November 4, 2013
Re: Elementary Enrollment Configuration
Dear Chairwoman Barth, Dr. Morse, and ORCSD School Board
members:
This letter addresses a number of issues about both the
decision-making process and the data used to decide how to address elementary
enrollment numbers within the district. We are glad to discuss the contents of
this letter in greater detail with any of you.
As background, we are Durham residents and parents of a
kindergartner and two future students. Michael is also a registered professional
engineer and director of manufacturing engineering for a medical device company. His professional
responsibilities include capacity planning and managing a $5 million annual
capacity-related capital budget. Capacity analysis and capacity planning are
day-to-day tasks.
First, the process of making the elementary configuration
decision is not explained. We were initially impressed at the thouroughness
and thoughtfullness of board member Ann Lane's motion at the August 21, 2013
board meeting, directing a detailed report to the board on one or more options
to address elementary enrollment. However, since then there has been little to
be optimistic about. At the October 16, 2013 meeting, the board had a little
discussion on making a decision sooner. Regretfully, there has been no
discussion on how to make a decision. The board is facing big decisions
that affect the future of the district this year, with elementary school
configuration and high school tuitioning. Taking a more structured approach to making
these decisions would be helpful for the community, and likely for the board
and administration as well. At minimum, an objective list of the criteria the
board will consider in making these decisions should be a requirement. Without
this, the decision is nothing more than seat-of-the-pants call by each member.
That is certainly not what any of us want. A more rigorous approach would be to
employ Howard-type Decision Analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_analysis)
or Kepner-Tregoe comparative analysis.
While we agree the board was not ready to make a decision at
the October 16 meeting, there has been no new formal public discourse on the
various proposals at the October 23 meeting, and it is not on the calendar for
November 6. Please tell us what additional information you are looking for to
make an informed decision!
At the October 16 meeting, there was some discussion of the
issues related to elementary enrollment configuration amongst board members. At
that point, there were only two members, Mr. Rotner and Mr. Howland, who shared
candidly their views and concerns. Chairwoman Barth's personal comment was
limited to her experience in Kittery. No other members shared any personal
insight or gave any indication of what their concerns about the proposals are,
or what information would help them make a decision. We trust the board has
given this a lot of thought, but those thoughts are not being shared publicly.
While this is discussion, it is not an open community
process since the board is soliciting only general comments, not detailed or
specific feedback on areas of concern.
Next, there are multiple issues impacting and affected by
enrollment that should be considered separately. We should be untangling
these issues so we can understand how significant they are. Certainly they do
not all really carry the same weight:
ñ Student
population with regards to capacity at Moharimet
ñ Discrepancy
between Moharimet and Mast Way enrollments
ñ Chaos
of lunch at Moharimet
ñ Cost
of the modular classrooms
ñ All
day Kindergarten
Third, treatment of research regarding grade-span
configurations has been dismissive at best. Dr. Morse has made a statement
more than once that research is inconclusive on the effect of grade-span
changes. If that is true, the extant research should not be simply dismissed
with that statement, but a research review provided to the board and public to
support that conclusion. The administration and board should not ignore research
like this:
ñ Studies
have found that K-8 configurations produce students that outperform
configurations with separate elementary and middle schools.
◦
This article from the American Association of
School Administrators (https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=10410)
includes the comment that “every transition from one narrowly configured
school to another seems to disrupt the social structure in which learning takes
place, lowering achievement and participation for many students.”
◦
This 2002 paper from Wayne State University,
distributed by the US Department of Education looked at one or more school
transitions, and started the Discussion with “As grade span configuration
increases so does achievement. The more levels that a school services, the
better the students perform. The more transitions a student makes, the worse
the student performs.” (http://amesces.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/effect-of-grade-span-configuration-and-school-to-school-transition-on-achievement-wren-2003.pdf)
Further, when other districts have considered changing their elementary grade-span configurations,
they have conducted research reviews.
ñ Portsmouth,
NH conducted its own review only last year including several references to
research. (http://www.cityofportsmouth.com/school/eefc.htm).
This includes documents finding either no educational benefit or educational
detriment when grade-span is reduced. It is notable that the Portsmouth
Elementary Educational Facility Committee unanimously voted in April 2012 in
favor of K-5 configuration.
ñ Vernon
Township, New Jersey also looked at this issue in 2012: (http://www.vtsd.com/uploaded/boe/PowerPoint_Presentation_for_Bd_of_Ed_(May_21,_2012).ppt)
and included a research review that contains this statement: “There is a
measurable negative impact on student academic achievement following each
school-to-school transition for students in the Vernon Township School
District.” This data review also included concerns about short grade-spans
citing research relating to:
◦
Reduced sense of belonging related to
excessively large class sizes and short grade-spans.
◦
Student achivement improving when they are
well-known by their teachers.
◦
Reduced accountability for student performance.
◦
Self-esteem
◦
Lower standardized test scores following each
transition, taking several years to recover.
◦
Lack of communication between grade levels.
This is by no means a comprehensive research review nor a
comprehensive case study review. These cases are only illustrative that we in
the ORCSD have not done adequate homework if we intend to change our elementary
grade-level configuration.
If the Administration truly feels there is no real
conclusive evidence on grade-span, Dr. Morse should present a critical review
of relevant research, rather than simply dismissing it out-of-hand. We assume
that the goal is not to experiment with Oyster River elementary students, but
to make an informed decision.
Fourth, Enrollment assumptions are changing rapidly.
Apparently, the same day the school board many concerns about the K-2 proposal,
the Long Range Planning Committee reviewed and updated enrollment projections.
We have not seen the data, but understand it amounts to a significant increase
– indeed the K-2/3-4 proposal would only reduce Moharimet enrollment to 396 by
fall 2015, compared with 409 if no change is made. The administration should
rework detailed proposals based on the new enrollment forecasts and show the
school board and public detailed analysis that goes through the duration of the
LRPC forecast. Additionally, at least two additional scenarios should be
analyzed and considered:
ñ A
“default” or “no change” scenario must be considered. The school board and
public should be informed of the impact of a delayed decision.
ñ K-8
option. This is admittedly an unconventional option for the district, but if we
truly want to do what is best for our students academically, the school board
should consider this option: Convert Moharimet, Mast Way, and ORMS to K-8. This
would require redistricting between the schools, but would result in smaller
grade-level sizes at each school, making future redistricting and
grandfathering easier to accommodate with smaller shifts. Research appears
to indicate that students in this configuration achieve the most academically. Failing
to consider the option that research suggests produces the best outcomes is
irresponsible.
Reasonable “grandfathering” accommodations should be
included for all scenarios.
Fifth, when describing the options available, it is
misleading to discuss either full-day-kindergarten or K-5 as realistic options
anytime soon the way the options have been presented so far. Even in the
K-2/3-4(5) scenario, average grade level size would need to be below 106 in
order to accommodate 3-5 at Moharimet. Enrollment does not drop that low even
by 2020-2021 school year based on the May 2011 LRPC forecast. Similarly, Mast
Way with a functional capacity of 329 (whole-day) students does not accommodate
K-2 until class sizes shrink dramatically and there are no more upward
enrollment surprises.
Sixth, please give the public the opportunity to comment
on the school board's final working proposal. In other words, please make a
motion that the school board would carry over its discussion of the board's
preferred option from one meeting to the next to give the community the
opportunity to offer final input. So far, the board has not taken any formal
action, nor tabled any formal proposal. It is very difficult for the community
or even the administration to provide input on specific aspects of a proposal
if there is no motion for a specific option. The way most board agendas read,
public comment is solicited before any other business and then after the
conclusion of business, not while the board is actually considering any
proposal. Since the board has not offered a detailed proposal for public
review, the public can't provide any input on specifics.
Seventh, Dr. Morse has referred more than once to fear of
change in the district. This is probably not true and is certainly not
constructive. One comment in the October 16 board meeting was specifically
directed at teachers. ORCSD teachers have adopted innovative teaching
strategies, technology, and curriculum, and successfully deployed them across
different grade levels and both elementary schools. The community is one that
is highly educated and innovative and historically supportive of well-informed
changes in the district. Please do not confuse critical thinking for fear of
change.
Now, we would like to also address the specifics of the
proposals in a number of areas of concern:
ñ Research
– As stated above, the administration has not presented a thorough review of
relevant research. Indeed, while some academic papers come to the same
conclusion as the administration, we should not ingore evidence that adding
unnecessary school transitions hurts academic performance.
ñ Benchmarking
other schools/states – Dr. Morse has identified some schools that have switched
to a split elementary model. We also need to consider those that have not:
◦
Portsmouth recommended K-5 unanimously.
◦
Cache County School District in Utah, from which
Dr. Morse drew many of his bullet points on pros and cons of shorter
grade-spans has 14 elementary schools, 10 of which use K-5 spans. The 4 schools
that are short-grade-span are paired, and in each pair the schools are only 1.1
miles apart. This district has considered the same evidence Dr. Morse presented
and decided to make K-5 its primary grade-span.
◦
One of the school districts cited in two of the
Portsmouth data review articles is Prospect Heights, Illinois. One article (http://www.cityofportsmouth.com/school/centraloffice/eefc/4e.pdf)
is extremely critical of short-grade-span configurations. This district has
short grade-spans, but the entire district is only 5 square miles and the
schools are very close together.
◦
Statewide in California in 2011-2012, 173
schools served K-3 or shorter span, while 5,255 served K-4 or longer span. The
trend is not for shorter grade spans.
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefenrollgradetype.asp)
ñ Cost
– the cost impact of a change to K-2/3-4 is unclear. We know that additional
busses would be purchased at cost to the district. It is not clear if any
positions would be eliminated in this configuration that would not be eliminated
otherwise. This should be part of the detailed simulation based on LRPC data.
ñ Transportation
time – While it is important that the longest bus ride not be increased beyond
40 minutes, what is the impact to the average bus ride, or the total number of
student-hours spent on buses each day? Since the K-2/3-4 proposal would mean
that every elementary student in the district would spend 2 or 3 years at the
elementary school farthest from home, it seems likely that virtually every
student will spend more time on the bus in this scenario. It should be a
goal to reduce, not increase bus time. Redistricting shifts students from one
route to another, but neighborhoods proposed for redistricting are
approximately equidistant from Moharimet and Mast Way, so the impact is
minimal.
ñ Impact
on families – while redistricting undoubtedly causes upheaval for families in
the redistricted neighborhoods, changing to K-2/3-4 impacts every elementary
student in the district. It should never be the objective to single out certain
students to be affected, but it is also inappropriate to change the entire
district when redistricting a few dozen families can accomplish the same goals.
If necessary to achieve school balance and allow grandfathering, a larger area
could be included in redistricting without negatively impacting the entire
district.
ñ Impact
on school culture – We heard most speakers on October 16 identify strong and
beneficial cultures at both elementary schools. We should expect that both
schools will be damaged by a K-2/3-4 configuration. All families will spend
less time with kids at each school, and families with kids at both schools will
be split in commitment to fundraising support and time. Active PTOs that
support teachers and students will be weakened.
ñ Untangling
the issues – overcrowding, cost of modulars, size balance between schools,
safety, and cafeteria chaos have been identified as reasons for changing to
K-2/3-4. But these issues must not all carry the same weight and we should
consider them separately:
◦
Overcrowding is mitigated with either proposal,
or the “do nothing” option. Since grandfathering, even as proposed by Dr.
Morse, does not enable Moharimet to remove modulars for several years, this
does not favor one option over another.
◦
Cost of modulars is notable, but at under
$14,000 per year, it is half as expensive to lease the modulars for even 5 more
years that it would be to buy two additional $80,000 busses to move to K-2/3-4.
Since the modulars have been at Moharimet for so long, could they be purchased
instead of leased, or the lease renegotiated based on age? Based on cost alone,
keeping the modulars and not buying unnecessary new buses is more cost
effective.
◦
Size balance between schools – The
administration has not explained clearly how having one school larger than the
other created education iniquity once both schools are within capacity.
Moharimet has dealt very well with enrollment by balancing both classroom and
special-needs teachers in a way that benefits, not harms students. It is not
clear that there is any significant benefit to balancing the size of Moharimet
and Mast Way.
◦
Safety – is without question important. If the
district truly believes there is a safety problem at Moharimet, we should be
taking action now to install additional fire protection or security. Given that
this has not been done in the many years of modular usage at Moharimet, it does
not seem that conditions at Moharimet are truly unsafe enough to warrant
changing the entire structure of the elementary schools.
◦
Cafeteria chaos at Moharimet is a function of
school design, not enrollment. Indeed, moving more full-day students to
Moharimet will make the situation worse, not better. The proposal to build a
separate gymnasium and cafeteria at Moharimet is even more important if the
schools are reconfigured.
None of these issues present problems that should be solved
by making ORCSD a K-2/3-4 district.
In conclusion, the data presented by Dr. Morse, and the
additional considerations and analysis noted here strongly favor a “redistrict”
or “do nothing” approach over grade-span reconfiguration. Redistricting is the best opportunity
to rapidly reduce Moharimet enrollment without incurring unnecessary capital
cost, adding unnecessary school transitions, or damaging PTOs. A district
policy to redistrict on a regular schedule (such as every 4 or 5 years)
including a policy for grandfathering will further ease future enrollment
challenges. We strongly oppose the K-2/3-4 configuration for many
reasons and encourage the school board to refine elementary school
boundaries.
Sincerely,
Laura and Michael Williams
