The budget committee update had some fascinating concepts contained within it. RAS Budget Committee Updates The 4 most interesting to me were:
- A revisit of Pairing Elementary schools. (K-2 & 3-5) To me this is an excellent idea that many parents are vehemently against. They dislike having to deal with multiple schools. (ie volunteer, drop off, pick up, staffs) Also, there was a lot of concern regarding how the bus schedule and process would work. The idea was thoroughly trounced by vocal parents a few years back. I am a fan because schools, libraries, equipment, staff, etc can be specialized for the age bracket and it is much easier to optimize the number of kids in a classroom if you have more classrooms of a given grade in the same building. (ie less volatility and a few less teachers) What do you think? (Forest & Lakeview, Northport and Meadow Lake, Neill & Noble, Sonnesyn & Zachary Lane, RSI1 & RSI2)
- RSI1 & RSI2 ??? What do I mean by that? They are also reviewing the possibility of expanding the popular immersion program. I assume in the Pilgrim Lane or Olson building.
- Which would leave the other building available for a possible STEM magnet school. This possibility is also under consideration.
- Do we really need all those TOSA's? Is their funding source covering their true costs? Is it a worthwhile activity that aligns with the RAS priorities? (fyi TOSA = Teacher On Special Assignment... Not in the classroom... I think...)
The challenge of renovating Northport with "free/no vote" Alternative Facilities money was also discussed. I still think we should build a new larger Northport and close Lakeview... Now, how do we get the NE residents to vote for it? And those frustrated SW residents?
RAS Northport MDE Letter 27Jul10
RAS Northport Budget 9Sep10
SUN MDE has questions... Northport
And the GAP goals & plan was reviewed. Looks like they are focusing. Let's hope they can find ways to succeed.
RAS Achievement Gap Plan
Thoughts on any of these?
6 comments:
I don't like the idea of pairing in elementary schools any more than a reasonable parent might. At the younger ages, I think it is more important to have all the siblings in one place, and all of the parents' attentions in one place. Trying to get by with a few less teachers isn't attractive enough to compensate for the upside of being able to make smaller class sizes in the lower grades (the ONLY place it is proven to matter) by rounding the number of teachers up, rather than down, when the number of kids in a grade doesn't come out even with the target class size. Better to just get rid of the concept of grades, but that's more radical, I know.
Glad to see somebody finally putting a name to, and spotlight on "TOSEs." It's like I've said frequently. Take the published teacher/student ratio for the district (the one they scare you with come levy time), divide it into the number of students, and compare with the number of teachers employed. You will find hundreds, maybe, of ... what? Teachers drawing big bucks for NOT teaching?
J. Ewing
NO PAIRING! This would be the final nail in the RAS coffin. I'm wondering if the purpose of this board is to chase everyone out of the district. If so, they've been quite successful!
Pairing proved to be very unpopular in the Osseo District. It seems a convoluted way to save the little money it does.
I also agree with the Gates Foundation, that small SCHOOLS are more important the small classes. I think 281 and others have made a big error here, not fighting harder to keep the neighborhood schools open. One way would be to move up from K-5 to K-6, maybe K-8, which still makes a great deal of sense to me. So yes, I oppose mega-elementaries.
R-Five,
Technically pairing would not increase the number of kids in the school... Though it would increase the number of families in the school.
From your perspective, how many kids in a school equals a mega-elementary?
Also, should they have closed one or both middle schools instead? (ie ~2,700 students...) Thoughts?
Anon,
What is your rationale for being anti-pairing? It makes sense to me, however I am interested in your perspective. Thanks
Thought I read recently that Gates Foundation is backing away from their small schools mission and onto what makes a good teacher/how to improve teaching skills.
I have no conceptual issue with paired schools and look at it as a trade-off, meaning we have to face budget realities and that is one way to save some money and try to keep class sizes lower. But I think it would become a highly emotional issue with a vocal group of parents and would harm the district more than the potential savings.
Last time the pairing idea was raised it wasn't well thought out, and the super didn't have good answers to many parent concerns. I expect the current super will be much better prepared to tell parents exactly how pairing would actually work.
I commend the super and board for studying in detail a broad range of ideas, including admin. Last Spring they approved a number of cuts to admin staff, and looking at TOSA's continues that effort.
They will have to make many difficult and unpopular decisions, but this process seems like it's set up to actually make those difficult choices, not to come to any pre-ordained outcome.
I don't have strong opinions on pairing. I'd need to do more research, but on its face it seems like a sensible cost-saving measure. My observation is that people love saving money until its a personal inconvenience.
As far as schools with a strong focus (ie, magnets)--I think you know I'm a fan. I recognize the transportation challenges, and thanks in part to your challenging me on that issue, would be willing to hear about alternatives (age/income/distance qualifiers, perhaps?) but if we can retain our resident families and attract new ones to the district with a very strong field of choices, I think it serves a lot of purposes.
Neighborhood schools are great at many things and I have *no* issue with them, but I don't think they are the only, or necessarily the best, model for the 21st century.
--Annie
Post a Comment