Item #

Agenda Topic

Presenter

Item

1.

Scheduling

R. Akers

Work session started at 4:30 to discuss scheduling.  Mr. Akers presented the council with two handouts, one showing the staffing for 4 x 4 block and one showing staffing for a 6 period day.  Mr. Akers advised that the staffing formula for next year has been reduced from a staff of 1 to 22 to a staff of 1 to 20.  The new staffing formula will cause a reduction of 3 staff members.  Mr. Akers had an informational (non mandatory) meeting, on April 7^th, with the teachers to discuss both options.  The common theme among the staff was to not change the teacher climate at the high school.  A 4 x 4 block could increase class sizes and staff would have to be reduced by three.  Mr. Akers advised that some cuts could come through attrition (there is one retirement in English, a contract up in Science and there could be a move from PE to Aimes). However, this would only be a short term solution.

The floor was opened up to guest:

Mr. Iglehart spoke representing the science department.  (Handout presented).  Mr. Iglehart is extremely concerned regarding the possibility that the contract position that ends this year in science might not be re hired.  Mr. Iglehart added that a decrease in teaching staff would greatly reduce the number of science electives that could be offered to students.  He also felt that fewer electives could cause overall test scores to decline and also felt that the number of electives in his department would cause a loss of equity among departments.  It was explained that the science department has excelled on a 4 x 4 block.  Science test scores have increased and a 4 x 4 allows for more lab time.  Mr. Iglehart stated that the science department wants to do which ever schedule will keep the contract position and would not negatively affect the amount of science electives offered.  Ms. Lusby added that electives would be cut very little, because students have to have classes to take.

Ms. Thacker spoke representing the math department. (Handouts presented)  Ms. Thacker indicated that the math department would like to see a 6 period day.  This would allow for math to be taken all year.  Her department feels that math has suffered on a 4 x 4 block.  She also expressed her hope that no core content teachers would be cut.  Although Ms. Thacker felt that electives were important, that if given the choice, she would rather see electives cut that core content classes.  She ended with her desire to see Algebra 2 as a year long course as it is important for college bound students.

Mr. Cunliffe spoke representing the business department.  Mr. Cunliffe started by saying that the programming class started with 0 students and is now up to 85.  He stated that students take business courses because they are interested in them.  To eliminate a position in this area would eliminate something that is good for the students.  Students need electives and students should be able to choose classes that are best for them.  If the students could at least learn Excel before reaching the high school level, this could eliminate the need for a technology credit, giving students an opportunity to take the classes because they want to vs. it being a graduation requirement.  Mr. Cunliffe’s department prefers the 4 x 4 block because it allows more time for labs and to get computer assignments done.  The computer department already has large classes.  A 6 period day could possibly cut 2 positions from his department and he really feels that this would be a detriment to the students.  Not every student is college bound and to have some computer skills would at least help some obtain jobs after high school.  Mr. Jenkins added that even though students come in saying they have computer skills, once the class starts, the students are completely lost and have a need to know the basic computer applications.

Mr. Jenkins also added that he felt that computer numbers were down because the desktop publishing class name was changed to business principles to match the state and to get more core content covered in the class.  Students probably did not realize that this was the same class and did not sign up for it.  Mr. Jenkins feels that the business department went to great lengths to accommodate what was being requested of them and in return they are now at risk of possibly losing electives and a teacher because of it.

Ms. Hamilton spoke representing the English/Foreign Language department.  Ms. Hamilton started by stating that just because there was a retirement in the English department and that would be an easy way for many to eliminate a position that more should be taken in consideration regarding the English Department.  Currently there are 9 ½  teachers/teaching positions.  English plays the biggest part in testing and the department is responsible for portfolio pieces and grades.  A loss of even one teacher in the English department would be critical, they would lose a writing resource and possibly two electives.

Both Mrs. Perry and Mrs. Hartsell spoke to support the French program citing that it is a viable curriculum at the high school.

Mr. Mastin asked about a possible reduction in principals or counselors.  Mr. Akers advised that the high school currently has 3 ½ principals.  The principals are all being used to their capacity not only doing their daily duties, but thus far this year they have handled over 2000 discipline issues.  The principals are attending hearings, 504 meetings, etc.

As far as the counselors, there are three counselors handling over 1200 students (grade checks, scheduling, graduation requirements, testing, etc.)  and they currently have a social worker only part time in a needed full time position.  A social worker is extremely important, especially in the high school.  There are many issues that are being addressed by the social worker that are more complex than many people even know.  Many students have serious issues outside of the school setting.  It was asked if the board office is also cutting positions and Mr. Akers answered ‘Yes, they are”.

Mr. Gibson then added that we have to have a long term vision.  The council has a charge to increase student achievement and the focus should be on that.  What schedule would be best for the student and what schedule would be best to increase test scores since the state has placed a requirement for the schools to meet a certain level.  What many people do not understand is that the state is telling us what we need to do.  If test scores do not increase to what is needed, then the state will come in and make their own changes and at that point the council will not have a say in what happens.  So, therefore, it is extremely important to find a way to reach the goals that have been set.

Both math and English scores have to go up and we have to be at 100% in just a few years.

Mr. Merrill stated that since we can lose 4 through attrition, why don’t we just do that and move on.  We can re evaluate the situation again next year.

Mr. Mastin stated that we can’t keep carrying this problem from one year to another.  Something has do be done now and the council needs to reach some consensus about what will be best.  There is nothing to change the fact that positions are going to be lost, so lets look at the big picture and see what can be done.

After a lengthy discussion back and forth on the 4 x 4 vs. the 6 period day, the council narrowed things down to three proposals.

Proposal 1:

(Loss through attrition) 4 x 4 block

English thru retirement    lose 1

Foreign Language   lose 1 (French)

Change Math (Algebra 2) to full year.  Add 1

Science (contract position up) lose 1

Social Studies   No Change

Arts/Humanities  No Change

P.E.  lose 1 (Move that position to Aimes)

Business   No Change

Ag   No Change

Family/Consumer Science   No Change

Tech Ed    No Change

****************************

Proposal 2

4 x 4 block

English thru retirement  lose 1

Foreign Language  lose 1 (French)

Math  Add 1

Science   No Change

Social Studies  No Change

Arts/Humanities   No Change

Business   No Change

Ag  No Change

Family/Consumer Science    lose 1

Tech Ed   No Change

******************************

Proposal 3

6 period day

English    No change

Foreign Language   lose 1 (French)

Math No Change

Science  Add 1

Social Studies  No Change

Arts/Humanities  No Change

PE    lose 1

Business    lose 1

Family/Consumer Science   lose 1

Tech Ed    No Change

After much discussion, the proposals were then narrowed down to Proposal 2 and Proposal 3.

Proposal 2 Pros:

Kids are use to it

This is what the teachers want

Allows time for more lab time

More buy in

Will allow time to continue to research for another possible schedule solution

Proposal 2 Cons:

90 minutes is too long for some to sit in class

Would lose a English position and a writing position

There would be larger class sizes

There would be a need to cut core classes.

Proposal 3 Pros:

No core positions would be lost

There would be one less pink slip

Possible increase in test scores

Keep writing resource teacher and electives

Smaller class size

Proposal 3 Cons:

Teachers will have less plan time.

Students would be in the halls more and this could lead to an increase in discipline issues

The lab time would be shorter

There is less teacher buy in

There is less student buy in

Large increase in instructional minutes in cores areas

After a vote of council members, it was decided 7-5 in favor of the 4 x 4 (Proposal #2) with the stipulation that the scheduling committee continue to research possible schedules to see if there is anything that would work better (possibly a trimester).

Mr. Akers asked Ms. Lusby to re run all of the class sizes based on a 4 x 4 block under proposal #2.  It is understood by all that if the class sizes under this proposal are too large, that proposal 3 (6 period day) is what we will go to for next year.

The scheduling committee has been asked to continue their research on scheduling and to report their findings and suggestions at the September 2008 SBDM.

A special SBDM meeting will be held on Saturday, April 19 at 9:00 in the high school library for the second reading of this proposed schedule change.

2.

Adjourn

Meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM by consensus.