Tonight's board meeting was the beginning of the public budget process. It was a wonderful site to look out and see an almost full board room. I would guess somewhere between 60 and 70 people were in attendance, perhaps more.
In the public comment section of the meeting ten people shared their thoughts. The main topic of sharing during this time was the potential loss of the elementary gifted program with six of the ten having this as their main focus. Others shared their concern with the potential loss of Camp Casey, the loss of teaching positions, and the struggle with the need for these budget adjustments.
The first speaker spoke eloquently and from the heart of his concern with what he views as a closed process and uncommon for our school system. He also shared concerns with among other things how we could be in this situation, why there are no administrators being cut, concern with what he perceives as a lack of focus on students in the work done by the committee recommending the adjustments, and the desire for the board to look to the research for guidance as they make adjustment decisions. Unfortunately, I believe that he speaks for many who have similar concerns about the process and about the specific adjustments. That may be the nature of the situation as we have not found a way to create common understanding or a systemic view of how we arrived here and how best to move into the future.
Though the meeting was not the place to debate or engage in skillful discussion about the stated concerns I think it is important for people to know that the committee looked to the research many times with class size being one of those situations. The research in this area is not conclusive as you can find some to support many positions, but what we do know is that with some special exceptions there is no significant achievement gain until class sizes approach the mid-teens. I don't believe that conclusive research can be found to suggest significant achievement differences when class sizes are already in the twenties. The committee also was concerned with the research around attachment to school and the importance of keeping this context when discussing program adjustments. Another area that was discussed was the research around staff development and adult learning as the committee struggled with the review of the Teaching and Learning Department. Though considered, it was not the driver for the recommended adjustments as adult learning was sacrificed for a focus on students and programs.
So much more to say, but it is getting pretty late for me to keep thinking clearly enough to share. I might have already messed up in what I said above as I won't review it with the same focus as normal. In closing, the theme that was the most prevalent during the entire meeting was the praise for the quality of adults that work in our school system with an emphasis on the commitment and competency of our teachers. This was accompanied with the sadness of losing some and a concern for each of their futures that was shared so well by one the of the PTA representatives that reported to the board.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Regarding class size, while there may be research supporting different positions, I think the critical class size issue is on the teaching end. While there may not be a significant change in achievement when increasing classes from 25 to 30 (or more), I think there will be a significant decrease in the quality of the learning experiences.
For example, in English, we're expected to workshop students' essays and conference individually with every student about their papers. In a class of 23 (my smallest class), this is difficult, but doable. In a class of 30-32 (next year's projected size), this becomes nigh on impossible. Moreover, the motivation for creating unique and challenging experiences is lowered because of the exponential increase in implementation and grading time.
So while the research is not at all conclusive on class size, I think most teachers would agree that it is daunting to imagine class sizes increasing by 5 or more, simply because of the added workload in a curriculum designed for smaller class sizes.
Please know, that research is fine, but please why not ask your teachers instead of Google or a think tank! I know that in my small group of 18, I can reach every child, not just the ones who need interventions. I have noticed my interventions are one on one with with all kids, I can teach them where they are at, not where the notebook says I should be. Which means I can help all of my students and get to know them well! My larger class of 23,it is MUCH more difficult to reach all of my kids. When the class is larger, you tend to help the ones struggling and leave the ones that can do it, to do. It is sad to say, but that is the reality. Do I feel guilty I can't get to them all? Absolutly! Have a I tried other methods to reach them all? Absolutly! But after a certain number of kids in a small space, mix in a few behavior issues, and my time to teach individually has diminshed again. Do we need Teaching and Learning, do you trust your teachers to have fun with the curriculum and come up with some really cool lessons? Are they really all needed? I would beg you to look again before making class sizes so large, we run out of desks!
Post a Comment