Peoria Board of Education member Jim Stowell has passed along a report he requested from staff on “Pupil-Teacher and Pupil-Administrator Ratios” from 1989 to 2008.
The report shows that, while enrollment has steadily declined over the past 20 years, the number of administrators has gone up. The pupil-administrator ratio in 1989 was 223.5:1. Last year it was 168.1:1.
Some questions remain. The report notes that deans used to be considered teachers by the Illinois State Board of Education, but are now considered administrators. That makes historical comparisons more difficult. However, the report doesn’t tell us how many deans there are in the district, or how big of a difference their change of status makes.
The report also does not define exactly who is and who is not considered an “administrator.” For instance, does this figure include the many consultants who retired, but were rehired on a per diem basis, like Cindy Fischer? Or does it only include full-time administrator positions?
Still, returning to the question of deans being changed from “teacher” to “administrator,” I don’t think this is enough to explain away the rise in administrators. In order for the district to have the same pupil-administrator ratio as 1989 (223.5:1) with 2008’s enrollment (13,642), they would have to have only 61 administrators. They have 81. No matter how you look at it, the administration is top-heavy.
Past practice was assistant principals on up were administrators. That included, assistant principals, principals, deans, principals, assistant directors, directors, assistant/associate superintendents, controller-treasurer, superintendent, and in the case of noncertified, operational staff, supervisory positions. Past practice also allowed two deans per high school but there were instances when a 3rd deans position was added because of issues in the school. It may be a little cumbersome, but checking the school rosters on the district’s website should give you the answer.
Since the consultants – for the most part – are retired administrators, they would be considered some type of administrative positions. If they supervise and evaluate other certified staff, then the position would require an administrative certificate and definitely qualify the position as administrative.
So if what Prairie Celt says is accurate, that means that the current student:admin ratio is even greater. Additionally, CJ, I doubt that all the “consulting” expenses are included in that figure. It has long been thought by people “in the know” and much smarter than I that the District relies on these “Consultant admins” to intentionally understate the Admin:Student ratio. Someone (Jim?) please feel free to prove me wrong!
C.J.–you beat me to it. I do believe we should thank Jim for giving us information–I doubt that we would have gotten it that easily from anyone else. So–thank you, Jim.
Jim rocks!
I fear that teachers’ salaries are often confused with the salaries of administrators–especially, if they just look at names on the Champion blog. There are a few teachers who make it to the high end salaries but most higher salaries go to deans, counselors, on up. For instance, I just checked out the deans for 2006-2007; these are their salaries.
$58,589, $77,325, $75,453, $66,853, $94,325, $89,889, $75,748, $56,051
Some primary and/or middle schools have no assistant principals, some have one, some have two–I believe, dependent on the number of students.
Sharon, that is correct. The district used to add an assistant principal once the student population reached a specific number of students. However, there are instances where the assistant principals have been added for other reasons than the number of students.
When analyzing teacher vs. administrative salaries, you must remember that these individuals have a responsibility factor included in their total compensation; in other words, their compensation is based upon their placement on the teacher salary schedule times the responsibility factor. Counselors were never technically considered administrators. Counselors and coordinators – although they receive a responsibility factor – are in a category all their own.
Watching the board meeting, Hinton is preaching again. Telling his story of being a Peoria boy. on and on and on and on. This story is getting old.
What’s getting old is that nut job Terry Knapp! WTF was that rant about when he was talking about getting punished? Really? Did he forget that there might be children watching the board meeting that DID NOT need to hear about a dead dog and blood all over hallways! And this is a man that some of you religiously follow? I think I’d think twice about following a nut job unless you want to look like fellow nuts.
I suppose though you’d rather have someone at the helm that can’t relate to the children in Peoria? You people are never happy!
hate much?
OMG Mary Spangler just said “I believe we need a longer school day”. She needs to notify herself.
Terry Knapp is not helping the cause. He needs to re-retire.
no serenity:
My my, someone is making things up. Your comments remind me of the rant you describe so well.
Go Martha! She questioned Hinton about consultants. Boy was she stifled and quick.
Serenity did you see the look Hinton gave her? Wow.
