Disparity in Class Sizes: Simple Solution Rejected

October 13, 2010, 9:00 a.m.

Community's Choice is "Patch and Mend"
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sixteen months ago, in a Press-Citizen column regarding the disparity in our local schools' class sizes (among other things), I asked: "the issue is whether the community -- the district's stakeholders, including board members -- want to seize this opportunity. Are we willing to consider creative approaches, whether cluster schools or others? Or would we rather continue to patch and mend?"

This morning's Press-Citizen provides the answer. We would rather continue to patch and mend. Rob Daniel, "Board questions class sizes; Disparity among SINAs brought before Feldmann," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 13, 2010, p. A3:

Iowa City School Board members questioned why classes in some schools were so much larger than others Tuesday night. . . .

The numbers, which were as of Sept. 23, showed regular education classes ranging from 12 to 27 students per class in kindergarten through second grade and 13 to 31 students per classes in grades 3 to 6. . . .

West High . . . currently has a Spanish class with 41 students . . ..

This is the community's fault. It's not the fault of the past or present superintendent, board members -- and certainly not Ann Feldmann.

This is really very simple math. And the community flunked the exam.

What we have are relatively fixed boundaries for each elementary school; and very few -- often two or three -- classrooms for each grade level within each school (that is, two or three third grades, two or three fourth grade classrooms, and so forth).

Daniel reports the District's goal is an average of 25.1 students per teacher in grades 3 to 6, but that the actual numbers range from 13 to 31 students per class.

This is like the person with a foot in a bucket of ice water and hand in a pot of boiling water, who is "on average" quite comfortable.

So long as you have 50 third graders in a building you can have two third grades, each with 25 students and one teacher. The goal of an average of 25 per class is met.

But what if you have 63 third graders in the building? If you want to stick to a 25-student maximum you will have to hire another teacher -- to teach a third grade of 13 students. Or, you can have one third grade of 32 students and another of 31.

Do you see the problem?

Now suppose you consider three elementary schools that are near each other as a unit, or "cluster." Parents and students identify with their cluster, rather than an individual building. One has 63 third graders, another 39, and the third 52 -- for a total of 154. Examine those third graders in the building with 63. Who are the 13 who most recently enrolled in that school? If they are moved to the building with 39, one school ends up with two third grades of 25 students each, and the other two schools with two third grades each, all with 26 students per classroom.

The "cluster school" idea is a template, not a cookie cutter. It's like an empty spreadsheet into which you can put whatever data and formulas you wish. You can also use it to reduce the number of principals -- or not. You can use it as a way of redrawing a district's school boundaries -- or not. You can use it to minimize (or eliminate) the disparity in percentages of "free-and-reduced lunch" students in each building -- or keep the disparities that exist, or even make them greater.

Nothing is mandated. It is a way of minimizing (or eliminating) disparity in class sizes -- and usually with significantly increased parent and student satisfaction, and significantly reduced cost.

With "local control of schools" a community can choose to do it, or not. We have chosen not to do it. But having chosen to value lack of "change" over all other values and options, we can no longer complain that we have great disparity in individual class sizes.

We also need to remind ourselves from time to time that ours is a public school system that is only possible with the generous support of local citizens' property and sales taxes, plus some state and federal taxpayers' funding. That means that no individual stakeholder has an entitlement to, or should be able to, dictate the details of its operation so as to provide them with 100% satisfaction in every particular. Cluster schools will improve the operation of the entire District. They will make some happier, and others more frustrated.

Those who wish 100% satisfaction should consider the private schools that exist in the community, or the possibility of creating a charter/magnet school of their own. But so long as they are the beneficiaries of something on the order of $100 million of public money modest compromises that involve both improvement and the dreaded "change" will be necessary from time to time.

Removing the disparity in class sizes is but one example of that truth.

Here's last year's column (as embedded in "Cluster Schools: Option for IC District?" June 3, 2009):

District needs cluster schools

Nicholas Johnson
Guest Opinion
Iowa City Press-Citizen
June 3, 2009
Do we need a do-over, a district-wide rethinking of our elementary schools' boundaries?

Based on citizens' organizations, talk at meetings, this newspaper's editorials, columns and readers' online comments, that seems to be the community consensus.

What might be helpful now are conceptual ideas that attempt to make the most of this opportunity, while taking into account the desires of students, parents, teachers, school board members, central administrators, taxpayers, developers and realtors.

Here are some approaches that, with community input and modification, might have potential.

They could:

• Be politically feasible, minimize family disruption, and maximize developers' and realtors' advance notice, by implementing them gradually over, say, three to six years.

• Reduce busing costs.

• Cut administrative costs by two-thirds.

• Equalize grades' class size.

• Reduce overcrowding and equalize percentage occupancy of schools.

• Provide central administration flexibility in assigning students to schools.

• Maintain present schools while minimizing taxpayers' burden for costly new ones.

• More nearly equalize each school's percentage of free-and-reduced-lunch students.

Obviously, all features and details would be subject to stakeholders' input and tweaking, but here are the basic concepts:

We could have "clusters" of, usually three, contiguous schools.

There could be three categories of boundaries: each school's, each cluster's and the areas outside clusters (like the present flex areas).

Student populations within schools and clusters could be small enough to allow, say, 10 years' projected growth and flexibility.

Those within a given cluster, but outside each of its three schools' boundaries, might attend any of the cluster's schools.

Because each cluster would have more, say third-graders, than would an individual school, we could more nearly equalize individual schools' third-grade class size throughout the clusters and district.

Those students within the district, but outside all individual clusters, could be assigned to any cluster -- usually the nearest one.

Once assigned to a cluster, a student could stay there from kindergarten through sixth grade.

The number of students projected to be within each cluster could be designed to provide all district schools with more nearly equivalent percentage occupancy. For example, if all schools needed to be at 90 percent occupancy to accommodate all district students, a school that can hold 200 would have 180; a school that holds 400 would have 360. None need be overcrowded.

Presumably something like this approach would reduce both the number of students, distance, time and cost involved in busing. More students could walk or bike to school.

With all schools even more equal in quality than they are now, there would be even less reason for increased urban sprawl, creating a more vibrant downtown.

Cluster schools make other creative innovations possible.

If desired, schools could be selected for clusters, boundaries drawn and students outside clusters assigned, so as to more nearly equalize the percentages of free-and-reduced-lunch students in each cluster and school.

Each school could have a "lead teacher" to assist colleagues with curriculum and staff development (rather than a "principal"). With only one administrator-principal per cluster, administrative costs would be cut two-thirds. (Reassignments and attrition could avoid layoffs of principals.)

A cluster might devote one school to K-3 students, another to grades four and five and a separate school for sixth graders -- or other combinations.

A cluster's schools might want to share resources, or develop magnet programs in science, math or music open to all that cluster's students.

But those are issues for the future.

For now, the issue is whether the community -- the district's stakeholders, including board members -- want to seize this opportunity. Are we willing to consider creative approaches, whether cluster schools or others? Or would we rather continue to patch and mend?

"Local control of schools" means it really is our choice -- and our children's future.
__________
Nicholas Johnson, a former member of the Iowa City School Board, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains the Web sites http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com and www.nicholasjohnson.org.

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #