS team in 8th grade).
Tier 2 cuts
All of the Tier 1 cuts, plus the elimination of both the librarian and a guidance counselor at the MS, and 3.30 more teaching positions at the HS (which would be very problematic in terms of kids getting into the classes they prefer, particularly in 11th/12th grade).
Tier 3 cuts
All of the Tier 1 and 2 cuts, PLUS the loss of another (7th grade) team at the MS and another 5.0 positions at the HS.
The superintendent recommended that we not go beyond Tier 1 cuts -- that anything further than these cuts would have a very negative impact on the educational experience of our 7th to 12th graders.
We then turned to new business, and I made a motion (which Steve Rivkin seconded), which was as follows:
This is a critical time for the Amherst schools as we prepare to welcome our new superintendent, manage a growing budget crisis, and contemplate regionalization. A number of parents have expressed concerns about the education provided in the middle school, and I believe it is essential that the school administration engage in a rigorous review of how well our middle school is succeeding in our district's mission to meet the needs of "every child, every day." This is not, for the record, a new area of concern within our community, and thus I want to specifically note that I appreciate the leadership the new middle school principal, Glenda Cresto, has brought to this school since last summer -- this motion is by no means a criticism of her leadership, competence, or commitment to excellence. I therefore propose that the school administration conduct a comprehensive and anonymous survey of all stakeholders in the middle school, including teachers, staff, parents, and students. This survey should include specific questions regarding each course of study within the middle school (math, social studies, english, world language, science, etc.), including satisfaction with the level of intellectual engagement and challenge, provision of appropriate amounts of feedback on written assignments, and creation of a warm and supportive environment. Results of this survey could be shared with Dr. Rodriguez on his arrival to help inform him about both strengths and areas of concern within our middle school. Given that we have less than 8 weeks remaining in our school year, and it is unlikely that stakeholders will have adequate amounts of time/energy to devote to such a survey in the last week or two of school, I propose that a survey be administered in mid to late May, with the results to be compiled in June. I hope my fellow Regional School Committe members will join me in supporting this motion.
We had a fair amount of discussion about this motion, with Irv, Andy, Marianne, Tracy, and Michael Katz raising serious concerns about my proposal for various reasons. These reasons included the lack of time remaining in this school year, the inability of our staff to conduct such a survey, and the problem with focusing entirely on the MS. The preference generally expressed was to consider this survey as a goal for next year. Steve spoke strongly in favor of this motion, and made the point that the survey would have to be done in a spring (in order to get information from parents/kids who had experience for a whole year in the MS) and hence delaying meant we lost a whole year in which actual kids could benefit from such results. He also noted that conducting such a survey is not hard, and that many districts do this regularly, and that he and I had attempted to get this on the agenda -- without any success -- for over a year. Andy then suggested tabling the motion for two weeks, during which time I could gather sample surveys and Maria could discuss the feasibility of doing a survey with her staff. Steve and I voted against tabling the motion, largely because I am concerned that waiting two weeks to move on this deprives us of valuable time -- and feel pretty confident that two weeks from now the committee will ultimately vote down doing a survey. But we lost this vote, 2 to 5, with the other five members present voting to table this motion for two weeks. The good news is that at least we will discuss doing this survey in two weeks -- and again, I am hopeful that my fellow committee members will agree that this survey could provide our new superintendent with valuable information. If you agree that this survey should be done this spring -- before the end of the school year -- please feel free to convey these thoughts to the superintendent (gerykm@arps.org) and/or the school committee (schoolcommittee@arps.org).
Amherst Meeting, April 28, 2009
This meeting was called entirely to vote on the Amherst budget, so this was the only item on the agenda. The latest round of proposed cuts is as follows:
Tier 1 cuts
One classroom teacher
One guidance counselor (WW)
One custodian
Assistant principals move to school year (from full-year) positions
Instrumental teachers - .75 reduction
Cafeteria paras - WW and FR
(None of those are particular new -- the instrumental music cut would mean some type of delay in the start of instrumental music, and the classroom teacher would be an upper grade)
Tier 2 cuts
All of the Tier 1 cuts, PLUS:
Instructional technology (computer) teacher
One classroom teacher
2.70 intervention teachers (ELA, math)
Specialist teachers (art/music/PE) - 80% time for all staff in these positions
Librarian
Instrumental music - .50
(Instrumental music would have a one-year delay, so that strings would start in 4th grade instead of 3rd and band would start in 5th grade instead of 4th; it is unclear what the cuts to specialist positions would mean yet -- since these are new cuts on the table -- but these are cuts that are being made on top of other cuts just two years ago, meaning a pretty sizeable reduction in cuts to these areas).
Tier 3 cuts
Most of the cuts here are those we've seen before -- homework clubs and late buses disappear, 3 more teachers (to be determined) are cut, another 1.10 in instrumental music goes, as does the Science Coordinator and 2 more intervention teachers.
The superintendent recommended voting a Tier 2 budget, based on her best guess of where we might end up in terms of state aid, which we did. However, it was also noted that we were voting a budget, NOT voting on specific lines in the budget, and that we would like to see further clarification of the impact of the cuts (particularly the newly-announced cuts, such as to the specials) on children in all of the schools on a day-to-day basis.
Steve Rivkin noted his regret that the cuts were made to specials, which provided important ways for children to achieve and experience new activities (PE, art, music), and wondered about cutting intervention support instead (particularly "math coaches" and other intervention teachers who largely work with teachers, NOT students). He also asked whether closing Marks Meadow should be on the table for THIS year, if our budget is indeed at a Tier 3 or even Tier 4 level (a scary but distinct possibility). Maria noted that this was something that would need to be seriously considered IF we were forced by the town to go below Tier 2.
I expressed my concern about the process in which we see each budget 5 or 6 times, and each times there are new and different cuts -- which seems like not the best way to craft a budget (and one that leads to a lot of hysteria among parents, kids, teachers, and staff). It was noted by the superintendent, and others, that this had been a very unusual year, given the change in administration as well as the very dismal economic climate. I do hope that we can return to this issue of the budget process next year with our new superintendent, and that we can craft a process that includes more involvement from all stakeholders (parents, teachers, staff) EARLY in the process as opposed to late in the process in which people are reacting to proposed cuts (and in a sense, lobbying for particular positions).
Maria also noted that a survey was being distributed tomorrow to teachers and staff (anonymously) to gather feedback about different types of cuts they believed could be made with relatively minimal impact on children's experience in the schools. This was an idea sent by a parent to the School Committee today, and I hope this survey reveals valuable information on where cuts might be best made.
Tier 1 cuts
One classroom teacher
One guidance counselor (WW)
One custodian
Assistant principals move to school year (from full-year) positions
Instrumental teachers - .75 reduction
Cafeteria paras - WW and FR
(None of those are particular new -- the instrumental music cut would mean some type of delay in the start of instrumental music, and the classroom teacher would be an upper grade)
Tier 2 cuts
All of the Tier 1 cuts, PLUS:
Instructional technology (computer) teacher
One classroom teacher
2.70 intervention teachers (ELA, math)
Specialist teachers (art/music/PE) - 80% time for all staff in these positions
Librarian
Instrumental music - .50
(Instrumental music would have a one-year delay, so that strings would start in 4th grade instead of 3rd and band would start in 5th grade instead of 4th; it is unclear what the cuts to specialist positions would mean yet -- since these are new cuts on the table -- but these are cuts that are being made on top of other cuts just two years ago, meaning a pretty sizeable reduction in cuts to these areas).
Tier 3 cuts
Most of the cuts here are those we've seen before -- homework clubs and late buses disappear, 3 more teachers (to be determined) are cut, another 1.10 in instrumental music goes, as does the Science Coordinator and 2 more intervention teachers.
The superintendent recommended voting a Tier 2 budget, based on her best guess of where we might end up in terms of state aid, which we did. However, it was also noted that we were voting a budget, NOT voting on specific lines in the budget, and that we would like to see further clarification of the impact of the cuts (particularly the newly-announced cuts, such as to the specials) on children in all of the schools on a day-to-day basis.
Steve Rivkin noted his regret that the cuts were made to specials, which provided important ways for children to achieve and experience new activities (PE, art, music), and wondered about cutting intervention support instead (particularly "math coaches" and other intervention teachers who largely work with teachers, NOT students). He also asked whether closing Marks Meadow should be on the table for THIS year, if our budget is indeed at a Tier 3 or even Tier 4 level (a scary but distinct possibility). Maria noted that this was something that would need to be seriously considered IF we were forced by the town to go below Tier 2.
I expressed my concern about the process in which we see each budget 5 or 6 times, and each times there are new and different cuts -- which seems like not the best way to craft a budget (and one that leads to a lot of hysteria among parents, kids, teachers, and staff). It was noted by the superintendent, and others, that this had been a very unusual year, given the change in administration as well as the very dismal economic climate. I do hope that we can return to this issue of the budget process next year with our new superintendent, and that we can craft a process that includes more involvement from all stakeholders (parents, teachers, staff) EARLY in the process as opposed to late in the process in which people are reacting to proposed cuts (and in a sense, lobbying for particular positions).
Maria also noted that a survey was being distributed tomorrow to teachers and staff (anonymously) to gather feedback about different types of cuts they believed could be made with relatively minimal impact on children's experience in the schools. This was an idea sent by a parent to the School Committee today, and I hope this survey reveals valuable information on where cuts might be best made.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Why I'm in Favor of the New Assistant Superintendent Position
I' ve already had a number of questions about the new Assistant Superintendent position -- which of course is totally fair and expected, particularly given tight budget times and some community concern about the number of administrative positions in our district -- so I am doing this posting to try to help explain this position, including why I am strongly in favor of it.
First, although this is a new position, in that we will hire a new person, the funding for this position is NOT new. This job was basically filled until last year by Wendy Kohler, who retired last summer, and has been filled this year by creating two other positions. If you look at the Amherst organizational chart (http://www.arps.org/node/349) you will see these two positions: Director of Professional Development, Evaluation, and Curriculum (Fran Ziperstein), and Curriculum Administrator (Mike Hayes). Both of these positions are being cut for this new position -- Fran Ziperstein is retiring, and Mike Hayes will return to teach math next year at the middle school. So, although the title of the position is new, and a new person will be hired, this position actually represents a reduction in the number of administrators compared to this year.
In addition, I think this new position will help the district really make strides in some extremely important ways, including increasing horizontal and vertical alignment in our curriculum (an issue noted as a problem in our district by many), increasing our ability to perform serious evaluation (again, a problem noted by many -- even if there is interest in conducting evaluation, we often don't have the capacity to do so), and increasing our ability to make data-driven decisions (again, something I'm entirely in favor of). As you can see in the job description which I've posted below, this person will focus on professional development, data analysis, curriculum, and grant-writing, and I believe will make a serious contribution to overall education in the Amherst public schools (and potentially help us bring in some grant funding, which would help some with our current budget crisis). In sum, this seems like money very well spent to me.
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Amherst-Pelham Regional School District, Amherst, Massachusetts
Job Description
The Amherst Pelham Regional School District is currently seeking candidates for an Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. The Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction will provide inspiration, leadership, guidance, and direction for the administrative and instructional staff in order to achieve and maintain the highest standards of excellence consistent with the individual needs of all students.
Qualifications:
• Valid Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education certification as Assistant Superintendent/Superintendent and/or Director/Supervisor, or proof of eligibility.
• Successful leadership experience in standards-based curriculum development, differentiated instruction, and effective school research.
• Demonstrated ability to plan, implement, and evaluate professional development.
• Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with school department personnel.
• Demonstrated competency in providing workshops in one or more instructional areas.
• Proven competence in utilizing multiple assessment tools and data analysis methodology regarding student performance data to aid decision making in planning/revising/refining curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
• Experience as a teacher within a public school setting.
• Masters Degree or higher in Public School/Educational Administration from an accredited college or university.
Responsibilities:
• Assists the Superintendent substantially and effectively in providing leadership in developing, achieving, and maintaining the best educational programs for the Amherst Regional School District.
• Collaborates with the Superintendent to ensure progress towards the attainment of the mission and goals of the Amherst Regional School District.
• Assists principals to improve curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Ensures collaboration, cooperation in order to maximize high academic achievement for all learners and excellence in teaching.
• Assures alignment and articulation of PreK-12 curriculum with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks by working collaboratively with the established committees, building principals, coordinators, and department heads.
• In collaboration with the Superintendent provides system-wide leadership for curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development. Oversees the systematic renewal and continuous improvement of programs, instruction, and assessment.
• Develops and manages the budget for new program adoption, curriculum leadership and professional development.
• Establishes and directs PreK-12 district-wide benchmark testing programs and facilitates the implementation of the state’s MCAS testing program. Analyzes results and ensures that results are considered in the revision of curriculum, instruction, and programs.
• Writes and/or coordinates all federal, state, and private grants related to teaching and learning.
• Coordinates the district’s mentor and new teacher orientation programs.
• Coordinates kindergarten registration.
• Coordinates and recommends all home education requests.
• Attends appropriate School Committee meetings and prepares studies and reports as requested by the Superintendent.
• Performs all other duties assigned by the Superintendent and/or School Committees.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Community Presentation on the Proposal to Close Mark’s Meadow - April 23, 2009
As noted in my blog posting on last week's meeting of the Amherst School Committee, the superintendent's office has now prepared an extensive Community Presentation Proposal to educate the community about the implications of closing Marks Meadow (this is the presentation that will be given at each of the elementary schools next week, and at a community forum in early May). I've pasted most of the proposal here for ease for those who regularly check out my blog and might want to share comments (I've also bolded a few heading/lines for emphasis, since the document is long - those were MY additions!). However, I did NOT include the appendix (which presents two very preliminary redistricting proposals) or the figures (which I couldn't successfully paste in this posting) or the feedback form (nor will I be considering comments on my blog to be "official feedback" for use by the committee in making a decision). But the rest is here -- and you can see the official version (including the figures and redistricting proposals, etc.) on line at: https://www.arps.org/node/815#attachments. Regardless of your feelings about the motion I made in March to close Mark's Meadow at the end of the 2009-2010 school year, which has led to this presentation, I think you can see that the administrative team, including Maria Geryk, Kathy Mazur, Rob Detweiler, and Doug Slaughter, have worked extremely hard to prepare a thorough and detailed presentation regarding the impact of my motion, and I am very hopeful that this information will help members of the community understand the very hard choices the School Committee is trying to make to preserve the Amherst educational experience during very critical financial times. I'd also encourage all parents, teachers/staff, and community members to come hear the presentation by interim superintendent Maria Geryk -- and ask questions and give feedback -- at any of the following times and locations:
The State of Our Schools – Enrollment and Economics
We currently educate 1327 children (K to 6) in four elementary schools. The schools range in size from 194 (Mark’s Meadow) to 462 (Fort River). The present enrollment reflects a decrease of approximately 300 students over the ten-year period since 1999. Fifteen years ago, there were approximately 1800 students in the elementary district. For FY10 and FY11, projections estimate elementary enrollment at between 1300 and 1310 students, possibly increasing by 50 students by FY14. Since we are facing serious, multi-year economic and funding issues, consideration has been given to closing an elementary school, and a motion was made at the March 17, 2009 Amherst School Committee meeting to close Mark’s Meadow School no later than June 30, 2010. This motion is scheduled for a vote at the May 19, 2009 School Committee meeting, giving us one year to plan if the motion is approved. Under normal circumstances, which include level funding and stable enrollments, district leaders would not necessarily consider closing a school. Economic circumstances combined with declining district enrollment, have led to the current motion to close Mark’s Meadow School.
Factors to Consider:
· Capacity - Our current buildings, including Mark’s Meadow, have a capacity of 78 classrooms, 19 (not including preschool) at Crocker Farm, 24 at Fort River, 12 at Mark’s Meadow (including the modulars), and 23 at Wildwood. Sixty-nine are presently in use as K-6 classroom space. Our current four-school configuration varies significantly in enrollment and number of classrooms.
· Equity – The schools vary considerably in terms of the percent of children enrolled in the free/reduced price lunch program. At Wildwood, 23% of the children receive free/reduced lunch, compared to 55% of those at Crocker Farm (and 29% at Fort River and 38% at Mark’s Meadow). The number of students receiving free/reduced lunch at Crocker Farm increased by 9 percent for FY09 over FY08 and increased by 17% over the past five years. Over the same period of time – five years – the percentage of students at the other three schools participating in the free/reduced lunch program remained fairly stable, with fluctuations of -4% to +5%. When considering these statistics, it is important to note that the pre-school enrollment at Crocker Farm is not included; this is a district program which serves all eligible students in Amherst.
· Class Sizes – Given our current and anticipated student population, operating four K-6 schools causes class sizes to vary significantly both within and across schools. For example, in the current fifth grade, Crocker Farm has a class of 15, whereas Fort River has a class of 25. Similarly, in the fourth grade, Mark’s Meadow has a class of 25, whereas Fort River has a class of 18.
· Operating Efficiency - As noted above, the current classroom configuration does not provide class-size flexibility, which means we use more classrooms and hire more teachers than we would need to if we could more efficiently distribute our students. With a three-school model, we could distribute the same number of students across 64 classrooms instead of 69 without going beyond current classroom class-size maximum targets. We would have fewer fifteen-student classes because we anticipate having enough students in each school to reduce this type of under enrollment. Because of the historical limit of 10 classrooms, coupled with its traditional kindergarten enrollment of 20 – 25 students, Mark’s Meadow has not been able to accommodate all of the kindergarteners assigned to its geographic area in a single classroom, so “overflow” kindergarteners have been bused to other schools. In subsequent years, those students may return to Mark’s Meadow or may choose to remain at the school to which they were originally assigned. In addition, our current organizational model requires four sets of support staff teams (principal, secretary, nurse, librarian, custodian, etc.). The district has endeavored to hire full-time staff to support the population at Mark’s Meadow, even though the building capacity and enrollment might not warrant such staffing. This has been done to attract and maintain staff over time and to foster a sense of community within the school. Presently, and for many years, Mark’s Meadow utilized all 10 classrooms. Based on projections for FY10, just nine Mark’s Meadow classrooms are needed for the existing and incoming student population.
The State of Our Schools – The Funding Gap
The Facilitation of the Community Choices Committee (FCCC) report from the fall of 2008 concluded that Amherst faces a serious and growing budget gap between projected revenues and the cost of providing the current level of municipal, school, and library services. If State aid remains constant, the budget shortfall is approximately $2.66 million in FY2010, rising to $10.2 million in FY2014. If State aid decreases by 15% next year, as it has in previous economic downturns, then the budget gap will be approximately $5.2 million in FY2010. The full report can be found at the following web address: http://www.amherstma.gov/index.asp?NID=802.
Unfortunately, even the grim scenario demonstrated above is better than our present reality. Current expectations are that Amherst faces a $6.3 million dollar gap for next year – FY10 – which is almost $1 million dollars worse than the chart above indicates – with an increasing gap in years beyond FY10.
The FCCC report notes that the budget gap for the next five years is of such magnitude that substantial cutbacks and restructuring will be required. Because personnel costs accounted for 86% of Amherst’s spending in fiscal year 2009 (and about 80% of school costs), finding a way to limit the growth in personnel-related costs to a sustainable rate is therefore essential to the overall fiscal stability of the town. The FCCC suggested four methods: a) continuing to make savings on employee health insurance plan design, b) restricting future COLAs, c) reducing staffing, and d) implementing some combination of the previous three. Although the school district will work on both (a) and (b), it is also clear that significant staff reductions will also be necessary in order to limit growth in personnel-related costs to a sustainable rate. In sum, the structural deficit between what we receive from the town (based on taxes and state aid) and what it costs to run our schools is an on-going problem, meaning that we are and will continue to be choosing which programs and services to cut.
A Proposal: Moving to Three Schools
The school committee is currently considering a proposal to address a portion of the immediate and systemic budget problems by closing an elementary school (Mark’s Meadow) and redistricting all elementary children into the remaining three schools. In addition to remediating some of the budgetary issues, this proposal will also address the systemic issue of socioeconomic inequity amongst the schools. This is a challenging endeavor, both in practical and emotional terms. Among the four schools, Mark’s Meadow is the only possible candidate for closure because it is the smallest by eleven classrooms. Mark’s Meadow is also the oldest of the four schools, is not owned by the town, and has higher administrative costs per student than the other three schools, due to its size. Mark’s Meadow is also a successful school, long serving our North Amherst neighborhoods and families from the campus of the University of Massachusetts campus. However difficult it may be, financial constraints and enrollments have forced us to consider closing Mark’s Meadow as an option.
If it is decided by the Amherst School Committee to close Mark’s Meadow School, district administration will immediately work on a detailed plan for this major restructuring, establishing multiple, single-purpose teams to address the following:
· Redistricting – A concrete plan will be developed with consultants to establish new school zones within the next few months. School administrators have run preliminary numbers on this proposed change, and have developed two sample redistricting proposals, which are attached at the end of this report.
· Student Support – District and school leaders will create a plan to support the educational and emotional needs of students making school transitions.
· Staff Support – A district plan will be developed to redesign building staffing to minimize disruption to students making transitions and to thoughtfully reassign Mark’s Meadow staff.
· Moving – A staged, year-long plan for relocation of educational materials, furniture and fixtures to other district locations will be developed and implemented.
In 2007, a demographics study of our schools and their capacity was conducted by NESDEC. While NESDEC does not take a position on local redistricting efforts, their report findings will help guide our process moving forward. Projections are also done annually at the district level, and the NESDEC projections are consistent with what the district projects. However, our enrollments and enrollment projections indicate that educating all K-6 elementary students in a three-building model is feasible for FY11 and beyond and is within the capacity of the schools.
If the motion to close Mark’s Meadow School for FY11 passes, the district will work with consultants to ensure we are moving forward constructively and that we are not overlooking any factors that must be considered. This consultant will analyze and finalize our preliminary work on redistricting to ensure we are doing this work in an educationally sound and equitable manner. The two preliminary plans in the Appendix demonstrate options for redistricting within the parameters established by the motion.
· Equity – The proportion of children receiving free/reduced lunch would be decidedly more balanced amongst the schools. The schools percentage of students on free/reduced lunch would range from 33.8% to 35.7%. This is a significantly smaller gap (1.9% among schools) than our current system (32%). Why balance for equity? Quoting from the Amherst Schools Organization Report from 2008, “The ASOC looked at research on impact of concentrations of poverty on school effectiveness .… majority low-income schools face disproportionate challenges in generating student achievement was seen as compelling.” The Committee noted this issue of equity has relevance for our community in many ways, including the challenges that this type of economic disparity creates when children from such schools are joined together in the middle school for Grade 7. The full report of the ASOC can be found at: http://www.arps.org/node/453.
· Class numbers and sizes –Moving to three elementary schools would result in a need for fewer classrooms (because of the efficiencies involved in dividing students across three schools instead of four). We would need an estimated 63 or 64 classrooms rather than the 69 we are using in FY09. Originally we planned on needing 69 classrooms for FY10, however, there are 2 classrooms on the anticipated cut list.
· Financial savings – Moving from four to three schools would result in an initial estimated savings of $532,000 and a reduction in the rate of growth of the budget in subsequent years, thus reducing the slope of the Level Services Expenditures line. These savings would be achieved as follows:
Reductions
o Reduction in district classrooms from 67 (FY10) to 64 (FY11) $162,000
o Reduction of principal and 2 secretaries $170,000
o 2.5 custodians $55,000
o 1.0 ELL teacher $54,000
o 1.0 Special Education teacher $54,000
o 1.0 Intervention teacher $54,000
o 1.13 paraprofessionals $15,000
o 1.0 LPN $35,000
o 1.0 librarian $54,000
o 1.0 IA paraprofessional $20,000
Total Reductions $673,000
Initial Costs
o Annual transportation increase (an ongoing expense) $16,000
o Moving and packing (a one-time expense) $70,000
o Prep day for all teachers (a one-time expense) $55,000
Total Costs $141,000
Thus, the estimated net Year 1 savings is: $532,000
Notes: There may be further savings achieved by the ability to more efficiently deliver services to Special Education students, English Language Learner students, and others. The estimate above is conservative; there may be an additional savings of $100,000 to $200,000. At this time no determination has been made about the status of the two modular classrooms currently placed at Mark’s Meadow School. Moving of the modulars is estimated to cost $140,000. We project that we will be able to contain all our classrooms within Crocker Farm, Fort River and Wildwood Schools without use of the modulars. If it is decided that the modulars must be moved, the net Year 1 savings will be reduced to approximately $392,000. Consideration may also be given to selling the modulars. Further, if regionalization occurs and if grade six moves to the middle school in a few years, the three remaining schools will have adequate classroom space to contain the K-5 enrollment.
The State of Our Schools – No Change to Current Structure
The choice is not between four schools as we know them and an unknown three-school model. The choice is between four schools with greatly diminished program quality and three schools that preserve $532,000 in educational program offerings through greater efficiencies ($673,000 after the first year.)
For FY10, the Town of Amherst faces severe reductions in State Aid. Distributing a proportion of State Aid cuts as proposed in the Governor’s budget would require the schools to cut $1.7M. Distributing a proportion of even deeper State Aid cuts as proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee would require the schools to cut $2.1M. Town officials and the Budget Coordinating Group (BCG) are working to identify solutions to the budget gap. Meanwhile, the district is proposing cuts of $1.1M, which includes Central Office and school-based cuts in each of the four schools. These cuts include significant administrative reductions, a decrease of 2 classrooms, cuts to intervention, aesthetics (art, music, physical education), instrumental music, clerical, paraprofessional and custodial staff. These cuts are drastic for our district - still, they do not meet the level of cuts indicated as necessary by the Town of Amherst.
The Amherst Finance Committee recognizes the value to Amherst of the schools’ reducing operating costs by such a reorganization; however, it also recognizes the difficulty of making a change of this magnitude – closing a school - by Fall 2009. The Finance Committee has therefore indicated that it may be willing to recommend to Town Meeting to “fill in” the gap between proposed FY10 elementary cuts and the amount considered affordable by the Town by the use of Reserve Funds, if the School Committee has provided a substantial, sustainable organizational change for FY11. This would enable the district to avoid the additional cuts that would otherwise be necessary for FY10, while providing an appropriate amount of implementation time to make sure the reorganization is done as thoughtfully as possible.
- Monday, April 27 at 5:00 p.m.: Marks Meadow PGO/MM Community (MM auditorium)
- Wednesday, April 29th at 12:00 Noon: Wildwood PGO/Wildwood Community (WW location TBA)
- Wednesday, April 29th at 5:00 p.m.: Fort River PGO/FR Community (FR library)
- Thursday, April 30th at 5:00 p.m.: Crocker Farm PGO/CF Community (CF library)
- Tuesday, May 5th at 7:00 p.m.: Community-Wide Forum (Middle School auditorium) .
The State of Our Schools – Enrollment and Economics
We currently educate 1327 children (K to 6) in four elementary schools. The schools range in size from 194 (Mark’s Meadow) to 462 (Fort River). The present enrollment reflects a decrease of approximately 300 students over the ten-year period since 1999. Fifteen years ago, there were approximately 1800 students in the elementary district. For FY10 and FY11, projections estimate elementary enrollment at between 1300 and 1310 students, possibly increasing by 50 students by FY14. Since we are facing serious, multi-year economic and funding issues, consideration has been given to closing an elementary school, and a motion was made at the March 17, 2009 Amherst School Committee meeting to close Mark’s Meadow School no later than June 30, 2010. This motion is scheduled for a vote at the May 19, 2009 School Committee meeting, giving us one year to plan if the motion is approved. Under normal circumstances, which include level funding and stable enrollments, district leaders would not necessarily consider closing a school. Economic circumstances combined with declining district enrollment, have led to the current motion to close Mark’s Meadow School.
Factors to Consider:
· Capacity - Our current buildings, including Mark’s Meadow, have a capacity of 78 classrooms, 19 (not including preschool) at Crocker Farm, 24 at Fort River, 12 at Mark’s Meadow (including the modulars), and 23 at Wildwood. Sixty-nine are presently in use as K-6 classroom space. Our current four-school configuration varies significantly in enrollment and number of classrooms.
· Equity – The schools vary considerably in terms of the percent of children enrolled in the free/reduced price lunch program. At Wildwood, 23% of the children receive free/reduced lunch, compared to 55% of those at Crocker Farm (and 29% at Fort River and 38% at Mark’s Meadow). The number of students receiving free/reduced lunch at Crocker Farm increased by 9 percent for FY09 over FY08 and increased by 17% over the past five years. Over the same period of time – five years – the percentage of students at the other three schools participating in the free/reduced lunch program remained fairly stable, with fluctuations of -4% to +5%. When considering these statistics, it is important to note that the pre-school enrollment at Crocker Farm is not included; this is a district program which serves all eligible students in Amherst.
· Class Sizes – Given our current and anticipated student population, operating four K-6 schools causes class sizes to vary significantly both within and across schools. For example, in the current fifth grade, Crocker Farm has a class of 15, whereas Fort River has a class of 25. Similarly, in the fourth grade, Mark’s Meadow has a class of 25, whereas Fort River has a class of 18.
· Operating Efficiency - As noted above, the current classroom configuration does not provide class-size flexibility, which means we use more classrooms and hire more teachers than we would need to if we could more efficiently distribute our students. With a three-school model, we could distribute the same number of students across 64 classrooms instead of 69 without going beyond current classroom class-size maximum targets. We would have fewer fifteen-student classes because we anticipate having enough students in each school to reduce this type of under enrollment. Because of the historical limit of 10 classrooms, coupled with its traditional kindergarten enrollment of 20 – 25 students, Mark’s Meadow has not been able to accommodate all of the kindergarteners assigned to its geographic area in a single classroom, so “overflow” kindergarteners have been bused to other schools. In subsequent years, those students may return to Mark’s Meadow or may choose to remain at the school to which they were originally assigned. In addition, our current organizational model requires four sets of support staff teams (principal, secretary, nurse, librarian, custodian, etc.). The district has endeavored to hire full-time staff to support the population at Mark’s Meadow, even though the building capacity and enrollment might not warrant such staffing. This has been done to attract and maintain staff over time and to foster a sense of community within the school. Presently, and for many years, Mark’s Meadow utilized all 10 classrooms. Based on projections for FY10, just nine Mark’s Meadow classrooms are needed for the existing and incoming student population.
