| Why was there only "1" option???; What if the BOE said "NO"? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 2 2006, 07:27 PM (1,943 Views) | |
| Iliveon-Levandownbytheriver | Jan 3 2006, 10:49 PM Post #31 |
|
Principal
|
Well isnt that standard practice for the youngest to be let go first...the whole senority thing? Im not sure that is best for the district..but that is how it works I think. |
![]() |
|
| Tyler_Parent | Jan 3 2006, 10:56 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Principal
|
It is in a union environment. |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Jan 4 2006, 07:10 AM Post #33 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
I'm sorry to sound negative, but this is another reason why unions in general cause more problems than they solve. |
![]() |
|
| Cindi | Jan 4 2006, 07:33 AM Post #34 |
|
Principal
|
It's not just teachers that are in the union.......I think(?) the non-instructional employees are included as well...administrators, bus drivers, food services, custodians etc. This is one reason the unions fight outsourcing. If the BOE decided to keep the K-6 some teachers would definitely lose their jobs, with the K-4 it is rumored that it saves the most jobs. |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Jan 4 2006, 07:47 AM Post #35 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
So the BOE is doing everything for the sake of the kids eh? Sounds to me like they are doing everything to protect thier interests and not thier integrity |
![]() |
|
| Grant | Jan 4 2006, 08:18 AM Post #36 |
|
Principal
|
So some jobs are more important than the quality of our childrens education? The workforce of any school district should fluctuate with the size of the enrollment. Enrollment is the main driver of revenue and labor is the main driver of cost. The two cannot be seperated. Protecting a few jobs while ignoring what is in the best educational interest of the children (as supported by recognized and published educational research), is a lousy way to run a school district. |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Jan 4 2006, 09:03 AM Post #37 |
![]()
Principal
|
From Seattle earlier this year, the summary of their plan involves closing several schools and reorganizing where programs are housed. But notice that this 46,000 student district is moving BACK to neighborhood schools and away from costly bussing. There is so much of this kind of info out there. It is incomprehensible that the committee didn't tap into it for guidance, for direction. 'Save our schools!' Seattle parents demand By DEBORAH BACH SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER The crowd outside North Beach Elementary hoisted placards and chanted, "Don't mess with success!" and "Save our schools!" "If approved by the board in July, the changes would take effect in fall 2006. The proposals would also return the 46,000-student district to a neighborhood school system and scale back an expensive, citywide busing program..." "Board member Dick Lilly said the restructuring plan "is a breath of fresh air compared with the piecemeal approach we have been taking through endless work sessions. It's much better that the staff produced a true strategic plan that we and the public can critique." P-I reporter Christine Frey contributed to this report. P-I reporter Deborah Bach can be reached at 206-448-8197 or deborahbach@seattlepi.com |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Jan 4 2006, 09:17 AM Post #38 |
|
Principal
|
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Board says Seattle school closure plan needs work Details sought on cost savings and educational benefits By JESSICA BLANCHARD SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER Members of the Seattle School Board indicated last night that they are unlikely to support a controversial school-restructuring plan unless it changes significantly before it comes up for a vote July 13. Although parts of the plan intrigued some board members, the proposal lacks specifics on how school closures would save money and improve students' academic achievement, board members told Superintendent Raj Manhas during an informal work session. "We have to ask, what are the educational advantages?" board member Darlene Flynn said. If the district can't readily show how the plan would help students succeed academically, she said, "Then we need to be looking at different cost-cutting measures." No votes were taken during the session, but board members discussed the pros and cons of the plan and offered the first public glimpse of where each stands. Under the restructuring plan, the district would close 10 schools, shift some academic programs to new locations, reassign thousands of students and limit school choice by returning to a neighborhood-school format. Manhas has said school closures are necessary to help resolve a projected $20 million budget shortfall in the district's 2006-07 operations budget. Despite disliking the plan as a whole, parts of it appealed to some board members. Several appeared to support "grandfathering" all elementary school students -- allowing them to continue to attend the school in which they are enrolled instead of being displaced when the closures would take effect in fall 2006. The preliminary restructuring plan calls for grandfathering only elementary school students in grades three and up -- which had caused an outcry among parents of K-2 students who would have to be reassigned to make room for students coming from other schools. In the interest of fairness, all elementary students should be allowed to stay at their schools, board member Irene Stewart said: "I don't see any other way to do it." Board members Sally Soriano and Mary Bass said they were concerned about requiring parents to send their children to neighborhood schools when the district can't guarantee each school is academically excellent. Rather than reassigning students and assuming academic improvement will occur at every school, the district needs to improve the schools before moving students, they said. "We need to have quality schools first," Bass said, rather than "throw them into quicksand and throw them the rope later." Some board members also expressed interest in expanding the number of K-8 schools and in supplying Metro bus passes for high school students, rather than providing yellow bus service. There were spirited debates over whether to divide up the Accelerated Progress Program, whether diversity should be a consideration when reassigning students and what should happen to alternative schools such as Summit K-12 and Pathfinder K-8. In a discussion paper she released at the meeting, Flynn criticized the current plan to close schools that "are considered models for what schools of the future might look like -- this seems educationally counterproductive," she wrote. And she noted that many community members were skeptical about whether closing schools would save money. She called for a review of other districts where closures had occurred to get a better idea of how such a plan would play out here. Several board members also asked for more detailed information on how much money the proposal would save and how it would affect the district's capital budget, which has a $25 million shortfall. Manhas promised to have district staffers provide more detailed budget figures in the next few weeks and said he would carefully consider the board's suggestions before he makes his final recommendation at the board meeting June 15. P-I reporter Jessica Blanchard can be reached at 206-448-8322 or jessicablanchard@seattlepi.com |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Jan 4 2006, 09:46 AM Post #39 |
|
Principal
|
Wow. It sounds like the Seattle school board actually had a public discussion. Imagine that! |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Jan 4 2006, 09:55 AM Post #40 |
|
Principal
|
Does anyone know if this school restructuring secures state funding for the district in the years to come? Freeman mentioned something about 2014. I have been reading a lot about how "AYP" and "No child left behind" affect school funding. Could it be that with larger schools the district will not run the risk---in the future---of not meeting their "AYP" and the requirements under "No child left behind?" Could it be with more kids taking the test in a building they will do better in these areas (long term)? I know their scores can be affected even if students do not take the test on that day---maybe the larger schools help with this. Also, Morgan said that this plan will avoid any restructuring in the future. Could they be thinking about the long term benefits of this plan---a way to save the district (because NCLB is set up so that even good schools will fail eventually). With regard to Title 1 funding, they are held to high standards. Could it be that when they mix kids from different schools, they also secure that funding too? Elisa, do you know anything about this? I'm going to keep reading..... |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Jan 4 2006, 10:35 AM Post #41 |
|
Principal
|
The 2014 connection: The funding for NCLB does not come anywhere near the levels that would be needed to reach even the narrow and dubious goal of producing 100% passing rates on state tests for all students by 2014. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
![]() |
|
| Tyler_Parent | Jan 4 2006, 10:40 AM Post #42 |
![]()
Principal
|
Not to be partisan, I love my tax breaks too, but this administration (NCLB architects) will be long gone before 2014. |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Jan 4 2006, 11:07 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Principal
|
fyi, The 2014 date is significant in terms of NCLB. All sub-groups (these are defined by the legislation as: special education, low income, minority and english language learner students) must meet 100% proficiency. 95% of this group must participate in the testing. These groups must meet AYP or the entire school in which they attend is deemed as failing to make AYP. This is how good schools fail. A school that fails to make AYP for two consecutive years is labeled "in need of improvement." Those that receive federal Title I funds – funds allocated to schools that serve a determined number of low-income students – face sanctions that increase over time. They can fail one year with out consequence. After two years, sanctioned schools must give parents the choice of sending their children to another school in the district, with transportation costs paid out of Title I dollars. After 7 years, the school could be taken over by the state or charter management company. I know that last year we had 1 or 2 schols that didn't make AYP. The district appealed and eventually they were given AYP status. The dispute was in the sub group category. We were discussing the school combinations on another thread. I think that many were wondering if they had to do with increasing or reducing Title I eligible schools. The funding is a double edged sword. If % of low income children reaches 40%, the funds can be used for the entire school, including some admin. costs and teacher professional development. Below 40%, the funds are for "targeted" programs (for that group only). On the other hand, the consequences of low performance are harsh. It looks like the way in which the elementary schools are combined will reduce the number of schools that have sub group requirements to meet (cooper combining with cleveland, mckinley at grant, nankin mills at hayes). Therefore fewer buildings with a chance of missing AYP due to subgroups? BUT, Cooper as a 5/6 will most likely be eligible for funds and it may be a possibility that Johnson receives funds also. It is a complex subject. But I am almost certain that NCLB had some impact on the restructure. And I do beleive that the district should have disclosed the reasoning for combinations other than facility reasons. I think that the community is capable of understanding the demands of NCLB. As far as Mrs. Morgan's statement about the plan preventing further restructuring, I could only guess what she means by that. But we all know that they have packed the schools tightly that the need for further reduction wouldn't be right around the corner. There is some speculation in here, but I try to base it on the facts available. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Jan 4 2006, 11:19 AM Post #44 |
|
Principal
|
I have always felt that there was a reason that this was the only option. I'm beginning to think that they picked this configuration to not only save money now*, but to also protect the district's government funding in the future. I'm still reading.....thanks for the info, Elisa! *Which is questionable |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Jan 4 2006, 12:39 PM Post #45 |
![]()
Principal
|
fyi, I think that many of us have been trying to get to the reason for the committee's recommendation of that 1 option. If NCLB and AYP has a role as we have discussed, then their choice becomes even more baffling.... CCE Small Schools Network: Supporting Data, A Brief Look At Evidence Supporting Small Schools. “As school size increases, school performance decreases for economically disadvantaged students.” Small schools have been found to cut the negative impact of low socioeconomic status on academic performance by up to 70%. (Bickel et al, 2001)" Just one of MANY that support small schools and their positive impact on low income students achievement. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |






3:38 AM Jul 11