Superintendent Authorizes Additional Positions for CSD Kindergarten Classes
Decatur Metro | August 31, 2011 | 8:00 amFrom Superintendent Phyllis Edwards’ note to the School Board for the upcoming Sept. 6th meeting…
I am also authorizing five additional positions to offset the numbers in the Kindergarten classes where we saw a great deal of growth for this year. These can be provided within the current approved budget for 2011-2012. The Kindergartens already have one teacher and one paraprofessional. This will provide an additional 1-2 at each K-3 school to be consistent with Oakhurst. Our current adult:student ratio at Clairemont, Glennwood, and Winnona Park is 1:12. These additions will bring the ratio in line with the Kindergartens at Oakhurst: 1:10. This solution is preferable to trying to decide students who should come out of a current class to make up a new one.
Additionally, an updated chart attached to the Superintendent’s note shows that enrollment has actually increased a bit (17 students) since the start of the school year. Click the chart below to enlarge.
Good news and hope this helps.
What will these positions be? She’s saying they won’t create new classrooms and pull students out of current classes to make up new ones, right? So the additional positions are going to be additional parapros to help in the classrooms?
I presume so. The talk about bring the other elementaries in line with the K at Oakhurst with a 1:10 adult: student ratio strongly suggests that’s what she means. The Kindergarten classes at Oakhurst currently each have 1 teacher, one ‘full’ parapro, and 1/2 a parapro split with another K, so 25 / 2.5 = 10 / 1 ratio.
This is relatively cheap way to keep student : adult ratios low when classroom space is tight and class sizes are high. And it might actually be more effective to have the flexibility of allowing the extra parapro to be in the class during the times (e.g., small-group work on math) when it makes more of a difference. But I don’t really know. Anybody have data?
I do not know the current number of Kindergarten teachers. If our system average Kindergarten class size is above 22 students per “physical” classroom, then my perhaps flawed understanding is that we will still need to file for the state exemption on maximum class sizes in order to be in legal compliance. I will email Dr. Edwards.
The Georgia Code defines class size limits on K-3 as applying to the physical classroom (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/160-5-1-.08.pdf):
(h) Physical Classroom -The maximum class size for grades K-3 is applicable to the
physical classroom . The physical classroom is the space used for the purposes of instruction to students . By way of example, to have more than twenty-one students in a K-3 classroom will
require a divider, temporary or permanent . Whether the partition is temporary or permanent, the system shall obtain the approval of the fire marshal and the Facilities Division at the Georgia Department of Education .
I could be wrong, but I believe state class size limits have been lifted. The school system may need to fill out a form, but it wouldn’t be considered a waiver.
WHEREAS, the State Board of Education has granted an exemption from all statutory
and regulatory class size maximums for the 2011-2012 school year; and
Small classroom sizes are important. They are particularly important in the early primary grades.
I am glad to see Dr. Edwards authorizing new Kindergarten teaching positions to bring classroom sizes back down to a system average of around 20 Kindergartners per classroom with the assistance of paraprofessionals.
Actual Enrollments as of 8.23.11
1242 K3
497 4/5
686 RMS
825 DHS
====
3250
I hope Dr. Edwards will also answer the questions posed by Mr. Ahmann and Mrs. Rhame regarding the number of classrooms, classroom teachers, and classroom paraprofessionals per facility and grade. It is hard to have a clear idea of average classroom sizes unless this data is presented. At the absolute minimum, we need to know our system average class sizes at all grade levels and across subject areas.
Georgia has loosened the limits on class sizes in the recent years. Class size limits are not absolute limits. Instead they are “system average” limits. Which means we can be in compliance with a “system average” limit of 28 student per classroom, if we have 2 classes, one with 10 students and another with 46. Additionally, the State has extended through the 2011-2012 school year, a local board exemption from class size limits. To my knowledge CSD has not applied for that exemption.
Our System Charter allows us to exceed this State’s system average limit by 2 students. So if my reading and interpretation (caveat emptor) of the law (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/160-5-1-.08.pdf) and the charter petition (http://www.csdecatur.net/charter/) our correct, our effective limits are:
22 K
23 1-3
30 4-8
∞ 9-12
In my opinion, it would be advisable for the Board to consider adopting a policy on class size limits which are lower than the state’s limits. It would also be advisable for our policy considerations to take into account teacher experience and whether or not full or part-time paraprofessionals are available in the classrooms.
I have had some emails from parents afraid and upset that their kindergarten child will be pulled out of the class they are now in with a teacher they love and placed in another class. I have responded to those emails with my intent to not do that.
Being a small system, we don’t have the flexibility of large buildings so our options are limited. My intent here was to be practical but still assist with the adult/child ratio at the lowest levels. I am working with staff to see about hiring either paras or long-term substitutes that are already certified as teachers. We did this at Oakhurst and now want to go back and make sure that the same equity is applied to the other K-3 schools.
All Georgia systems have had class size rules waived with the difficult economic times. As you know, we had already addressed this in our charter application but that was when class size requirements were still in place. Reidents often want to stay in their school zone and to the extent possible, we accommodated them.
As for the facilities issue, there is a question for me as to how that applies a) with us as a charter and b) when the class size piece of that policy has been removed across the state.
I suppose someone could push this but I do not think the outcome would be appreciated by parents: taking their children out of their current classes and move them to try to be in compliance. That is not what I want to do.
Dr. Edwards
Still don’t get why we are accepting any tuition students. Class sizes are very high at DHS. I know that we can “jam them in,” but I’d rather see smaller class sizes.
Class size is more important in the younger grades, as mentioned by Garrett.
The assistant superintendent has indicated that enrollment at Decatur High is still below capacity. Tuition students do not displace any Decatur residents. Remember, all tution students have to re-apply each year and are only accepted if they have good grades, attendance and no discipline problems. Along with getting top tuition students, over a million bucks comes into the CSD pot, without adding additional resources. That’s a million bucks that does not have to come from raising the millage rate any more than necessary.
That said, I wish CSD would stop enrolling and re-enrolling tuition students so it would force my hand to just move to Decatur city. That would add yet more students to the school system without receiving the tuition dollars.
I promise your Decatur taxes will offset the loss of your tuition dollars.
The reality is we don’t need tuition students and should not accept them as long as their are “learning cottages” at the schools. Instead of cramming in more students the administration needs to do the right thing and create reasonable class sizes
I get that there is technically enough room to accommodate these students but not enough to educate them. As the class size increases the one on one attention decreases.
I believe we do not need to allow any tuition students as long as there are “learning cottages” at the school.
How about doing the right thing and taking care of our residents?
Discontinuing tuition students wouldn’t help with the cottages. Here is the district’s tuition student policy:
The Board of Education prioritizes residents and their children. City Schools of Decatur will accept tuition applications on a case-by-case basis, using the criteria set forth in board policy:
(1) Said student is in good standing with the school previously attended, having demonstrated consistently good attendance, satisfactory discipline, and the readiness/qualifications for the grade/program in which he/she is seeking enrollment. A student who has withdrawn from previously attended school to avoid any form of disciplinary action may not enroll in the City Schools of Decatur. A student withdrawing for poor attendance or unsatisfactory academic performance may not enroll in City Schools of Decatur.
(2) The board of education reserves the right to establish enrollment limits in all grades, classes, and/or programs.
(3) The admission of the said student will not require the City Schools of Decatur to hire additional staff or contract for any additional services.
Tuition Fees for 2011-2012:
Tuition for students in preK-12 will be $611 x 10 months.
So any time taking tuition students would require additional classes, or extra staff (like the parapros being split among the kindergarten classes because of high class size), CSD wouldn’t admit those students.
If we didn’t admit tuition students, by my calculations we’d be forgoing $1,075,360 of revenue. That’s a lot of money! And the tuition students are good ones (see above). So on balance we’re all better off allowing tuition students in.
Do you have the same feeling towards courtesy tuition students? These kids attend without paying into the system . . . On the flip side, it is often the perk of courtesy tuition that recruits and keeps some of our best teachers in the system. As a former courtesy tuition parent and current paying tuition student I can state that my child is held to an overwhelmingly high standard by us (there will be no slacking off accepted when we are paying in money and time for school attendance), we are far more involved (at times I have been the ONLY parent to show up when teachers have sent a grade wide all call for help. . . A result mainly attributed to the desire to demonstrate how grateful we are that our child is there), and our child pays back the privilege with helping increase those pesky standardized test scores everyone is always excited about.
I would LOVE for it to be so simple as just moving in. Many of us are stuck in homes worth half or less of what we paid and unable to find a buyer even if we could take a loss, heck in my neighborhood there are at least 4 foreclosures, 2 empty rentals and 2 more legitimately for sale. Since I can’t get rid of my house without simply walking away from my legal obligations to pay my mortgage, I am grateful for an opportunity to pay into a system I worked for, believe in, and promote to any and all who ask. I am also grateful for the opportunity to enroll my child in a school that promotes thinking rather than copying, has incredible teachers, and more often than not, an involved parent support system. As much of a sacrifice as it is for us to write the check each month and despite a repeated beating we tend to take here, I happily pass along the funds that will support my child as well as others in the system.
If there is a single trailer outside schools, then there should not be a single tuition student in the school. Courtesy tuition for teachers is long-standing tradition in most school systems and is an employee perk. It’s nothing to do with allowing students outside the school district to pay to come in. We all understand it’s not tuition students’ fault that we are overcrowded. But frankly, I am not terribly concerned about whether or not tuition families are participating – it’s the least they can do. Tuition students are simply there to fill empty seats. If our class sizes are large and students are in trailers then paid tuition students are the first thing to go.
Yeah, but we have 38 kids in some of the core high school classes. Many are tuition students. Sure, they fit in the building. However, how do you teach 38 kids effectively, particularly now that most classes have students a wide variety of abilities. At Curriculum Night at DHS, one of the teachers at related how difficult it was to handle a class so large.
I have nothing against tuition students at all so long as their presence doesn’t diminish the educational environment for resident students.
I think we all agree that no tuition student should displace a resident student. CSD states this repeatedly in any information they provide about tuition and parents reapply each year with the explicit understanding that acceptance is never guaranteed. There is even a meeting held each spring with all of the admins from each school and the superintendent where current tuition students are discussed/debated/evaluated for return based on the criteria listed in an above post (grades, behavior, attendance)
But can we please stop the current trend to instantly blame the tuition kids? Looking at the numbers there are 176 total tuition kids in a 3000+ school system. That’s about 5%. Meaning 95% are made up of residents. If it were an even distribution amongst all grades, it means 13 students per grade level. However, it has been stated repeatedly that the system will not take a blanket number of kids, instead they will fill in gaps where there are FEWER resident kids, so the reality is those high numbers you are seeing in the high school classes are coming from residents not paying tuition.
I grant you 38 in a class is insane and difficult to teach. Most of those classrooms are packed at 26 kids, I couldn’t imagine trying to fit an extra 12. And the decision to de-level classes (meaning now mixing all abilities into 1 class) makes it bear impossible to reach all kids, no matter how many are in the class. But let’s not mask the real culprits with the easy target of tuition kids. The reality is if you have 38 kids in a core course, that is a scheduling and/or lack of staff issue. By moving away from the block schedule, fewer teachers are deemed nec. to teach the courses – even losing a halftime position can have a major impact on some courses. When classes are offered also has a major impact on class size – kids need to take x amount of required courses, but if course a is only offered at a particular time, that class is naturally going to be much larger because the kids have to take it and there isn’t an option to offset it at another time. This creates a ripple effect in other courses.
If massive sizes at the high school are the issue, then please advocate the hiring of part-time teachers – those working less than 20 hours (so teaching only 1 or 2 classes) do not come with costly benefits nor the need for a classroom as they can float (which is an entirely different burden, but one most teachers would prefer to having 38 kids) OR support a reevaluation of the current course/bell schedule – don’t blame the 5% of the population that may not actually be in those classes.
Agree that the real issue with overcrowded high school classes seems to be a scheduling and/or staffing issue. Using part-time teachers is a great idea. Like paraprofessionals for lower grades, they offer flexibility and low-cost. I’ll bet there’s some talented high school and middle school teachers on the mommy or daddy track right now who would love the opportunity to get back into the classroom but aren’t ready to come back full-time.
When I see numbers like this, I think CSD is in great shape.
Met a mom at Decatur Arts Live from Peachtree Elem in South Gwinnett. That school has 1600 kids and 13 – YES! 13 K classes!!!
My entire HS wasn’t 1600 kids.
Good paraprofessionals are worth their weight in gold and we have some of those. Some are exceedingly bright, talented, committed folks who are either working their way towards teacher credentials, waiting for a teaching spot to open up in Decatur, and/or early retirement folks who want a second career but do not need high salaries. Unfortunately, we lost a few of the best in recent years and I hope that era is over. Paraprofessionals earn way less than teachers so are a cost-effective and flexible way to maintain decent staff to student ratios and “differentiated” (my favorite eduspeak!) instruction when budgets are tight and enrollment is growing. On the other hand, paraprofessionals are not a good solution if the people hired are folks who could not cut it elsewhere in education. Or if they are used like office administrative assistants rather than classroom assistants.
“This solution is preferable to trying to decide students who should come out of a current class to make up a new one.”
Not sure that I agree with that argument. I’ve known of schools reassigning students to newly created classes in the fall and even in the winter. If the parapros they are hiring are certified teachers, why not create a new classroom? Smaller class sizes are key. Paras to bring those ratios down, but don’t relieve the classroom teacher from overall responsibility for so many children.
I think what Dr. Edwards is referring to, is what would happen at a K-3 school if there are no additional classroom for a new Kindergarten class. Should those Kindergarten students be moved to a different school? -Or (per the Charter) should the school’s SLT meet and approve to raise the maximum Kindergarten classroom size to keep local residents’ children at that school?
We would appear to have policies in place that will allow us to comply with the State and Charter class size limits. It is important that we follow the process and arrive at solutions in the short term that build toward delivering the long-term flexibility we need.
I am new to the school system and surprised at the low number of high school seniors relative to kindergartners. What percent of that delta should one assume is attributable to:
– Changing demographics in the city
– Dropout rate
– Parents moving their older kids to private schools
I’m inclined to think it’s mostly the demographics, right?
Changed demographics, changed demographics, changed demographics. The current seniors were preK or kindergarten at the tail end of the decline in enrollment that led to school closures. Soon after, the population of each new crop of kindergartners increased steadily. Unfortunately, the consultants hired to predict enrollment looked backwards instead of forwards for their predictions. (Just think how well that would work for the weather!). As the socioeconomic status of this town has increased tremendously, the dropout rate has declined. Moving older kids to private schools happens often between grades 4-8 but many of those children come back to CSD at some point and others move in either as residents, transfers from private school, or tuition students.
Re tuition students: Some of the best families in this district in terms of student performance, family involvement, and donations are tuition families. These are families that made an active choice to pay for their children to attend CSD so they tend to be proactive and committed.
On the other hand, no one benefits from crowded classrooms, not the resident students, not the tuition students, not the teachers. So CSD needs to make sure that it balances the financial and other benefits of tuition families with the impact on class sizes, e.g. at the high school. This takes careful scrutiny since summary numbers won’t tell the whole picture. Overall student and classroom numbers may look fine but what if certain courses are crowded due to disproportionate enrollement of tuition students in those courses, e.g. AP classes or Drama? My guess is that there are strategic ways to accomodate tuition students without focal crowding in certain courses or levels, e.g. offer enough sections for popular courses. If more needs to be done in that area, then it’s a good issue for the SLTs.
Comments re: tuition students often come across like the indie record store employee who looks upon customers with disdain. CSD is run by an elected board. That means we, as voters, are the ultimate proprietors, which means tuition students are among our customers who help keep the lights on.
If we’ve spelled out a process whereby we get maximum financial benefit and minimum disruption from our tuition program (which it seems we do, based on TOK’s posting), we should thank our tuition families for their patronage and get on with solving the problem of teachers spread too thin.
The search for a convenient scapegoat is a distraction we can do without.
Agree and if there’s scheduling or staffing issues at the middle or high schools that are resulting in crowded classes, then I urge parents to use the School Leadership Team (SLT) process to register concerns. It’s difficult to bring it up as an individual parent because it looks like you are advocating that your child get some special treatment. If there’s some crowded courses, then multiple students are affected and it’s an SLT issue.
I actually have to disagree that the tuition students are a scapegoat. It’s an issue that will have to be dealt with since we have the twin problems of reliance on the cash and bursting at the seams.
First of all, if there are too many students in a class, and that class has a good number of tuition students (which seems to be the case referenced above), then ergo the student is taking a spot that rightfully belongs to a resident first or causing an otherwise uncrowded classroom to be crowded. It’s not a staffing issue at all- new staff should never be be required to accommodate tuition students. The needs of a tuition student should never outrank those of a resident- a tuition child should not cause overcrowding in a classroom, period. If that happens, the child should not be accepted.
This is not a business and they are not customers. This is a public education system supported by and large by property taxes of citizens of our city and other tax pools. Our education system and the quality of the education to which you are entitled access is based on where you live. (personally, I think the system should be standardized and everyone should have the same access, opportunities and resources no matter what part of the city, county, state or country in which you happen live, but we dance with the one who brung us.)
Now, of course, I think all of this conversation is speculation since it relies on hearsay and not the official school numbers.
The fact is that we have overcrowding. It’s only going to get worse and CSD will soon find many grades cannot accommodate tuition students. CSD cannot be reliant on that money- tax revenue probably won’t make it up. It’s planning problem that needs to be addressed because it will be an issue in very few years.
+1
“Now, of course, I think all of this conversation is speculation since it relies on hearsay and not the official school numbers.”
Isn’t pointing the finger at tuition students (or, more specifically, at our tuition student policy) as the source of an overcrowding problem without, as you say, any actual numbers to assess, pretty much the definition of “scapegoat?” If so, why do you disagree that that’s what happens from time to time in discussion of this issue? I’m not saying overcrowding in some classes is not a problem to address. I’m saying that comments on the issue often presuppose facts not in evidence (or at least not in evidence here), and that’s a distraction to actually solving anything.
Still disagree. Don’t think it’s anymore scapegoating than what you and karass agree to above. Perhaps we just look at the phrase differently.
To be fair, I don’t have problems with the concept and practice of tuition kids. I have a problem with the program only if the schools are overcrowded, kids are in trailers, and classes are too big. I have a problem with CSD becoming too reliant on the money. I just don’t think there is any end in sight for growth. Heck, waiting in the doctor’s office the other day I met a woman who is moving just behind me with three kids under four! Tuition kids and the money they bring in have to be our last priority.
And I supposed I am not being clear- I guess I feel tuition kids are the first and clearest way to deal with space, planning and scheduling issues and really should be the last priority of the district. I hate that I feel that way, but I do. I genuinely think it is ridiculous that our education system contains so much disaparity that people even have to do this and have these debates in the first place.
But, according to CSD’s tuition student guidelines, we have the flexibility to admit tuition students for those grades, and to those schools, where they won’t cause those sorts of problems. The number of teachers, the number of classrooms, and whether or not we need trailers isn’t determined just by the total number of students, but by the ways in which they’re distributed among grades and schools. If CSD has managed the process according their own guidelines, we could have eliminated all of the tuition students, but we’d still have just as many trailers (and problems with overcrowding in kindergarten) as we do now.
I guess there’s two kinds of crowded classrooms:
– Crowded classes that can be addressed with better scheduling and staff assignments; and
– Crowded classes due to too many students in the school
The first may be fixable whether or not tuition students are present. The second is directly affected by the presence of tuition students.
And then another issue is CSD revenues longterm. I hadn’t thought about that. If we know enrollment is likely to increase as the bolus of youngsters move up through the system, then we need to plan for how CSD will replace the tuition revenue that will have to disappear.
Wow – the number of K students actual 8.23.11 is huge. 25% more than projected !
I’m not that surprised. The surrounding public schools, Dekalb and APS, have had no shortage of confidence-shaking problems. Indeed, we moved into the City last year from Dekalb, in no small part because of a loss of trust in the Dekalb Co. school system.