During first Community Corner two things were brought to the boards attention by Mr. Scott Hartner. The first one had to do with the NASD website and the presence of pictures of school children. Mr. Hartner stated that there were 13 sex offenders in the 18064 zip code and that the pictures of the children on the NASD website could easily be downloaded. The board said they would look into it. The second item was about the possibility of fencing in the playground at Shafer ES. It was mentioned by Mr. Heller that this item had been discussed previously. The board would take it up at a future Buildings & Grounds Meeting.
II. Correspondence and Presentation: A letter from St. Jude Children's Reseach Hospital was received and read regarding Lower Nazareth ES participation in the Math-A-Thon
III. Area Updates
- B1. Curriculum and Instruction - No report
- B2. Board Committee Curriculum Report - There was a curriculum meeting today (4/16) and they discussed K-3 staffing, allotments, etc. There was a comment about how curriculum changes at one grade affect all others (e.g., if 1st grade was to cover more material, then subsequent grades 2-9 would have to be adjusted accordingly). The next Curr. Comm. meeting will be held on 5/14 at 5:30 and is open to the public (they will be further discussing K-3 staffing, ADKg curriculum, etc).
- B3. Board Committee Technology Report - TV studio at HS is finished. 7-8 technology planning for new MS is on-going.
- B4. Board Committee Area Reports - Mr. Heller reports the CIT project is still below budget. He also wanted to highlight the 3 students who participated in the Skills America/USA contest that was mentioned in the newspaper previously.
IV. Educational Program Considerations
B. A change to the 2007-2008 calendar is to be considered. Some new dates are:
- 9/4/07 : First day of school (after Labor Day)
- 4/17/08 - 4/21/08 : Spring Break (unlike this year, students would return to school the Monday after Easter)
- 6/11/08 : Last day of school
V. Finance Board Considerations
- 1b. Budget Meeting Date - April 25, 7:00 PM. There will be advertisements made announcing this meeting. (*ED NOTE: I encourage everyone who is able to show up. There will be a lot of items affecting all of our children's education discussed at this meeting*)
- Additional budget items were discussed peripherally. The tax rebate for senior citizens was discussed. This is a cut that Mr. Keller has previously stated "bothered him".
- 2e. Approve the following Employee Benefit Trust of Eastern Pennsylvania Monthly Funding Rates for the NASD effective July 1, 2007. (I won't post the rates, they are available in the posted agenda). It was stated that the 2007-08 rates represent a 15% increase over 06-07. Audit and Finance Committee supports.
- 2g. First Reading of District Policy #623 Fund Balance. Protection of the fund balance has been called "essential" and a means of "protecting the bond rating of the district".
VIII. Facilities and Operations Resolutions - Motion Passed
A. The Facilities and Operations Committee recommended the following summer capital projects:
- Bushkill electrical service expansion: $84,500
- Shafer water infilitration at front: $9,750
- Bushkill fire alarm upgrade: $71,500
- HS parking expansion: $78,000
- HS removal and replacement of sidewalk and curbing $35,100
Bushkill Power Outage on 4/16 was discussed. The kids were bussed down to the HS where they were entertained by the theatrical department practicing "No No Nanette" and others. The HS students apparently helped out a great deal with the kids.
The NASD Projected ES 2007-2008 Enrollments were presented. There were three class sizes that Dr. Lesky was concerned about:
- At Bushkill ES, next year's 5th grade is projected to have 100 students and 4 teachers (25/class).
- LNES, 3rd grade next year is projected to have 111 students and (currently) 5 teachers (22-23 class). Apparently, that is at the limit for LNES, so numbers were presented that would account for an additional teacher being hired (6 classes of 18-19 each).
- Shafer, KG is projected to have 103 students. Each class is projected to have 20-21 students except EDK which would have 15 in the morning and 15 in the afternoon.
The admin is watching these classes (and all classes) as the summer comes and more students potentially move in. Also, there is approximately $150K in budgetary reserve to hire additional teachers (3) to help reduce the number of student/class.
Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.
Thanks again to Brad Moulton for attending, taking notes, and sharing them with everyone!
13 comments:
I think that fencing around Shafer is a very improtant issue. Shafer is unique in that unlike Bushkill & Lower Nazareth, it is surrounded by residential streets. When the children play outside, they are easily viewed by anyone walking or driving by. It makes sense then, to ensure that they are not easily accessible by those same people. Yes, this is Nazareth & we all like to think that bad things won't happen here. But, today's world is a scary place. Just take a look at the number of registered sex offenders in our area. Shouldn't we make any effort to ensure the safety of our children? A fence would be a step in the right direction.
Brad- spring/easter break for 08 is in March not April as noted
Kelley
Brad/Ross-
looking at the enrollment projections from last nights meeting I am totally confused in regards to K--maybe you can clarify?
the edk is incorporated in with other students in the am sessions and isolated to only edk in the pm session right?
look at your lists and let me know how the #'s work for all 3 elementaries...shouldn't more staff be noted on the sheets?just looking at Bushkill I don't get how the #'s work-
kelley
Kelley-
Thanks for the Spring Break comment. Yes, you are correct...it was late last night ;)
As for the EDK numbers, Ross and I were just exchaning emails. Given that I heard there were 30 EDK kids, they must be incorporating them into the other classrooms during one half of the day. At least that's what it appears.
The handouts were not posted on the Board minute page so I can't speak to the projections, but I do think it is important that the three schools have equitable numbers, particularly in K & 1. It would seem unfair if Shafer is relieving Lower of excess students and as a result has significantly larger individual class sizes. Did the other two schools have K classes around 21?
Regarding K at Shafer, I contacted Mr. Mudlock and it seems the way EDK was conducted previously may not be the same in the future as he confirmed the following:
The EDK program will again have 30 students, and those students will be in school all day and we will have the all day K pilot program taking place in addition to the traditional half day K, however, the class schedule and obviously roster, for all K students has not yet been determined.
Ross-
I sent you a copy of the projected enrollments this afternoon.
To answer your question:
Bushkill KG has 3 teachers. Two AM classes with 19 and one AM EDK with 15. The afternoon is the same. Total KG = 76 students
LNES has 3.5 teachers. Three AM classes with 17 and one AM EDK with 15. Two PM classes with 17 and one PM EDK calss with 15. Total KG = 85 students
Shafer has 4 teachers. Three AM classes with 21 and one AM EDK with 15. Two PM classes with 20, one PM FTK class with 21 and one PM EDK with 15. Total KG = 103 students.
Hope that answers your questions.
I understand the comment about equitable class sized among the elementary schools.
However, is that really possible? LN (and I think Bushkill as well) have septic systems, not public sewer like Shafer.
This is the ultimate limiting factor as to TOTAL enrollment at these other schools. These systems are only designed to handle a finite number of students.
Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of the posters to this site live in the boro, and have students predominantly at Shafer. You need to take a broader view and not just look at the raw numbers.
Students that should have been at Shafer all along (Tatamy and Stokertown) have been being diverted to LN raising it to its enrollment capacity while Shafer has been below capacity for some time.
Those of us in LN and Bushkill pay the same taxes as you in Shafer, and merit the same consideration. Shafer is NOT the only elementary school in NASD.
Ross is the only one that I have seen propose a solution (some months back) that would alleviate crowding at ALL schools (yes, there is that pesky middle school issue and the fact that the high school will soon exceed capacity).
Putting all your focus and energy into one school that only affects you is ignoring the broader issue with the district.
I don't think anyone here is ignoring the other schools. Just pointing out that Shafer must not have the larger class sizes (no elem schools should).
They should all be equitable (i.e. smaller).
The board should hire the appropriate number of teachers to keep the class sizes down at all schools.
What was being pointed out was that as the redistricting is starting, the board needs to be prepared to supplement Shafer with the correct staff (they have stated publicly that that is the intention).
To clarify as anon pointed out, I was only referring to individual classroom sizes and teacher allocation.
At one of the meetings it was discussed that the ideal ratio for K was something like 15, while the district 'cap' is 21 or 22 for k-3 and I believe up to 25 for 4-6, Kelley had those numbers and can confirm.
The EDK is set at the ideal of 15.
What concerned me was that the redistricting (again as anon pointed out) does shift students and if the result is larger class sizes then staffing should be adjusted as well.
As a parent, to see my daughter in a k class of 22 while the other two buildings have class sizes of 16-18, it seems pretty unfair.
The argument works both ways, it just so happens that Shafer had significantly larger sizes at K level.
The building capacity issue is not really relevant to class size, until you run into a case like LNES and modulars are needed, which creates several issues, and special teachers lose their classrooms as can also happen if you get too close to capacity.
Hope this clarifies my concern and thanks for the reading and commenting! Don't ever hesitate to send me an email if you have an issue you want to raise for discussion regarding LNES or Bushkill. I do tend to have more on Shafer because my daughter attends, but I'm open to having as much on the others as well - I just need to know what it is!
Absolutely think it is necessary to insure equity among all 3 of the elementary schools--
Would anyone gripe if there was a gifted program in one ES and not the other two? Of course they would. So should hold true with all the elements that contribute to the success of the education we provide to all the elementary students in the district.
My daughter has a class of 24 in 1st grade at Shafer, the other 3 classes are 24 and 25. Bushkill doesn't have a 1st grade class with more than 2o, most are at 19 even. Principal Yanek fought and got another 1st grade teacher last summer,good for Bushkill but fair to Shafer? Again we all pay the taxes so why the # inequity?
I was assured by Dr Lesky at the redistricting meeting in Feb that the students routed to Shafer would not result in larger classroom sizes for Shafer...and as Ross has stated repeatedly that should not be the case.
---Kelley Joseph
Ross-
at the school board mtg I was talking with one of the ES PTA reps whose child is in 5th..
it prompted my thoughts about the impact of 4 schools on parental involvement, and on PTA in particular...
it seems to me that much of the PTA success is the result of past history and continuity of parent involvement..but when you have kids changing schools at 4 years, then again after 3 years, then again after 2 the continuum is broken...
wonder if there is any statistical basis to my gut feeling that parents will be less involved when their kids are in multiple schools--parents can only be stretched so far---
for instance there is a PTA ice cream social function tonight at Shafer--I plan to attend but with three kids 5 years apart academically I wonder in the years to come what choices I will have to make when it comes to which functions I can attend---
unfortunately just another negative impact of increasing the school mobility factor in our kids education...
Kelley
Kelly - you bring up a good point about parental involvement (and my chief concern) - and it's something that was brought up during the committee meetings held to determine what school to build. Since the building decision has been made, I think it is important to ensure this is brought up as the new building nears completion - it will take alot of communication and coordination - but if enough thought/effort are put into it - hopefully it will work out.
Kelley-
Very astute observation. I would also guess that parental involvement would be negatively affected by having kids in multiple schools.
Sharon-
I am glad that someone was at least considering this when the school was be discussed. However, I fear that even with careful planning by all schools and PTAs, parental involvement will be less. Even if there is no scheduling conflict, it might be too much to ask to expect parents to turn out for multiple functions/meetings in any given week.
Post a Comment