Our Schools are the Right Size

Having discussed research on the benefits of small schools, the next obvious question is – what size is a small school?

Research on Elementary School Size

The reported number of students tied to small schools and the associated benefits is often presented as a range. Elementary school size numbers that appear in the literature include:

• Less than 200 (Howley, 2002)
• 250-300 (Nguyen, Schmidt & Murray, 2007)
• 300-400 (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 2000)
• 300-400 (Cotton, 1996)

With or without a specific number, researchers understand the benefits of a small school eventually wear off as a school grows. In stating a range for small elementary schools, Cotton also wrote:

While many researchers argue that no school should be larger than 400 or 500 students, I use Williams’ numbers in this report, since my own sense of the research is very similar to his. (Cotton, 1996) (Williams’ number was 300-400)

Comments

Much coverage has been provided to recent efforts of private entities such as the Gates Foundation which have focused attention on high school size. The research on school size predates these efforts and continues to point to the benefits of smaller schools at all levels. As Cotton wrote,

…research has repeatedly found small schools to be superior to large schools on most measures and equal to them on the rest. This holds true for both elementary and secondary students of all ability levels and in all kinds of settings. (Cotton, 1996)

One of the primary reasons Ames is successful when others aren’t is the use of smaller schools to teach our elementary kids – a fact backed up by the research. We must continue to use smaller schools if we are to maintain the sense of community, caring and commitment within our elementary schools where high expectations are set for each and every child.

Dr. Dave

Materials Cited

Nguyen, Schmidt & Murray 2007. Does School Size Matter? A Social Capital Perspective – A Review of Educational Policy Literature. Simon Fraser University

Howley, Craig 2002. Small schools. In Alex Molnar (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, College of Education, Arizona State University, January.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2000, March). North Carolina public school guidelines on facilities planning.

Cotton, Kathleen, 1996. School Size, School Climate, and School Performance, Close-up #20, School Improvement Research Series, Northwest Region Education Laboratory. ( link )

School Size – Yes It Has An Impact

At the last chamber forum a person asked if people touting the benefits of small schools were confusing them with the benefits of small class size. The answer then and the answer now is – NO! There is a large body of research that speaks to the benefits of small schools.

Among the most often cited research is likely that done by Cotton. In a review of over 100 previous studies on school size, she wrote:

…research has repeatedly found small schools to be superior to large schools on most measures and equal to them on the rest. This holds true for both elementary and secondary students of all ability levels and in all kinds of settings. (Cotton, 1996)

Another researcher wrote about the same time:

A higher percentage of students, across all socioeconomic levels, are successful when they are part of smaller, more intimate learning communities. (Irmsher, 1997)

Remember, in 1983 the report A Nation at Risk was released, becoming a clarion for wave after wave of school reform. Researchers began pouring over what research said about education and effective schools – both for what did, and didn’t seem to be working.

By the 1990s researchers realized the promises of improved achievement and efficiencies being touted by those supporting larger schools were not coming true. A report by the North Caroline State Board of Education wrote:

…there is little empirical support for making schools larger. Studies have failed to adequately demonstrate the presumed economic and curricular benefits associated with larger schools. (State Board of Education, 2000)

Reports began emerging, such as the pair Dollar & Sense I & II written in 2002 and 2005, which documented the efficiencies of small schools. But along with the efficiencies, researchers began to identify why small schools were also more effective in educating children.

Small schools are more flexible and responsive, because there is less formal bureaucracy, and because people are known to each other. People cannot connect in the same ways in a large school, because intimacy is impossible and students are anonymous. There are many examples of small schools taking advantage of their size to do outstanding work with students. (Knowledge Works, 2002)

A publication released in 2007 titled, Smaller, Safer, Saner Successful Schools sponsored by the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, spoke to the overall benefits of smaller schools. Among the key conclusions in the report, smaller schools provided:

• A safer place for students
• A more positive, challenging environment
• Higher achievement
• Fewer discipline problems
• Much greater satisfaction for families, students, and teachers.

Closing Thoughts

The research shows school size impacts achievement – smaller schools are better academically for students. This is something our superintendent reinforced when he said the advantage of smaller schools is that the entire staff can focus on student needs. Smaller schools are also better at helping students whose socio-economic status would label them as ‘at-risk.’

If we are to have an elementary system that works to address the needs of all students, and maintains our focus on student-centered instruction, smaller schools are the best option for maintaining the high level of excellence in our elementary schools.

Dr. Dave

Materials Cited:

Cotton, Kathleen, 1996. School Size, School Climate, and School Performance, Closeup #20, School Improvement Research Series, Northwest Region Education Laboratory. ( link ) 

Irmsher, Karen, 1997. School Size. College of Education, University of Oregon.

KnowledgeWorks Foundation, 2002. Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools.

Nathan, Joe; Thao, Sheena, 2007. Smaller, Safer, Saner Successful Schools. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC.

State Board of Education, Public Schools of North Carolina 2000. School Size and its Relationship to Achievement and Behavior, April.

Additional materials can be found here ( link )

The Quest for Operating Costs – Part 2

After a review of information and commentary tied to operating our elementary schools to date, I’ve identified several important points:

1. Adding essential capacity will add costs.
2. ANY estimate is based on assumptions.
3. Examine “apples-to-apples” comparisons.
4. Cost differences (either direction) are small enough we should focus on what’s best for kids.

The “Quest for Operating Costs” series of blog entries documents a timeline, information and highlights the importance of the above points.

FEBRUARY 15 – INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST

The board was provided this document in February. ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 02-15-11 – Incremental Operating Cost Requirements ) Similar in format to the information presented in December, it did differ in several aspects:

• Instructional coaches and guidance costs were pulled out of staffing projections
• Costs for a part-time assistant principal were added under a 4-unit school (not in staffing projections)
• Food service was pulled out of staffing projections and put into categorical
• HVAC/Utilities and Transportation were added
• Maintenance costs were pulled out of staffing and placed into infrastructure

One aspect that stayed the same was the similar staffing levels for 3- and 4-unit schools. If a person believes the level of support should be maintained as the number of students increases, this becomes an important issue. Sometimes there were no increases and sometimes they weren’t proportional.

For example, a 2-unit school has 15 hours of EA (educational assistant) time listed while a 4-unit has 27 hours of EA time. This is a 100% increase in students matched with an 80% increase in EA time – or less EA time per unit and per student.

Incremental increases in areas such as: secretary (+$16,567), custodian (+$17,042), media specialist (+$30,000), nurse (+$15,000) and media tech (+$14,274) added $92,883 to the subtotal of staffing projections for 4-unit schools. Costs for professional staff listed (instructional coaches, guidance, part-time assistant principal) amounted to: $30,000 for a 2-unit, $30,000 for a 3-unit and $196,318 for a 4-unit.

As in the case of the December document, the $899,031 ($669,830 + $92,883 + $196,318) for a 4-unit school was more than twice the $441,992 ($411,992 + $30,000) for a 2-unit school.

Again, because the numbers used in discussion were dependent on any number of assumptions in terms of the type and level of staffing, “it depends” was still the best way I could describe costs for operating our elementary buildings.

Dr. Dave

The Quest for Operating Costs – Part 1

After a review of information and commentary tied to operating our elementary schools to date, I’ve identified several important points:

1. Adding essential capacity will add costs.
2. ANY estimate is based on assumptions.
3. Examine “apples-to-apples” comparisons.
4. Cost differences (either direction) are small enough we should focus on what’s best for kids.

The “Quest for Operating Costs” series of blog entries documents a timeline, information and breakdowns presented, and highlights the importance of the above points. This is the first part of the series.

DECEMBER 06, 2010 – INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST

The board was provided this document ( ACSD School Board Mtg – 12-06-10 – Incremental Operating Cost Requirements ) back in December. It was the first attempt to break out the costs tied to operating a school independent of costs for teachers – which is assumed to be driven by the number of students. If memory serves me correctly, the document was provided by staff in response to statements made by our consultants.

The details in the document included:

• Staffing costs broken out across many functions
• Costs in terms of both dollar and FTEs (full-time equivalent positions)
• Dollars and FTEs were shown for 2-, 3- and 4-unit schools
• Estimated costs for special education were also included

Comparisons

In an attempt to compare operating costs, some looked at combinations of units. For example, costs for providing 6 “units” of space could be created a couple of ways:

• Two 3-unit schools = $1,206,250 ( 2 x $603,130 )
• Three 2-unit schools = $1,355,232 ( 3 x $451,744 )

The difference of $148,982 (rounded to $150,000) was the first “value” I recall being used in association with the cost of an additional school.

Staffing

One of the main questions that arose in the discussion was why staffing levels for 4-unit buildings was quite often kept the same as for 3-unit buildings. This led many, myself included, to look at costs if staffing was incrementally increased at the 4-unit building to maintain per-student service levels..

Incremental increases in areas such as: secretary (+$33,134), custodian (+$17,042), media specialist (+$30,000), nurse (+$15,000) and media tech (+$14,274) added $109,450 to the subtotal of staffing projections for 4-unit schools. This would bring the TOTAL line for a 4-unit school to $916,872 – which was more than twice the $451,744 total for a 2-unit school.

Closing Thought

It was this scenario which led to my thinking, “it depends,” when it came to estimating the cost to operate schools. Too much was dependent on the type and level of staffing placed in the buildings.

Dr. Dave

The Quest for Operating Costs – Introduction

Throughout the work looking at our facilities I have tried to stay focused on what was best for all kids in regard to learning. This has meant much of my attention has been on effectiveness, not efficiency.

That said, as a school board member I have both an academic and a fiscal responsibility. The board has, on multiple occasions, received estimates regarding the costs associated with operating schools.

After reviewing the information, I have come to the following conclusions:

Adding capacity will add costs.

The district is in need of adding capacity. This will require resources, which in turn, add costs. To date, much of the conversation had focused on only one means of adding capacity. Fair comparisons need to look at costs for other ways of adding capacity.

ANY estimate is based on assumptions and future choices.

A review of the information and the wide range of scenarios it is clear there is no “one” cost estimate that can be used as the definitive cost. Some of these decisions will be made by future boards which means any result truly is an estimate.

Much of the confusion stems from a lack of apples-to-apples comparisons.

Cost estimates have compared scenarios with different staffing levels, different number of units, and other factors. This was highlighted for me when a member of the public (an ISU accounting professor) pointed out inconsistencies in some of the comparisons being made. To reach a more reasoned conclusion, good comparisons need to be drawn.

Cost differences are small enough they shouldn’t take the focus away from what is best for kids.

Comparisons of costs show differences (in both directions) that fail to make a compelling argument larger schools cost less. Knowing this, we can return to looking at what is best for all kids.

These statements have come as a result of a lot of review, analysis and conversation. I am going to post a series of blog entries intended to document available information, share some of the comparisons and analysis that have been done, and how I came to the above conclusions.

Dr. Dave

Schools and Homes – Insight Into Families with Children

Folks have been sending me things and talking about elementary schools – a likely result of the board’s having recently received the consultant’s thoughts on district’s sites. report here

One person I talked to mentioned a story they had read online about the important of schools to people looking for homes. In searching for the story (I can’t be sure it is the same one), I came across one that listed features that home owners and realtors should be aware of – things that can make a home more attractive.

The list had four main features:

• A good school system
• Parks
• Golf Course
• A pond, lake or other body of water

Given Ames has all of these, I am hopeful folks looking to come to Ames will be able to find homes in neighborhoods that appeal to them.

Within the story, in the portion discussing schools, there were some statistics cited from the national Association of Realtors:

FEATURES (general):

• Shorter commutes (49%)
• Affordable Homes (44%)
• Being near families (39%)
• Quality Schools (25%)

FEATURES (with even one child):

• Quality schools (48%)
• Proximity to schools (43%)
• Price (43%)
• Local relatives (34%)

The story made a point of highlighting how much the importance of schools jumped when a family had even a single child. This is in line with what I am hearing from local realtors - families moving to Ames are looking for affordable homes, in good neighborhoods, and are interested in the quality and closeness of schools.

As I stated earlier, Ames is fortunate to have many of the amenities people seem to be looking for in a home. With the goal of being attractive to families with children who desire to take advantage of the education their children can get in Ames, it seems wise to consider locating school in affordable neighborhoods not far from where kids are (or will be).

Dr. Dave

Budgets – Thoughts on Past “Savings”

Stories in the paper about educational costs and ‘savings’ tied to school closings 6 years ago prompted many conversations. Given the number of questions that came up, I thought it wise to find budget documents from back then. I asked the district’s CFO for a copy of what had been provided to the paper and, having gone through this experience, I remembered there had been changes from the original budget. When I went to pick things up, materials from both May 2 and May 18 were available. My thanks to the CFO!

Below are the original budget as proposed May 2nd and a revised list of ‘reductions’ provided May 18th.

• ACSD – Superintendent’s 2005-06 Budget Recommendation – May 02
• ACSD – Superintendent’s Revised 2005-06 Budget Recommendation – May 18 – Attachment A

Using these documents, I pulled the numbers from both dates and set them side by side.

As seen in the originals, costs for “specials” (PE & Music) had been pulled from the estimated savings associated with closing two schools. This dropped the “reductions” from for closing two elementary schools from $715,503 down to $645,833.

Noting $40,000 for additional busing would be required as a result of the closings, net reductions in the budget for closing two schools came to $605,833.

Of course, two schools were closed. So what was gained above and beyond closing one school?

 

The second table is an attempt to break out the savings for closing one school and the additional savings for closing the second school.

To get the numbers for the second table, two assumptions were made.

First, closing a second school only reduced the number of classrooms available, not the number of teachers. Therefore the second school doesn’t save any teaching positions.

Second, with the exception of the teaching positions, all other costs were split evenly.

With those assumptions, reductions gained by closing a second school were in the neighborhood of $205,405.50. Taking into account the additional $40,000 for busing, ‘reductions’ for the second building were well under $200,000 – perhaps close to $175,000.

 

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Any thought of the numbers in the 2005-2006 budget (or any budget for that matter) as being “savings” is naïve – especially understanding the budget is designed to be balanced – that is, every dollar reduced is spent.

Numbers without context lose meaning. That context can be supplied lots of ways – historical perspective, presentation of actual documents, etc.

There are many reasons why a board member should ask critical questions of a budget, but several stand out. One is the need to be fiscally responsible with public funds. Another is to fully understand the choices being presented. Yet another is to look at the educational impact tied to financial decisions. (This last one can often be overlooked because of the difficulty in identifying specific levels of impact.)

If one wants to look back at previous cuts, an understanding of the situation and a review of documents will help – but I think of equal importance is reflection on the consequences and impacts of the decisions on our schools. 

Dr. Dave

Thoughts on Consultant Recommendation Presented

Someone at work asked me how I was doing and I shared some of the exchanges at the recent facilities work sessions. In reflecting over the discussion we had last night over a recommendation that had been made by the consultant back in December 2010 (LINK HERE), I thought I would share some points that I think are important.

INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY?

The recommendation from the consultant was to use 4 3-unit schools and 1 2-unit school. The document states this will create a capacity of 2,042 students or 8%. If you are familiar with the level of effort taken over the past few years to get kids to fit, you may be surprised to know that isn’t too far off from where we are.

Using what I could find, a 2009-2010 count (LINK HERE) shows a total of 127 “spaces” with a capacity of around 2,023. This works out to about 6.3% capacity – not much of a difference and unlikely to alleviate any of the issues tied to bubble classes, busing, etc.

UNITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF DISTRICT

We currently use 13 units and bubble classes to deliver elementary classes. That’s the equivalent of 14 units. The consultant’s recommendation (at the top of page 2, item vi) calls for 14 units, with 3-unit schools at Sawyer and Dauntless/Miller. That increases the capacity on the west side of town from 5 units to 6 units. The recommendation calls for 3-unit schools at Somerset and either Meeker or Roosevelt, with the 2-unit at Mitchell.

UNITS ON EAST SIDE OF DISTRICT

Unfortunately, this doesn’t add any capacity to the east side of the district. Currently served by Meeker (3-unit), Fellows (3-unit) and Mitchell (2-unit), the recommendation wouldn’t increase capacity. The recommendation may move Fellows to Somerset but does nothing to address capacity issues and would just relocate the problems.

OPTION DOESN’T ADDRESS ISSUE

The choice presented in the recommendation (which of two northern school locations to use) is the wrong choice. It presumes the issue of capacity and student location is primarily a northern issue that can be addressed by choosing one school or the other. In reality, and I think most would agree, the issue is a north-south issue.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

For any or all of these issues, the recommendation as presented by the consultant is a non-starter in my mind. It makes little sense to me to go through all of this work and not address the issue of capacity.

With this realization, the selection of locations and sizes in the consultant’s recommendation just don’t work. Perhaps another arrangement would.  Of course, it may be that 14 units isn’t enough added capacity.

Dr. Dave

Relationships are Key! So How Many Are There?

I have picked up through conversations with teachers, principals and staff that all sorts of relationships impact students. Students interact and have relationships with family, friends, students, teachers, staff, administrators, etc. Teachers have relationships with students, other teachers, administrators, support & title staff, and special education folks to name a few – perhaps most importantly, teachers monitor relationships within their classes.

The board has repeatedly heard relationships are key – whether it was elementary, middle schools, high school, regular education, title, or other areas. Relationships have been identified as a major driver in the success of kids. As shared previously, James Comer put it this way (shared by one of our elementary principals):

No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship.

So just how many potential relationships are there? Well, I hate to say it, but it boils down to a math problem. Starting with two folks, there is one relationship (if it helps, think of it as handshakes). Moving on to three, there are three. When you get to four, the number rises to 6. And so on. The mathematical formula is Number of Hand Shakes for N People = [ ( N * ( N-1 ) ] / 2. So, as an illustration, with 4 people you would have (4*3)/2 = 6.

Based on the equation, it is clear the number of relationships grows much faster than the number of people.

Looking at the number of kids in a building, say by unit, we would have:

Units	Students	Relationships
1	144	10,296
2	288	41,328
3	432	93,096
4	576	165,600

You can see how quickly the number of relationships grows. A doubling of students results in a 4-fold increase in relationships (1-unit to 2-unit or 2-unit to 4-unit). It seems clear that increasing the number of students in a building increases the number of relationships at a faster pace.

If relationships are key, then it would be important to make sure they are addressed adequately – I can see why 4-units school costs presented to the board included additional staff.

Reflecting on this, it will be important a system of education not be built where these relationships are harder to establish and maintain.

Dr. Dave

Number of Elementary Classes – Tied to School Size?

I have been getting questions tied to the use of 4-unit schools. In a recent email, one statement implied larger school would help manage the number of classrooms which got me thinking - is it possible that larger schools necessarily mean fewer teachers are needed? So, I thought it would be worth taking a look.

Starting with student counts from the October 2011 count for the district’s certified enrollment and the number of teachers currently being used, I needed to make some assumptions:

1. Student at each grade would be spread evenly among the schools in each scenario,
2. Cap for K-2 would be 23
3. Cap for 3-5 would be 25
4. Anything over cap adds a teacher

It may be the cap for 3rd grade might be 24, but 25 for grades 3-5 seemed easier (though this could lead to fewer teachers needed in the “hypothetical” scenarios).

I started with considering how many teachers would be needed if we just took the numbers of kids at each grade and divided by the cap, rounding to the next teacher.

Grade	Count	CAP	Actual	“BEST”	Diff
K	302	23	14	14	0
1	368	23	17	16	1
2	286	23	13	13	0
3	287	25	13	12	1
4	295	25	14	12	2
5	335	25	14	14	0
			85	81	4

 

As shown, we currently (“Actual”) use 4 more teachers than the theoretical “BEST” (or extreme) case of only one location. So, if the theory holds, teachers used for 4 and 3 schools should be between the two “bookends.”

Building two hypothetical scenarios, one with 4 schools and one with 3, it turned out that the number of teachers required was actually higher.

Grade	Actual	Hyp 4	Hyp 3	“BEST”
K	14	16	15	14
1	17	16	18	16
2	13	16	15	13
3	13	12	12	12
4	14	12	12	12
5	14	16	15	14
	85	88	87	81

Please note a look at enrollment suggests the hypothetical 4-school option would require 4-unit schools and the 3 school option would require 5-unit schools.

So, what does this mean? It tells me the assumption bigger schools lead to fewer teachers, at its base, is faulty. Of course, the scenarios had even enrollment which is unlikely. But the range in grade size varied from 286 to 368 so a variety of counts were used. I suppose numbers could be arranged to make things work out better.

It may be the Hyp-4 and Hyp-3 options could have had the number of teachers reduced if students were shifted from one school to another as space allowed, but that is something I would like to avoid – busing kids to make things “fit” best. Not to mention that should a student not fit, they would have to go further to find a school with room – again, more busing costs.

Going back to the original proposition, it appears a system with larger schools does not necessarily lead to fewer teachers.

Dr. Dave

The Impact of Time on Cost

In thinking through the development of a long-range facilities plan, I have been concerned about the impact of taking 10 years or more to address our elementary buildings.

First, the time frame being discussed is quite different from what is typically discussed regarding changes in the school district. Instead of time frames in terms of months – like budget decisions in May that impact the district beginning in July – the effort to create a long-range facilities plan will cover years. This difference, if not explained well, can impact public understanding and support for the work that is needed.

Second, time can impact many things – including costs. I’ve generated the following hypothetical situation to illustrate this point.

Suppose a decision is made in a district to build a total of six (6) $10 million buildings. Let’s assume that between design, letting and construction it takes two years to complete a building. The impact of time on costs is addressed in the following question - What costs are tied to addressing the buildings one at a time versus two at a time?

To help with this, we need to establish a table of costs based on time and inflation.

5%	Inflation Rate
Year	Cost
0	$10,000,000
1	$10,500,000
2	$11,025,000
3	$11,576,250
4	$12,155,063
5	$12,762,816
6	$13,400,956
7	$14,071,004
8	$14,774,554
9	$15,513,282
10	$16,288,946
11	$17,103,394
12	$17,958,563

Looking at the table, which uses a 5% inflation rate, it is clear that a building that costs $10 million will cost more years down the road. The question is, how much?

Using 2 years as a typical cycle, the table below presents the costs of the initial projects and then costs in two-year increments based on the inflation table. For reference, it is assumed that a project let for an amount stays within budget.

Cost of 6 Buildings
	1 Building	1 Buildings
1st cycle	$10,000,000	$20,000,000
2 years	$11,025,000	$22,050,000
4 years	$12,155,063	$24,310,125
6 years	$12,762,816	$0
8 years	$14,774,554	$0
10 years	$16,288,946	$0
TOTAL	$77,006,379	$66,360,125

Costs per cycle are different, with one-at-a-time approach costing less per ‘cycle’ but running for two as many cycles. This puts the first three cycle costs with the two-at-a-time approach higher but teh work is completed and there are no costs in the 4th, 5th and 6th cycles.

Per the totals, addressing 6 buildings at one time in this hypothetical situation would cost just over $77 million while the cost of addressing the same 6 buildings two at a time would cost $66.3 million. The difference, $10,646,254, is considerable – with the one-at-a-time approach coming in at 16% higher than the two-at-a-time approach.

So, in addition to factors such as new vs renovation vs full remodel that will impact costs, it seems clear that time can significantly impact cost.

Dr. Dave

A Look at the School Scenario Poll

With the board moving towards an initial outline of big building blocks steps, and hopefully a sequence of work for our elementaries, I thought it time to look at the poll done on the four scenarios used for discussion purposes at the public open houses.

Before saying much, I will reiterate this survey is not based on a “scientific” sample of parents, staff or the community at large. It merely represents the opinions of those who chose to respond and then only reflects thoughts on the scenarios presented. System settings were set to prevent multiple responses.

Scenario	Schools	Number	Percent
5B	Sawyer, Meeker, Somerset, SW Ames, Roosevelt	430	44.5%
6	Sawyer, Meeker, Somerset, SW Ames, Mitchell, Roosevelt	252	26.1%
5A	Sawyer, Meeker, Somerset, SW Ames, Mitchell	245	25.4%
4	Sawyer, Meeker, Somerset, SW Ames	20	2.1%
Other		19	2.0%
TOTALS		966	100.0%

 

With the board moving towards an initial outline of big building blocks steps, and hopefully a sequence of work for our elementaries, I thought it time to look at the poll done on the four scenarios used for discussion purposes at the public open houses.

Before saying much, I will reiterate this survey is not based on a “scientific” sample of parents, staff or the community at large. It merely represents the opinions of those who chose to respond and then only reflects thoughts on the scenarios presented. System settings were set to prevent multiple responses.

With that said, there are a few things that stand out.

There was almost no support for reducing the number of elementaries down to 4. This was very much in line with things I heard at the forums. Many spoke out against larger schools and almost all spoke in support of keeping neighborhood schools. Now this may be due in part to a desire to keep their schools in the mix, but one thing seemed clear – there was little to no interest in the 4-school scenario.

I was surprised at the level in support for the 6-school scenario. At just over one-quarter of respondents, support nearly the same of that for scenario 5A. At the forums there was often concern about resources – that another school would spread thin resources even more. On the other hand, similar to those against going to 4 schools, folks spoke of taking too much from the elementary level and that capacity should be addressed by adding a school, not making schools bigger.

Results show, by a clear margin, scenario 5B outpaced the others. Often presented as the ‘elephant’ in the room and only supported by a small but vocal handful of folks, options including Roosevelt seemed well supported.

Comments offered often discussed the value of Fellows elementary and keeping it in the mix. This is not surprising as the school had not shown up in any of the scenarios brought forward for discussion.

All that said, I must reiterate the sample of folks participating in the poll were self-selecting and offering support for the scenarios presented. Having outpaced participation in past polls by factor of 4 or 5, I also walk away with another example of the level of dedication and support families and neighborhoods have for their schools.

Dr. Dave

Students in Our Elementaries

In the time I went without a computer, I spent time reviewing files I already had. Among these were enrollment numbers of a sort.

As most of you know by now, certified enrollment (CE) is a formula drive number that is driven by the number and type of students in the district. CE is important because it is used to calculated how much can be spent to educate kids.

But a look at the actual physical count can help with an understanding of the issues tied to capacity – which the board is trying to unravel as part of its facilities work. The graph below (matched in timeframe to the General Fund graphs of the previous post) shows the elementary students the district reported were actually attending each building.

There are several things that the numbers seem to support:

First, it seems clear that enrollment fluctuates. As stated before, this is impacted by several things including: actual number of kids, closures, boundary shifts, busing, etc.

Second, the last few years have seen an increase in the number of kids in Edwards and Mitchell – our two unit schools. This may have been done, in part, to help reduce the strain on our 3-unit schools – all of which were dealing with more students than they had in many years.

Third, in the three years prior to the closing of two elementaries, either one (in 02-03) or two (03-04 & 04-05) of our 3-unit schools look to have been operated as two unit schools. Numbers suggest the year prior to the closure the district operated the equivalent of 6 2 unit schools and 1 3-unit school.

Fourth, as documented in previous posts, it would appear the number of elementary kids has been increasing since the 05-06 school year.

Now, pulling the this information together with the last post on general fund history, we get something like the following:

Prior to 05-06, the total net change in the general fund totaled a positive $9.87 million. From 05-06 to 08-09, the total net change in the general fund was a negative $3.62 million. Even if you extend to the major work done in 09-10 to curb spending, the net was a negative $1.35 million.

Now one can not tie all of the change to the elementaries because there was a significant change with the new middle school. The decisions of the board at the time made significant changes to the structure and levels of support within the district.

The data appear to show the district supported seven schools, all but one or two 2-units in size, and did so to a net benefit to the general fund. The data also appear to show the shift in 05-06 did not have a positive impact on the general fund suggesting any ‘savings’ from closing schools was overshadowed by increases in expenditures.

Perhaps the lesson here is that it isn’t the number of students or the number of buildings that drive what happens to the general fund, but rather how money and resources are managed.

Dr. Dave

Interest in Facilities Drives Record Visits

Given the first day of February, and the beginning of a couple of days of blizzard conditions, it seemed a good time to look back over the month of January for the blog.

Back in May when the board wrestled with major decisions regarding the current fiscal year’s budget there were over 2,000 visits to this blog. Having checked the count for January, the count was close to 2,100. This is the highest number of visits since the inception of this blog.

It seems quite clear, at least to me, that interest in current board efforts tied to facilities drove the interest in the blog, especially in last third of the month.

Hopefully, in addition to expressing an opinion in the poll, folks were able to find information they were looking for – one of the long-standing goals of this blog.

Dr. Dave

Effective Educators – A Couple of Articles

The theme of the most recent issue of Educational Leadership (EL) was ‘The Effective Educator.’ There are a couple of articles that I found particularly interesting

The first was an article titled, “Once a Struggling Student…”

The piece centered on interviews conducted with dozens of highly qualified, dedicated and effective preK-12 teachers from across the US. This in and of itself isn’t a new idea. The notion of researching those who are successful to identify better practices goes on all the time.

What stuck out to me was that the teachers in this study had struggled either academically or socially as students. When asked to reflect on their struggles and how it impacted their teaching, researcher found four key themes – something they called Four Characteristics of Effective Educators. These were:

1. They have caring relationships with students.
2. They set high standards and help students reach them.
3. They connect the curriculum to students’ lives.
4. They participate in ongoing professional development.

These are very much in line with things I have talked about here on this blog as well as many of the comments I heard from teachers and parents over the course of the recent open houses.

There was a pull-quote that I thought was particularly telling.

“Helping students meet high standards involves talking to them about their thinking, learning, and behavior.”

 

The second article was titled, “Leadership, Not Magic: Highly effective teachers show what it takes to close the achievement gap”

The main focus of the piece is recognizing that one of the distinctions between good and great teachers is how they use their leadership skills to determine when and how to employee the knowledge, strategies, classroom, management, and all the other essential aspects of successful teaching.

They discuss things like –

• Setting Big Goals
• Getting Students Invested in Learning
• Planning Purposefully
• Executing Effectively – “On Your Feet” Adjustments
• Continually Improving
• Working Relentlessly

Teachers exhibiting this kind of leadership:

“…deliberately create and maintain a welcoming environment…”

“…build strong relationships with their students and create a sense of community among them.”

The thinking is actually fairly straight forward – if teachers do a better job of leadership in classrooms and with each child, children who are struggling will see what they need to do to be successful and how to accomplish their goals. Instilling motivation and success to students who have struggled will help them correct their learning trajectory and, as a result, close the achievement gap.

 

Both articles highlight skills and abilities of effective educators.  In my mind, teachers not only need those skills and abilities – they also need the opportunities to use them.

Dr. Dave

Impact of Education

Not so long ago, my mother sent me an image and a story that I thought spoke volumes. The recent conversations at the open houses concerning school location and what Ames values in its education system sent me looking through past emails to find it.

NOTE: Though I have looked, I have been unable to find the actual source. Should anyone know the actual source, please let me know so I can reference it.

Many people, in many places, talk about the problems with today’s education system. Often, the main arguments is that the system of education hasn’t really changed in 100 years.

On top of the obvious point made with the story, the people decrying the deplorable conditions of our education system were themselves products of the system. If an education system can produce individuals with the capability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate our education system (the top half of Bloom’s original learning taxonomy), it can’t have been totally broken.

Now, that isn’t to say there is nothing that can or should be changed to improve the system. It’s just that wholesale change for the sake of change or doing everything new for the sake of not being old also runs the risk of destroying what it was that got us here!

This is just another illustration of the axiom behind the saying – “You don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water!”

Remember, ”State of the Art” – whether it be cells phones, chemistry, medicine, space flight, alternative energy, computers or the Internet – is a state of being that only exists because of people who took what they learned and strove to improve the world.

Dr. Dave

Materials from Facilities Open Houses

With three of the open houses completed, I have been quite surprised and happy with the level of turn out. The conversations and questions, I think, have been very beneficial.

There are materials being shared and maps being used to help the process. If you are unable to attend, or want to review them, they are listed below:

Materials

• ACSD School Board – January 2011 Open Houses – Scenarios & Schedule
• ACSD School Board – January 2011 Open Houses – Planning & Design Principles
• ACSD School Board – January 2011 Open Houses – Key Steps in Facilities Process (up to Sept 2010)

Maps

• District Boundary with Quad Population
• 4-School Scenario – Sawyer, Meeker, Somerset location, SW Ames location
  • School Location – 4 School Sample Scenario
• 5-School Scenario (a) – Sawyer, Meeker, Mitchell, Somerset location, SW Ames location
  • School Location – 5a School Sample Scenario
• 5-School Scenario (b) – Sawyer, Meeker, Roosevelt, Somerset location, SW Ames location
  • School Location – 5b School Sample Scenario
• 6-School Scenario – Sawyer, Meeker, Mitchell, Roosevelt, Somerset location, SW Ames location
  • School Location – 6 School Sample Scenario

NOTE: The green dots on each map are two possible sites for a potential school in the southwest. None of the sample options would use both sites.

As shown in the schedule, there are two open houses left (at Sawyer and Meeker) as well as a question and answer session at the high school.

I would encourage all who are interested to attend one of these sessions and share your thoughts!

Dr. Dave

Recent Tribune Guest Commentary

Recently, Wesley Shank’s guest commentary ran in the tribune. It is provided below with permission.

Dr. Dave

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL VALUES – Wesley Shank

On March 2, 2010, Roosevelt Elementary School in Ames was placed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The school meets two National Register criteria: First, it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution in the broad patterns of our history, and secondly, it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction and possesses high artistic value.

Here is why it is important to have a school in this historic building and neighborhood.

Roosevelt is associated with the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and with the prosperity of Midwestern agriculture at that time that brought more students to Iowa State College and growth and development in Ames.

City population increase more than 70 percent from 1900 to 1910 and growth continued into the 1930s.

By the early 1920s the board of the Ames Independent School District, faced with a shortage of elementary classrooms, bought the Roosevelt site, which was then at the edge of northern residential development.

Professor T.R. Agg, chair of the building committee and Dean of Engineering at Iowa State promoted the bond issue, saying that the school would provide “reasonable, sensible educational facilities for the children of Ames.”

Begun in 1923, Roosevelt opened in January 1924.

The school district assured the high artistic value of the building by interviewing five of the best architectural firms in the state and then giving the commission to the firm of Kimball, Bailie, and Cowgill. The three partners taught in the architecture program at Iowa State, of which Kimball was head.

Their design was state of the art. It was for a fireproof structure of reinforced concrete and masonry, with large window areas to bring excellent natural light into each of the 16 classrooms, a central boiler to supply heat to radiators in the rooms, and a central fan to ventilate them with a mixture of fresh and recirculated air.

The symmetrical order of the two-story building layout followed the Beaux Arts style of architecture named for the School of Fine Arts in Paris, where it was taught. Characteristic of the style is a mix of decorative elements taken from the Roman, Renaissance, and Baroque architecture of Europe.

Also characteristic is the symmetrical and orderly organization of building elements. This style was associated in America with the City Beautiful movement that was shaping our cities at this time.

Ames, as a community, shows it values its historic public buildings. We renovated what was originally Ames High School, built in 1938-1939, to become our new City Hall.

Youth and Shelter Services renovated the old Municipal Building of 1915-1916 for its offices.

The North Western Railway depot of 1900 continues today as part of a downtown shopping center, and our original Carnegie Library building of dedicated in 1904 survives, linked to enlargements made in the 1930s and 1980s.

The Roosevelt School structure, with its gymnasium and media center addition of 1968, stands for the high value that the city and state placed on education in the early decades of the 20th century, values we are known for today.

The facility reuse study developed for Ames Smart Growth Alliance in 2009 by Invision Architects, of Des Moines and Waterloo, shows that the school can be renovated to produce efficient and handsome modern classrooms, and with inconspicuous additions, it could meet handicapped access needs.

At the same time the exterior would be restored to its historic original appearance.

The result would be a structure superior to modern construction, less costly than a new building, and located conveniently within the neighborhood it serves.

Its very presence would be a powerful way to teach our children the historic and cultural values that our community stands for and the respect for the values of sustainable development that they will need to learn for the future.

 

Writer’s background

Wesley Shank is an architectural historian and emeritus professor of architecture at Iowa State University. He is the author of Iowa’s Historic Architects: A Biographical Dictionary and The Iowa Catalog, Historic American Buildings Survey”

Board/PTO Forum Dates and Times Set

As shared with board members, building principals have confirmed the following schedules for the Board/PTO Forums in the individual buildings:

Board/PTO Forums

• Tuesday, January 11 – Mitchell Elementary @ 6:30 PM
• Thursday, January 13 – Edwards Elementary @ 6:30 PM
• Saturday, January 15 – Fellows Elementary @ 9:00 AM
• Tuesday, January 18 – Sawyer Elementary @ 6:30 PM
• Thursday, January 20 – Meeker Elementary @ 6:30 PM
• Tuesday, January 25 – AHS Auditorium @ 6:30 PM (Community Open Forum)

Please note that each of the sessions is set for 2 hours.

As always, I would encourage parents and community members to find a session that works into their schedules and come talk with the board about the options.

Dr. Dave

Options and Public Input Method Determined

At the last facilities discussion prior to the holiday break, the school board decided it would continue to make progress on the elementary part of the facilities plan as the consultant worked on the remaining pieces. At Monday’s (01/03/11) facilities work session the board developed both the method and general option for gathering public input on the placement of elementary schools.

OPTIONS

Based on the range of options presented initially by board members at the meeting, it was agreed four options would be generated for use in gathering public input - a single 4-school option, two 5-school options and one 6-school option. Please note that because of an initial split among board members on whether to consider placing an elementary school north of the new middle school or on the Dauntless property, both locations are listed (but only one would be used).

FOUR SCHOOL OPTION

• Sawyer
• Somerset
• Meeker
• N of new MS / Dauntless

FIVE SCHOOL OPTION (A)

• Sawyer
• Somerset
• Meeker
• Mitchell
• N of new MS / Dauntless

FIVE SCHOOL OPTION (B)

• Sawyer
• Somerset
• Meeker
• Roosevelt
• N of new MS / Dauntless

SIX SCHOOL OPTION

• Sawyer
• Somerset
• Meeker
• Roosevelt
• Mitchell
• N of new MS / Dauntless

PUBLIC INPUT

After a relatively short discussion, the board agreed to let board leadership (Pres & VP) set the details for 6 meetings, though the following was generally agreed to:

Five of the meetings would consist of meeting at each of the five current elementary buildings. These would be informal in nature, a sort of open house. Folks would be welcome to look at the options, offer opinions/thoughts and ask questions.

The sixth would be a bit more formal, perhaps in an auditorium setting, where folks could come and ask questions of the board.

DISCUSSION

The informal meetings are likely to have maps of the options and very basic information, perhaps in the form of a short presentation. 

As you may have noticed, the sizes of the buildings in each of the options have not been set. Of course, it seems straightforward that the schools in the four school options would have to house more students than the five and six school options, but the purpose is not to get mired down in arguing details.

Rather, the goal is to get a sense for what the public likes in terms of options and/or alternatives. The hope is to be able to conduct many, if not most, of these meetings prior to the consultant coming back at the end of the month.

I would then expect the board to use the public input on the elementary options, the consultant’s options for the remaining facilities needs, student and financial data to start development of a long-range plan framework.

Stay tuned for the dates, times and places for the input sessions. As always, I would strongly encourage everyone who is interested to come out, review the options and talk to the board.

Dr. Dave

ps – I have been encouraged by the number of folks attending the work sessions. With the sessions also being taped, hopefully interested folks can stay up on what is happening. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask!