tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post2084149658426684447..comments2024-03-28T06:53:24.022-05:00Comments on a blog about school: Should there be a new elementary school on Iowa City’s east side?Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12919030671050831251noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-61196256663535692872012-03-22T17:18:40.792-05:002012-03-22T17:18:40.792-05:00And now, to fund the governor’s education “reform”...And now, to fund the governor’s education “reform” bill, a state legislative committee has <a href="http://www.coshoctontribune.com/usatoday/article/38810131?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cp" rel="nofollow">voted to cut $20 million in funding that would have helped reduce class sizes</a>.<br /><br />The governor’s education director, Jason Glass, has previously stated that reducing class size is not the best use of money, which is better spent on “improving educator effectiveness.” <a href="http://ablogaboutschool.blogspot.com/2011/12/does-jason-glass-know-better-than-you.html" rel="nofollow">(See this post.)</a>Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-74138040010278340502012-03-21T12:30:01.190-05:002012-03-21T12:30:01.190-05:00Anonymous -- Thanks for commenting. I’m not at al...Anonymous -- Thanks for commenting. I’m not at all surprised to hear that a parent who chose to stay at Twain would have some hard feelings toward those who chose to take the SINA transfer. Now, if Iowa gets its waiver, the families who took the transfer may end up back in their designated attendance area. What a great dynamic No Child Left Behind has given us! Rather than actually try to address income inequality or living standards, let’s punish low-income schools and the people who want to stay in them. Brilliant.<br /><br />Like a lot of other proposals, the SINA transfer system disregarded how much people value having an elementary school in their own community, and how much they value continuity after a child is already settled into a school. Putting people to a choice between (1) transferring to a more distant school that hasn’t yet been designated “failing,” with the unadvertised risk that you might be forced to switch back when the community moves on from the SINA idea, or (2) staying in your own school district after it’s been labeled and stigmatized and after many of its families have left it, was not exactly doing people a favor.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-24867230505992292112012-03-21T10:09:24.995-05:002012-03-21T10:09:24.995-05:00Dan, if the growth figures really do end up being ...Dan, if the growth figures really do end up being realistic, it seems to be that a more compelling, nonnegotiable priority would be what to with Southeast Junior High....is this something that your group is focusing on? It seems to me the options for flexibility with classrooms and class size are much more limited within that facility.<br /><br />Disclaimer...any such proposal to modify schools either at the elementary or junior high level would almost certainly come too late for my kids, so I don't have a vested interest in any one project.KDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883213697051461818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-46055683877368274992012-03-21T00:50:57.515-05:002012-03-21T00:50:57.515-05:00I am a Twain parent of a first grader. I have not...I am a Twain parent of a first grader. I have not done all the research that may be required for an in depth view. But what I have read and heard about the capacity issues at Twain have nothing to do with not having enough students in the neighborhoods to attend and in my belief have no justification for a new school. <br />The issue I feel is really the underline cause of an uproar and an inadequately researched petition, is that the SINA (School In Need of Assistance) schools under No Child Left Behind allow parents to have a choice of removing their child(ren) from a school that is labeled SINA to a non SINA school no questions asked. So then we have children who live right around the corner from my family being bussed to other schools on the east side such as Hoover, Lemme, Shimek, and Longfellow and thus increase the capacity at their school. Mind you the budget that can be used for providing tutoring programs to more children who need the help is shared with the budget for bussing which last I heard bussing is using a higher percentage than tutoring. This option to switch schools because of SINA was to offer opportunities to underserved and underprivileged families to move to a "non-failing" school, however, it appears that that target population feels no need to move for whatever reason, but the families who have children succeeding already and already have an advantage over their co-eds are taking advantage to move out of the school with "those kids" (language I've heard at the previous redistricting fiasco meetings). The draw back is that those same children can do so much to improve the schools they are fleeing from. <br />The plus side of being a low enrollment school is that my daughter's class size is 13, she receives one on one education not because she's struggling or needs special education, but because her teacher is able to spend more time with each student and tailor her curriculum for the individual students' needs. A second bonus is that because they are a SINA school they receive extra funding to provide in school programs to aid students who are struggling, and to provide its teachers with the latest in educational strategies.<br />I admit that when it came time to enroll my daughter into Twain that I was apprehensive; it was because other people who never step foot into the school and never had their children attend Twain said "oh you don't want your child going there with 'those kids' do you?" and other such comments. But I gave Twain a chance because I knew that if my child needed assistance with reading or math, there would be adequate assistants. Also I'm not forcing my child to ride the school bus for over half an hour to past our neighborhood school just to join another school. I also did not want my daughter growing up in an informant that is not diverse, and had an undertone of parents' acceptance of segregation of the privileged and the not privileged. <br />I speak for myself when I say that if parents choose to send their children away from their neighborhood schools because of some preconceived notion and use SINA as an excuse to do so, then quite frankly I'm glad that their children are not associated with my child, because all the hard work I put in to make sure my daughter is raised with as little prejudice as possible would badly influenced by children who are raised otherwise. In the mean time my daughter is getting the same excellent education that the Iowa City Community School District has to offer at every school if not better. <br />Thank you for having this blog post and opening it to a safe and fair discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-52289686116008122152012-03-20T23:16:15.825-05:002012-03-20T23:16:15.825-05:00But is the money can expect to have at our disposa...But is the money can expect to have at our disposal next year sufficient to bring the average classroom down to (or near) 23 students? If not, the capacity data, which is based on a premise of 23 students per room, wouldn’t be giving a real sense of how much improvement we could achieve in class size by building new rooms. It’s a difficult question, I realize, because some kids are in gen ed classrooms for only part of the day, and because the district data has a tendency to mix apples with oranges.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-55169377496639360442012-03-20T22:04:29.968-05:002012-03-20T22:04:29.968-05:00The main thing keeping class size from getting sma...The main thing keeping class size from getting smaller is the fact that the current year's general budget (and maximum allowable spending authority given to the District) is, by state law, based on the previous year's enrollment numbers X a set figure. So this year, the District was only allowed to spend (by state law) $5900 per student, based on head counts that were 442 students less than the actual number of students in current attendance.<br /><br />This created a shortfall of $2.6 million in our 2011-2012 annual budget that primarily impacted the Distrtict's ability to hire enough teachers to keep class sizes manageable (about 75% of the budget is labor). We also had 0% allowable growth from the state legislature, even while operating expenses increased by about 3%, further stretching the already underfunded dollars.<br /><br />Steve Murley asked me and some other Longfellow parents (Longfellow bore the brunt of this overcrowding) to accompany him and his staff to Des Moines, along with our Longfellow principal, to lobby state lawmakers to change the budgeting process for growing districts like ours, who are incredibly hamstrung by having to pay for this year's kids with funding that only covers last year's kids. We spoke to the Chair of the House Education committee and five other local state reps, and hopefully made some headway in relaxing this restrictive spending authority.<br /><br />The point is, such a large deficit between last year's enrollment and this year's, along with 0% allowable for the year, led to not enough teachers. THis year, we'll have an additional $2.6 million that covers the 442 kids we added last year, and we'll have an additional $2.4 million from the %2 allowable growth that the legislature approved. So $5 million more than last year's general fund. Dems in the House and Senate are trying to pass 4% allowable growth for the year after next, which would be even better for getting sufficient teachers.<br /><br />We are not a poor District by any means. We can afford to put enough teachers in our classes to support our kids' high-quality education, and our Board and District administrators now fully understand what an important priority that is to our community. Funding conditions moving forward look very favorable for supporting that priority, and the community seems united in supporting it, too.<br /><br />I'm not nearly as concerned about the operational costs of another school, because I've been enough inside the staff budgeting process as a result of our overcrowding fiasco at Longfellow last Fall. Growth projections will support additional funding from the state to cover those additional facilities. And hopefully state legislators will come through with even more relief by enacting regulatory change that gives Steve Murley even greater latitude to meet the staffing needs of his growing District.<br /><br />Let's keep our eye on the ball. The issue here is enrollment growth and whether or not we will have the classroom space to deal with the number of kids that are coming our way. New enrollment projections are coming out in April, and we'll need clarity in reporting and decisiveness from our Board and Steve Murley's staff, as they set building priorities for the next several years. I think they're pretty tuned in now.Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-13891588451307902372012-03-20T12:31:12.908-05:002012-03-20T12:31:12.908-05:00I keep coming back in my mind to the point KD and ...I keep coming back in my mind to the point KD and I raised earlier about whether teachers would just be reallocated. There wouldn’t be much point in building a new school if the classrooms themselves wouldn’t get any less crowded. The petition talks about the money for building the new school, but not about money for decreasing teacher/student ratios, which would presumably would have to be done throughout the district, not just in one school. The ongoing expense of operating and maintaining an additional school would seem, if anything, to make it harder to increase the number of teachers. And again, all the capacity figures are based on an assumption of 23 students per room, which sounds lower than what we actually have in reality. In other words, it doesn’t seem like the only thing keeping class sizes from getting smaller is the lack of additional rooms.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-86491470345731439502012-03-20T09:02:24.316-05:002012-03-20T09:02:24.316-05:00A couple of comments for Dan..
Regarding Roosevel...A couple of comments for Dan..<br /><br />Regarding Roosevelt, there was a lot of speculation that there was a desire to make all schools larger so that they would be cheaper to run, and that was one of the motivations for closing Roosevelt. It would be hard for me to believe that at some point in the future closing another smaller, older school wouldn't happen.<br /><br />I'm confused about your use of the word contiguous....Bon Aire, Sunrise Mobile Home and Windsor Ridge aren't really contiguous in the way I think of the word. <br /><br />Certainly building a neighborhood school on the far east side would mean something a little different. One would expect that there would be a lot of discretionary busing(busing because the route is hazardous, for students who wouldn't normally qualify).KDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883213697051461818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-67966663493566512202012-03-20T01:08:54.256-05:002012-03-20T01:08:54.256-05:00Hear, hear! :)
East side elementary growth:
2297...Hear, hear! :)<br /><br />East side elementary growth:<br /><br />2297 in 2002-2003<br />2867 in 2010-2011<br />= 24.81% growth<br /><br />West side elementary growth:<br /><br />3179 in 2002-2003<br />4008 in 2010-2011<br />= 26.08% growth<br /><br />Surprise, surprise, the District changed the reporting methodology in 2011-2012, so this year's numbers can't be used to compare to previous years.<br /><br />p.27<br /><br />I like how you trusted me..... :)Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-82547704487793371582012-03-20T00:39:20.925-05:002012-03-20T00:39:20.925-05:00Thanks, Dan -- That's remarkable if it's t...Thanks, Dan -- That's remarkable if it's true. (I'll check out the source.) It's hard to understand how Coralville and North Liberty could be growing at that rate and not have more of an impact on the overall west side school population growth rate, even if their initial populations were small.<br /><br />By the way, I appreciate that you're understanding of my skepticism about the numbers. I honestly don't have a preconception that I'm trying to prove, and am just curious if the data bears out the assertions. I'm still not convinced about the need for a new school, but if the petition gets people thinking about the district's allocation of resources and its long-term planning, it will have done some good.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-55069523335296813192012-03-20T00:16:36.719-05:002012-03-20T00:16:36.719-05:00Hi Chris--
There was one more point from my initi...Hi Chris--<br /><br />There was one more point from my initial analysis that you questioned, and I just haven't had a chance to address it yet.<br /><br />(I should add, by the way, that I appreciate your willingness to interrogate my assumptions and help in the process of making sense of District data on enrollment. With the notable exception of Jeff McGinnis, who seems genuinely interested in reaching out to hear parents' ideas on enrollment growth and redistricting issues, and willing to dig into the numbers to uncover the empirical truth behind them, it's frightfully hard to get any dialogue going with the District staff about what goes into this enrollment numbers reporting. Though in fairness, I suppose I could do more to ask them questions directly, when questions arise.<br /><br />At any rate, my point was, I appreciate you putting effort into questioning these figures with me, and I feel like you've helped me clarify and confirm my thinking on this issue, and our analysis of the issue has benefited from this dialogue.)<br /><br />So, you questioned my claim that rates of enrollment growth at the elementary level were consistent between West and East schools. I made that assessment drawing on information from the 2011-2012 Enrollment Report that you linked to, on p. 27.<br /><br />You cited some Census data in an effort to compare East-vs.-West elementary enrollment patterns in the past ten years, but I have to warn you that Census data is all but meaningless in looking at elementary enrollment patterns. Just because N. Liberty population grew by 149% and Coralville by 25%, with IC only at 9% growth, from 2000 to 2010, says nothing about the raw numbers involved or the proportion of people with elementary-aged children in the various populations. <br /><br />N. Liberty obviously started much lower than IC in population in 2000, and Coralville to some extent, so adding people there makes the percentage growth jump at a much higher rate. But I think there's also a significant effect of childless professionals, or perhaps families with older-aged kids on the West/North side, because their elementary growth rates are only the tiniest bit higher than east siders, like I said.<br /><br />The chart on p. 27 shows that West side elementary enrollment grew 26% from 2002 to 2011, while East side elementary enrollment grew 25% from 2002 to 2011. So I can safely assume a fairly constant rate of growth between East and West in the next few years, and safely calculate 45% of the District-wide growth numbers I cited to approximate what east-side elementary growth will be in the next three years.<br /><br />Don't want you to think I didn;t do my homework! :)Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-58868655302435855862012-03-19T20:58:07.721-05:002012-03-19T20:58:07.721-05:00More thoughts here.More thoughts <a href="http://ablogaboutschool.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-does-equity-mean.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-49152877400207035012012-03-19T18:07:05.054-05:002012-03-19T18:07:05.054-05:00Julie -- Point taken, but I don't see what we&...Julie -- Point taken, but I don't see what we're actually disagreeing about when it comes to Lake Ridge. From what I can see, shifting Lake Ridge to Hills is a good way of making use of the existing capacity in Hills, and you're confirming that that's what Lake Ridge families want, to boot.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-23495061293297255582012-03-19T17:45:00.149-05:002012-03-19T17:45:00.149-05:00Chris, you said, “The Lake Ridge families are abou...Chris, you said, “The Lake Ridge families are about five or six miles from Hills, but they’re also about three miles from Twain, where they are now, and the commute to either (according to Google maps) is about eight minutes.” <br />One thing important to everybody not blessed to be able to walk their child to school = making a comparison of home to school commute based on mapquest mileage is just wrong. The same flip maquest judgement is what board members, Superintendent Plugge, and others used to justify sending Hills, THE SCHOOL IN THE MOST SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE DISTRICT to City High THE SCHOOL IN THE MOST NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE DISTRICT. We now have, and this includes my address which is ON THE WEST SIDE OF I-380/218 EVEN FARTHER WEST FROM HILLS, a 40-50 minute morning commute to get our kids to school at City instead of a 10 minute commute to West...and then the additional commute from City High to work. Route comparisons of any accuracy or fairness should be based on the actual school day commute drive time, cause mapquest certainly isn’t.julie vandyke firehorse66@netins,netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-36108198499984983622012-03-19T10:27:10.755-05:002012-03-19T10:27:10.755-05:00I'd agree with Chris about the capacity vs. cl...I'd agree with Chris about the capacity vs. class size issues. I know at our school just the loss of a few students due to SINA transfers has meant the loss of a teacher. <br /><br />Would the district actually hire more teachers...or simply allocate them differently? I know that this has been one of my big questions about building another high school...that I've never really seen answered in a way that I would like.<br /><br />One also has to consider that there would be additional costs such as a principal, cafeteria staff, secretary, librarian etc in a new school. So unless the enrollment really dramatically increased, it would seem that we'd actually have less money available(after paying for a new principal etc.)for more teachers.KDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883213697051461818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-54088291387415770502012-03-19T07:37:45.636-05:002012-03-19T07:37:45.636-05:00Thanks again, Dan. I'll take a closer look at...Thanks again, Dan. I'll take a closer look at all that tonight. Three quick points, though:<br /><br />First, capacity and class size strike me as two separate (though related) issues. Just building a new school won't bring class size down unless the district is willing to hire enough teachers to bring class sizes down. If, instead, they just reallocate the existing teachers to reflect the reallocation of students, class sizes overall won't change. If the district isn't currently willing to bring most class sizes down below 25 students, it's not clear why it makes sense to use capacity figures based on a 23-student-per-room assumption.<br /><br />Second, I do agree with you about the value of consistency, contunuity, and community, and how that explains a lot of the resistance to boundary changes. A new school would require all kinds of boundary changes, though.<br /><br />Third, I think there needs to be a more careful analysis of how a new school would affect FRL numbers. Maybe the new school itself would be reasonably diverse, and maybe it wouldn't -- I have no idea. But how would it affect a school like Twain, where the FRL numbers are already very high?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-58539285542273848952012-03-19T01:54:27.065-05:002012-03-19T01:54:27.065-05:00(3) And one more thing we agree on--Lake Ridge to ...(3) And one more thing we agree on--Lake Ridge to Hills is a good idea. Seems like everyone agrees that is a good aspect of the current redistricting plan. But even in terms of just looking at what it would do for today's elementary population, the current redistricting plan doesn't solve the capacity issue as much as you suggested earlier. Send 69 Lake Ridge kids to Hills and add 104 Windsor Ridge kids to Twain, and you've only utilized an additional 35 of the 96 open seats at Twain.<br /><br />Down at Hills, you've used up 69 of the 97 open seats, but then the remaining 28 seats are essentially unfillable, because no one else from the over-capacity East side schools should be bused that far away. The Lake Ridge kids are a happy exception to that.<br /><br />It just highlights that a piecemeal, moving a few kids from here, cutting them out of there, is not a real solution for long-term growth issues. The logistics of topping off one cup with a little off of that one, and a little off of this other one, and then trying to adjust as one school grows faster than others. It's a rat's nest of prolonged upheaval and uncertainty for all families.<br /><br />To my mind, what we really need is more capacity in general to account for the shifts that take place in each east-side attendance zone numbers, with all of them trending upward. I'm not opposed to additions, but I don't think they would meet the projected need. Furthermore, if you were to take a slice of several contiguous neighborhoods on the far east side and create a new home school zone for them--say, Bon Aire, Sunrise Mobile Home Village, Windsor Ridge, the east side of the county that now goes to Longfellow, COurt st. neighborhoods east of Scott Blvd (currently Lemme), maybe a little of the Lucas zone--you put all of those connected neighborhoods together, and you would have a well-balanced FRL population who would also still be connected by geographic area and could work to build their own sense of community and continuity for their families and kids. <br /><br />It meets many District redistricting priorities: 1. balancing FRL, 2. contiguous neighborhood school, 3. helps capacity issues at Longfellow, Wood, Lemme, and possibly Lucas and Hoover (some Hoover kids could move over to Lemme when far east Court St. vacates), and 4. Fiscally responsible because of reduced busing and utilizing a more efficient new school to meet enrollment growth on the east side (new schools cost less to operate than older schools).<br /><br />Finally, I think the old schools are not under threat, necessarily, for closure. The enrollment growth needs will be sufficient to justify their continued existence, and the other older schools (Longfellow and Mann) are not in nearly the state of "disrepair" that Roosevelt was deemed to be. Whatever your take on that, Longfellow and Twain would not cost $5 million to repair/update, as they claimed Roosevelt would have.<br /><br />I'd like to see the idea investigated in greater detail by the District, that's all I'm saying......Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-87098292835912382572012-03-19T01:27:04.584-05:002012-03-19T01:27:04.584-05:00Sorry, that I don't know.
I do know that the ...Sorry, that I don't know.<br /><br />I do know that the district, in late Fall 2011, revised the way they counted students in each classroom, to include in their enrollment report all students (special ED, behavior plan kids, etc.) who spend more than 50% of their time in a "regular" classroom. That was in response to the fact that Longfellow and other schools were misrepresented in classroom size analyses, with up to 35 kids in several rooms, even though the first attempt at head counts showed only 30 or 31.<br /><br />So there is obviously some spectrum of classroom presence in those IEP kids. Clearly, the District needs to take more responsibility for presenting the counts for various populations impacting the general ed classroom capacity in a consistent and transparent manner.<br /><br />Regardless, though, I will have a hard time being persuaded that shuffling a few kids into/out of special ed classes or dropping art/music/computer classroonm space in favor of squeezing in a few more kids to each school is going to be an effective solution to east side growth, short-term or long-term. <br /><br />You and agree on a lot of things--(1) the opacity of the District's reporting of data throws up unproductive roadblocks that keep us regular joes from having clarity about the reality of our school classrooms and facilities. For my part, though, I don't want to throw up my hands and minimize the empirical argument, because I think it can be straightened out and made clear with enough study and clarification. The empirical reality of this particular issue is far too consequential to let it stay mystified in a cloud of poor enrollment and financial reporting. The growth is real.<br /><br />(2) Another thing we agree on is the importance of making explicit statements of our values as we make community-based, consensus decisions that best serve our kids. ICCSD administrators and the Board need to know our community priorities if they are to effectively serve our community.<br /><br />Several Longfellow parents and I spent much of the Fall advocating to the Board and District about our top priority at the elementary level--manageable class sizes. The idea of squeezing every possible seat out of each building runs contrary to this community value, which is one reason we are advocating for more seat space in the form of a new building. We experienced first-hand this Fall what it was like to have 32-35 kids in grades 3-6, and maxed out classrooms in the other grades, and it was tortuous. Hard on teachers, hard on kids, hard on parents, hard on staff. This is not a situation we should aspire to in our elementary school capacity planning--maxing out our seat space in each building.<br /><br />Personally, the other things I value for my kids in their elementary education are community-building and continuity/consistency in these young kids' educational experience. That is, I place a great deal of stock in the sense of community and bonding that that both kids and parents start to build from the first day they enter Kindergarten, forming friendships with other kids and bonds with teachers, administrators, and other parents. For parents that engage with their school communities and participate, whether through PTA, sports, or whatever, they really do create a sense of family and a support network that kids need, in order to feel nurtured and feel a sense of belonging. I want that consistent experience for my kids. If we had started at Twain, I would have had it there, and would want my kid to stay at Twain. We started at Longfellow, so now I want to continue my family's investment in the Longfellow community. (btw, I'm NOT scheduled to move from there under the current redistricting plan, FWIW).<br /><br />That, I think, is why nearly all parents around the District resist plans to shift boundaries and bus kids around, for whatever reason.....FRL, capacity, what have you. They value consistency and community in their family's educational experience over other considerations.Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-67206999871527212262012-03-19T00:23:41.238-05:002012-03-19T00:23:41.238-05:00Thanks, Dan. I'm more than willing to believe...Thanks, Dan. I'm more than willing to believe that the district is using different measurements in different places, and I'll look the numbers over in light of what you're saying.<br /><br />But one question: Wouldn't at least some of those students with IEPs end up in those special use classrooms that we're not counting as part of the existing capacity?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-4867448856557852382012-03-18T23:55:39.803-05:002012-03-18T23:55:39.803-05:00Chris, I was unsuccessful in communicating this po...Chris, I was unsuccessful in communicating this point in my earlier posts, so let me try again:<br /><br />I would highly recommend that you re-examine the data on which you are basing your claim of 3.6 percent growth by 2015-16. I'm guessing you're looking at the graph on p. 23 of the enrollment report, which is as misleading a piece of information as I've ever seen from the District and Ann Feldman. The 2015 elementary projection (7018) does NOT include any students with IEP (Individualized Education Plans) and was made in Spring 2011. <br /><br />The figure the chart gives for actual enrollment in 2011 (6783) DOES include students with IEP's. The District claims this is the sole reason that their elementary predictions were 346 students low this year, relative to actual enrollment, but conveniently has not included the number of students with IEP's in this chart, so we could check that claim.<br /><br />To take these two figures from this chart and use them as a basis for a percentage growth calculation from 2011 to 2015 is 100% flawed (although a completely reasonable assumption for you to make.....you very reasonably expected that someone making a growth projection chart would have to be either dishonest or incompetent to feed two completely different groups into the different years.) Check the fine print to confirm what I've said.<br /><br />The numbers I put together for you last night tried to give a projection for 2012-2015 that was corrected for the IEP students the District left out of these Enrollment Report projections for 2015, to reflect ACTUAL anticipated enrollment. And this is key: I did not assume ANY additional underestimation by the District in future years (even though it was demonstrated this year, as they under-projected elementary enrollment by 345 students in 2011). All I did was add back in the 345 they had already under-projected for this year, and bumped the subsequent years' projections by that amount.<br /><br />SO, that gives us IEP-corrected elementary projection figures of: <br /><br />6879 in 2012, <br />7026 in 2013,<br />7231 in 2014, <br />7394 in 2015<br /><br />You can confirm that I used the proper factor in making these IEP corrections to the District's projections by looking at p. 20 of the 2011-12 Enrollment Report, where it states, "Elementary enrollment is greater than the University of Iowa projections by 365 students, making the margin of error 5.38%."<br /><br />So please, however understandable the error, please stop spreading the misinformation that elementary enrollment is expected to increase by only 3.6% by 2015. (And I blame the District's shoddy reporting and charts).<br /><br />The realistic, IEP-inclusive projection for elementary enrollment in 2015 is 7394, a full 9% higher than enrollment this year (6783), when SIX east side elementaries are already above capacity. 9%, not 3%.<br /><br />More to come on your other questions soon......Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-38978927255794517052012-03-18T23:19:53.730-05:002012-03-18T23:19:53.730-05:00KD -- I agree that the redistricting seems to have...KD -- I agree that the redistricting seems to have crowded out discussion of other issues, which is one of the reasons I focus mainly on other issues here. (As you say, redistricting has really been talked to death.) I'm not sure, though; I have a feeling the board might have avoided those other issues anyway . . .Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-81278219970805731072012-03-18T23:05:37.976-05:002012-03-18T23:05:37.976-05:00Julie – I don’t think anyone on this blog needs to...Julie – I don’t think anyone on this blog needs to apologize for asking questions without first moving heaven and earth to find the answers. That’s just what happens in public discussion; to make people feel like they can’t chime in unless they’ve first paid their dues would just be counterproductive. You are never going to get more than a tiny fraction of people to regularly attend school board meetings; that doesn’t mean that anyone who doesn’t attend has to stay quiet or defer to those who do. I know that you’ve done a lot – way more than I have or ever will – but the idea that “people should be more involved” can very easily transform into an excuse for shutting people down and limiting the discussion to a tiny handful of people.<br /><br />I also don’t think anyone can be blamed for examining the district’s own numbers in trying to assess the capacity issue. According to the enrollment report, there are roughly 150 open seats on the east side – and that’s using a 23-student-per-room basis, which, though it would be nice, few of our schools actually use. Also according to the report, growth is projected to grow by 3.6 percent by 2015-16, which, even if the east side took a proportional share of that growth, wouldn’t push it past capacity. So I think it’s pretty reasonable for people to ask where the flaw in those numbers is.<br /><br />When you talk about all the people who have predicted a capacity problem, that would be great information to have, but people are right to be skeptical and to want to see the numbers. Do you have any links to those analyses? <br /><br />I’m happy to hear more about the numbers, but I’d also like to hear two other topics discussed. First, if there is a capacity issue, what are all of the possible ways to address it? Second, would building a new school on the far east side worsen the existing FRL disparities between schools? Yes, I’d like to hear from Twain parents, but I’d also like to hear what proponents of the new school think the effect on Twain, and on FRL disparities generally, will be. <br /><br />By the way, I’m not at all objecting to sending Lake Ridge families to Twain. I brought the topic up only because Dan suggested that it would be hard to make use of the capacity at Twain, when in fact the district’s plan makes use of most of it.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07559356125770114400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-65730877652001433382012-03-18T22:53:50.018-05:002012-03-18T22:53:50.018-05:00Julie, you'll be glad to know that Jason has r...Julie, you'll be glad to know that Jason has reached out to me (it helps that we're in the same fantasy football league and the same book club :), and I'm trying to arrange a time this week that some of us in the Longfellow PTA can get together with him to discuss how Twain parents feel about a possible additional east-side school.<br /><br />I too, have a tremendous amount of respect for Jason and for the staff and parents at Twain, and as you (Julie) have eloquently said several times, we parents need to start working together and helping the District come up with effective solutions, which means working with each other's best interests in mind, not against each other. <br /><br />My feeling is that none of us has all the answers, but working together, if our minds and hearts are in the right place, we do. Not to be cheesy about it or anything, but 2 heads are better than 1, and 200 heads are better still.<br /><br />More in a bit....I'm working on gathering some of the data Chris was asking for.....Dan Shawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-84303987530014579612012-03-18T22:08:14.469-05:002012-03-18T22:08:14.469-05:00Even with the southward redistricting shift the di...Even with the southward redistricting shift the district has on the table right now, we will still run out of elementary seats on the east side shortly. This has been predicted by RSP, the University’s Geography Dept in the past, the current district person from the UI Geography department doing this round of projections, this year’s east side enrollment numbers, the current superintendent, the previous superintendent, and I can’t even recall how many others right now. Believe me, I am the first to demand the district explain its numbers (I begged them at the City High forum to at least add a legend to all maps and tables that explains what their numbers are based on) but your blog is the ONLY place I’ve seen anyone suggest that the east side isn’t pretty much out of seating in the elementary level. It will take years to build a new elementary regardless of who attends Twain and Hills. <br /><br />The Lake Ridge families have been open enrolling their children out of the district to Highland en masse since they were first moved out of Hills Elementary to Twain against their wishes. Last summer’s petition from Lake Ridge clearly shows the preferences of the neighborhood to attend Hills NOW. Please, stop ignoring it. With Lake Ridge back to Hills, Hills will be close to capacity with people who WANT to be there.julie vandyke firehorse66@netins.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8285353362748898720.post-64441172339056722912012-03-18T21:23:42.756-05:002012-03-18T21:23:42.756-05:00Chris said, “The Patch article mentions that Jason...Chris said, “The Patch article mentions that Jason Lewis, the head of the Twain PTO, sees the redistricting "as good step toward improving Twain's 71 percent free-and-reduced lunch rate." I'd be interested to hear the views of the Twain parents on a new elementary school and on how it might affect Twain.” <br /><br />So would I. Have you contacted Jason Lewis (who I believe gave out his email address during the City High forum last week)? <br /><br />Somehow the district never seems to be able to capture the perspective of a larger cross-section of Twain parents (or that at ANY of the schools with the high FRL numbers). I’ve explained many times now why the methods they use over and over don’t succeed and I’ve suggested a variety of things they could try. Perhaps some of the rest of you would like to step up at the next board or redistricting meeting and make some suggestions about what could work or, gasp, actually back me on that when I said it over and over again at board meetings and redistricting meetings for the last 3 years? Where is everybody with a stake or concern in this that doesn’t come to the board meetings, redistricting meetings, board committee meetings, joint county meetings etc.? <br /><br />Just saying, oh, I wonder what they think is lame unless you do something to find out what they think. I think we can all pretty much see “they” aren’t making comments on the PC boards, commenting on blogs, or doing the district’s online surveys. <br /><br />Jason Lewis stepped up as PTO President at Twain and I admire him for it greatly. You want to talk thankless jobs, PTO is it and president is the most work of all. <br /><br />I spent 2.5 days walking through the Lake Ridge court last summer going door to door to find out what “they” thought. It’s getting really old to work so hard to help that happen when so many people who don’t just stand around saying, I wonder. If you want to know what they think – do something about it…or do I have to be the one to go door to door for you in the Twain feeding courts too? For each of you that says, I wonder, please let me know what you have personally done to find out and share it with the district because that is what’s needed here, personal involvement beyond anonymous comments on boards. <br /><br />You all ask so many questions but seem to want others to just feed you their reasoning about what should be done rather than take more than a few minutes to glance over report figures that you don't spend the time to learn about the details behind - educate yourselves or ask where to find it. Make an effort to answer your questions because otherwise you're going to be standing their scratching your heads wondering what happened, how, and why just like you are now on this board.julie vandyke firehorse66@netins.netnoreply@blogger.com