|
Post by gatormom on Aug 13, 2008 5:24:20 GMT -5
IIRC, the positions that were vacated to teach All Day K were filled. If only 4 had to be hired for K, then is it known how many more had to be brought onto payroll to fill the vacancies created from the shift-over? I heard the number of 91 positions being tossed around last fall when they voted on it but never heard any number since. If that number was true and held, then simple math says 91-4 (87) were hired to implement the program. Does anyone have a more accurate or recent number? I don't think the number you are looking for was offered at the SB meeting. The presentation was strictly an update on all day K and did not discuss the staffing of the ESs. I thought that 91 was the number of teachers that would be required to teach K, not the number of vacancies created by all day K.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 10:37:02 GMT -5
If only 4 had to be hired for K, then is it known how many more had to be brought onto payroll to fill the vacancies created from the shift-over? I heard the number of 91 positions being tossed around last fall when they voted on it but never heard any number since. If that number was true and held, then simple math says 91-4 (87) were hired to implement the program. Does anyone have a more accurate or recent number? I don't think the number you are looking for was offered at the SB meeting. The presentation was strictly an update on all day K and did not discuss the staffing of the ESs. I thought that 91 was the number of teachers that would be required to teach K, not the number of vacancies created by all day K. Assuming 91 was the total require to teach K, We can then revise the formula to something like: # NewHires to implement AllDay K = ( 91(Total K Teachers) - 4(newHires) - X(# of K remaining of staff as K) - Y(# teachers who shifted grades to teach K) )
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 13, 2008 11:07:36 GMT -5
I don't think the number you are looking for was offered at the SB meeting. The presentation was strictly an update on all day K and did not discuss the staffing of the ESs. I thought that 91 was the number of teachers that would be required to teach K, not the number of vacancies created by all day K. Assuming 91 was the total require to teach K, We can then revise the formula to something like: # NewHires to implement AllDay K = ( 91(Total K Teachers) - 4(newHires) - X(# of K remaining of staff as K) - Y(# teachers who shifted grades to teach K) ) Or someone could just shoot off an email to the district and get accurate numbers instead of guessing/estimating.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 11:20:36 GMT -5
Assuming 91 was the total require to teach K, We can then revise the formula to something like: # NewHires to implement AllDay K = ( 91(Total K Teachers) - 4(newHires) - X(# of K remaining of staff as K) - Y(# teachers who shifted grades to teach K) ) Or someone could just shoot off an email to the district and get accurate numbers instead of guessing/estimating. Would kind of make moot the whole point of a discussion board... to ask peers about info to see if it's out there in the district without bothering the staff for trivial bits of information... but we could always monopolize their time and email boxes with such requests too, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 13, 2008 12:38:13 GMT -5
Would kind of make moot the whole point of a discussion board... to ask peers about info to see if it's out there in the district without bothering the staff for trivial bits of information... but we could always monopolize their time and email boxes with such requests too, I suppose. Not really arch. I find it much more effective for discussion on these boards to go to the source for accurate information rather than suppose or guestimate. And please all, forgive me for this jaunt off topic. I hearby warn gatormom to stay on topic, all-day K. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 12:56:39 GMT -5
Would kind of make moot the whole point of a discussion board... to ask peers about info to see if it's out there in the district without bothering the staff for trivial bits of information... but we could always monopolize their time and email boxes with such requests too, I suppose. Not really arch. I find it much more effective for discussion on these boards to go to the source for accurate information rather than suppose or guestimate. And please all, forgive me for this jaunt off topic. I hearby warn gatormom to stay on topic, all-day K. ;D The formula put forth would still hold whatever the 'variables' end up being; with the qualifiers given about possibly not needing to backfill the vacated positions in other grades if there was the bubble effect that moved through. It's still on topic because it's a ripple effect of ADK implementation because it says D204 is 'ready to launch all-day kindergarten' and I was not assuming there were loose ends as a result of the shifting but rather giving the benefit of the doubt that it was 'covered'.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 13, 2008 13:46:18 GMT -5
On the upside, if enrollment is down, that may reduce the class sizes or even free up a classroom or two. I think they mentioned Monday night at the SB meeting that one ES was possible going to have art-on-a-cart. Can't remember which one was mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 14:03:49 GMT -5
On the upside, if enrollment is down, that may reduce the class sizes or even free up a classroom or two. I think they mentioned Monday night at the SB meeting that one ES was possible going to have art-on-a-cart. Can't remember which one was mentioned. Last year at the vote for it, it was Longwood that had it and it was mentioned at the time that studies showed the students did better when the classroom materials came to them.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Aug 13, 2008 14:11:16 GMT -5
I think they mentioned Monday night at the SB meeting that one ES was possible going to have art-on-a-cart. Can't remember which one was mentioned. Last year at the vote for it, it was Longwood that had it and it was mentioned at the time that studies showed the students did better when the classroom materials came to them. This time it was Young mentioned. I don't know what changed at Longwood since then.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 14:13:18 GMT -5
Last year at the vote for it, it was Longwood that had it and it was mentioned at the time that studies showed the students did better when the classroom materials came to them. This time it was Young mentioned. I don't know what changed at Longwood since then. One thing that did change: a classroom+ amount of kids is coming from LW to MW.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 13, 2008 14:13:43 GMT -5
Last year at the vote for it, it was Longwood that had it and it was mentioned at the time that studies showed the students did better when the classroom materials came to them. This time it was Young mentioned. I don't know what changed at Longwood since then. I thought the ES boundary changes started this year. That would make some room for LW if that were the case.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 14:19:07 GMT -5
Here's the article mentioning the meeting last year....
Finding room for all-day K November 14, 2007 By BRITT CARSON Staff Writer Art and music on a cart or all-day kindergarten?
That is how one board member in Indian Prairie School District 204 sees a recent proposal to implement all-day kindergarten. School board member Jeannette Clark is not convinced the district has enough room to accommodate the program and is worried areas such as music and art will be relegated to operating from carts.
"Space has been a huge struggle in this district," Clark said. "I don't have a good idea of how art and music are impacted. In my opinion, what we are saying is that we are going to permanently overcrowd our facilities."
The district wants to implement all-day kindergarten this fall. Martha Baumann, director of elementary education, said she has worked closely with all 21 elementary school principals to ensure the extra rooms needed are available. Baumann is also a former music teacher who for years used a cart while teaching music. "Having used a cart for many years, I can tell you my students were never in any way compromised," Baumann said. "It can be done."
Principals' support
All 21 elementary school principals attended Monday's board meeting and assured board members they were in support of the program. Currently the art, music and computer lab teachers at Longwood Elementary School use carts; however, that school is already part of the all-day pilot program. Two other schools, McCarty and Young are the only other schools that might have to make similar steps. Laura Johnston, principal at Longwood, said they can still make the program work.
"Yes, we have every nook and cranny filled, but to us, this is a critical program," Johnston said. "We spend so much time catching kids up that we can't get ahead fast enough."
Johnston said the students in the all-day pilot program already have made significant gains, and total gains from an entire grade level of students would be substantial.
Half day still option
A half-day option would still be offered to parents, although administrators expected most parents to opt for the all-day program. "I can't see in this community, a parent picking a half-day program if given the choice versus a full day," said Mike Raczak, principal at May Watts Elementary School. "I think the competitive nature of the community makes it difficult for me to figure out what parent would not take advantage of this opportunity."
Kathy Birkett, deputy superintendent, said the half-day option will not be available at each school and only where they see a significant interest from parents during kindergarten roundup. The district expects the program to cost $7 million, which would add 61 teachers. David Holm, assistant superintendent of business and finance, said the program will mean a $5 million increase in general state aid, thus offsetting the costs during a three-year span.
Despite hearing from several principals during the meeting, Clark requested a room-by-room analysis from each of the 21 elementary schools before and after the program to get a clearer picture of how programs would be impacted.
Contact Britt Carson at bcarson@scn1.com or 630-416-5269.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 13, 2008 14:23:24 GMT -5
This time it was Young mentioned. I don't know what changed at Longwood since then. One thing that did change: a classroom+ amount of kids is coming from LW to MW. they also sent kids from LW to Brookdale.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 13, 2008 14:30:33 GMT -5
Voilla!
"Kathy Birkett, deputy superintendent, said the half-day option will not be available at each school and only where they see a significant interest from parents during kindergarten roundup. The district expects the program to cost $7 million, which would add 61 teachers. David Holm, assistant superintendent of business and finance, said the program will mean a $5 million increase in general state aid, thus offsetting the costs during a three-year span. "
61 - 4 (hired from outside) = 57 'shifts' that had to be backfilled. Add back in the 4 new-hires for ADK specifically and we're back to 61 new teachers according to their math last year... unless we had the bubble effect previously mentioned, then the overall number would drop by that amount specifically.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Aug 13, 2008 15:04:56 GMT -5
I don't know about district wide, but I know at Brooks they moved teachers down from other grades to kindergarten but those positions were then filled. I believe our incoming 3rd grade class is now the largest, but 4th and 5th grade are close behind. There was some question about whether there would be 4 or 5 classrooms for 5th grade this coming year because they had 5 sessions as 4th graders but the outgoing 5th grade class had 4. I believe the decision was to take them down to 4 classrooms, but they have very little room for any new students if they are going to stay under the teacher's union cap.
ETA: Bottom line, I think we are +2 or +3 teachers at Brooks this year.
|
|