The State of Our Schools – The Funding Gap
The Facilitation of the Community Choices Committee (FCCC) report from the fall of 2008 concluded that Amherst faces a serious and growing budget gap between projected revenues and the cost of providing the current level of municipal, school, and library services. If State aid remains constant, the budget shortfall is approximately $2.66 million in FY2010, rising to $10.2 million in FY2014. If State aid decreases by 15% next year, as it has in previous economic downturns, then the budget gap will be approximately $5.2 million in FY2010. The full report can be found at the following web address: http://www.amherstma.gov/index.asp?NID=802.
Unfortunately, even the grim scenario demonstrated above is better than our present reality. Current expectations are that Amherst faces a $6.3 million dollar gap for next year – FY10 – which is almost $1 million dollars worse than the chart above indicates – with an increasing gap in years beyond FY10.
The FCCC report notes that the budget gap for the next five years is of such magnitude that substantial cutbacks and restructuring will be required. Because personnel costs accounted for 86% of Amherst’s spending in fiscal year 2009 (and about 80% of school costs), finding a way to limit the growth in personnel-related costs to a sustainable rate is therefore essential to the overall fiscal stability of the town. The FCCC suggested four methods: a) continuing to make savings on employee health insurance plan design, b) restricting future COLAs, c) reducing staffing, and d) implementing some combination of the previous three. Although the school district will work on both (a) and (b), it is also clear that significant staff reductions will also be necessary in order to limit growth in personnel-related costs to a sustainable rate. In sum, the structural deficit between what we receive from the town (based on taxes and state aid) and what it costs to run our schools is an on-going problem, meaning that we are and will continue to be choosing which programs and services to cut.
A Proposal: Moving to Three Schools
The school committee is currently considering a proposal to address a portion of the immediate and systemic budget problems by closing an elementary school (Mark’s Meadow) and redistricting all elementary children into the remaining three schools. In addition to remediating some of the budgetary issues, this proposal will also address the systemic issue of socioeconomic inequity amongst the schools. This is a challenging endeavor, both in practical and emotional terms. Among the four schools, Mark’s Meadow is the only possible candidate for closure because it is the smallest by eleven classrooms. Mark’s Meadow is also the oldest of the four schools, is not owned by the town, and has higher administrative costs per student than the other three schools, due to its size. Mark’s Meadow is also a successful school, long serving our North Amherst neighborhoods and families from the campus of the University of Massachusetts campus. However difficult it may be, financial constraints and enrollments have forced us to consider closing Mark’s Meadow as an option.
If it is decided by the Amherst School Committee to close Mark’s Meadow School, district administration will immediately work on a detailed plan for this major restructuring, establishing multiple, single-purpose teams to address the following:
· Redistricting – A concrete plan will be developed with consultants to establish new school zones within the next few months. School administrators have run preliminary numbers on this proposed change, and have developed two sample redistricting proposals, which are attached at the end of this report.
· Student Support – District and school leaders will create a plan to support the educational and emotional needs of students making school transitions.
· Staff Support – A district plan will be developed to redesign building staffing to minimize disruption to students making transitions and to thoughtfully reassign Mark’s Meadow staff.
· Moving – A staged, year-long plan for relocation of educational materials, furniture and fixtures to other district locations will be developed and implemented.
In 2007, a demographics study of our schools and their capacity was conducted by NESDEC. While NESDEC does not take a position on local redistricting efforts, their report findings will help guide our process moving forward. Projections are also done annually at the district level, and the NESDEC projections are consistent with what the district projects. However, our enrollments and enrollment projections indicate that educating all K-6 elementary students in a three-building model is feasible for FY11 and beyond and is within the capacity of the schools.
If the motion to close Mark’s Meadow School for FY11 passes, the district will work with consultants to ensure we are moving forward constructively and that we are not overlooking any factors that must be considered. This consultant will analyze and finalize our preliminary work on redistricting to ensure we are doing this work in an educationally sound and equitable manner. The two preliminary plans in the Appendix demonstrate options for redistricting within the parameters established by the motion.
· Equity – The proportion of children receiving free/reduced lunch would be decidedly more balanced amongst the schools. The schools percentage of students on free/reduced lunch would range from 33.8% to 35.7%. This is a significantly smaller gap (1.9% among schools) than our current system (32%). Why balance for equity? Quoting from the Amherst Schools Organization Report from 2008, “The ASOC looked at research on impact of concentrations of poverty on school effectiveness .… majority low-income schools face disproportionate challenges in generating student achievement was seen as compelling.” The Committee noted this issue of equity has relevance for our community in many ways, including the challenges that this type of economic disparity creates when children from such schools are joined together in the middle school for Grade 7. The full report of the ASOC can be found at: http://www.arps.org/node/453.
· Class numbers and sizes –Moving to three elementary schools would result in a need for fewer classrooms (because of the efficiencies involved in dividing students across three schools instead of four). We would need an estimated 63 or 64 classrooms rather than the 69 we are using in FY09. Originally we planned on needing 69 classrooms for FY10, however, there are 2 classrooms on the anticipated cut list.
· Financial savings – Moving from four to three schools would result in an initial estimated savings of $532,000 and a reduction in the rate of growth of the budget in subsequent years, thus reducing the slope of the Level Services Expenditures line. These savings would be achieved as follows:
Reductions
o Reduction in district classrooms from 67 (FY10) to 64 (FY11) $162,000
o Reduction of principal and 2 secretaries $170,000
o 2.5 custodians $55,000
o 1.0 ELL teacher $54,000
o 1.0 Special Education teacher $54,000
o 1.0 Intervention teacher $54,000
o 1.13 paraprofessionals $15,000
o 1.0 LPN $35,000
o 1.0 librarian $54,000
o 1.0 IA paraprofessional $20,000
Total Reductions $673,000
Initial Costs
o Annual transportation increase (an ongoing expense) $16,000
o Moving and packing (a one-time expense) $70,000
o Prep day for all teachers (a one-time expense) $55,000
Total Costs $141,000
Thus, the estimated net Year 1 savings is: $532,000
Notes: There may be further savings achieved by the ability to more efficiently deliver services to Special Education students, English Language Learner students, and others. The estimate above is conservative; there may be an additional savings of $100,000 to $200,000. At this time no determination has been made about the status of the two modular classrooms currently placed at Mark’s Meadow School. Moving of the modulars is estimated to cost $140,000. We project that we will be able to contain all our classrooms within Crocker Farm, Fort River and Wildwood Schools without use of the modulars. If it is decided that the modulars must be moved, the net Year 1 savings will be reduced to approximately $392,000. Consideration may also be given to selling the modulars. Further, if regionalization occurs and if grade six moves to the middle school in a few years, the three remaining schools will have adequate classroom space to contain the K-5 enrollment.
The State of Our Schools – No Change to Current Structure
The choice is not between four schools as we know them and an unknown three-school model. The choice is between four schools with greatly diminished program quality and three schools that preserve $532,000 in educational program offerings through greater efficiencies ($673,000 after the first year.)
For FY10, the Town of Amherst faces severe reductions in State Aid. Distributing a proportion of State Aid cuts as proposed in the Governor’s budget would require the schools to cut $1.7M. Distributing a proportion of even deeper State Aid cuts as proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee would require the schools to cut $2.1M. Town officials and the Budget Coordinating Group (BCG) are working to identify solutions to the budget gap. Meanwhile, the district is proposing cuts of $1.1M, which includes Central Office and school-based cuts in each of the four schools. These cuts include significant administrative reductions, a decrease of 2 classrooms, cuts to intervention, aesthetics (art, music, physical education), instrumental music, clerical, paraprofessional and custodial staff. These cuts are drastic for our district - still, they do not meet the level of cuts indicated as necessary by the Town of Amherst.
The Amherst Finance Committee recognizes the value to Amherst of the schools’ reducing operating costs by such a reorganization; however, it also recognizes the difficulty of making a change of this magnitude – closing a school - by Fall 2009. The Finance Committee has therefore indicated that it may be willing to recommend to Town Meeting to “fill in” the gap between proposed FY10 elementary cuts and the amount considered affordable by the Town by the use of Reserve Funds, if the School Committee has provided a substantial, sustainable organizational change for FY11. This would enable the district to avoid the additional cuts that would otherwise be necessary for FY10, while providing an appropriate amount of implementation time to make sure the reorganization is done as thoughtfully as possible.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Does Size Matter?
We've had a lot of discussion about issues of "size" at School Committee meetings this year -- school size (largely focused on whether eliminating Marks Meadow, the small of our elementary schools, is a bad pedagogical idea) and class size (largely focused on how many kids we should try to target per class in the middle school and high school). Thus, during this week of school vacation, and hence no School Committee to report on, I thought I would do a blog posting on both of these issues of size.
First, in terms of issues of an ideal school size, it is hard to draw very conclusive findings. There are many studies, but the findings are very hard to interpret because children are (obviously) not randomly assigned to attend a small or large school. And because large schools tend to be located in urban areas, and small schools tend to be located in rural areas, any differences between outcomes seen in large/urban schools and those in small/rural schools could be due to location and/or type of student instead of size of school. This is the classic research issue of determining whether a study shows causation -- meaning whether size of school CAUSED the difference in achievement -- or correlation -- meaning whether two variables are associated, but it isn't clear whether one variable (such as school size) CAUSED the other variable (such as ACHIEVEMENT).
Most research on school size acknowledges, however, that school districts need to consider cost efficiencies in making decisions about school size. Thus, recommendations tend to focus on the balance of having small schools and the cost-efficiencies inherent in large ones. The most common conclusion I've read describes schools of 300-500 as “moderately” sized, and those that “balance economies of size with the negative effects of large schools." (http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Publications/Revisiting_Economies.pdf). Similarly, the 2005 Master Plan for the District of Columbia (http://www,k12.dc.us/mater/MEP.final.pef) gives a "recommended elementary school size of between 300 and 500 students." This plan also notes that "One way schools have continued to operate with lower enrollments has been to eliminate educational offerings; for example, elementary schools have cut staff for art, music, physical education and libraries." In other words, schools that drop below this 300 number are often forced to cut other offerings to pay for their small size. Sound familiar?
First, in terms of issues of an ideal school size, it is hard to draw very conclusive findings. There are many studies, but the findings are very hard to interpret because children are (obviously) not randomly assigned to attend a small or large school. And because large schools tend to be located in urban areas, and small schools tend to be located in rural areas, any differences between outcomes seen in large/urban schools and those in small/rural schools could be due to location and/or type of student instead of size of school. This is the classic research issue of determining whether a study shows causation -- meaning whether size of school CAUSED the difference in achievement -- or correlation -- meaning whether two variables are associated, but it isn't clear whether one variable (such as school size) CAUSED the other variable (such as ACHIEVEMENT).
Most research on school size acknowledges, however, that school districts need to consider cost efficiencies in making decisions about school size. Thus, recommendations tend to focus on the balance of having small schools and the cost-efficiencies inherent in large ones. The most common conclusion I've read describes schools of 300-500 as “moderately” sized, and those that “balance economies of size with the negative effects of large schools." (http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Publications/Revisiting_Economies.pdf). Similarly, the 2005 Master Plan for the District of Columbia (http://www,k12.dc.us/mater/MEP.final.pef) gives a "recommended elementary school size of between 300 and 500 students." This plan also notes that "One way schools have continued to operate with lower enrollments has been to eliminate educational offerings; for example, elementary schools have cut staff for art, music, physical education and libraries." In other words, schools that drop below this 300 number are often forced to cut other offerings to pay for their small size. Sound familiar?
I find this research encouraging -- because if Marks Meadow is closed, we'll have 1300 students to educate in 3 buildings, which should mean 3 schools of between 300 and 500 in each (closer to 300 in Crocker Farm, and closer to 500 in Fort River and Wildwood). Sounds like a good way to balance the importance of small learning communities with the realities of always scarce school budgets.
Second, in terms of class size, there is quite a lot of research on this issue (and thanks for my fellow Amherst blogger Gavin Andresen (http://gavinthink.blogspot.com/) for sending along a lot of good information on this topic. This research suggests that small class sizes can be beneficial, especially in the early years (see http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html AND http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1533647/k.3B7C/Class_size_and_student_achievement.htm for good reviews). In particular, this research suggests that:
- Smaller classes in the early grades (K-3) can boost student academic achievement
- A class size of no more than 18 students per teacher is required to produce the greatest benefits;
- A program spanning grades K-3 will produce more benefits than a program that reaches students in only one or two of the primary grades;
- Minority and low-income students show even greater gains when placed in small classes in the primary grades.
In sum, the research on class size suggests that class size should be very low in kindergarten and first grade (ideally 13 to 17 in a class), and that class sizes of this level are especially beneficial for low income and minority students. However, there is less evidence supporting the positive effects of class size reduction in 4th through 12th grades. Thus, I believe the schools (including the Superintendent and the School Committee) should consider decreasing our class size averages at the very youngest grades (certainly K and 1st grade, and ideally 2nd and 3rd grade as well), and then increasing the class size average targets 5th through 12th. This seems like a good way of allocating limited resources (teachers, classrooms) in a way that is in line with current research findings about when you "get the most bang for your buck" in terms of class size.
So, one question becomes how do you pay for so many teachers (to allow for small classes)? The answer in part would be to increase class sizes in the later grades (which of course is easier to implement in a K to 12 district than in the Amherst district in which the elementary K to 5 budget is separate from the regional 7 to 12 budget). However, there is another possibility: the research I've read suggests one way is to move intervention teachers to regular classroom teachers: "Extra teachers in a school who do not have regular class assignments are costly and may not have the same positive impact on achievement as shrinking class size." (www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Fall03.pdf). This raises a very important point for me -- should we be reducing support staff in our schools (e.g., intervention teachers) and increasing the number of class room teachers? We currently have 11 intervention teachers in the four elementary schools. That would mean we could gain 2 to 4 classroom teachers at each of the schools if we were to move intervention teachers to classroom teachers -- and that could mean an extra class at 2 or 3 or even 4 grade levels in a building (which would have a dramatic increase on class size for all the kids at that grade in a given building). I don't know the costs of doing this (e.g., are there kids who particularly need pull out intervention support), but this idea of reallocating staff to different roles in a building strikes me as one that should at least be seriously considered.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Tier 3 Choice: 4 Schools or 3 Schools
Given that by all estimates, we appear to be looking at Tier 3, a number of people -- parents AND teachers -- have contacted me to say why are we not now looking seriously at closing Marks Meadow at the end of this calendar year. And in fact, when the superintendent recommended (on March 3rd) not closing Marks Meadow at the end of this year, she even said that was her recommendation IF we were at Tier 1 or Tier 2, but that if we were at Tier 3, "all bets are off." So, we do appear to be at Tier 3 ... which means I think we need to take a VERY serious look at whether Marks Meadow should stay open next year. Let's look at what the options are.
The estimate is that closing Marks Meadow would save $700,000 a year -- but "only" $406,000 in the first year (although significantly more IF you don't move the portables at the cost of $140,000). So, let's say we are at Tier 3 (which all indications suggest is accurate), and we have a choice of having four schools next year (our current system) or having three schools next year (if Marks Meadow closes). Here is what we lose, as suggested by our superintendent at the March 3rd Amherst Meeting, if we keep four schools at Tier 3:
What could we gain by closing Marks Meadow THIS YEAR (and thus have an extra $406,000 -- which is a conservative estimate, because you do NOT have to move the portables)? Here's how I'd use this money:
So, this is how I'd allocate the money --others may have different priorities, and those priorities may well include differences in managing the money between three schools (e.g., maybe going immediately to save classroom teachers and reducing class size instead of saving instrumental music and intervention teachers), OR between four schools (e.g., saying that keeping Marks Meadow open for next year is worth losing all instrumental music and increasing some class sizes). Those are choices we all may see and rank differently, and that's fine. But let's be clear -- there is a finite amount of money, so making one choice (e.g., having four schools) inherently does mean we are not able to make a different choice (e.g., having instrumental music). All I'm doing is telling you the choices that I'd make.
The estimate is that closing Marks Meadow would save $700,000 a year -- but "only" $406,000 in the first year (although significantly more IF you don't move the portables at the cost of $140,000). So, let's say we are at Tier 3 (which all indications suggest is accurate), and we have a choice of having four schools next year (our current system) or having three schools next year (if Marks Meadow closes). Here is what we lose, as suggested by our superintendent at the March 3rd Amherst Meeting, if we keep four schools at Tier 3:
- 6 classroom teachers (somewhat larger class sizes in the upper grades at probably all schools, because I assume these six would basically come from losing a teacher or two in the 4th through 6th grades across the district) - $324,000
- 3.2 instrumental music teachers (the loss of ALL instrumental music) - $172,800
- 9.2 intervention teachers (math, English Language Arts, ELL) - $496,800
- 1.8 computer teachers - $101,000
- Science coordinator - $54,000 (this means no science coordinator for K to 6 at all)
- Librarian - $54,000 (I believe two schools would then share a librarian)
What could we gain by closing Marks Meadow THIS YEAR (and thus have an extra $406,000 -- which is a conservative estimate, because you do NOT have to move the portables)? Here's how I'd use this money:
- First, I'd save instrumental music -- this is a rich part of the Amherst curriculum, and it is an important feeder to the MS and HS music programs, and it is a way for us to realize our social justice mission (because wealthier kids can pay for private lessons, but disadvantaged kids can't) -- that costs $172,800.
- Second, I'd save the science coordinator -- that costs $54,000 (and we do so little science K to 6 that not having that person seems like a really costly choice).
- Third, I'd save 3.5 intervention teachers (who work with kids who are having trouble on the MCAS in english and math and who work with ELL students) -- that costs $189,000 (3.5 X $54,000).
So, this is how I'd allocate the money --others may have different priorities, and those priorities may well include differences in managing the money between three schools (e.g., maybe going immediately to save classroom teachers and reducing class size instead of saving instrumental music and intervention teachers), OR between four schools (e.g., saying that keeping Marks Meadow open for next year is worth losing all instrumental music and increasing some class sizes). Those are choices we all may see and rank differently, and that's fine. But let's be clear -- there is a finite amount of money, so making one choice (e.g., having four schools) inherently does mean we are not able to make a different choice (e.g., having instrumental music). All I'm doing is telling you the choices that I'd make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