Am I the only one who feels that Hinton & Cahill just engaged in the practice of scare tactics with that budget litany that included dialogue that if they didn’t close the high schools this year and consolidate the primary and middle schools, then they would have to spend their reserves and not be able to pay back their $16M in borrowings so would have to borrow $28M and that would increase their interest expense from $250K to $1M? The upshot was that if that happened, then the district would be bankrupt and the state would take over. I am just appalled.
Prairie Celt: My take also about Hinton and Cahill’s little dialogue–seemed a bit planned to me–like “If you ask this question, then I’ll answer this way.”
Did any of you catch Gorenz’s snide comment about the people who asked the questions leaving before the discussion by the board. Gorenz said, “That sort of baffles me.” Spangler said, “They’re watching on TV.” Gorenz said, “We’re off the air by now.”
When I got home (because I did stay until the end), I checked the tape and the fulll meeting was on. I guess Gorenz expects parents with school age children and jobs, etc., to stay until after 10 p.m.
Spangler isn’t the only one who wants a longer day–so does Jim. We’ve had our arguments on that subject. So, Jim, I’m beginning to think it’s a good idea. I think that all the teachers, including the Edison teachers, should have a longer day with no extra pay. Then I want to see how excited they are about working at an Edison school.
Also, I have another question. Are there composite NCLB test scores–or are there just separate scores–one for math and one for English?
I know that the math scores (in many instances) are considerably higher than the language scores. With Chumbley’s little charts tonight–is it possible that he used only the math scores to brag about Franklin and Northmoor–without letting the public know that the reading scores weren’t quite so convincing?
A longer day wont help.
Now, if we can talk about a longer school year. Studies show summer vacation is one the WORST things you can do to lower income learning.
This is well known, but of course, it’s science which may be icky for those trying to decide how to educate kids.
Don’t argue with me, argue with Johns Hopkins.
http://www.rif.org/educators/articles/primeronSummerLearningLoss.mspx
Sharon are you aware that the Edison model calls for longer days and year but because of money issues, D150 has not followed this tenant?
Anyone know how much one of these staged “King and His Jesters” holding court meetings costs us?
Yes, I also believe that a longer school year, not a longer day, would be the better educational decision. I came to that conclusion many years ago. Yes, I am aware that the Edison model calls for longer days and years. My comment was, of course, facetious. Edison teachers get a longer day but also more pay. The administration’s problem is that they want all teachers to have a longer day but they don’t want to give all the extra pay (and undoubtedly can’t afford it now). So if they want to negotiate a longer day into the contract (as Jim proposes 33 hours to 40 hours a week), then they will have to convince all teachers (including Edison) to work the extra hour a day without extra pay. Edison teachers will lose money.
Jim pointed out last night that most teachers work extra hours every day–they do so because their own workload requires it (My opinion). The administration wants to use that extra hour for common planning–which won’t reduce the workload of the teachers who already spend more time at school, not to mention all the time spent at home.
Before I forget–another problem with the closure of Woodruff next year. Because the Peoria High building cannot hold all those students, the proposal is that the 9th graders will have to be housed at Loucks. The proposal also states that there will be no summer school this year.
Here is the problem: Students do fail classes. The seniors who fail a class or two can usually go to summer school to pass the classes and then graduate before the next school year–impossible for next year.
Secondly, students who fail classes often retake the classes during the regular school years. So there will be students who fail 9th grade classes. Will they be bused during the school day to Loucks to pick up the 9th grade class they failed and then bused back to their 10th-12th grade classes? I know the solution; teachers can be told not to fail anyone this year (again, I’m being facetious).
This is just one of the little details that may or may not occur to the planners–and these little matters that make a big difference often don’t occur to them until they becomes major problems.
everyone seems to be good at pointing out all the flaws in the the system and what has been proposed but does anyone have any real ideas how the district can make up the millions in shortfalls they will be facing over the next couple of years?
Suggesting cutting the administration salary wouldn’t even make a dent in it. Cutting Edison would not make it up.
It is going to take something big and cutting staff and closing some schools sounds like the only option. No one likes to do that but what choice at this point do they have?
peoriafan;
Elgin School District U-46 faced a similar problem in 2002-2003. Horrible financial shape. Compounded by a really poorly done software implementation.
Some schools went to year ’round calendars, others kept the agrarian calendar. I believe the RIF went to all teachers up to 4yr, meaning if you had less than 5 years in the district, you were RIF. Of course, some hire backs occurred. Just because you’re RIF doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t have a job next semester. They let go of 600 teachers initially.
I believe they closed seven schools, mostly below high school, and shuttered a newly built high school (South Elgin) until they could afford to open it.
I think what the community needs to keep in mind is what ever is proposed should be a near-term change to establish long-term change. Two years after the changes were implemented, they opened the new school and enrollment was the highest ever.
Elgin is in fairly good shape today and their problems were an order higher than what D150 faces, something like $56MM if I remember correctly.
What U46 learned, what D150 MUST learn, is you can’t treat parents, students, taxpayers, and educators as an after-thought. D150 is already behind…
Ed: Your last sentence about all of us being an after-thought–that is the problem. Last night someone, I think Hinton or Gorenz, said that they still had time to hear discussion, etc.–but it has already been made clear the decision has to be made before March.
As one speaker pointed out last night, District 150 has lost trust. Martha Ross asked some good questions last night–and did seem to indicate that she, like many of us, is not completely sure she is being fed the right figures about the deficit. There is a chance that the situation is dire but not as dire as Cahill states–right at negotiation time. Clearly, he wants the public on his side, not on the teachers’ side–and Jim’s talk about needing to raise taxes to keep a high school is, also, a good way to pit the public against teachers-or the district.
Here is my question. Why hasn’t anyone suggested closing Manual? It has the lowest enrollment (unless you want to count the newly added 7th and 8th grade); administrators and board members haven’t admitted it yet, but the school has many problems. And no one last night mentioned the expense of paying for the John Hopkins to be instituted at Manual next year–of course, they all expect it to be a miracle cure.
Does anyone know if there is any truth in what I heard recently: that there is some sort of state law stating that when school closings are considered, the one with the lowest enrollment should be closed. That seems logical.
Peoriafan suggests that naysayers are standing against all administration proposals. That is how much trust they have lost. Also, my main complaint is that all their proposals are last-minute, thrown together efforts–no preplanning, no attempt to get the public, teachers, etc., on their side before announcing such major decisions (in the guise of proposals). Someone around the horseshoe mentioned that the public has known about this proposal since December–gosh, that was a long time ago, wasn’t it?–after all, one could say it was last year.
“everyone seems to be good at pointing out all the flaws in the the system and what has been proposed but does anyone have any real ideas how the district can make up the millions in shortfalls they will be facing over the next couple of years?”
Candy and holiday greeting card sales????
We have no idea what closing Wisconsin would save the taxpayers. Certainly $58,000,000 or more. Maybe they sell the building to the Build the Block foundation for another million or so.
Peoriafan… If you read the PJStar comments, you’ll find LOTS of suggestions as to how to reduce costs… and you don’t have to be paying someone over $100K a year to identify them either. Here is a great one:
The full link is here: http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x1912995812/District-150-meeting-draws-protests
here is another from http://www.pjstar.com:
This isn’t rocket science. Ask a single Mom, or a two income family raising 5 kids, ask the guy next door. It’s not to hard to balance a budget. Always be mindful of the fact that D150 spends over $11,300 PER STUDENT! Sorry, if you can’t educate a kid for $11,300, you need to be in another line of work.
On further thought, just give us the $22,600 per year for both our kids and we’ll go elsewhere, thanks.
It sounds like the half dozen (vespa, kcdad, crews) or so that post all the time have all the answers to district 150’s problems. I would vote for all of you if run for school board.
No, really I would.
You should have no problem at all getting elected.
When’s the next election? I can’t wait for you to get in there and get things straightened out and get 150 back on track finally.
problem solved!
Of course, I won’t be running for school board. Of course, I do offer advice free of charge (an inexpensive consultant)–and, of course, I am just joking. Peorifan, I do understand your point. “Put your money where your mouth is.” That’s another of many reasons that I wouldn’t run for school board–no money to put where my mouth is.
Just heard President Obama discussing how important the FOIA is in keeping governments honest. We all need to take advantage of that privilege to find out what is really going on in 150 and to spread the word–the blogs are a great start. I think many people read this blog–even if they don’t contribute.
Peoriafan, I spent all last weekend canvassing for sigs to get the school board candidate of my choice on the ballot. How many sigs did you get? And don’t forget that you just promised me your vote… in April we will be asking for it! 😉
Sharon – the fact is District 150 does not want to dispurse the students attending Manual into the other high schools. And, I think that is the right decision. YOU of all people understand the challenges and troubles these students have. Diane would like to have her tax dollars to go elsewhere and leave all this turmoil and who can blame her. If the District begins to transfer too many underperforming students to, otherwise sufficient schools, Diane and others like her will find the funds for private education, other housing, etc. and flee.
I agree with Peoriafan, administrators salaries should be cut, other efficiencies shoudl be sought but . . . at the end of the day closing schools and reducing personnel is going to get the District the big bucks it needs.
By the way, other professionals work 40 hours per week as a minimum for a set salary and the rest of the hours expended are called “causal overtime.” I do not understand why the teaching profession is so different.
I know that quite a fuss would be raised about closing Manual for the reasons you suggest. But I don’t think your reason for objecting to dispersing Manual kids would be shared by most board members. Not all students at Manual fit the mold that you suggest. For instance, there is one group of juniors for sure–from West Peoria–one whose mother is a teacher in District 150 (and her grandfather and grandmother were also teachers in District 150) and her friends. Then, of course, one parent–Angela Cook–wrote on this blog recently. These particular juniors and their parents made a decision (when they were freshmen) to maintain family traditions, etc., and attend Manual. They were quite happy at Manual until this year when so many of their favorite teachers were lost due to restructuring.
There are also a significant number of West Peoria kids (only 48—way down in the last 10 years) and southside kids who don’t fit your mold either. They deserve a chance to be challenged more than they are at Manual. I admit I’m a bit unhappy with the stereotype you have painted for all students at Manual. Not very many “choice” options have been offered to these young people. The 8th grader in my life, the daughter of a 150 teacher, would have to go to Manual if she hadn’t been at Washington Gifted and thus eligible to enroll in Richwoods’ baccalaureate program next year.
The problem with Manual is the same problem that exists at Woodruff and Peoria High. There are students who do not conform to the rules, etc., and who spoil the school for the others—and the central administration and the Manual administrators make excuses for the behaviors (as Jim mentioned earlier poverty isn’t an excuse for underachieving—and I add “for misbehaving).
I agree that Manual (or no high school) should be closed until there is a viable alternative school. Manual, Peoria High, and Woodruff (and Richwoods) could become successful high schools if an alternative school were in place. And I would have no problem with Manual becoming the alternative school.
Frustrated: I missed your last sentence earlier. In what professions do employees work “casual overtime”? How are these professionals paid–by the hour or by yearly contract. I just never heard of it before. How many “casual overtime” hours do you expect teachers to work? I can’t speak for other teachers, but I know that the district could never have afforded to pay me all the hours I worked outside the classroom. I spent 8 hours in the building every day. Of course, teachers (especially, high school teachers) are asked to return at night for various activities (Open House, etc.) and often voluntarily return for school activities.
Certainly, college professors (who work under contract–not paid hourly) do not spend nearly as many hours in the classroom as do teachers. They have far more prep time per class–and I really don’t believe their hours in the classroom are nearly as stressful as are those of public school teachers. I am not sure how many hours they are expected to stay on the premises.
Many lawyers work many hours “overtime,” but the more (and better) they work, the more money they make. My guess is that most professionals who work hours over the required hours do so in order to go up the cooperate ladder, etc.
During my hours at school when I didn’t have classes, I spent considerable time at the copy machine, had parent conferences, straightened up my room, went to see deans, counselors, or administrators if I had questions about student matters, etc.–sometimes on some of the more stressful days, I just tried to rest before my next class. I took most of my work home–and, for the life of me, I don’t see why I couldn’t do that at home just as well as in the building–and I believe the taxpayers were still getting their money’s worth. I believe that more and more companies are offering “flex” time. I know that my cousin who was an engineer at Cat did most of his work at home–was just given projects and told to return when they were completed. So I really don’t get the 40 hours argument–because it would only serve to make taxpayers (Yes, and you, Jim–Ha!) happy. The teachers who aren’t as conscientious wouldn’t accomplish any more in that extra hour than they do now.
Sharon – I don’t paint Manual students anyway. The facts speak for themselves regarding the general population of students at this school. And I agree, there are still hard working students at Manual that deserve a chance. My generalized comment about Manual was really meant to convey a sentiment that many families share about their fears for the future of District 150. Parents that are engaged in their children’s lives and, as a result, have produced offspring that are relatively good students and are reasonably well-behaved, just want their school environment to contain other parents and students that share the same values and focus. I think this is a fact that cannot be disputed!!! Just look at the swelling enrollment of other public schools such as Dunlap, Washington, Morton, Metamora , Elmwood, and Tremont.
You know, I am the one that has been advocating all along that capable students from Manual should be provided with academic opportunities that meet their needs and that these students should be given a free pass to another school. But . . . I don’t in any way believe closing Manual and transferring hoards of struggling students to Richwoods or the other two schools for that matter, will do anything but drive good families and students away from the District, and will not change the course of those transferred Manual students one bit.
I have for many years been a cheerleader for District 150, but I must say my pom poms are getting pretty heavy these days. The constant turmoil of the District and the Boards’ single-minded focus, efforts, and expenditures on only the failing schools and students causes me pause as to how the District ever expects to attract and retain families and students of a different ilk. I still consider the education offered at Washington Gifted and through Richwoods’ IB program and AP programs the best educational opportunities available in the area, but for how long?? The type of students capable of feeding into these programs is shrinking as more and more families escape to the hinderlands for refuge.
Frustrated: I think we’re baack on the same page again. I’m just upset that Manual was allowed by administration to get into the shape it’s in today–it could have been stopped.
Sharon – Almost all professional employees (exempt employees) that I know that work in the private sector, work a minimum of 40 hours per week. As exempt employees they are paid a fixed annual salary for a “job” that they must complete, regardless of the hours required for completion. My husband works for a corporation and he routinely puts in 10 to 12 hour days in the office and then typically must participate in conference calls after he arrives home in the evenings and /or works an hour or more from home in the evenings and several hours over the weekend. I won’t even get into extensive travel demands and time away from family. And believe me, he is not doing anything special that his co-workers are not doing as well. This is not to climb the corporate ladder but to meet the demands of his employer and its customers and thus retain his position. Unlike teachers and other employee groups represented by unions, most employees are employed “at will” by the employer and thus can be terminated for cause or for no reason at all (at least in theory).
Sharon, I just read your last post. I understand how upset you are and how much you care. I can tell how much you so want District 150 to succeed. I do too!
Frustrated: I’m not going to ask how much your husband makes for putting in all those hours–I’m afraid you’ll say $40,000 to $50,000; then I’ll have to admit that teachers should work a 40-hour week.
This all reminds me of Bush’s comment to the woman who said she worked three jobs just to get by: HE said, “How uniquely American”.
It is disgusting. It is unethical and it robs us of our ability to enjoy life.
Well kcdad – at least something we can agree on, finally!
I worked 3 jobs once to get ahead and pay off student loans.
Ed,
I have argued against the Hopkins for years. It is designed to raise standardized test scores not to increase higher level courses to truly prepare students for success beyond high school.
In their 4 block system higher level courses in high school severely suffer. I am very familiar with teaching AP and the extended breaks between sessions have a substantial negative impact.
I have argues with JH people in their own seminars and when I lay out the lost instructional hours that their plans offer to higher courses they have no answer.
Wow… must not type so fast and hit submit in the future…
darn mornings… lol
Frustrated: You will come around, resistance is futile.
Diane: How is the real estate business? Fulfilling? How is it different from selling used cars? (Other than the different social status associated with the two jobs)
I know, I know.. I just can’t help myself, sometimes.
Impartial Observer:
I was speaking directly to the length of the school year and its role in student achievement. I would note U46 went to block scheduling for some schools and year round scheduling, with normal class schedules for others.
I found the science behind the summer induced drop in learning among lower income children compelling. I also found the science behind the comparison of lower income achievement to higher income student achievement in extended schools years compelling.
“Extended School Year
Attempts to add instructional days to the school calendar are typically based on international comparisons that show that U.S. students spend less time in school than students from high performing countries, such as Japan. This model faces considerable opposition due to strongly held cultural beliefs about summer and financial interests connected to the current school calendar. For example, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions supports efforts to fight “bloated school calendars and year-round school calendars” (IAAPA, 2003). Arguments against year-round schooling also question the extent to which additional time in school might lead to increased student fatigue (NEA, 1987).”
There’s an interesting nugget in their, that the comparison against “high performing countries, such as Japan…” Time in the classroom isn’t the only determinant of student achievement. I’m not suggesting D150 and other simply change the school calendar and suddenly scores pop up.
There are actually differences in how Pacific Rim children THINK in comparison to American children; we’re managed to convolute our language to such an extent that it actually inhibits learning. Take math, for instance, Pacific Rim children use a language which makes it much more easy to county than American children do.
I feel you’re free to argue against models, but that’s not the point. Does the basic premise of the model hold merit, and if so, then what aspects of it may we explore locally and use to influence learning locally? I don’t even see that spirit of intellectual and professional curiosity present in a lot of the discussions going on.
That’s what’s frustrating.
BTW,
Impartial, my wife, she of the Type 75, taught in AP up in U46 and their experience with the success was different. I wrote on financial issues for the Journal of School Business Management and she has all the practical experience.
I think what U46 did was remarkable. At the time, my wife was a sixth year teacher and we were worried she would be RIF, but as I posted earlier it only went to 4 and some 5.
In her experience, it was cross-class collaboration between the teachers which allowed for contextual curriculum development that went a long way to addressing the weakness you found in the extended breaks.
Cj, I just got this off the WEEK TV web page. Executive Director of BPI, Bussiness and Professional People for the Public Interest have filed a lawsuit in Cook County aledging the Governor is standing in the way of Illinois Schools getting Two Billion Dollars in funding from the state. The lawsuit asks the court to order the Govenor to fill Two open seats on the Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board. It states the Board Members have not met since 2005 because of vacant seats on the Five person board. Board Members, By Law, are suppose to give recommendations to the General Assembly on how much money the shools recieve from the state. The lawsuit states the Governor is standing in the way of the Advisory Board doing it’s job because he will not make the appointments to Board. CJ I didn’t know if this was old news to you or not. If I was on our School Board my foot would be up our representatves ass to get this money. Maybe they just didn’t know? Good Day
ed – You are spot on about a longer school year. The Board has been given information on a number of different model (45 on 15 off, etc.) and it is something we would like to consider. The amount of retention lost due to a summer of inactivity is considerable. It serves to expand the gap that previously existed, often erasing any gains made over the course of the year. Our outdated facilities (no air) and other constraints (mostly $$) preclude us from entertaining the thought currently. Definitely something we should work towards. The type of engaged learning that could take place over the summer is vast, so the thought is not “back-burner”. It just requires creative thinking and collaboration. I respectfully disagree, though, that a longer day won’t help. Whether it be more physical education (team building concepts), enrichment, or remediation, it certainly couldn’t hurt. Many of the bad choices or influences a child is exposed to can occur between 3pm and when adults return home. Engaged lerning between 3-5 would be a marked improvement for most. With respect to the informaion provided, I’d ask some of those that have more insight to share what bureacratic burdens have been imposed on the Dist. since 1990. Knowing that mandates (or reporting requirements) not adhered to create funding pitfalls, these buracratic expectations have forced upon the District a greater administrative structure. With EVERYTHING on the table in my mind, an understanding of these demands from our government is necessary. Also, for anyone reading, I can assure you that no decision is immenent or in stone. The need to consider closing a high school has been discussed periodically for several years. The current climate has brought about a greater sense of urgency. Please continue sharing productive ideas. We are listening.
The news today said there is $2 Billion in state funds for the schools being tied up because of the Governor. I posted on it earler,could someone please take a look at my post and see if this is old news. Thank you.
Please do not look solely at NCLB data to determine the effectiveness of those systmes and schedules. There are many schools across the country that noticed a reduction in college preparedness by moving to systems and schedules that proved to be effective in raising the scores in tests designed to test minumum competency.
Many schools that have been deemed to be successful by NCLB standards have shown reductions in exceeds rates, percentage of higher end ACT scores, and other indicators of higher order thinking such as AP scores.
In the standard Hopkins 4 x4 model a where a student completes a course in one semester with a period 1.5 times longer, the loss of instructional hours for the course mandates a reduction in coverage of material or depth of instruction. If you turn AP courses into parts A and B and have students take that course all year then the purpose of the model is ruined and you still limit the number of higher level courses students can take. (I won’t bore you more with the complete layout that I have had to argue in the past.. but if you assume one hour periods the Hopkins model turns 180 hours of instruction into 135 hours if you can keep the kids attention for an hour and a half.)
Ed, in my opinion hybrids might work…. I would love to examine them further. In my time working with schools and examining the Hopkins model I believe it is designed to raise the perfomance in failing schools. If PSD 150 were to do it I think it would have to be in 1 or 2 schools maximum and allow the traditional schedule for the remaining.
Summer break do bring a loss of knowledge. But having 2-3 weeks after every quarter will competely damage the year long higher structure of higher end high school courses.
When I taught AP I had to reteach a substantial portion of my first semester core concepts when we returned from christmas break. If I would have had a break each quarter it would have severely interfered with my students success on the exams and with their college preparedness.
Jim, you and Ed are completely right about the longer school year. As a high school teacher, I always felt that I was starting from scratch every year. I am sure that with younger children the loss is much greater due to the three months away from the learning process.
Today I spent the morning at Whittier (actually we went bowling at Landmark) with 3 and 4 year olds. Every time I have been with this group (last year and this year), I am amazed at how well-behaved these children are–and how this early exposure to learning and socialization is bound to pay off big time. However, only a limited number of children get this opportunity and class size is quite small. I added this because I misread Jim’s 3-5 suggestion (thought you meant ages 3-5); surely, Jim, you weren’t considering keeping kids at school until 5 p.m., especially, since there are some parents who do like to spend time with their children. Some high school kids have jobs–and too many have children of their own to take care of.
Of course, the longer day proposal doesn’t include the children (right?) or require teachers actually to teach an extra hour–it’s about a longer day for teachers for common planning. Even quite some time ago when we had a 7-high school day (and it was a longer school day), teachers only taught 5 hours–and had 2 prep periods. I am not half as opposed to the idea as I seem to be when I argue with Jim and some of you on the blog–especially, since I am no longer teaching. However, I know how these things work, especially at the high school level. High school teachers have many irons in the fire–coaching, extra-curricular activities, etc. Before long, principals will be excusing one after the other from the common planning time. Before long meetings will be held less frequently, etc. You know, Jim, what you said about the travel requests Tuesday night–about taking in a little sun instead of going to conferences. Same thing would happen to common planning time. Also, I am still trying to figure out how common planning time would work at the high school level. Who would meet with whom and why? The students in one English class with a particular teacher don’t leave that class as a group to go to another teacher, etc. I can’t quite fathom how groups of teachers would be formed–teachers who have the same students in common. That seems difficult to me.
Jim is, of course, correct about the unfunded mandates, etc. One problem I have with the central administration and, consequently, the board is that they don’t level with the public about the “real” problems. The tendency is to try to make things look good and a failure to admit when some attempts at solving a problem don’t work. Many of the problems in public schools are not the fault of teachers or administrations (in building or central). But both groups have put themselves in position to blame each other. A united and realistic approach would be so much more convincing to the public.
Jim, I hope you’re right about no decision being set in stone with regard to closing a school. This is a major decision and needs more pro and con discussion and even more planning time before implementation (too many problems to solve by next August).
One other argument from last night bothered me. We were told that because there are so many satisfied “customers,” the Edison program should not be eliminated. I believe there are many satisfied “customers” at Woodruff, also. So why doesn’t the satisfied “customer” argument work for everybody?
I am amazed at the “creative” solutions which some parents are already devising to thwart the plan. One parent I overheard today is planning to move (renters can do that very easily) to the Von Stuben area so her children can go to Richwoods.
Impartial Observor: I certainly agree that we’re allowing NCLB standards to be our only measuring stick–and it just might not be the best. This is Jeff Adkins-Dutro’s idea, so I don’t want to take credit for it (if anyone choose to give credit for it). But he has suggested that high schools judge their effectiveness by what students do after high school–whether are not they are able to find successful employment, do well in college, etc.
I think it would be interesting if we would set up some sort of system to maintain contact with students for several years after graduation to see what they are doing. I know that I have often been amazed and pleased that some of my former students for whom I may not have held out so much hope have become productive members of society. Look at Jim Stowell, for instance–only kidding, of course.
Mr Stowell “The amount of retention lost due to a summer of inactivity is considerable.”
And what are you going to do with all the one year teachers you fire in the spring and don’t rehire ’til the fall?
How are you going to justify a 33% increase in salaries to all your union teachers and staff? Do you really think they are going to work another 3 months for FREE?
Oh… I get it… a negotiation ploy because teachers are back at the table again….