Wednesday night they approved increasing the number of kids in each class. 1 student more in Elementary and 2 in Middle and High School. Which means there will be fewer teachers in the district classrooms and more class disruption.
By my simple math and the RAS Adjustment sheet that is linked. It looks like it could have been 0/1/1 or less if the district would get out of the cross district transportation business. And yes, this would mean that RSIS and IB/AP "out of boundary kids" would need to be driven by their parents to "their school of choice".
Also with almost half the buses, wouldn't the bus garage and too much bus traffic issues become mute points. Currently the AHS, CHS, RMS, PMS, ZLE and RSIS buses pass through our neighborhood, how can a cash strapped district think this makes sense?
And yes, there would be a risk that some parents would leave the district. And yes, the poor folks would be most impacted, the few that are in these programs. (based on demographic data)However all of our kids are going to be negatively impacted by the higher ratios.
Please remember this slogan:
"We want money spent on
-
Teachers and Classrooms,
-
NOT on Buses and Fuel !!!"
I've never seen a bus teach a child... Thoughts?
RAS Budget Adjustments
RAS 17Feb10 Board Mtg Minutes
RAS Student Teacher Ratio Memo
RAS 2010-11 Budget Page
G2A RAS Transportation 2
G2A RAS Transportation 1
G2A Wheels on the Bus 2
G2A Wheels on the Bus 1
22 comments:
My family uses and appreciates cross-district transportation, but if it were gone tomorrow, we'd still be fine. So on a personal level I'm fairly ambivalent.
However, taking it away in a district as financially diverse as ours creates a pretty rotten situation. The haves are squarely located in the western/southern areas and the have nots live mostly in the north and east. It quickly becomes segregated, if not by color, then certainly by socioeconomic status.
I'm not crazy about adding to the class size, but I think it's a pretty fair way to spread the pain around the entire district/student body.
--Annie
I have to say I'm sad that they didn't do away with this program. My problem is that it actually seems to increase the socialeconomic status gap that Annie mentions in her post. Those who take advantage of the process by and far are those who are more privledged than others - the numbers prove that out. I'm sure their fear is that parents will say "if I have to drive my kid anways, might as well be to a school outside the district". I don't think that fear is real to be honest. Phase it out like they said their were going to do years ago.
DJ
DJ--really?
I don't have the stats, but the families that use the cross district transportation are really the higher SEC families? That would surprise me. Purely anecdotal, but it seems the higher SEC ones choose to drive their own kids and the lower ones tend to use the transportation that's available.
Again, it's not a deal breaker for us, but the kids on my kid's bus seem to be over represented (for the school's gen pop) with single parent and/or families of color and/or dual income where providing their own morning and afternoon transportation isn't possible.
I understand why this seems to be the low hanging budgetary fruit, but why provide options if they're not available to all students?
--Annie
I am not much of a "choice" supporter of course. I would prefer if the IB program ceased to exist and pre-AP/AVID/AP spread equally across the district. (ie see past posts for rationale) Therefore cross district busing would not be needed.
As for RSIS transportation. I believe 25+% of ZLE's students are intra-district transfers. By the rationale that if the district offers it, RAS should pay for transportation to get the students there, then RAS should bus all the kids to ZLE no matter where they reside in the district. This is what is done for RSIS... Would this make sense? ZLE is a choice program...
It is a thorny problem. However I think significantly more than 65% of the general budget should be spent in teaching. This can only happen if the other 35% is shrunk through some creative and possbily aggressive actions. Probably meaning a reduction in transportation cost, personnel required to maintain so many different curriculums, lesson plans, etc.
If we truly want to close the achievement gap, the answer is lots of good teachers. Not lots of buses and different curiculums.
As I hinted at, with fewer buses and non-teaching personnel, would we really need ESC and the large bus garage. Since the district has dropped from 28,000+ to under 12,000, it seems the management and support staff foot print should be pretty small now. Possibly squeezed into a corner of one of the closed, yet not sold schools.
By the way, some really good friends use cross district transportation and I whole heartedly support them using it as long as it is available. I know I would if the girls went to different schools.
Doesn't anybody ask the "why" of these things? Bussing standards are a matter of state law and cannot be cut. Parent surveys show that bussing is one of the top priorities. Getting children to school, especially in bad weather, is a matter of safety and security. State law does not mandate class size, and neither does any study show that it matters. I wish people would quit buying the union nonsense that it does; we could save a lot of money easily, with no effect on results.
On the other hand, if the district were cutting something the parents wanted just so that they would clamor for another levy referendum, then you would be rightly outraged. As it appears, you have nothing to complain about and the district is doing exactly what they ought to do-- living within their means by delivering the same quality education more cost-effectively.
J. Ewing
Annie - I would agree with you on your analysis and thought the very same thing but the numbers do show the exact opposite. (I'll see if I can dig up those numbers again.) Maybe because it's easy? I don't have an answer to why it happens that way. Also more true in the higher grades than lower grades.
J. - No one is saying get rid of buses. There is no state mandate to provide intra-district transfer buses. I guess I'm just confused as to the argument.
DJ
J,
I forgot... You believe that class size is immaterial above grade 3. Of course, I disagree with this.
I agree there are a few excellent teachers that can handle somewhat larger classes. However, even with them there is a point when the camel's back breaks. Now the question is "what number is that?"
I think we are about there... Though I agree this varies by grade and student mix.
As for legality, What are your thoughts on "what's good for intra-district, privates, charters and open enrollees is good for "choice" programs?" By this I mean Parent's drive.
I forgot this...
Or Parent's pay.
Annie - I should note that last time I saw these numbers it was about 14 months ago so if the numbers are now flipped it would cause me to pause and think on this a little more.
DJ
I'm not familiar enough with state law to say for certain, but I think the district is required to bus kids to "their school" if they live beyond a certain distance. Since the district offers this choice, they are required to offer the busses.
And you can disagree all you want about class size, but you won't find any compelling scientific evidence that it matters above grade 3. The upper limit, as I've explained before, depends on three things: first, not exceeding the "purpose-specific classroom capacity," that point at which more students cannot be accommodated physically. Second, it depends on a quality teacher and teaching methodology. That many would not qualify is not my problem, nor the problem of the science and economics. The third is an effective discipline program, which is greatly influenced by the previous but again, not my problem if it does not exist.
You've elsewhere asked how schools could be improved short of the "radical" idea that parents are responsible to educate their children and ought, as a public good, be given the means to afford it. Here it is. Just like the Finnish system, we have to give schools the responsibility and authority to produce the best education they can for the money they HAVE, and to quit worrying about things like class size where it doesn't matter. If you can't privatize education, or allow all schools to compete fairly, at least deregulate the public schools.
J. Ewing
Let's pause to consider this. Given that <10% of the kids in these programs are in the lower socio-economic status (ie unlucky kids), there can not be too many of these kids on the buses.
Though you are right, there are still some unlucky kids that need a ride.
I had mentioned a sliding fee scale previously, however the Administration thought it was not worth trying to collect it. Not sure how it varies from sports and parking fees.
Besides which choice parents are willing to pay $800+/yr, instead of driving their kids. I mean the haves would need to subsidize the have nots... (ie simple math $400K/1000 students = $400/student...)
J,
From what I remember there was no good consistent results regarding academic success vs class size either way due to all the noise/confounding factors. (ie too many variables)
I am not sure what can be done about all the laws or discipline issues. It seems to have the same problem as healthcare. A significant need for tort reform...
With everyone scared of lawsuits... It seems the laws and rules just keep multiplying. Besides, the politicians seem to feel a need to show they are doing something by creating more of them.
I personally am a fan of gridlock.
It looks like class sizes should stay smaller for now...
District 281's current alignment could easily be split into two districts, 281A (Armstrong, PMS, with AP), and 281C (Cooper, RMS, with IB). In that parallel universe, the question of free busing between the two would never arise. So I'm fine with dropping this free transportation.
But then I'd say bank that money. We're not done with cuts yet and the case for lower class sizes is far too weak to do otherwise.
But we address that too by having teachers return to the full day of work that my teachers used to put in.
At the risk of some sort of consensus breaking out :-) it sounds like the best answer to the question may be "neither." There seems to be no evidence that cutting a few teachers is going to make education worse (depending on who is cut, it may even get a bit better) and some evidence that reducing or rethinking the bussing program could save big bucks with little dislocation. Get these two large savings in the bank, and be ready when the next financial storm hits. Or, if they were really smart, be prepared by reforming the way "things" are done in the district.
J. Ewing
I'd have concerns with eliminating cross district busing. I'd have no issues with a sliding scale to subsidize the busing costs for families enrolled outside of their home schools.
I think J is right--we appear to have some sort of consensus. Now what do we do?
--Annie
Well, since this is a representative form of government, and not a true democracy. People will need to convince these folks.
RAS Board Contact Info
RAS Admin Contact Info
This usually is a somewhat challenging task.
Or wait two years and vote for someone else. :-)
DJ
One ought to ask, then, why it is so challenging? It is not because communication media is not available. It must be some problem with reception. :-) The Board either believes their ideas are the better ones, or that your ideas will get them in trouble with the unions. Since your ideas are rational and more effective, I'm guessing it's the latter.
J. Ewing
I am not sure regarding their rationale, however I don't think it has much to do with the Union on this one. I mean they opted to fire teachers with the chosen cut...
Of course, the irony is that the teacher's earlier raise caused the required firings. However, the cuts will occur in the probationary (ie non-tenured) low income teacher ranks. Maybe they don't count to the union... Kind of like pawns on the chess board.
As for why the board fights to keep "cross district transportation" and to not charge for it? My guesses are:
- fear of more kids leaving the district if the choice programs are not easily accessible
- a true desire for the district to be special by offering the choice programs (ie RSIS, AP & IB)
- a true desire to ensure the few unlucky kids that want/qualify for the choice programs, have access to them.
These folks really do want a great district for the kids. I have never doubted that for a minute. I am just concerned that their eyes are bigger than our budget and tax base.
I am not sure when a person should let go of the glory days and make the best of a current reality. The good/bad thing is that reality comes whether we accept it or not.
John,
I forgot myself, and of course you are right. These are folks "doing it for the kids" and their desires get in the way of rational thinking. It is their nature. Let me imagine the thinking process for you:
We offer these special programs because some children benefit. It's for the children. We have to get these children to these schools. That's simple logic. We can't NOT offer bussing because a few kids couldn't afford or arrange alternatives, therefore we cannot cut any of it. It wouldn't be fair. What IS fair is to increase class sizes in every school and every class. And curse those evil Republicans in the Legislature for not giving us all the money we need!
Does that about cover it for you?
J. Ewing
I think you have pretty much nailed it. I am not sure about the cursing Republicans, however I do believe cuts truly cause them a great deal of angst. Though I disagree with them once in awhile, I do like and respect them as individuals. And am happy they sign up for this thankless job.
Right again. School board members are not paid nearly enough, in money or adulation, to make the kind of decisions that true financial responsibility requires. If they did not believe in their own hearts that they were doing what is best for children, they wouldn't have asked for the job at all. It is no wonder, then, that anyone who questions their decisions, or tries to make those decisions necessary by, say, not giving them every penny they can dream up a way to spend, is not only a personal affront to them but a hater of children.
It's all so perfectly reasonable once you understand the motivations involved. That unfortunately doesn't make their decisions the least bit better.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment