At the K orientation at Shafer yesterday it was indicated that 110 students are expected next year (up from 91 as of 11/17/06 this year) and the all-day program for at-risk students will accept 30 of the 110 students. There are currently four AM K classes and one PM K class. There are also two full-day student PM K classes for a total of 3.5 K teachers.
110 students divided by five K classes equals 22 students per class. The average number of K students per class this year at Shafer is 18.2, LNES is 17.5, and Bushkill is 18.8.
Prior to the vote to approve the redistricting, the Board and Dr. Lesky were asked about class sizes in light of the hiring freeze and Dr. Lesky responded that k-3 has a target of 22 and 4 & 5 a target of 25. Shafer will get more teachers with new students.
In addition to the target, though, the class size should be equitable from building to building as it would hardly be fair to redistrict students to Shafer and then have those students experience class sizes 20% or more larger than the other two buildings.
On the same evening the School Board was voting on the redistricting plan, the Shafer PTA meeting was taking place and the published minutes (read them here) of the meeting include Principal Mudlock's report which states:
Principal’s report: Mr. Mudlock thanked...There is also a school board meeting tonight, and a few things on the agenda tonight are: the 4,5,6 building, the pool, and they will be voting on the new boundary lines for the elementary schools. Shafer will be enrolling 100 new students next year, we have been averaging 5/month and with that in mind the projected class sizes for next year at Shafer are: 1st - 27, 2nd - 25-27, 3rd - 30-32, 4th -27, and 5th 32. There will also be hiring freeze next year within the district.These projected numbers all meet or exceed the targets Dr. Lesky referenced at the Board Meeting, some by nearly 30%.
Again, it will be important to not only meet the targets, but for the NASD to ensure equitable class size from building to building, which right now appears to mean at least a re-assignment of teachers and maybe some new hires. I would think this will need to be considered soon given the desire to keep the tax increase to 4.2%.
8 comments:
kelley joseph-
In Sept I asked the school board how they could justify a 2nd asst superintendent position @ 100K per year but not hire an additional first grade teacher at Shafer, when classroom sizes are 23 and 24 per.
At that time school board member Mr Heller told me the target was 20:1. I have yet to ask the board when it became 22 for K-3, the number they told me last month when I addressed the board about classroom sizes at Shafer for the upcoming school year.
The PA dept of education recommends a 15:1 ratio for K-3 to increase academic and behavioral performance and reduce future needed remedial intervention. Check out the website and review the research findings.
PLease don't argue that when you were a kid class sizes were such and such a number....times have changed and so have the students...just spend some time in the classroom and you'll see why it is imperative we keep class sizes within the targetted ratios, which I feel are even too high now!
also worth mentioning is that Bushkill Elem has 94 students in 1st grade with 5 teachers, resulting in 18-19 per class while Shafer has the same # of 94 students in first grade with 4 teachers resulting in 23-24 per class...agree with Ross it is important we treat all the elem.s in the district equally---
board says one thing and principal syas another-guess we will know in september who was speaking the truth
Anonymous - you asked how they could justify the 2nd Assistant Supt. @ 100k instead of hiring a new teacher; they gave you an answer about class sizes, did they address the 2nd Supt. question?
Kelley can answer as well, but I was at that meeting and don't recall them ever addressing the admin position, except that they were not hiring the IT positions (network admin and I forget the other position).
They also noted they were not cutting staff. The savings budgeted in staff retirements reflected the difference between the teachers at the top end retiring and the low end coming in, not cutting those positions.
Therefore the hiring freeze was only hiring additional staff above and beyond current levels.
Of course they then created the new administrator post for transportation, but justified that by allegedly eliminating the vice principal post held by the individual who was filling the new post.
Should also note that there was something stated at the most recent Shafer PTA regarding all day k.
Two individuals contacted me to say that a request was going to the board from Principal Mudlock to have Shafer serve as a pilot for all-day K for all students.
Having a daughter going into K next year this didn't sit well, so I contacted him.
He clarified that he is going to have a group evaluate the pro's and con's of all day K, and will not be requesting the Board implement it for the 2007-08 school year.
kelley joseph again-
at sept's board mtg it was during the teachers contract negotiations that I brought up the subject of the addtl superintendent position being created but not an addtl 1st grade teacher for SES--
please note it is not instead of in my mind as 8:15 anon stated--I am not qualified to ascertain the admin staffing needs I just wanted to know how the board could justify class sizes of 23-24 in 1st grade when the limits were 20 for K-3 as I was told by Mr Heller of the school board
and no, I did not receive an answer as to the asst super. hiring
of interest I called the other districts in Lehigh & northampton counties back in october to see if they had 1 or 2 asst super.s
of the 16 districts many had 0 and 1 asst supers, but the ones that had 2 are (with enrollment #'s following)
allentown 16.9 K
east penn 7.1 K
bethlehem 14.7 K
easton 8.4 K
nazareth 4.7 K
northampton 5.6 K
of interest to me was parkland, as the admin. often compares our district to them
parkland has has an enrollment of 8.7 K and only 1 asst super
addtionally bangor has an enrollment level of 3.8 K and 0 asst super's--
to me there really isn't much consistency in staffing levels and maybe someone else can explain further--- but at the time the only thing I was trying to address was the apparent ability of the board to find $ for admin staffing needs but not for in class room staffing needs
not much unlike the fact that the board cut the purchase of 3 portable computer labs from the budget a couple of board mtgs ago to save 100K at an attempt to meet our budget for 07/8 but this last mtg a 1.2M turf was approved
baffles me- you?
meant to clarify the portable computer labs were specifically for the elementary schools-
sorry for the oversight-
Post a Comment