R epor t t o t heB oar d of E ducat i on

Gr ade L evel Cent erFeasi bi l i t y St udy

Prospect Heights School District 23Prospect Heights, Illinois

February 4, 2003

James H. WarrenStellarComp, Ltd.

Copyright © 2003

Acknowledgements

A special thank you is extended to the many parents, staff, Board and administrators ofProspect Heights School District 23 who have attended meetings, submitted questions,and provided feedback relative to this study. Appreciation is also expressed to the pastand present superintendents of the school districts who interviewed with us and sharedtheir documentation.

Steering Committee MembersDr. Greg Guarrine, Assistant SuperintendentAnn Walker, President, Ross/Sullivan PTOSheila Derka, Ross School Improvement CommitteeInge Bennett, Grade 2 Teacher, RossSharon Faber, PE Teacher, RossAndee Lemick, Sullivan School Improvement CommitteeAnn Louise Thyreen, Grade 3 Teacher & Lead Teacher, SullivanMarlys Jenkins, Special Education Teacher, SullivanDenise Lemanski, Executive Office, Eisenhower PTOCindy Bauer, Eisenhower School Improvement CommitteeDara Saunders, Grade 1 Teacher & 2001-2002 Teacher of the Year, Eisenhower;

and Member of PHEA Delegate AssemblyCarol Peterson, Library Media Center Teacher and Lead Teacher, EisenhowerGail Biasiello, Facilitator, MacArthur Parent Teacher CouncilJeanne Spiller, Grade 7 Teacher and Executive Officer, PHEALynne Price, Former Board President

District 23 Administrators and StaffRonald Bearwald, SuperintendentRichard Ewanio, Business ManagerBrian Engle, Director of TechnologyCathy Anderson, Secretary to SuperintendentNancy Sorensen, Secretary to Assistant SuperintendentBetsy Muir, Principal, Sullivan Elementary SchoolSharon Warner, Principal, Betsy Ross Elementary SchoolRobert Marshall, Principal, Eisenhower Elementary SchoolDr. Robert Divirgilio, Principal, MacArthur Middle Schoo

i

1

Report to the Board of EducationGrade Level Center Feasibility Study

Prospect Heights School District 23February 4, 2003

Introduction

This report represents nearly six months of research and work on the feasibility ofProspect Heights School District 23 moving from a combination of grade level center andneighborhood schools to a grade level center concept. The purpose of the study is toassist the District 23 Board of Education in long-range planning.

Grade level center, by District 23 definition, is where all District 23 childrenin the same grade attend the same school. The current school configuration is:

Eisenhower Ross Sullivan MacArthurK-5 preK-2 3-5 6-8

Upon the Board’s selection of James H. Warren, StellarComp, Ltd., to conductthe study, the Board identified 20 Impact Criteria to be addressed and, withadministration, selected a 15-person Steering Committee to advise and assist theconsultant. On September 26, 2002, the consultant met separately with the Districtadministrators and the Steering Committee. A public forum was held on October 1, 2002to solicit questions from the staff and community that they felt the study should address.In addition, throughout October, meetings were held with the administrative staff, thefaculties of Ross, Sullivan and Eisenhower, and the parents of the Eisenhower andRoss/Sullivan PTO’s to identify specific questions for the study. These questions havebeen researched and responses are found throughout Impact Criteria section of the report.

At the Steering Committee’s recommendation, tours of the three buildings wereconducted for the purpose of examining the feasibility of various configurations. (SeeAddenda for School Floor Plans, Parking Lot Spaces, and Facilities Make Up.) Inaddition, the Steering Committee recommended development of a parent/district survey.The survey was mailed and returned during November and, in early December, theconsultant shared progress with the Steering Committee. On January 7, 2003 a secondpublic forum was held to report progress on the study and provide preliminary responsesto some of the questions asked in October. (See Calendar in Addenda that reflects theschedule just described.)

2

Several area school districts were examined that were in various stages of using orrejecting grade level centers. The studied districts were chosen based on audiencerequests at public meetings, district administration requests, and knowledge of schooldistrict configuration by the consultant. Those districts are:

Medinah School District 11Glencoe School District 35Skokie School District 69Diamond Lake School District 76Homewood School District 153Riverside School District 96Mount Prospect School District 57Hawthorn School District 73Lake Zurich Community Unit School District 95

The study included a review of the literature, which showed few articlespublished specifically on this subject. A bibliography of reviewed articles is included.

3

Findings

The literature revealed that virtually every imaginable combination of gradeconfiguration is found throughout the country. There are neighborhood schools, K-12schools, K-8 schools, and multiple variations of grade level centers.

The reasons for the many different configurations are as varied as theconfigurations themselves. Typically, eleven factors, alone or in various combinations,drive the decision: cost, equity, socio-economic balance, demographics,curriculum/instruction, space, geography, size, district philosophy, transportation, andfacilities. Districts usually make their decisions after extended study and publicdiscourse on the weight of the factors pushing the decision. It was found that everydistrict weighted the factors differently based on conditions within their communities.

Districts usually like their existing structures and prefer not to change unless thereis a substantial intervening necessity (cost savings, demographics, space issues, asexamples). Medinah 11, Glencoe 35, and Skokie 69 have used grade level centers formany years and all reported they are extremely satisfied with their configurations.Currently, due to space, equity, and demographics, Homewood 153 is moving fromneighborhood schools to grade level centers. Diamond Lake 76, while already usinggrade level centers, is adjusting its grade spans this year. Riverside 96 studied moving tograde level centers, but chose to remain in small neighborhood schools where all studentscould walk to school. Mount Prospect 57 is considering a mixed concept ofneighborhood schools and grade level centers due to its growth and space needs and isreclaiming a school that is rented to NSSEO. Hawthorn 73 has been in a grade levelcenter configuration and, due to growth, is considering moving to two K-8 centers. LakeZurich 95 experienced growth and left grade level centers to return to neighborhoodschools. Both Hawthorn and Lake Zurich articulated the desire to build community withneighborhood schools. All of these districts’ past or present superintendents wereinterviewed to determine the factors driving their decisions and how their specificcircumstances relate to the 20 District 23 Board of Education–established Impact Criteria.

The community survey was developed to collect parents’ and employees’ viewsof the District and their opinions on a possible transition from neighborhood schools tograde level centers. Surveys were sent to approximately 1200 parents, school employees,and pre-school parents. The survey showed tremendous support for District 23 schools.The positive feelings about the District were at the 90% level. When asked if therespondent would be open to the idea of grade level centers, if quality in several areaswere assured, the opinions were split. Slightly higher percentages were not in favor ofthe concept. (See Addenda for breakout of Survey results.)

Data gathered in meetings with the various groups, research of literature,interviews with designated school districts, and information gleaned from the District 23survey provided valuable information that was used by the consultant to respond to thefollowing Board-established Impact Criteria.

4

Curriculum, teaching & learningClass sizeMultiage classesSocial/emotional development of studentsStaffingArticulationCommunication with parentsCommunication with staffTransportation servicesParkingFood servicesFacilities changesBuilding capacity: housing of students in the

futureSpecial services to students (special

education, TPI, Title I, reading)TechnologyExtracurricular programmingExtended day programAssessing and reporting pupil progressLength of school dayCost (more/less costly)

5

A separate Impact Criteria section follows where these findings are reported bycriteria. For ease of reading, responses to the questions submitted in the October publicforum, the various group meetings, and the emails have been sorted into the same criteriacategories and are reported following each Impact Criteria response.

The District’s cohort survival Enrollment Projections, 1998-2008 were examinedto determine enrollment trends and projections through 2008. The District’s Guidelinesfor Staffing Based upon Enrollment; Enrollment and Staffing, Last Ten Years; andEnrollment Comparisons by School were examined. (See Addenda for individual charts.)

District 23 covers 7.5 square miles, is built out (few lots are available for buildinghomes) and the mobility rate (turnover of houses) seems to be stable. (See Addendum forboundary map.) Enrollment/staffing history shows that, in the 1992-1993 school year,the District enrolled 1,685 students and employed a staff of 152.5. The 2002-2003figures show a student enrollment of 1,592 with a staff of 183.8. The ten-year staffincrease included one administrator, 1.5 maintenance, and 28.8 teachers, at the same timethat enrollment decreased by 93 students. Enrollment projections show enrollment willdecline by at least 95 more students through 2008 to an anticipated enrollment of 1,490.With declining enrollment, the Board may wish to examine its staffing patterns todetermine the appropriate number of staff to effectively offer District programs.

If the District continues to embrace looping and multiage classes, it could do sowithin the grade level center concept. Teachers would need to be familiar with multiplegrade level curricula. This would allow a bandwidth of staff to be assigned to each centerwith the possibility of their assignments determined when the number of sections isknown at each grade level. If looping/multiage classes are not desired, having teachersfamiliar with multiple grade curricula would still be advantageous to students forpurposes of flexibility and assignment as cohort classes progress through the system.

The Student-Teacher Ratios chart and the Comparison of Current SchoolAlignment vs. Sequential Grade Level Attendance Centers chart (following page) showthat the District could reduce between 2.5 and 5.5 staff under a grade level center plandepending upon how it applies its class size policy. The average District-reported FTEcost is $54,000, which includes salary and benefits. Keeping class size at current levelswould result in $135,000 in savings (2.5x$54,000). Increasing class sizes to stay withinDistrict guidelines would yield 5.5 staff reductions with a savings of $297,000(5.5x$54,000). If the staff employment numbers remain constant, class sizes would dropover the next four years if the 95-student decrease in enrollment projections holds true.

Student-Teacher Ratios Current Projected

# of Student-Teacher Student-Teacher Students Grade Ratio Ratio

An increase of 1.8 in K from 14.2:1 to 16.0:1An increase of 1.1 in 1st from 20.2:1 to 21.3:1An increase of 1.0 in 2nd from 20.2:1 to 21.2:1

6

An increase of 1.5 in 3rd from 20.4:1 to 21.9:1An increase of 1.7 in 4th from 21.2:1 to 22.9:1An increase of 4.6 in 5th from 21.0:1 to 25.6:1

Comparison of Current School Alignment vs. Sequential Grade Level Attendance Centers(Staffing and Class Size Based Upon Current 2002-2003 Data)

1 PLAN A 2Current Alignment * Grade Level Centers

Enrolled Teachers Class Size * Enrolled Teachers Class SizeRoss School K 87 3.0 14.5 * Ross School K 128 4.0 16.0Eisenhower K 41 1.5 13.7 *

* Ross Grade 1 170 8.0 21.2Ross Grades 1/2 202 10.0 20.2 *

Eisenhower Grades 1/2 121 6.0 20.2 * Sullivan Grade 2 153 7.0 21.9*

Eisenhower Grades 3/4 110 5.0 22.0 * Sullivan Grade 3 160 7.0 22.9Sullivan Grade 3 102 5.0 20.4 *Sullivan Grade 4 127 6.0 21.2 * Eisenhower Grade 4 179 8.0 22.4

*Eisenhower Grade 5 60 3.0 20.0 * Eisenhower Grade 5 168 8.0 21.0

Sullivan Grade 5 108 5.0 21.6 **

Staffing Total 44.5 * Staffing Total 42.0* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4 PROJECTED ENROLLMENT FOR 2003-2004 * PLAN B 3Grade Level Centers * Grade Level Centers

Enrolled Teachers Class Size * Enrolled Teachers Class SizeRoss School K 128 4.0 16.0 * Ross School K 128 4.0 16.0

*Ross Grade 1 128 6.0 21.3 * Ross Grade 1 170 8.0 21.2

*Sullivan Grade 2 170 8.0 21.2 * Sullivan Grade 2 153 7.0 21.9

*Sullivan Grade 3 153 7.0 21.9 * Sullivan Grade 3 160 7.0 22.9

*Sullivan Grade 4 160 7.0 22.9 * Eisenhower Grade 4 179 7.0 25.6

*Eisenhower Grade 5 179 7.0 25.6 * Eisenhower Grade 5 168 7.0 24.0

*Staffing Total 39.0 * Staffing Total 40.0

Quadrant 1 (above): Current enrollment, staffing and class size.Quadrant 2 (above): Plan A shows grade level enrollment staffing and class sizes.Quadrant 3 (above): Plan B shows grade level alignments with larger class sizes in grades 4 and 5.Quadrant 4 (above): 2003-2004 shows a brief snapshot of enrollments and class sizes carried forward.

Reductions of staff under current configurations could be accomplished byincreasing the number of students in elementary sections at each grade level as shown inthe previous chart. Due to the fewer sections at Eisenhower, the reductions might requiremore multiage classes or, in some instances, adding an aide where the class reached 28and needed additional assistance. If grade level centers were instituted, all of the studentswould reside in the same location and it would be more economical to allocate thesections, achieving greater continuity across the sections. The smaller the enrollment, themore difficult it is to maintain the consistency across neighborhood schools.

7

Two Possible Grade Level Center Scenarios

Scenario IEisenhower Ross SullivanpreK-1 2-3 4-5

The smallness of Eisenhower would give the K-1 grades a feeling of intimacy before theymoved to the Campus site. This scenario would also have the feel of one less move sinceRoss and Sullivan are linked and share facilities. It may require some construction. (SeeCost/Savings Chart below). There would be a cost savings depending upon theapplication of the class size policy.

Scenario IIRoss Sullivan EisenhowerpreK-1 2-3 4-5

This scenario would move students away from the Campus and then back to the Campusto attend MacArthur, which could feel more disruptive. Additional construction may benecessary, but there would be an overall cost savings depending upon the application ofthe class size policy.

Estimated (Increased Costs)/SavingsChair lift – Eisenhower $ 40,000*2 addt’l bus runs $ 34,00011 addt’l computers $ 11,000♦

Addt’l music room – Ike $ 112,500*Addt’l library materials $ 40,240* ♦

5 certified staff ($54,000 ea) $(270,000) * One-time cost ♦Normal replacement rotation

After considerable study, review of the literature, examination of the Board-establishedImpact Criteria, and interviews with school districts, a list of possible advantages anddisadvantages for grade level centers follow.

Advantages of Grade Level Attendance Centers• Each school more clearly focuses on educational/social needs of children.• Curriculum/instruction focuses specifically on the grade level age group.• Building facility design/usage accommodates a specific age group.• Class size is better balanced.• Demographics are better balanced.• Curriculum, instruction and program are more consistent.• May have fewer class sections within a grade, thus operational economies.• Or, may have more class sections within a grade.• Better mainstreaming of special education/ESL children.• Reorganization cost savings allow real savings.

8

• Articulation across grade levels improves.• Articulation across attendance centers may or may not improve.• Eliminates competition and comparison between schools.

Disadvantages of Grade Level Attendance Centers• Children no longer attend their “neighborhood” schools.• Parents/children don’t have as much time to build loyalty for a school.• Requires more busing.• Longer bus rides for some children.• Brothers and sisters may be in different schools.• Parents may experience child-care difficulties with children arriving and

departing at different times.• Young children lose older role models.• Primary and intermediate grade teachers’ articulation may or may not be more

difficult.• Parents may have to choose between PTA/PTO meetings and participation at

other events.• Overlap in library materials increases costs.• Changing centers every two years is disrupting to children and parents.• Communities like to identify with their K-5 elementary school.

Having all students of the same grade together gives the building a larger feel.

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration: New Evidence on Student Achievement,Achievement Equity, and Cost Efficiency

by: Kathy Gregg

A feasibility study is underway in Prospect Heights Public School District 23. It willexamine a change to the current configuration of the district’s three elementaryschools. The change would set aside the district’s current neighborhood schools inwhich students attend a school from kindergarten through fifth grade according togeographic boundaries within the district. This configuration would give way to a“grade level center” configuration, which would include fewer grades per school andmore students per grade. The conversion would require the consolidation of studentpopulations and the elimination of district boundaries. Specifically, all children in thedistrict would attend all three elementary schools, Eisenhower, Ross, and Sullivan,for two years before going to MacArthur Middle School for three years. (Warren,School Board Meeting, October 1, 2002). The district has opaquely advised thecommunity that this initiative will be used in “further developing its format inlong-range planning ” (Bearwald, 2002).

The term “grade span” refers to the number of grade levels in a school building. “Gradeconfiguration” identifies which grades are taught in a school building. Currently the district’sfour schools have four different grade spans with four different grade configurations. Eisenhower School has the broadest grade span; students span grade levels kindergartenthrough fifth grade. Ross School spans grade levels pre-kindergarten through second grade. Sullivan School spans grade levels three through five. MacArthur Middle School spans gradelevels six through eight (I.S.B.E., 2001). The ongoing feasibility study will not proposespecific grade combinations for the elementary schools, and the district has determined it willnot adjust the middle school grade span (Warren, School Board Meeting, October 1, 2002).

The belief of many policymakers and educators that grade configuration simply didn’t mattereducationally was unchallenged until recent research. Support or criticism of a particularschool configuration or size was based on purely anecdotal experiences. Today, however, asubstantial body of new research demonstrates that decreasing grade spans, therebyincreasing the number of students per grade, and multiplying students’ transitions fromschool to school negatively impacts student achievement.

This new research suggests that the most equitable and cost efficient means ofdelivering high student achievement is through smaller schools with broader gradespans. District policymakers should analyze and consider the findings of this newbody of research before moving in an opposite direction. The decision the districtmakes will not only impact student achievement in this district, it will also effect thestudents’ success as they transition into large public high schools that are part of theextremely large District 214. Although all residents of this district have a stake in theefficient use of tax revenues, those revenues should, first and foremost, be used todeliver education in the best and most equitable manner.

Transitioning Negatively Effects Student Outcomes

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (1 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

Transitioning refers to the movement of students from school building to school building.Schools with narrow grade spans and fewer grade levels per building experience frequentstudent turnover. For example, if District 23 implements a configuration requiring studentsto attend each of its four schools, students will experience four transitions by the time theyreach high school. John W. Alspaugh (1998), Professor of the University of Missouri’sSchool of Education and Counseling Psychology, conducted research that correlated pooreducational outcomes with students’ learning instability resulting from school transitions:

There is a consistent student achievement loss associated with the transition fromself-contained elementary schools to intermediate-level schools. The achievement loss inreading, mathematics, science, and social studies occurred when the transition was at grade 5,6, 7, or 8. Student achievement scores tended

to recover to their pre-transition levels in the year following the transition. InAlspaugh and Harting, it appeared that the size and organization of the schooldistricts might be related to the transition loss. (p.20)

The publication to which Alspaugh refers in the preceding quotation reported the findings from astudy that compared K-4 schools with K-8 schools. (Alspaugh and Harting, 1995, Abstract). Wecan expect reconfiguring District 23 would cause transitional achievement loss not only as studentsmove from fifth grade to middle school, but for each of the four transitions students would suffer bythe time they enter high school. In fact, a plan requiring students to attend every school in District23 would require that every year the students would either be suffering transitional achievementloss or be making up for it. Will District 23 students be able to keep up with the increasingeducational demands of our state and society given that disadvantage?

Additionally, students do not appear to “get used to” transitioning over time. Previousexperience with making transitions does not moderate the achievement loss of the new transition.(Alspaugh, 1998 p. 21-3). This achievement loss is not ameliorated by practices intended to helpstudents make transitions. Alspaugh restates the 1997 Pamperien research that “found that theimplementation of middle school practices had little influence on the student achievement scores”(Alspaugh, 1998 p. 25).

Students that attended middle schools experienced greater achievement loss inthe transition to high school than students that attended schools configured askindergarten though eighth grade (Alspaugh, 2000, p. 3). Researchers Seidman andAlspaugh determined:

As the number of school-to-school transitions increased, there was an associated increase in thehigh school dropout rates (. . .) The increased high school dropout rates for the students attendingmiddle schools may have been associated with the achievement losses and the double transitionsat Grades 6 and 9 (. . .) The students attending larger schools tended to experience moretransitions than the students in smaller schools. The schools with two transitions had higherdropout rates than the schools with only one transition.(Alspaugh, 1998, p. 23-25)

Given these findings, it would appear obvious that a district requiring four transitions fromkindergarten to high school would cause a higher dropout rate than a district requiring only one ortwo transitions. Alspaugh’s (1998) study demonstrates that students placed in relatively smallgroups for long spans of time tend to experience better educational outcomes, these betteroutcomes overlap into the students’ high school education (p. 25).

Multiple transitions cause other negative outcomes. Ron Renchler (2000), a research analystand writer for the ERIC clearinghouse on Educational Management at the University of

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (2 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

Oregon, stated that school transitions impose stress on students and negatively influenceschools’ identity and sense of community (p. 6). Thomas Moffitt’s 1996 dissertationpresented to Miami University at Ohio studied the impact of a district’s elementary gradespan structure on family-school partnerships. He stressed the importance of family-schoolrelationships on educational outcomes: The studies added tremendously to ourknowledge about the contributions families made to their children’s success, and thesupport families need from educators to guide their children successfully throughtheir schooling. When parents are involved, children do better in school and go tobetter schools. (p. 24-25)

However, Moffit’s research concluded that schools with narrow grade configurations have anegative impact on family-school partnerships (p. 195).

Finally, the challenges for families with children in narrowly spanned “grade levelcenters” involve more than matters of convenience and preference. Dr. CraigHowley (2002), former Director of ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education andSmall Schools and Adjunct Professor of Ohio University, suggests that eachtransition from one narrowly configured school to another seems to disrupt the socialstructure in which learning takes place (p.27).

That disruption includes the decrease in time families have to contribute to the education oftheir children when their children attend multiple schools within a district.

Narrow grade span configurations not only cause the negative impacts ofmultiple transitions discussed above, they also cause a host of problems associatedwith larger school size.

Narrower Grade Spans Result inLarger Schools

The majority of today’s research scholars apply the common metric of the number of students pergrade to define a school’s size. Measuring student populations using total enrollment gives onlyhalf the picture when describing school size (Howley, 2001, p. 4). In fact, when a school containsfewer grades per building, more children per grade attend that school and the dynamic of a largerschool setting is created (Howley, 2000, p. 2). Thus, two schools with exactly the same totalenrollment can actually have a completely different size dynamic depending on their grade spans. Howley (2000) believes enrollment per grade is a more useful and improved measure of a school’ssize (p.2).

Consider District 23’s current configuration using Howley’s metric. Sullivan, whichhas the same number of students as Eisenhower (335), would be considered to havethe dynamic of a school twice the size of Eisenhower. Bear in mind, Sullivan, a 3-5school, has a grade span half the size of Eisenhower’s, a K-5 school. The same sizemetric would be true of a comparison of Eisenhower to Ross, which enrolls 300students in three grade levels. MacArthur would be considered to have the dynamicof a school about four times the size of Eisenhower, as MacArthur’s almost 600

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (3 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

students span only three grade levels.

Narrowing District 23’s grade span would therefore increase the size of each of its threeelementary schools. So what, you might wonder?

Smalls Schools Increase Achievement Level

In prior years, only a few studies had been conducted on school size and gradespans, and the findings had been intriguing, but inconclusive. Today’s research andinitiatives are more numerous, and researchers are more comfortable with makingstrong claims and assertions, such as Howley’s (2000) response to the Walberg andFowler studies, “[t]hese and other findings suggest that small schools are universallybetter” (p.5). Alspaugh (1998), asserts similar findings, “[l]ow SES [socio-economicstatus] tends to have limited influence on students achievement in small schools” (p.21). William Duncombe (2002), Professor of Public Administration and SeniorResearch Associate of the Center for Policy Research at the Maxwell School ofSyracuse University, recently published an economic update of the most costeffective size of school. He shared Howley’s 1996 contention that, “(. . .) morerecent research on student performance in schools indicates that small schools maybe beautiful. ‘All else equal, small schools have evident advantages forachievement” (p. 246). Duncombe’s (2002) study also cited evidence that small tomoderately size elementary schools may optimally balance economies of size withthe potential negative effects of large schools (p. 245). Economy of size refers to themost efficient use of capital. Howley (2000) and Duncombe (2002) agree a smallschool size would be found between 200 and 500 students depending on grade spanconfiguration (p. 3, p. 245).

Renewed interest in small school size is growing nationwide. Patricia Wasley (2002), Deanand Professor of Educational Leadership, College of Education, University of Washington,applauds small school initiatives in New York, Boston and Chicago that are receivingfunding from the U.S. Department of Education, and private foundations like the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundations, the Pew Charitable Trust, and the Joyce Foundation (p. 7). Infact, two Chicago high schools involved in the new small school initiative, Northside CollegePreparatory High School and Young Magnet High School, unseated the long standing NewTrier Township High School last year as the number one high school in the state (I.S.B.E.). Tellingly, several years ago the Wilmette school districts that feed into New Trierreconfigured, adding one elementary school transition before high school (I.S.B.E.).

Of the many things that effect student achievement level, socio-economic status(SES) has a major influence. Common SES factors include race and ethnicity,income or poverty, adult education, special needs, limited English proficiency, andthe percentage of secondary students in the district

(Duncombe, 2002, p. 250). In support of the argument that small schools reduce the negativeeffects of some SES factors, Howley (2000) included Walberg’s and Fowler’s 1987-94research, which imposed controls for SES, thereby removing the influence of SES. Thestudies showed that smaller schools outperformed larger schools on a level playing field, andthey were more cost-effective than larger schools and districts in producing achievement (p.

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (4 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

5).

Additionally, Howley’s (2000) research asserts that at smaller schools, regardless ofeconomic affluence, achievement is more equitable than in larger schools. The strongestinfluence of school size on achievement equity was realized in the small size category of 300or fewer students (p. 3-4). “This effect was so strong that Montana’s smaller schools, withhigher levels of poverty, actually outperformed its larger schools.” (p. 5) Two studies (Fetler1989; Pittman and Haughwout 1987) suggest that smaller size may improve odds forcollaboration, communication, and common purpose (Howley, 2000 6). Wasley (2002)makes similar claims based on personal experience and professional research:

Over the years, I have taught students at nearly every level, from 3rd grade throughgraduate school. As a researcher, I have spent time gathering data on students atevery level from preschool through 12th grade. My teaching and researchexperiences have provided me with data that convince me that both small classesand small schools are crucial to a teacher’s ability to succeed with students. (p. 8)

District 23 should also consider its teachers’ needs and well being. Professor Wasley’s 2000study of small high schools in the city of Chicago revealed:

Students reported feeling safer and more connected with adults in these schools. Teachersreported a greater sense of efficacy, job satisfaction, and connection with parents, as well as moreopportunities to collaborate with other teachers, build a coherent educational program, use avariety of instructional approaches, and engage students in peer critique and analysis. Parentsand community members reported increased confidence in the schools. (Wasley, 2001, p. 23)

Howley’s (2000) research of small schools stresses, “[m]any schools, though, wouldclearly benefit students if they were smaller, and students already attending smallerschools would probably be done educational harm if those schools were closed or ifthey were made larger.” (p. 10) Students attending Eisenhower school wouldprobably be done educational harm if they were integrated into the larger schoolsetting that already exists within the district. We could conclude that Ross, Sullivanand MacArthur may benefit if they were to be reconfigured as smaller schools withlarger grade spans.

Making an Educated Choice

District 23 has provided some vague economic factors as reasons to considernarrowing its schools’ grade spans, thereby creating larger elementary schools. What District 23 policymakers do not appear to have yet considered are the effectspolicy change may have on student achievement now and in high school,achievement equity, teacher satisfaction, family-school partnerships, and economicefficiency. One example of such effects not discussed above is that by consolidatingthe student population into grade level centers, the district’s school boundaries wouldbe erased. While some people believe that elimination of boundaries is a good thingthat may end perceived social discrimination between the student and parentpopulations of the various district schools, the geographic and social benefits ofneighborhood schools would be nullified. Also, with no boundaries to consider, whatwill stop the district from making a solely economic decision to close schools in favor

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (5 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

of creating still larger schools? Howley (2002) asserts, “[t]he evidence rather clearlysuggests that the tendency to create narrow grade-span configurations reinforces thebad habit of building larger and larger schools” (p. 28).

Only recently have scholars begun to feel confident that enough research has been done to makestrong claims about grade spans, grade level configurations and school size. Unfortunately, mostof today’s educators and policymakers are products of large schools and large school districts, andthis research flies in the face of what is considered common knowledge, that bigger is better. Those same educators and policymakers were taught that normal distributions of test scores alongthe “Bell Curve” are what teachers should aim for and what we should accept as evidence ofaccomplishment. Now, cognitive scientists, neurological biologists and educators have determinedthat all students have the capacity to learn. This evidence is what lead the charge of “The No ChildLeft Behind Act of 2001” (Wasley, 2002, p. 8). This legislation creates higher teaching and studentperformance standards.

School District 23, like every other district in the country, will have to comply with thislegislation by the end of this school year. This legislation aims to ensure that allchildren meet certain standards every year and all teachers meet certificationstandards by 2003-2005. District 23 will face many additional changes this and nextyear: elections for and turnover on the Board; a new superintendent and assistantsuperintendent; and a new principal at the middle school. It may be persuasivelyargued that the District should focus on successfully navigating these challengingchanges, rather than on entirely reconfiguring its schools

Works Cited

Alspaugh, John W. (1998, Sept/Oct). Achievement Loss Associated With the Transition to

Middle school and High School. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 20-25.

Alspaugh, John W. (2000, Fall). The Effect of Transition Grade to High School, Gender, and

Grade Level Upon Dropout Rates. American Secondary Education, 29, 2-9.

Bearwald, R. <rbearwald@mail.d23.org> (2002, September 13). October 1 Meeting

[Personal e-mail]. (2002, September 13).

Duncombe, William, Andrew Matthews and John Yinger. (2002). “Revisiting Economies of

Size in American Education: Are We Any Closer To A Consensus?” Economics

Of Education Review, 21, 245-262.

Howley, Craig. (2000). “Research on Smaller Schools: What Education Leaders Need to Know

to Make Better Decisions” The Informed Educator Series: Educational Research

Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 453 996).

Howley, Craig. (2001, April). “The Disappearing Local School in Two Appalachian States”

Paper presented at the annual conference of the Appalachian Studies Association.

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (6 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

Linwood, WV. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 451 018).

Howley, Craig. (2002, March). Grade-Span Configuration. The School Administrator, 24-9.

Illinois State Bd. of Education. (2001, November). “School Report Cards.”

<http://www.isbe.state.il.us>. 23 November 2002

Moffitt, T.L.,III. (1996). An Evaluative Study of the Study of the Impact of Elementary Grade

Span Structure on Family-School Partnerships. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,

Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.

Renchler, Ron. (2000, Spring). “Grade Span.” Research Roundup: The National Association of

Elementary School Principles, 16n3, 5-8.

Wasley, Patricia A., and Richard J. Lear. (2001, March) Small Schools, Real Gains.

Educational Leadership, 58n6, 22-7.

Wasley, Patricia A. (2002, February). Small classes, small schools: the time is now.

Educational Leadership, 59n5, 6-10.

BACK

Elementary School Grade Span Configuration

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm (7 of 7) [6/12/2004 2:24:11 PM]

Grade Level Centers Resources

More information on Grade Level Centers can be found at the following resources: 1.A university research project conducted by a District parent that investigated "grade level centers and

educational outcomes." A growing body of scholarly research on this subject, which is discussed in theattached paper, concludes that educational outcomes are significantly diminished in districts configuredas the District is considering.There appears to be two primary reasons for poor outcomes: 1) educational performance suffers everytime children transition from one school building to another school building; and 2) consolidating anentire District's student population in a given grade into a single school createsall of the negative effects of a "large school dynamic." Some of the negative impacts scholars aredocumenting include:

* lower standard achievement tests, and also lower overall student achievement;* increased high school drop out rates;* reduced family involvement in school systems;* disruption to effective social structures for learning; and* negative impacts to students with lower than average socioeconomic factors.

Briefly mentioned, but we should not overlook the possibility, that includedin the board's long term planning could be the closing of Eisenhower school and the creation of one largeschool with all the negative effects to our children as highlighted in the this report. At a time ofdecliningenrollment in the 1980's, it was the board's plan to close Muir andEisenhower schools. Muir did close. Enrollment for Eisenhower increased and it did not close at thattime. Was this original plan just put on hold until Eisenhower's enrollment declined again?

This report can be found at http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/GradeCenterReport.htm

2.One of the sources referenced for this report was the March 2002 issue of the Administrator’s Journal. The entire March 2002 issue was devoted to Grade Level Configurations. You can find this issue onlineat www.aasa.org/publications/saGo to past issues and find the March 2002 issue on Grade Level Configurations.

3.Another online resource is ERIC – Educational Resource Information Center. Go to www.eric.ed.govand search the database using topics the “grade span configurations”, “grade clusters”, and “schoolreconfiguration”.

BACK

Grade Center ARticle- Denise Lemanski

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/gradeCenterResources.html (1 of 2) [6/12/2004 2:24:57 PM]

Grade Center ARticle- Denise Lemanski

http://phkhome.northstarnet.org/ikepto/gradeCenterResources.html (2 of 2) [6/12/2004 2:24:57 PM]

search site

awards and scholarships

career center

conferences

education marketplace

government relations

issues and insights

links

membership

publications

state associations

home

The School Administrator Web EditionMarch 2002

Grade-Span Configurations

Where 6th and 7th grades are assigned mayinfluence student achievement, research suggests

BY CRAIG B. HOWLEY

The relative benefit of one particular gradeconfiguration over another has been the subject ofdebate for years. Which configuration for a schoolis most cost effective? Which yields higher studentachievement? How does grade configuration affectthe community?

featuredepartmenteditor's note

advertisingauthor guidelinescontact useditorial calendarfaqpast issuesphoto examplespurchase copiesreprints &permissionssubject indexmagazine home

E-mail this article

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (1 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:22 PM]

illustration by Ralph Butler

There are no easy answers to these questions nor isthere any conclusive evidence that one gradeconfiguration is better than another. School districtspoised on the brink of making these decisions musttake into account factors beyond simply what is bestfor the students. They also must consider projectedenrollments, transportation costs, number oftransitions to be made by students, size of theschool and overall school goals.

These discussions and their ultimate outcomes arenot without controversy, especially in rural areaswhere reconfiguration is often the first step towardclosing small schools. This can have far-reachingeffects on not only the staff and students but on thecommunity itself.

School Consolidation

Prior to 1948, the majority of schools in the UnitedStates were one-teacher schools typically serving asmall rural community and enrolling about 30children in the elementary grades. However,beginning in 1915, when Teachers Collegeprofessor Ellwood Cubberley proposed that largeschools in central locations could provide more andbetter education and resources, administratorsaccelerated the merging of one-teacher schools intolarger graded schools. As a result, the K-8configuration became a popular plan.

Perhaps because many farm families in the early20th century regarded high school as irrelevant,building a separate 9-12 high school for a limitednumber of students did not always make sense. In

Go to "AdditionalResources"

“School districtspoised on thebrink of makingthese decisionsmust take intoaccount factorsbeyond simplywhat is best forthe students.”

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (2 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:22 PM]

any case, the distinctly rural K-12 schools came intobeing. (It’s important to realize that the high schoolis responsible for nearly all the proportional growthin school-age enrollment in the 20th century.)

As roads improved after World War I toaccommodate automobiles, better transportation,rural economic decline and a focus on efficiency ofeducational management drove consolidation acrosslarger geographic areas. As a result, smaller schoolsclosed and many K-12 schools began to close aswell. The result was districts and schools that hadlarger enrollments than ever before.

In 1997, of approximately 82,000 public schools inthe United States, only about 1,100 were K-12schools, and for the most part, those schools servedrural areas. Today, the most common grade-spanconfigurations are K-5, K-6, 6-8 or 7-9 and 9-12(see table, page 27), with the popularity of eachconfiguration varying according to locale.

For example, the percentage of K-5 schools inurban districts is significantly higher than in ruralareas (43 percent urban vs. 18 percent rural) and thepercentage of K-8 schools is higher in rural areasthan in suburban areas, (10 percent rural vs. 4percent suburban). Although little solid researchexists regarding the reasons for the popularity orunpopularity of these particular configurations inthese locales, it could be a function of sparse ruralpopulation. More K-8 and K-12 schools survived,meaning fewer 6-8 schools were created.

One result of today’s schools’ narrower grade-spanconfiguration is that the number of students pergrade is higher than it has ever been. A K-2 schoolenrolling 360 students doesn’t seem large comparedto all those hefty suburban high schools enrolling2,000 or more students, but with 120 5- to8-year-olds per grade it’s a very large school (andthat’s become our standard). K-2 schools are amongthe largest schools in the nation with regard toenrollment and, surprisingly, they are most commonin rural areas and small towns.

The popularity of K-2 schools might be the result of

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (3 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

excessive concern with developmentally appropriateexpertise for early childhood instruction. Large sizeis the price of expertise. In rural areas, this pricemight be higher because of centralized schoollocations and poor funding for capital outlay.

Is Bigger Better?

We’ve addressed the consolidation of schools,especially in rural areas, based on suggestions thatlarger, more centrally located schools provide moreand better services to students. What direct effect, ifany, does grade-span configuration have on studentachievement, our ultimate outcome?

At the ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education andSmall Schools, we are often asked questions like“What research shows that K-2 schools are superiorto K-3 schools?” The answer is easy: none.Research surrounding the benefits of specificgrade-span configurations is seriously wanting. Onthe other hand, a large amount of prescriptiveliterature exists around that particular topic,especially with regard to middle schools.

Six recent studies, however, have addressed theissue of configuration and student achievement, andtheir conclusions, combined with the research onschool size, suggest the need to re-examine thepopular notion that fewer grades per school isbetter.

Placement of Grades

Much of the public debate about grade-spanconfiguration has focused on the middle level andwhich grade configuration best meets thedevelopmental needs of young adolescents. Whereshould the 6th and 8th grades reside? Twostudies--one in Connecticut and one inMaine--addressed the issue of whether these gradesare best included with the elementary grades or withthe secondary grades.

Their conclusion was that student achievement washigher when the 6th and 7th grades were included in

“Today, the mostcommongrade-spanconfigurationsare K-5, K-6, 6-8or 7-9 and 9-12… ”

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (4 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

the elementary school.

In Connecticut, 6th-grade student achievement washigher in schools that configured grade 6 with lowergrade levels (K-6, K-8, etc.) versus those thatplaced grade 6 with the secondary school levels.Similarly, in the Maine study, the researchersconcluded that 8th-grade students’ achievement washigher when the 8th grade was included withelementary grades (K-8, 3-8, K-9, etc.) rather thanas part of junior and senior high schools or withinthe various middle-grades configurations.

The findings that students in grades 6 and 8 achieveat higher levels when grouped with the lower gradesare strongly suggestive but not conclusive. Thesamples were from two states in the New Englandregion, and situations in different states and regionsvary. Such studies need to be replicated in otherstates before we can draw durable conclusions.

K-12 Attainment

Although K-12 schools seem to be a thing of thepast, researchers have found they have a positiveeffect on student achievement. The Louisianaresearch team of Bobby Franklin and CatherineGlascock compared student outcomes in grades 6, 7and 9-12 among four configuration types:elementary, middle, secondary and K-12 schools.

Sixth- and 7th-grade students in Louisianaperformed equally well when their grade was part ofan elementary school configuration and when it waspart of a K–12 school. In addition, theirachievement level was higher than that of 6th- and7th-grade students who attended middle schools.

Students in grades 9-12 in K-12 schools performedas well academically as those students enrolled inseparately standing 9-12 high schools but scoredhigher on measures of attendance, expulsions,suspensions and dropout rate. The average size ofthese K-12 schools was probably small, and suchpositive results have been long reported as effects ofsmaller size.

“K-2 schools areamong the largestschools in thenation withregard toenrollment and,surprisingly, theyare most commonin rural areas andsmall towns.”

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (5 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

My colleague Robert Bickel at Marshall Universityorganized a team of researchers to study grade-spanconfiguration in Texas. We determined thatattending a K-12 school in Texas was a strongpositive influence on achievement.

Texas, like Louisiana, is one of the few states with alarge number of K-12 schools. In fact, every K-12school in Texas constitutes the only school in thatdistrict. Careful review of the data also shows thatthe number of high schools in a district is negativelyrelated to 10th-grade achievement and the numberof grades in a school is positively related to10th-grade achievement.

With regard to student achievement, this conclusionflies in the face of conventional wisdom. Yet inTexas as in Louisiana and other states, K-12 schoolstend to be smaller and, as such, improveperformance among students of low socioeconomicstatus. This additional influence among low-incomeschools is also at work in K-12 schools in Texas,according to our study. This means attending asmall K-12 school in Texas provides a tripleachievement benefit. Common sense suggests thatsuch a solid benefit must be worth money, right?

That’s, in fact, what we found. All else equal, Texasschools with a broad grade-span configuration aremore cost-effective than other schools in producinga given level of 10th-grade achievement. That is, ifone were to design a school in Texas with the goalof producing student achievement in a cost-effectiveway, a single-school district operating a K-12school would be a good choice.

The finding about the cost effectiveness of K-12schools is surprising but not difficult to understand.Our study used current achievement level as acontrol variable--one way to level the playingfield--in predicting per-pupil expenditures. Takinginto account achievement levels, school size,community affluence, the number of schools in adistrict, student ethnicity and so forth, the numberof grades in a school exerts a negative influence onper-pupil expenditures. This minimization ofper-pupil expenditures, in view of achievement

“Six recentstudies …suggest the needto re-examine the

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (6 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

levels, can be thought of as real-time savings.

In Texas, savings were maximized, of course, inK-12 schools, because they have the broadestgrade-span configuration, tend to be small, oftenserve poorer communities and tend to be the onlyschools in their districts. The real wonder is that atthe same time, these K-12 schools, because theytend to be small and serve poorer communities,boost overall 10th-grade achievement (withbackground conditions controlled--somethingaccountability systems often disregard).

This “Texas Miracle” goes unacknowledged, Ibelieve, because legislatures, educators and thepublic hardly ever use achievement as a controlvariable when predicting expenditures. It makesperfect sense, however. If you wanted to predictexpenditures per cow in a ranching operation, you’dnaturally include average weight gain per cow inyour calculations. It’s a question of price per givenoutcome.

The research method does accept as a fact that notevery school or student will be excellent. Comparedto this problem of mere rhetoric, however, the studysuggests that improving the odds for poor schools isnot just laudable, but feasible.

Rural Reconfiguration

Student outcomes are not, of course, the only resultsabout which we should be concerned. Rural areasface particular challenges as smaller, locallyaccessible schools are closed in favor of larger,more remote schools. Predictable results mightinclude longer bus rides, reduced parentalinvolvement, declining extracurricular participationand less sense of community ownership.

A study of national and regional data on gradeconfiguration that I conducted with my colleaguesrevealed that between 1987 and 1991, thepercentage of all schools nationwide that weremiddle schools rose by about 20 percent in ruralareas, while elsewhere the proportion of middleschools remained constant or even fell--as it did in

popular notionthat fewer gradesper school isbetter.”

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (7 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

urban areas.

In Appalachia, one of the nation’s most ruralregions, the increased number of middle schoolswas associated with a 24 percent decline in thenumber of K-8 schools. Interestingly, the schools inall three configurations--K-8, lower elementary(K-5 or K-6) and middle schools--increased in size.Thus, reconfiguration not only closed some schools,it made the remaining, more narrowly configuredschools significantly larger.

The number of times students must change schoolsmay affect student achievement. John Alspaugh,professor of education at the University of Missouri,investigating the relationship between grade-spanconfiguration and high school dropout rates in 45Missouri schools, focused on the grade level oftransition to high school as related to threegrade-span configurations: 7-12, 9-12 and 10-12.

The Missouri study raises an important issue relatedto student achievement not considered by theConnecticut, Maine or Texas studies. Creating morenarrowly configured schools in a system increasesthe number of transitions students must experienceduring their K-12 careers.

All else equal, dropout rates were lower in the 7-12configuration and higher in the 10-12 configuration.School size may have been a contributing factorbecause the 7-12 schools in Alspaugh’s study weremuch smaller than the 10-12 schools.

Possible Implications

So in view of this partial knowledge of theinfluence of grade-span configuration, what mightbe the implications for practice? The following arebold statements that are intended to be provocativebecause we’ve ignored the structure of schooling(school size, district size, grade-span configurationand proximity to communities). These provocationsderive partly from the thin research base referencedhere and partly from my own experience, informedby a lifetime of reading and studying related issues.

“Their conclusionwas that studentachievement washigher when the6th and 7thgrades wereincluded in theelementaryschool.”

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (8 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

First, the evidence rather clearly suggests that thetendency to create narrow grade-spanconfigurations reinforces the bad habit of buildinglarger and larger schools. Larger schools damageeducational equity for everyone, and they undercuteducational excellence in impoverishedcommunities, according to a growing body ofevidence.

Second, every transition from one narrowlyconfigured school to another seems to disrupt thesocial structure in which learning takes place,lowering achievement and participation for manystudents. Predictably, this damage will be mostsevere in the cases of students from impoverishedbackgrounds. Short of providing an adequate livingfor poor families, we can at least restructure oureducational system to mitigate the detrimentaleffects of poverty. A logical move seems to besmaller, more broadly configured schools--andsmaller districts.

Third, and most surprising, large, narrowlyconfigured schools also seem like a bad investmentif school reform is the objective. Per unit ofachievement produced (not a metaphor I like, butone that’s often used), smaller K-8 (300 and fewerstudents) and 9-12 (600 and fewer students) schoolsseem like a much better investment. Schools can beprofitably much smaller than those upper limits inimpoverished communities. This profitabilitydefinitely refers to the efficient and effective use oftax dollars.

Fourth, we should stop fretting about preciselywhich grade-span configuration might be ideal.One-size-fits-all prescriptions inevitably not onlyfall far short of the ideal, they’ve been doingconsistent damage for much of recorded history. Weseem to have settled on 9-12 as the ideal form forthe high school, of course, and that is an inevitablemisstep. We’re not sure any longer what to do withadolescents, and the high school itself needs majorreconfiguration, according to a substantial lineup ofmajor reports.

Fifth, and this might be the most controversial

“Although K-12schools seem to

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (9 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

hunch, middle-level students can be well-served inK-8 schools. Much has been written about the factthat most middle schools fall short of the originalstudent-centered ideal. Part of the issue, in myexperience, is also our tendency to segregatestudents of differing ages. Is this for the benefit ofstudents or for the benefit of staffing, running andcoping with the system we’ve created over the pastcentury? Answers will differ, but my thoughtsaffirm the latter response. Much of what we do isfor our convenience as educators and not for thebenefit of kids, families or communities.

Finally, the K-12 school is a vanishingorganizational form. Early evidence suggests,however, that the K-12 school is doing goodeducational work. It would be a better idea to buildmore of them rather than continue to shut themdown. Building more of them, however, will requirethat we think very differently about educationalleadership, educational purpose, community, thestructure of educational systems,and--indeed--about curriculum and instruction. Toomany of today’s K–12 schools are probably apingthe elementary-middle-secondary norms ofpractice--designed for large systems relying onspecialists and crowding out generalists andcommunity.

Caution in Order

The six preceding provocations don’t present thetruth, just a series of strong hunches in need of a lotmore work. Don’t take them too literally, but don’tdismiss them out of hand. Instead, entertain them aspossibilities, as another perspective on schoolrestructuring (that is, actually changing thestructures as opposed to changing curriculum andinstruction).

These hunches are my own, but a few colleaguesshare them as well. Folks like us expect--andwelcome--skepticism. That said, I offer a couple ofmore closely targeted cautions.

First, the research base is very thin. In particular,investigations about K-12, 7-12 and alternative high

be a thing of thepast, researchershave found theyhave a positiveeffect on studentachievement.”

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (10 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

school configurations are much needed and don’tseem to be forthcoming. The research reported hereis rare, poorly funded and critical. The resultsdefinitely flout conventional wisdom--a fact thatmakes additional support that much more unlikelybecause that’s the way research works. We tend toresearch the questions that everyone thinks areimportant when the most important questions areoften invisible to conventional wisdom.

What we don’t need is a study of national averages.New research should take the form of multiplereplications and extensions of past studies in stateswhose policies and circumstances differ on relevantissues. States make decisions about configurationsand size, and studies need to address state-leveldilemmas, not national averages or generalities.

The most important caution, however, is this:Interest in grade-span configuration rests on thedubious assumption that segregating students by ageis a natural law of schooling. In other words, nogrades, no school. We ignore the underlying issuewhen we think like that. The underlying issue ishow should we configure educational institutions,not what grade-span configuration is best.

A strong potential threat to age-grade segregationalready exists: virtual schooling. Age-gradeplacement eventually may disappear as anexpectation and with it the issue of grade-spanconfiguration. The progressive notion of continuousprogress might stand a better chance under adifferently configured system. Many students couldfinish a K-12 curriculum in 10 years. Many mightprofit from 15 years. Why should we not permit thisvariation and hold kids blameless if they finish infewer or more years?

What keeps us from realizing this alternative? Wethink that the former route, 10 years, is better thanthe latter, 15 years. It’s not! Both are worthy.However, resources not spent on the former routecould be profitably redirected toward the latter. Itmakes practical and ethical sense. And it wouldrealize the public purpose of education a whole lotbetter than the configuration of our present system.

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (11 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

Craig Howley co-directs the ACCLAIM ResearchInitiative at Ohio University and is director of theERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and SmallSchools at Appalachia Educational Laboratory Inc.He can be reached at 210A McCracken Hall, OhioUniversity, Athens, OH 45701. E-mail:howleyc@ohio.edu.

American Association of School Administrators801 N Quincy Street • Suite 700 • Arlington, VA 22203-1730Phone 703-528-0700 • FAX 703-841-1543http://www.aasa.org e-mail webmaster@aasa.orgAASA.org SiteMapCopyright © AASA, All Rights Reserved.Privacy Statement

American Association of School Administrators - The School Administrator

http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.htm (12 of 12) [6/12/2004 2:26:23 PM]

Transition Achievement Loss 1

Achievement Loss Associated with the Transition John W. Alspaughto Middle Schools and High Schools 13 B Hill Hall

University of MissouriColumbia, MO 65211

In a previous research project the author was able to establish that there is aconsistent student achievement loss associated with the transition from selfcontained elementary schools to intermediate level schools. The achievementloss in reading, mathematics, science and social studies occurred when thetransition was at either grade five, six, seven or eight. Student achievementscores tended to recover to their pretransition levels in the year following thetransition. In the previous study it appeared that the size and organization ofschool districts might be related to the transition loss.

Purpose of the Study

The goal of this expost facto study was to further explore the nature of theachievement losses associated with the transition to grade six through eightmiddle schools and the transition to high school.

Sample School Districts

The sample for this study consisted of three groups of sixteen school districtsfor a total sample of forty eight districts. The first group of districts had a K-8,9-12 grade level organization with only one elementary school and one highschool. The second group consisted of districts containing one elementaryschool, one middle school and one high school with a linear transitionarrangement. The third group of districts had two or three elementaryschools, one middle school and one high school with a pyramid transitionarrangement of students from multiple elementary schools into a singlemiddle school.

The schools are primarily in rural and small town school districts. No urbandistricts are included in the comparison groups. Descriptive statistics for theschools are presented in Table 1. There is a statistically significant differenceamong both the free/reduced lunch rates and enrollments per grade for thethree school groups thus implying that the schools are in differentsocioeconomic settings.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for School Groups ________________________________________________________________________

K - 8 Elem Linear MS Pyramid MS_____________ _____________ _____________

Measure Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.________________________________________________________________________Building Enroll. 264.94 131.46 296.38 94.27 624.19 229.13Enrollment/ Grade

29.43 14.61 98.79 31.54 208.06 76.38

% F/R Lunch 40.51 13.94 37.97 8.24 28.86 10.31Expenditures/ Pupil

$3542.10 $607.55 $3310.12 $556.45 $3264.47 $395.13

________________________________________________________________________

Transition Achievement Loss 2

Transition to Middle School at Sixth Grade

The Missouri Mastery and Achievement Test (MMAT) scores for reading, math,science and social studies were scaled around the State mean of 300 andstandard deviation of 60. A three way analysis of variance with repeatedmeasures for grade level and academic area found a statistically significantinteraction between school groups and fifth-sixth grade MMAT scores. Thisinteraction is illustrated in Figure 1. A large portion of Missouri schools werein transition at sixth grade. The K-8 schools were not in transition at grade sixand their achievement improved in relation to the State mean from grade fiveto grade six. The larger districts with multiple elementary schools that werepyramided in the transition to middle school had a larger achievement loss inthe transition. The merging of students from multiple elementary schools intolarger middle schools appears to be associated with an increased loss in studentachievement. The K-8 elementary schools are in low SES areas and hence havelower achievement. The concern in Figure 1 is the change in achievementfrom grades five to six not the achievement levels.

292

294

296

298

300

302

304

306

308

K - 8 Elem

Linear MS

Pyramid MS

Grade 5 Grade 6

MM

AT A

chie

vem

ent

Scor

es

Figure 1. Achievement loss in transition to middle school

State Mean

Transition to High School at Ninth Grade

All three school groups were in transition to high school at ninth grade. Athree way analysis of variance found an achievement loss for all three schoolgroups during the transition to high school. The achievement losses werelarger for middle schools than for the K-8 elementary schools. Figure 2illustrates the achievement loses at ninth grade associated with the transition.There was a little more achievement loss for the larger schools with thepyramiding of elementary schools to a single middle school. One mightanticipate a lower achievement loss for the middle school students because oftheir previous experience with a school transition. The higher rates of free orreduced lunch for the K-8 elementary schools in Table 1 can be associated withlower socioeconomic levels and lower achievement levels of the K-8 schools.The achievement levels of the school districts in the study are mostly abovethe State average of 300. There is a tendency for the smaller school districts inMissouri to have higher achievement scores than the larger urban districts.

Transition Achievement Loss 3

298

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

314

MM

AT

Ach

ieve

men

t Sco

res

Grade 8 Grade 9

K-8 Elem

Linear MS

Pyramid MS

Figure 2. Achievement loss in transition to high school

State Mean

High School Dropout Rates

A one way analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant differenceamong the mean high school dropout rates for the three school groups. Thedifferences in the mean annual high school dropout rates are illustrated inFigure 3. There were two transitions for the middle school groups and onlyone transition for the K-8 elementary school group. The school size variablemay also be a factor influencing the dropout rates. In a related researchproject the author has found that school size is positively correlated to highschool dropout rates.

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

Hig

h Sc

hool

Dro

pout

Rat

e

Figure 3. Average Annual High School Dropout Rates

K-8 Elem Linear MS Pyramid MS

Summary

The reader needs to be very careful in interpreting the achievement losses.First the middle schools may be middle schools in name only and may or maynot have implemented the recommended middle school practices. Also thesocioeconomic level of the K-8 elementary schools is much lower than the SESlevels of the middle schools. The school enrollment variable and schoolorganization variables are confounded and hence it is difficult to associate thedifferences in achievement loss and high school dropout rates specifically toeither school size or school organization.

AUTHOR: JOHN W. ALSPAUGH TITLE: Achievement Loss Associated With the Transition to Middle School and High School SOURCE: The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.) 92 no1 20-5 S/O '98 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. ABSTRACT To explore the nature of the achievement loss associated with school-to-school transitions from elementary school to middle school and to high school, the author compared 3 groups of 16 school districts in this ex post facto study. A statistically significant achievement loss associated with the transition from elementary school to middle school at 6th grade was found, as compared with K-8 schools that did not have a school-to-school transition at 6th grade. The transition loss in achievement was larger when students from multiple elementary schools were merged into a single middle school during the transition. The students from the middle schools and K-8 elementary schools experienced an achievement loss in the transition to high school at 9th grade. The achievement loss in the transition to high school was larger for middle school students than for K-8 elementary students. High school dropout rates were higher for districts with Grade 6-8 middle schools than for districts with K-8 elementary schools. Students experience many changes in their school environment associated with the transition from elementary school to middle school or junior high school. The goals of elementary schools tend to be task oriented, whereas the goals of middle schools tend to focus on performance (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). Middle school teachers tend to have many students for short periods of time; hence, the student-teacher relationship changes from elementary to middle school (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988). Associated with the change in student-teacher relationships is a change from small-group and individual instruction to whole-class instruction in the intermediate-level schools. Researchers have found declines in student self-perception and self-esteem associated with the transition from elementary school to intermediate-level school (Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, & Feinman, 1994; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). Seidman et al. found the decline in self-perception to be independent of age, grade level, and ability level. Alspaugh and Harting (1995) established that there is a consistent student achievement loss associated with the transition from self-contained elementary schools to intermediate-level schools. The achievement loss in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies occurred when the transition was at Grade 5, 6, 7, or 8. Student achievement scores tended to recover to their pretransition levels in the year following the transition. In Alspaugh and Harting, it appeared that the size and organization of school districts might be related to the transition loss. Seidman et al. (1994) hypothesized that students may face double jeopardy if they make a transition from elementary school to middle school and then experience a second transition to high school. There also may be a relationship between the number of school-to-school transitions and high school dropout rates. My first goal in this ex post facto study was to explore further the nature of the achievement loss associated with the transition to Grade 6-8 middle schools and the transition to high school. My second goal was to determine if there is a relationship between school-to-school transitions and the percentage of students who drop out of high school.

SAMPLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS The sample for this study consisted of three groups of 16 school districts for a total sample of 48 districts. The first group of districts had a K-8, 9-12 grade-level organization, with only one elementary school and one high school. The second group consisted of districts containing one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school, with a linear transition arrangement. The third group of districts had two or three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, with a pyramid transition arrangement of students from multiple elementary schools into a single middle school. The schools were primarily in rural and small-town school districts. No urban districts were included in the comparison groups. Descriptive statistics for the schools are presented in Table 1. There was a statistically significant difference between both the free and reduced-price lunch rates and enrollments per grade for the three school groups; this difference implies that the schools were in different socioeconomic settings. In previous research (Alspaugh, 1991), I documented a decline in Missouri Mastery and Achievement Tests (MMAT) scores as the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches increased. Also, as school size increased, there appeared to be an associated decline in achievement test scores (Alspaugh, 1992). School size and socioeconomic status (SES) tend to interact in their influence on student achievement. Low SES tends to have limited influence on student achievement in small schools. There was no statistically significant difference in expenditures per student among the three groups of schools; all three groups of schools were considerably below the state average expenditure per pupil. Hanushek (1989) found that there was not a consistent relationship between expenditures per pupil and student achievement. My purpose in the present study was not to compare the levels of achievement in the three school groups but to study the changes in achievement during the school-to-school transitions. TRANSITION TO MIDDLE SCHOOL AT 6TH GRADE The MMAT are given to students in May of each year. The pretransition achievement measures were from May 1994, and the posttransition scores were from May 1995. The MMAT scores for reading, mathematics, science, and social studies were scaled around the state mean of 300 and a standard deviation of 60. The K-R 20 indices of reliability for the MMAT varied from about .90 to .95. For the first part of this investigation, the dependent variable was the difference between the district average 5th-and 6th-grade achievement scores. The difference scores represent the achievement loss associated with the transition from elementary school to middle school. The correlation between the school average 5th- and 6th-grade achievement was about .50. If one assumes that the average building-level achievement scores have a reliability of .90, the estimated reliability of the difference scores would be about .80 (Ferguson & Takane, 1989). Table 2 contains a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of achievement loss, with repeated measures on academic area for the transition from elementary school to middle school at 6th grade. The cell means corresponding to the two-way ANOVA are presented in Table 3. The main effect of school groups was statistically significant at the .025 level. Relative to the state average of 300, the K-8 elementary schools showed a gain of 7.40. The K-8 schools were not in transition between Grades 5 and 6. This apparent gain may have been due to the large

number of schools within the state that were in transition between Grades 5 and 6. Both middle school groups were in transition and experienced an achievement loss. The achievement loss in the transition to middle school is illustrated in Figure 1. The loss for the pyramid group in which the students from two or three elementary schools were merged into one middle school was larger than for the linear group in which the elementary students moved as a single cohort to the middle school. The comparisons of the individual-school-group achievement gains and losses in Table 4 indicate a statistically significant loss only for the pyramid middle school group. The small sample size of 16 in each group may have influenced the power of the t tests. The gain in achievement for the K-8 group nearly offset the loss experienced by the pyramid middle school group. The p value of .054 in Table 2 implies that there may be some inconsistency in achievement losses among the four academic areas. For the three school groups taken together, there were achievement losses in science and social studies and small achievement gains in reading and mathematics. There was no interaction for achievement loss between the school groups and academic areas. TRANSITION TO HIGH SCHOOL AT 9TH GRADE All three school groups were in transition to high school at 9th grade. The dependent variable for the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on academic areas was the difference between 8th- and 9th-grade achievement. The ANOVA in Table 5 did not indicate a statistically significant difference among the three school groups. All three school groups experienced a mean achievement loss in the transition to high school at 9th grade. The achievement losses by academic area are presented in Table 6. The average achievement losses across the four academic areas are illustrated in Figure 2. The comparisons of the individual-school-group achievement losses in Table 7 indicate a statistically significant loss for both middle school groups. There was a gain in mathematics achievement for the K-8 schools, as revealed by the 6.06 gain in Table 6. This gain in mathematics achievement may have caused the overall achievement loss of the K-8 schools not to be statistically significant. The combined loss in achievement for all schools during the transition to high school was statistically significant. The inconsistent gain in mathematics achievement within the K-8 schools in which there were achievement losses for the other academic areas may be attributable to teacher certification. Algebra achievement may be lower when students are taught by general elementary certified teachers, as compared with certified secondary teachers with mathematics majors. The findings reported in Table 5 indicate a statistically significant difference among the achievement losses associated with the four academic areas. The achievement loss for all schools in the study was less for mathematics than for the other academic areas. One might anticipate a smaller achievement loss for the middle school students because of their previous experience with a school transition. There was a slightly greater achievement loss for the larger schools with the pyramiding of multiple elementary schools into a single middle school. The correlations between achievement losses and enrollment per grade are presented in Table 8. As the number of students per grade increased, the achievement loss associated with the transition to high school also increased.

The higher rates of free or reduced-price lunches for the K-8 elementary schools in Table 1 can be associated with lower SES and achievement levels of the K-8 schools. The achievement levels of the school districts in the study were mostly above the state average of 300. The smaller rural school districts in Missouri tend to have higher achievement scores than the larger urban districts. The expenditures per pupil for all three school groups were below the state mean, whereas the achievement means tended to be slightly above the state average. In previous research, I have found little relationship between expenditures of school districts and their mean achievement levels in Missouri. HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT RATES My second goal in the present study was to explore the relationship between school-to-school transitions and high school dropout rates. For the purposes of this investigation, dropout rates were the 5-year average percentage of students in Grades 9-12 who dropped out of school each year between 1990 and 1995. The one-way ANOVA in Table 9 revealed a statistically significant difference among the mean high school dropout rates for the three school groups. The differences in the mean annual high school dropout rates are illustrated in Figure 3. Tukey's pairwise comparisons of the three school groups showed a statistically significant difference between the mean dropout rates for the K-8 schools and the dropout rates for both middle school groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean dropout rates for the two middle school groups. There were two transitions for the middle school groups and only one transition for the K-8 elementary school group. School size and student SES were confounded with the school transitions in influencing the high school dropout rates presented in Figure 3. In reviewing previous research, Rumberger (1987) concluded that that the most important factor associated with high school dropout rates is SES. In Alspaugh (1992), I found a differential effect of school size on the relationship between SES and education outcomes. As school size increased, the relationship between SES and education outcomes also increased. A correlation of -.002 between the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches and dropout rate indicated that SES may not have been a factor in the dropout rates in the sample schools. The enrollments per grade in Table 1 indicate a close relationship between school size and district organization for the sample schools. Previous researchers have found that larger high schools tend to have higher dropout rates (Merritt, 1983; Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). The correlation of +.514 between enrollment per grade and high school dropout rate for the sample schools is consistent with the findings of other researchers. This finding suggests that further research is needed to sort out the relative influence of SES, school size, and district organization on high school dropout rates. SUMMARY The achievement losses associated with the trasition to middle school at 6th grade were consistent with the achievement losses found by Alspaugh and Harting (1995). The students involved in a pyramid transition of multiple elementary schools into a single middle school experienced a greater achievement loss than did the students in a linear transition of a single elementary school to a middle school. Mixing students from multiple elementary schools in the

transition may tend to increase the transition achievement loss. The middle schools in this study may or may not have implemented the recommended middle school transition strategies. Pamperien (1997) found that the implementation of middle school practices had little influence on student achievement scores. The findings of the present study should not be interpreted as an evaluation of the recommended middle school transition practices. The students attending middle schools experienced a greater achievement loss in the transition to high school than did the students making the transition from a K-8 elementary school. The experience of making a previous transition did not moderate the achievement loss during the transition to high school. This finding implies that the students were encountering the double-jeopardy situation that Seidman et al. (1994) anticipated. The increased high school dropout rates for the students attending middle schools may have been associated with the achievement losses and the double transitions at Grades 6 and 9. The loss of self-esteem and self-perception other researchers have found to be associated with school-to-school transitions may have been a factor in the increased dropout rates found in this study (Seidman et al., 1994; Wigfield et al., 1991). The students attending larger schools tended to experience more transitions than the students in smaller schools. The schools with two transitions had higher dropout rates than the schools with only one transition. The findings of this study are consistent with the findings of other researchers in that the instability and adjustments required of students in school transitions were associated with education outcomes. The findings imply that students placed in relatively small cohort groups for long spans of time tend to experience more desirable educational outcomes. ADDED MATERIAL Address correspondence to John W. Alspaugh, 16 Hill Hall, Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Table 1.--Descriptive Statistics for School Groups K-8 elementary Linear MS Pyramid MS (n = 16) (n = 16) (n = 16) Measure M SD M SD M SD p(FNa) Enrollment/grade 29.43 14.61 98.79 31.54 208.06 76.38 .000 % receiving free/ 40.51 13.94 37.97 8.24 28.86 10.31 .012 reduced-price lunches Expenditure/pupil 3,542.10 607.55 3,310.12 556.45 3,264.47 395.13 .290 1992-93 ($) Dropout rate 3.28 2.10 5.30 1.85 5.49 1.41 .002 Note. MS = middle school. FOOTNOTE a p values from one-way analysis of variance. Table 2.--Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Achievement Loss Associated With the Transition From Elementary School to Middle School, With Repeated Measures on Academic Areas

Source SS df MS F p Between groups Schools 7,840.29 2 3,920.15 4.01 .025 Schools with groups 43,985.19 45 977.45 Within group Academic areas 1,603.85 3 534.62 2.61 .054 School X Areas 401.08 6 66.85 .33 .922 School X Areas With Groups 27,647.06 135 204.79 Total 81,477.47 191 Table 3.--Mean Achievement Levels and Gains and Losses in Achievement From Grade 5 to Grade 6 Academic area School group Reading Math Science Social studies Average K-8 Grade 5 292.50 290.25 300.00 289.31 293.02 Grade 6 300.00 300.63 302.38 298.69 300.42 Gain (loss) 7.50 10.38 2.38 9.38 7.40 Linear MS Grade 5 300.06 303.00 316.38 309.06 307.13 Grade 6 299.19 301.38 306.94 301.00 302.13 Gain (loss) (.87) (1.62) (9.44) (8.06) (5.00) Pyramid MS Grade 5 303.38 306.63 311.44 307.06 307.13 Grade 6 299.50 301.69 301.00 298.06 300.06 Gain (loss) (3.88) (4.94) (10.44) (9.00) (7.07) Average achievement 299.11 300.60 306.35 300.53 301.65 Average gain (loss) .92 1.27 (5.83) (2.56) (1.55) Note. MS = middle school. Table 4.--Comparison of the Mean Achievement Gain (Loss) Associated With the Transition to 6th Grade Against Zero School n M SD t p(FNa) K-8 16 7.40 19.05 1.56 .141 Linear MS 16 (5.00) 14.64 (1.37) .192 Pyramid MS 16 (7.06) 12.49 (2.26) .039 Combined 48 (1.55) 16.60 (0.65) .520 Note. MS = middle school. FOOTNOTE a Two-tailed test.

Table 5.--Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Achievement Loss Associated With the Transition From Grade 8 to Grade 9, With Repeated Measures on Academic Areas Source SS df MS F p Between groups Schools 1,633.14 2 816.57 .98 .387 Schools with groups 37,900.98 45 842.57 Within groups Academic areas 4,040.56 3 1,346.85 6.42 .000 School X Areas 1,308.86 6 218.14 1.04 .402 School X Areas With Groups 28,321.33 135 209.79 Total 73,204.87 191 Table 6.--Mean Achievement Levels and Gain (Loss) in Achievement From Grade 8 to Grade 9 Academic area School group Reading Math Science Social studies Average K-8 Grade 8 305.44 294.38 313.25 301.69 303.69 Grade 9 299.38 300.44 296.75 299.38 298.99 Gain (loss) (6.06) 6.06 (16.50) (2.31 (4.70) Linear MS Grade 8 312.06 306.31 318.75 312.81 312.48 Grade 9 301.25 301.56 306.00 302.00 302.70 Gain (loss) (10.81) (4.75) (12.75) (10.81) (9.78) Pyramid MS Grade 8 309.13 302.56 322.38 306.00 310.02 Grade 9 295.50 295.75 307.88 294.56 298.42 Gain (loss) (13.63) (6.81) (14.50) (11.44) (11.59) Average achievement 303.79 300.17 310.83 302.74 304.38 Average gain (loss) (10.17) (1.83) (14.58) (8.19) (8.69) Note. MS = middle school. Table 7.--Comparison of the Mean Achievement Loss Associated With the Transition to High School Against Zero School n M SD t p(FNa) K-8 16 4.70 15.81 1.19 .253 Linear MS 16 9.78 16.63 2.35 .033 Pyramid MS 16 11.59 10.25 4.52 .000 Combined 48 8.69 14.50 4.15 .000 Note. MS = middle school.

FOOTNOTE a Two-tailed test. Table 8.--Correlations Between Enrollment per Grade and Transition-to-High-School Achievement Loss (N = 48) Academic area r p(FNa) Reading/language arts .238 .052 Mathematics .236 .053 Science .042 .388 Social studies .212 .073 Average .210 .076 FOOTNOTE a One-tailed test. Table 9.--One-Way Analysis of Variance for High School Dropout Rates Source SS df MS F p Between 48.043 2 24.021 7.341 .002 Within 147.254 45 3.272 Total 195.297 47 Figure 1. Achievement Loss in Transition From Grade 5 to Grade 6 Figure 2. Achievement Loss in Transition to High School Figure 3. Average Annual High School Dropout Rates REFERENCES Alspaugh, J. W. (1991). Out-of-school environmental factors and elementary achievement in mathematics and reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 24, 53-55. Alspaugh, J. W. (1992). Socioeconomic measures and achievement: Urban vs. rural. The Rural Educator, 13(3), 2-7. Alspaugh, J. W., & Harting, R. D. (1995). Transition effects of school grade-level organization on student achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28(3), 145-149. Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8(2), 133-156. Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18, 45-51. Merritt, R. (1983). The effects of enrollment and school organization on the dropout rate. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(3), 224. Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(1), 90-113.

Pamperien, K. C. (1997). Academic achievement in middle level schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia. Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987). Influence of high school size and dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343. Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 101-121. Seidman, E., Allen, L., Aber, J., Mitchell, C., & Feinman, J. (1994). The impact of school transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth. Child Development, 65, 507-522. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D. A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children's domain-specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 552-565.

GRADE CONFIGURATION

NCEF's resource list of links, books, and journal articles on theimpact of grade spans, multigrade, and multiage classrooms oneducational facilities planning and student achievement.

References to Books and Other Media - 17●

References to Journal Articles - 18●

Related Web Sites - 4●

Related Resource Lists - 2●

Elementary Grade Configuration Report, Frost and McCoy Elementary Schools [Georgetown,Texas]http://www.georgetownisd.org/filing_cabinet/curriculum/Simonson, Linda(Report to the Board of Trustees from the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction,Georgetown, Texas,Dec 09, 2003)This report contains research and recommendations on the grade configuration of two elementaryschools. Currently configured as separate facilities for grades PK-2 and 3-5 the study looks at theimplications of having both facilities contain grades PK/K-5. Key points of considerations include:transportation costs, parent involvement, staffing, special programs, educational equity and diversity,assessment of existing facilities, and budget implications. 13p.

Ten Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design.http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/trends.pdfStevenson, Kenneth R.(National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC , Sep 2002)This publication examines 10 educational trends that should be considered in the planning, design, andmodernization of schools. The trends were identified by reviewing research on the relationship of schoolfacilities to student outcomes; by performing a general environmental scan of current trends, issues,problems, and initiatives in education; and by reviewing demographic patterns emerging out of the 2000U.S. Census. The trends are: (1) the lines of prescribed attendance areas will blur; (2) schools will besmaller and more neighborhood oriented; (3) there will be fewer students per class; (4) technology willdominate instructional delivery; (5) the typical spaces thought to constitute a school may change; (6)students and teachers will be organized differently; (7) students will spend more time in school; (8)instructional materials will evolve; (9) grade configurations will change; and (10) schools will disappearby the end of the 21st century (or will they?). 6p.

Grade Configuration Study Committee Final Report [Hopkinton Public Schools, Massachusetts].http://www.hopkinton.k12.ma.us/schoolcommittee/Plans/(Hopkinton Public Schools, Hopkinton, MA., Nov 01, 2001)This is an informational report to help the school committee make future grade configuration decisionsfor Hopkinton's elementary schools. Includes an executive summary, and reports from subcommitteeson research, educational programs/curriculum, experience of other communities, transportation,enrollment and facilities. Configuration options are presented in table format. 34p.

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (1 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

Recommendations for Elementary School Grade Configuration.http://elps.k12.mi.us/news/february/grade_config.htmGiblin, Thomas R.(East Lansing Public Schools, MI, Feb 12, 2001)These recommendations made to the East Lansing Board of Education discuss elementary gradeconfigurations and the impact that changing them would have on facilities as well as on curriculum,instruction, resources, and finances.

Grade Organization.(ERS Info-Files, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2001)Examines issues in reorganizing grade structure such as combining previously separate grades andmaking a grade level self-contained. Includes survey data on middle school grade spans and researchfindings on particular grade organizations.TO ORDER: Educational Research Service, 2000 Clarendon Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201. Tel:800-791-9308.

How to Configure the Schools.http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm(City School District of Albany, NY, 2001)Grade configuration was an important issue in developing a new facilities plan for the Albany Schools.This report summarizes the configuration choices that were made and puts them into the context ofother facilities decisions.

NMSA Research Summary #3. Numbers of Middle Schools and Students.http://www.nmsa.org/research/ressum3.htm(National Middle School Association, Westerville, OH, 2001)This report provides answers to two questions: 1) How many middle schools are there in comparison tojunior high schools? and 2) How many schools are there with middle level students? The reportprovides definitions, statistics, related articles, and references.

NMSA Research Summary #8: Grade 5 in the Middle School.http://www.nmsa.org/research/ressum8.htm(National Middle School Association, Westerville, OH , 2001)This report explores research that is available to support the idea of including grade 5 (and/or grade 6)in middle schools. Describes the issue, reviews the research, and provides related articles andreferences.

Grade Span.http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.htmlRenchler, Ron(ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR , Apr 2000)Provides a roundup of research focusing on grade configuration, also known as grade span. "GradeConfiguration: Who Goes Where?" surveys issues and concerns related to grade spans, and it profileseight Northwest schools having varying grade spans. "Grade Span and Eighth-Grade AcademicAchievement: Evidence from a Predominantly Rural State" notes the influence of grade span onacademic achievement of eighth-grade students in Maine. "The Elemiddle School: A Model for MiddleGrades Reform" surveys the history of grade configuration and cites research indicating that schoolsthat combine elementary and middle-school grades may best meet educational and social needs."Accountability Works: Analysis of Performance by Grade Span of School" presents study resultsmeasuring sixth-grade students' academic performance on the "Connecticut Mastery Test" relative tostudent enrollment in schools having K-5 or K-6 configurations. "The Interaction Effect of TransitionGrade to High School with Gender and Grade Level upon Dropout Rates" examines the influence ofgrade span and related factors on dropout rates in high school. 5p.ERIC NO: ED440471 ;

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (2 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

Reconfiguration Recommendation Justification.http://www.nvusd.k12.ca.us/html/Reconfiguration%20Recommendation(Napa Valley Unified School District, Office of the Superintendent, CA, Mar 14, 2000)This report provides a summary of research on schools with grades 5-8 versus grades 6-8. Notes thatavailable research on the specific issue of 6-8 configurations is not entirely conclusive. Notes that fieldand outside expert opinion tends to support a 6-8 configuration, but that bonafide concerns exist, whichare identified in this review and recommendation. Recommends that the school approve areconfiguration of grades K-8 to include K-5 elementary schools and 6-8 middle schools.

Grade Organization Study Committee Committee Report.http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html(Bloomington Public School System, MN , 1999)This report provides a summary of the literature reviewed, research conducted, and process used toreach a recommendation regarding the grade organization of the Bloomington Public School System.

The Multigrade Classroom: A Resource Handbook for Small, Rural Schools. Book 2: ClassroomOrganization.http://www.nwrel.org/ruraled/publications/multig2.pdfVincent, Susan, Ed.( Northwest Regional Educational Lab., Rural Education Program, Portland, OR , 1999)Offers guidelines for classroom organization that will accommodate the multiple activities occurring inthe multigrade classroom. Outlines an activity-centers approach to classroom design that designatesclassroom areas for specific purposes. Defines general considerations for planning, including activitylevel and noise likely to occur during different learning activities, use of visual barriers to define activitycenters, placement of teacher and student resources, traffic patterns, age and physical size differencesamong students, and storage of student belongings. A list of questions clarifies classroom designprinciples and aspects of a particular classroom plan. Presented in workbook fashion, a three-step designprocess involves describing the present classroom, identifying specific learning activities that will takeplace, and drawing the final plan. 37p.ERIC NO: ED448979 ;

Grade Configuration: Who Goes Where?http://www.nwrel.org/request/july97/article2.htmlPaglin, Catherine; Fager, Jennifer(Northwest Regional Educational Lab., Portland, OR. , 1997)This booklet examines questions relating to grade configurations, seeking to increase awareness andunderstanding of issues surrounding grade span. It explores the ways that schools have addressedconcerns associated with particular grade spans and suggests avenues for further inquiry. The textfocuses on historical trends in grade configuration and the various contexts of grade spans, such aswhether a school is in a rural or urban area. Most research on grade span focuses on middle grades andaddresses such questions as: Which grades should be grouped together in one school? How many gradesshould be in one school? and How many school transitions will students make during the K-12 years?Includes tips for starting a school with a grade span new to a school system. Provides an overview ofgrade-span considerations. Describes eight schools' experiences with grade spans, discussing suchissues as how the grade span came about and how the schools were structured to meet the needs of theparticular grades they contain. 48p.ERIC NO: ED432033 ;

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (3 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

The Relationship between Grade Configuration and Student Performance in Rural Schools.Franklin, Bobby J.; Glascock, Catherine H.(Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Rural Education Association, San Antonio,TX , Oct 15, 1996)This paper examines the relationship between a school's grade configuration and student performance inLouisiana. Student performance was measured by using standardized test scores and information onattendance, suspensions, expulsions, and dropouts. Elementary schools, middle schools, secondaryschools, and combination (K-12) schools were examined using grade-level data for grades 6, 7, and9-12. Also considered were the percentage of students receiving free lunch and the size of thegrade-level under consideration. Among the findings: students in grades 6 and 7 performed better inelementary and K-12 schools than in middle or secondary schools, in terms of both achievement andpersistence. Students in K-12 schools performed as well as those in elementary schools overall andperformed better in some cases. For grades 9-12, the K-12 school was more beneficial to students thanthe traditional secondary school, particularly in the area of student persistence or conduct. 56p.ERIC NO: ED403083 ;TO ORDER: ERIC Document Reproduction Serviceshttp://www.edrs.com

Policy Issue: Restructured Grade Levels.http://www.blarg.net/~building/RESTGRAD.htm(Leon County Schools, FL, May 1995)This policy statement explores the issue of flexibility in grade configuration that would allow relief toovercrowded middle schools in Leon County, Florida, by keeping students for an extra year atelementary schools that have sufficient capacity, or relieving high schools by keeping students at middleschools that have sufficient capacity. Discusses considerations associated with costs, academics,personnel, students, parents, and the community. Also outlines potential barriers and policyimplications.

The Effects of Various Middle-Grade Configurations.Sailor, Perry(Austin Independent School District, TX , 1986)This paper summarizes research relevant to a proposal in the Austin Independent School District tomove sixth graders from an elementary school (K-6 or K,4-6) to a middle school (6-8) grade grouping.Presents a summary of the evolution of middle-grade education. Discusses three areas affected by gradeorganization: academic achievement, nonacademic outcomes (self-concept and anxiety), andhomogeneous grade groups. Notes that the grade organization studies of various middle gradeconfigurations showed no consistent effects one way or the other. Includes references to 36 studies. 15p.ERIC NO: ED297417 ;TO ORDER: ERIC Document Reproduction Serviceshttp://www.edrs.com

Primary and Intermediate Grade Configurations: A Review of the Literature.Raze, Nasus(South Allegheny School District, PA , 1985)This literature review concerns the concept of alternative grade configurations at the elementary level inwhich elementary schools are subdivided into primary (K-2) and intermediate (3-5) units. Because ofthe paucity of literature on this concept, the major part of the report focuses on the reorganization of theelementary schools of the South Allegheny (Pennsylvania) school district. Although the K-2, 3-5structure is often implemented in response to declining enrollment, other educational benefits cited mayinclude better concentration on the educational and psychological needs of children in the two agegroups, though one research study showed no significant differences in student achievement, attitudetoward school, extracurricular participation, or career aspiration. The goals of the South Alleghenyreorganization (in response to declining enrollment) were to equalize class sizes to facilitate multilevelinstruction in reading and math, and to make better use of staff, school buildings, and instructionalresources. Each of these objectives is described in detail, along with perceived disadvantages. Anevaluative report revealed that the new grade structure saved money and resulted in improved discipline,student attitudes, and student interaction. Literature on the implementation process is briefly reviewed,emphasizing the need for clear articulation between grade levels. 9p.ERIC NO: ED252928 ;TO ORDER: ERIC Document Reproduction Services

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (4 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

http://www.edrs.com

Space Utilization.http://www.peterli.com/archive/spm/487.shtmBoyer, Michael L.School Planning and Management; v42 n8 , p14-21 ; Aug 2003Describes the development of an Intermediate Center, adjacent to the existing K-12 schools, within afast-growing community. Designed for children in 5th-7th grades, the center includes a specialeducation classroom that incorporates the needs of students with a variety of disabilities. The L-shapedclassroom allows for teacher eye contact with all students while still providing a defined area foralternative, small group instruction.

How Should Schools Be Organized?http://www.djainc.com/ageappropriateschools.pdfDeJong, William S.; Craig, JoyceSchool Planning and Management; v41 n6 , p26-32 ; Jun 2002Explores the impact of grade configuration decisions on the number and size of elementary, middle, andhigh schools needed. Discusses various trends regarding placement of sixth grade, ninth grade, andpreschool classes and the resurgence of K-8 and K-12 models.

[Grade-Level Configurations. The Rise of K-8, 9th-Grade Centers, and Year-Round Districts]http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/contents.htmThe School Administrator; v59 n3 , p6-38 ; Mar 2002This issue includes six articles on the subject of grade configuration. In "Revival of the K-8 School,"criticism of middle schools fuels renewed interest in a school configuration of yesteryear. Severalauthors discuss how separate schools ease the academic and social transitions for high school-boundstudents in "Isolating 9th Graders," and "Delivering the Promise to 9th Graders." Researcher CraigHowley distills the findings on how grade-level groupings may influence student outcomes in"Grade-Span Configurations." Three veteran educators defend the merits of middle schooling in"Middle Schools Still Matter." The article "Districts That School Year-Round" describes three types oftracks, provides a sample calendar, and includes additional resources.

Make Way for Schools Planned for 5th and 6th Grades.Brunner, Patrick M.School Construction News; v5 n1 , p15 ; Jan-Feb 2002Often referred to as an intermediate school, a grade five and six building also is known as a lowermiddle school in order to reflect its relationship to the upper middle school. This describes where thisconfiguration came from and why, and what makes it different from an elementary school or middleschool.

NMSA Research Summary #1. Grade Configuration.http://www.nmsa.org/research/ressum1.htm(National Middle School Association, Westerville, OH, 2001)Answers the question, what grade configuration is best for the middle grades? This report refers tonational studies and includes a list of related articles and references.

Middle Schools? Something New or Tried and True?http://www.nea.org/neatoday/9911/fyi.htmlNEA Today Online ; Nov 1999Discusses which grade configuration seems to work best for students aged 10 to 14. A chart summarizesthe percentage of students who attended schools in different grade configurations (1995).

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (5 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

Working in a Multiage Classroom.http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=145Communicator (newsletter of the National Assn. of Elementary School Principals); Oct 1999Discusses the problems and benefits of various grade configurations for multiage classroom education.Examples from various U.S. schools are given. Education and training of teachers and parents in theconcept of multiage learning is covered.

Two for the Price of OneGrones, FredaRoundup: Journal of the Monolithic Dome Institute; v12 n3 , p19-20 ; Fall 1999Discusses how two small Arizona communities combined forces to build one school for preschool,kindergarten, and grades 1-3 using a geodesic dome design. Examines the school planning committee'srationale for employing the geodesic design and for implementing design features that made the schoolan attractive alternative to traditional buildings.

Reflecting the Communities It Serves.Brannelly, KateSchool Planning and Management; v38 n6 , p22, 24-25 ; Jun 1999Describes the design of a combined middle and high school that preserved the industrial mills andfarming history of two rural towns in Massachusetts. Delineates each school's separate entries andidentity spaces and the design innovations that enabled grades 6-8 to be grouped with grades 9-12.

Early-Grade Centers Ease Space Woeshttp://www.edweek.com/ew/1998/07primar.h18Jacobson, LindaEducation Week; , p1,14 ; Oct 14, 1998Notes a potential trend evidenced by the decision to separate some kindergartners and otherearly-primary pupils from the larger elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District,necessitated because the district was simply out of room. The district is finding accomodations inprimary centers, which employ relocatable buildings also known as portables. These can be faster toerect and less expensive than traditional facilities. Reports that the 685,000-student district has afast-growing elementary school population and a statewide initiative to reduce the size of K-3 classes.There are plans to open an additional 18 primary centers there over the next 10 years.

The Relationship between Grade Configuration and Student Performance in Rural Schools.Journal of Research in Rural Education; v14 n3 , p149-53 ; Winter-Spring 1998Examines the relationship between grade configuration in rural schools and student attendance,suspension, and academic achievement for grades 6, 7, 10, and 11. In a large random sample of ruralLouisiana schools, students in elementary schools (K-6/7) and unit schools (K-12) outperformed theirmiddle and secondary school peers. Contains 25 references.

The Great School Swap.Chesto, JonSchool Planning & Management; v36 n10 , p16-20 ; Nov 1997Examines how the New Milford School District in Connecticut avoided failing accreditation by creatinga plan to convert the deteriorating high school building into an intermediate school for grades 4-6.Discusses planning concerns and accomplishments, including overcoming parental objections andlocating the cafeteria in a way that satisfied conflicting needs.

Little Village Academy Chicago, IllinoisPearson, CliffordArchitectural Record; v185 n10 , p108-113 ; Oct 1997Presents a K-8 school design in Chicago that bridges the gap between the Hispanic culture of itsstudents and an Anglo-American society by creating a Mexican feeling without making it look foreignto its surroundings. It describes the community in which the school resides, the planning strategy for itsdevelopment, its architectural features, cost control aspects, floor planning, and interior color andmaterials.

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (6 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

Cincinnati Eyes Top-to-Bottom Restructuring.http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=08cincy.h16Hendrie, CarolineEducation Week; Oct 23, 1996Reports on a plan for schools in Cincinnati proposing to create four multiage groupings affecting all butthe last two years of high school: grades K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-10. The plan would also eliminate middleschools there, which have been plagued by discipline problems and poor student achievement. Notesthat the system would become primarily a network of K-8 schools and high schools, a structure that ishighly unusual in urban public education and that runs counter to the trend toward separate middleschools.

The Elemiddle School: A Model for Middle Grades Reform.Hough, David L.Principal; v74 n3 , p6-9 ; Jan 1995Notes that "Elemiddle" schools can serve the needs of young adolescents, aged 10 to 14, in anycombination of grades 5 through 8, as part of an organizational structure that includes lower grades.Reports on research showing that middle schools with 6-8 grade spans and K-8 schools are most likelyto implement child-centered programs, practices, and policies than schools with 7-9 or 7-12 grade spans.

The View from Here.Earthman, GlenEducational Facility Planner; v31 n4 ; Jul-Aug 1993This article briefly reviews changes that have taken place in school system grade configurations over thepast 40-plus years, the issues driving those programmatic changes, and the impact they have on thefacilities which house them.

What Matters in the Middle Grades--Grade Span or Practices?Epstein, Joyce L.Phi Delta Kappan; v71 n6 , p438-44 ; Feb 1990This article reports selected results on the relation of grade span to school size, grade level enrollment,school goals, report card entries, and relevant trends. Notes results of a 1988 Johns Hopkins Universitysurvey, which gathered data on organizational variations among schools containing grade seven to studyhow grade span affects school programs, teaching practices, and student progress.

Grade Level Arrangements--What Are the Differences?Blyth, Dale A.NASSP Bulletin; v68 n471 , p105-17 ; Apr 1984Discusses results of a study at a suburban Midwestern school district focusing on ninth graders'perceptions of the senior-high environment, noting, among other things, their participation in schoolactivities and use of drugs. The study was implemented to better understand the effects of advancingninth graders to some form of high school.

Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Managementhttp://cepm.uoregon.edu/index.htmlCovers all aspects of the governance, leadership, administration, and structure of public and privateeducational organizations at the elementary and secondary levels, including the financing of schools.

National Association of Elementary School Principalshttp://www.naesp.orgThe 28,500 members of NAESP provide the administrative and instructional leadership for elementaryand middle schools throughout the U.S., Canada, and overseas.

National Association of Secondary School Principalshttp://www.nassp.org/NASSP represents middle level and high school principals from across the country. The NASSPwebsite provides news, research, awards, publications, and conference information.

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (7 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

National Middle School Associationhttp://www.nmsa.org/NMSA is dedicated to improving the educational experiences of young adolescents by providing avariety of programs, services, and products.

Educational Specificationshttp://www.edfacilities.org/rl/ed_specifications.cfm(National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC)NCEF's resource list of links, books, and journal articles that define and provide examples ofeducational specifications, the programmatic, functional, spatial, and environmental requirements of aneducational facility.

School Facilities Planning -- Overviewhttp://www.edfacilities.org/rl/edfacilities_planningII.cfm(National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC)NCEF's resource list of links, books, and journal articles on planning educational buildings and grounds.

at the National Institute of Building Sciences1090 Vermont Ave., NW Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20005Toll free: 888-552-0624 · 202-289-7800 · www.edfacilities.orgFunded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education

updated: March 27, 2004

NEWSl

CALENDARl

SAFE SCHOOLSl

RESOURCE LISTSl

NCEF PUBLICATIONSl

CONSTRUCTION DATAl

LINKSl

w searchw ask a questionw about usw newsletterSUBMIT:w events

w newsw work

NCEF Resource List: Grade Configuration

http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/grade_configuration.cfm (8 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:53:53 PM]

Grade Configuration Study Committee

Final Report

November 1, 2001

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Table of Contents

Introduction

1

Executive Summary 2 Research Component Subcommittee Report 5 Educational Programs/Curriculum Subcommittee Report 9 Experience of Other Communities Subcommittee Report 12 Transportation Subcommittee Report 17 Enrollment and Facilities Subcommittee Report 21 Configuration Option Tables 24

Addenda

1. Committee Members 28 2. Contributed Report on Grade-Span 29 3. Experience of Other Communities Summary Table 32 4. Transportation Information From Other Communities

- 1 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Introduction

The Grade Configuration Study Committee (The Committee) was charged by the Superintendent with producing an informational report, not a recommendation. The School Committee will use this report, among other tools and sources of information, to make its decision on the future grade configuration of Hopkinton’s elementary schools.

Members of the Committee included the principals of the three existing elementary schools, two School Council or HPTA members from each school, two teachers from each school and two at-large community members (see Addendum #1). The Committee’s specific charge was to gather and assimilate information about the effects of various grade configurations on the following areas: educational research, educational programming, facilities and physical plant, enrollments, state and regional trends, and, community impacts. To accomplish this task, the Committee divided into five sub-committees:

• Research – To review the current research available on grade configuration and report on findings • Educational Programs/Curriculum – To study and report on how educational goals and

curriculum are affected by different grade configurations • Experience of other Communities – To learn which neighboring communities have considered

changes to grade configuration, what factors have driven these considerations, and what were the outcomes

• Transportation – To study and report the relationships between grade configuration and student transportation (busing) and collect data from the experience of neighboring communities

• Enrollment and Facilities – To study Hopkinton’s current school buildings and their capacities, the needed capacity of a new elementary school, the projected student enrollments for Pre-K to grade 5 through the year 2012, and to examine to what extent building capacities and projected enrollments limit or allow different grade configuration scenarios.

Methodologies Each subcommittee examined its specific task and devised strategies to obtain information and analyze the issues. Each subcommittee used different tools and approaches. The subcommittees designed interviews, data matrices and surveys, did library research, interviewed experts, and held extensive discussions on their own members’ values regarding the emerging issues. Some used the telephone extensively to interview representatives of other school districts. One subcommittee surveyed Hopkinton teachers and staff using a written survey. The Committee met weekly to provide cross-fertilization of ideas and to get a sense of how the findings of each group should influence the work or conclusions of other groups. Subcommittee work was undertaken, for the most part, between the full Committee meetings. The Committee offers a report that is the work of the whole, but allows each subcommittee to speak in its own voice. The report of each subcommittee has been influenced and reviewed by every member of the Committee. Each report has been edited only slightly to provide a degree of consistency, in the interest of readability.

- 2 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Executive Summary For the purposes of this report, the Committee must define two terms:

• “grade level schools” refers to schools where the grade span is shorter or contains all the students from one grade in one school

• “district schools” refers to schools where there are longer grade spans in a school and where students in a single grade are divided among different schools.

The research and the data collected for this report support the following conclusions:

1. Hopkinton must build a new elementary school. The current facilities cannot support the projected enrollment.

2. The present grade configuration must change. The projected enrollment and current facilities will

not support the current configuration. It is not possible to design a fourth elementary school that allows Hopkinton to continue its present grade configuration.

3. Grade configuration may be forced by enrollment numbers, rather than by a choice of philosophy

or belief in the superiority of one model over another. Based on the size of current facilities and, in most scenarios, with a proposed new facility, this report shows eight scenarios calculating projected enrollment and available classroom space. All viable options required some sort of districting.

4. The experience of neighboring towns shows that grade configuration decisions are influenced by

a community’s history, values, facilities and budget considerations. The most universal value among Hopkinton residents is the desire for parity and equity among its schools. Research and the experience of other communities demonstrates that school systems that move to a districting concept must pay close attention to providing equity in facilities, materials and staffing. The need to provide equitable physical facilities may require costly improvements.

5. Research suggests that increasing the number of transitions between schools, with fewer as

opposed to more grades per school, leads to a decrease in student achievement during those transition years.

6. Smaller schools (fewer students per school) may lead to an increase in achievement.

7. Grade level schools may provide more opportunities for activities that contribute to curriculum

consistency. District schools with longer grade spans can strengthen a school system’s vertical articulation of the curriculum and provide more opportunity for positive interactions between students of different ages both curricular and outside of the classroom. If Hopkinton moves to a district system of any sort, the school system will need to determine a way to ensure curriculum consistency within each grade. Several options for doing this exist and are in use in other communities.

8. A districting approach may encourage both negative and positive competition between schools.

Districting may create or encourage unhealthy competition that leads to striving for superficial educational goals and trivial comparisons and distinctions. Competition can be constructive when it results in increased accountability for progress and outcomes for all students.

- 3 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

9. While exact numbers cannot be derived, experts and those with experience believe that district

schools reduce the length of time students ride school buses. For Hopkinton, this may depend on the location of the new school. Decisions concerning grade configuration should not be driven by transportation costs, as the impact will likely be minimal. Moving in the direction of districting may allow Hopkinton to reduce average ride time and eliminate its elementary double drop.

10. Moving in a districting direction to any degree will likely require increases in the school budget

to support the balancing of materials and resources. Increased curriculum support, as suggested by some other communities that have had increased “districting”, may require additional personnel or resources that add cost. Professional development and scheduling teacher meeting time may be more cumbersome and costly.

11. Any transition or change from the current system should be completed with as much community

involvement as possible. This would include parents, teachers, community members and the HPTA.

Conclusion Arguments for either a districting approach or grade level approach can be supported with valid evidence. The conclusion of the full Committee on the general question is what the Educational Programs/Curriculum subcommittee concluded in its section. In either the grade level or district model, the town of Hopkinton will be able to provide quality educational programs/curriculum for its children. The Committee recognizes, however, that the current configuration cannot be maintained in its present form because of limitations imposed by building design, capacity and projected enrollments. In looking at the evidence, the question becomes not “Should we go to a districting approach?”, but “What form should districting take?.” In discussing whether we should have K-5 or K-2 and 3-5 schools or some other combination of grades, we recognize that the choices may be driven by what fits or what works. This will depend on design options for the new elementary school and allowable changes to existing facilities. Finally, whatever the final determination on grade spans in the schools, the school system will benefit from a careful examination of the positive qualities of the district model and the positive qualities of the grade level model. Whether the plan is to maximize grade span, or minimize it, we can work to ensure that the best qualities of the other model are injected to the extent possible. We hope that this is recognized by the reader as each section will present information that can support this conclusion and suggest ideas for the transition.

- 4 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Research Component Subcommittee Report (Also see Addendum #2)

Introduction The search for definitive research supporting a specific elementary grade span configuration was inconclusive. The majority of grade-span research focused on the placement/value of the middle school grades. We did, however, review various studies on the issues surrounding the grade configuration question. The topics outlined below were representative of what this committee felt to be integral components to finding the best grade span configuration for Hopkinton’s students. The research committee framed the question from the point of view of finding the best learning environment for the community of students, teachers, and parents in the elementary grades (K-5). In addition to the research committees’ report, attached is an independent summary of grade span configuration research. This report was prepared by Teresa Schiffman. Dr. Schiffman is a Hopkinton parent of a middle school child and infant. She is also an educational consultant. Executive Summary Grade configurations that present the best learning environment for students should be based on the knowledge that:

• Children fare better with fewer transitions. • Accountability is greater in schools when standardized testing takes place within that school. • Small schools with a greater number of grades foster a positive, supportive learning community. • Communities where a common school mission is held by parents and teachers are more powerful

learning communities. • Larger schools are more cost efficient. • Small class sizes with demographic and academic diversity need to be maintained.

Outline 1. Child Development

• Transitions • Social Learning • School size

2. Accountability • Testing • Student Outcomes

3. Community • Divisions • Teacher Input • Parental Input • Economics

4. Equity • Facilities • Resources • Talent

- 5 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Child Development Transition and school size have an effect on academic achievement, behavior, and the comfort level of the student. The Alspaugh 1995 study on the effects of school grade-level organization on student achievement concluded “that a decline in achievement during the transition year can be expected for all grade spans studied as the schools convert from self contained classrooms.” The study used five school groups with K-4, K-5, K-6, K-7, and K-8 grade-level organizations. Time involved in orientation to new people and surroundings cuts into teaching time. The lack of continuity lessens a child’s sense of community, stability, comfort-level and prohibits strong bonds between students and teachers. Communication across grades is disrupted requiring educators to spend additional time assessing individual strengths and weaknesses. This is especially true in the planning and facilitating of an IEP. There is a significant amount of research on school size. Most conclude that smaller schools enable a greater sense of belonging, less alienation, and better interpersonal relations among teachers and students (Cotton, 1996). Small schools foster a caring and inclusive environment. Cotton (1996) reported that the recommended school size is 300-400 for elementary students but did not state the research on which this number is based or the grade-levels comprising this number. How students are grouped for purposes of instruction is a major component when restructuring the configuration of schools because learning is a social, as well as individual, process (Deason, 2000). Social learning is facilitated when exposed to the behavior of both older students and adults. Schools with many age levels will have more opportunities for cross-age activities and may sustain parental involvement in the upper grades. Teacher acceptance for the responsibility of achievement across grade levels triggers the issues of accountability. Accountability Tucker & Andrada (1997) found that performance on standardized tests was higher when schools were held accountable by studying the achievement of sixth graders. By comparing the achievements of sixth graders who attended a K-5, K-6 and K-8 schools they found -- schools that were expected to be held accountable for sixth grade test scores produced higher achieving sixth graders. The benefits of single grade level schools include better collaboration among educators, greater grade-level planning ability and mentoring opportunities. However, if these single grade schools are feeder schools for standardized testing they are less likely to take responsibility for the outcome of testing. Professor Polly Ulichny of Brown University states that a collaborative environment, small community, and a faculty created school will bring out the best of teacher abilities. This, in turn, will yield a greater investment in accountability. It was also her experience that a smaller school takes responsibility for all students leading to a more powerful learning community. Such communities require professional development, as well as a common school mission and vision shared by teachers and parents. A common school mission is vitally important to building a sense of community. The essence of the community of Hopkinton is a pivotal factor in the quest for the best grade span configuration for this town.

- 6 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Community History serves as research. Renchler (2000) states, “the dearth of empirical research stems from the fact that grade configuration is to some degree out of the hands of administrators who run the schools. The exigencies of geographic locations, student populations, limited finances and community preferences among other factors often dictate the grade spans within a school.” Hopkinton faced the question of level-grades or neighborhood schools during the design of Hopkins. The issue was emotional and the gut reaction was that neighborhood schools would divide the town. Hopkinton teachers have benefited from ready access to grade level common planning but at the same time have been questioning the strength of the school system’s vertical articulation of the curriculum. The town values commonality in school mission and vision and has high academic expectations. The town would not want to sacrifice horizontal commonality for vertical continuity. Westwood, a neighboring community that switched from grade level schools to district schools, found that with the incorporation of cross school curriculum specialists such as a reading specialist, a math/science specialist both horizontal and vertical articulation of the curriculum were equally successful. The existence of Hopkinton’s town wide school board and town wide parent/teacher organization supports the community’s preference for equity. The involvement of both teachers and parents in understanding what it is that makes the best learning environment is important. Their ownership of a common school mission is crucial in avoiding a divided community. Vann (1993), writing on the experience of reorganizing from a K-5 to K-2, 3-5, found that forming a broad based advisory committee is a key factor to a smooth reorganization. Children, he found, adapted more easily to change than adults. Keeping a town wide school board and PTA may ease the discomfort of any change for the town and help to ensure equity. The issue of community within each school is strongly supported by parents and teachers alike. Teacher common planning, school wide meetings, end of year picnics, school songs, mascots, t-shirts are but a few examples of this support. However, as grade enrollment size in Hopkinton has increased, this sense of community is threatened. Children in the same grade, in the same school, may never see each other because they are in different lunches, different recesses, and different physical sections of the building. The Hopkinton community is also conscious of the economic impact of school budgets and construction costs. While the need to construct a new school and renovate existing schools is a given, the cost of construction is dependant on each school’s designated use. Construction costs can’t be compared without looking at a multitude of building scenarios. School budgets will also vary depending upon grade configuration. Hopkinton must consider the additional staffing and resource needs of district-type schools as well as transportation costs. The research on cost effectiveness of schools (Bickel 2000) found that districts with fewer schools and more grades per school spent less per student. The most cost effective was the one district with one school building. Given that is not an option, the question of equity of facilities, resources, and talent arose. Equity Current configurations provide that each student attend every school the town has to offer. Libraries, teaching resources, and talent pools remain intact. It is easier to maintain demographic and academic diversity in the classroom with grade level schools. District schools will have to take into account the

- 7 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

need to maintain diversity, an even distribution of teaching styles and experience, and bringing all facilities to an even par with regard to physical comfort and support spaces. Small class size has repeatedly been ranked as a high priority for parents, teachers, and administrators in Hopkinton. The task will be to provide the right combination of grade span and population per grade that will provide both diversity within a smaller classroom and the benefits of a longer grade span. There is no research or literature on this topic other than the town’s historic commitment to commonality and perceived need for equity. References: Alspaugh, J. W. & Harting, R. D. (1995) Transition Effects of School Grade-level Organization on Student Achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education 28(3) 145-149 Bicknel, R.; Howley, C.; Williams, T.; Glascock, C. (2000) Will the Real “Texas Miracle in Education” Please Stand Up? Grade Span Configuration, Achievement, and Expenditure per Pupil. research report EDRS Cotton, K (1996) School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance. Close-up #20. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Deason, R. (2000) Configuration: Impact on Achievement and Attendance. Bell & Howard Information and Learning MI, UMI 9993923 Paglin, C and Fagir, J (1997) Grade Configuration: Who Goes Where? Northeast Regional Educational Laboratory, Office of Education Research (OERI), Department of Education Renchler, R. (2000) Grade Span. Research Roundup National Association of Elementary School Principals 16 (3) 1-4 Tucker, C. G. & Andrada, G. N. Accountability Works: Analysis of Performance by Grade Span of School. Research paper. ERIC Document Reproduction Service VA Ulichny, Polly, Ed.D. Brown University, Professor of Elementary Education, Interview, October 2000.

- 8 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Educational Programs/Curriculum Subcommittee Report Introduction The subcommittee collected most of its information from members of the Hopkinton school community and worked with relatively soft, but not less important data. [What makes it important? It’s strictly subjective and based upon emotions and passion.] The subcommittee organized its findings under five categories:

• Student Developmental Needs • Curriculum Consistency Among/Across Schools • Achieving Heterogeneous Communities of Students and Faculty • Professional Development/Professional Collegiality • Budget Implications

Within these categories, the subcommittee has summarized the pros and cons of both grade level schools (much like we have now) and district schools (wider grade span), as perceived by a cross section of the community. Student Developmental Needs There is limited evidence of improved student performance with either grade level schools or district schools. For each report showing preference toward one model, there appears to be a competing opinion in favor of the other. Experts seem to agree that more frequent transitions between school buildings have a negative impact on learning. Students who attend grade level schools, because of the number of transitions they make, spend more time getting acquainted with physical infrastructure and navigating through the changes in teacher/administrative personnel than students who attend district schools. Anecdotal evidence suggests that communities with district schools find that students perform better academically. Curriculum Consistency Among/Across Schools Hopkinton’s current grade configuration model allows for frequent discussion and planning among teachers in the same grade regarding curriculum standards, materials, and instructional approaches. The current common planning meetings are the formal structure provided; however the informal, daily interactions are also invaluable. Teachers see great advantages in the current model. They perceive that this model ensures that all students are exposed to the same content and skills. Teachers also feel that the grade level approach allows for high quality mentoring of pre-professional teachers and offers these teachers a rich and varied collection of teaching styles and approaches. With grade level schools, professional development of an entire grade level can occur at common planning meetings (during early release time), or after school as all teachers at the grade level are on the same schedule. On the other hand, the grade level model also has limitations, including a lack of discussion among multi-grade teachers and a lack of awareness of the scope and vertical progression of a curriculum as it moves across the K-5 grades. As our system grows to having 14 classes in a single grade, the traditional richness of intra-grade discussion and planning becomes challenging as the common planning meetings become larger or not even possible.

- 9 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Enrichment programs, funded by the HPTA, but tied directly to the curriculum, are currently provided for the entire grade level. With district schools the HPTA would need to determine how to efficiently provide and fund similar programs across two, three, or four schools. There are positive outcomes of moving to district schools of longer grade spans. More attention to K-5 curriculum planning would expose students to potentially more seamless academic transitions from year to year. Some evidence indicates better academic performance with fewer school transitions (see research section). Teachers would also get to know the students over time and be better able to meet their needs. With district schools, school schedules would need to be similar enough to allow for early release and after-school grade level meetings. Most important would be curriculum leader positions that would work across schools to ensure consistency of curriculum across and within grade levels, particularly in the implementation of new programs. The materials and equipment unique to a grade level that we currently have would need to be divided across the schools and, in some cases, there would be a need to purchase duplicate materials. Regarding independence and individuality, there is value in whole school communities articulating particular strengths, talents, personalities, and academic expectations. With district schools, there is opportunity for faculties to build programs that extend over multiple years. Cross-grade academic projects would be possible and would offer a more flexible range of academic opportunities. Achieving Heterogeneous Communities of Students and Faculty How do we most effectively achieve heterogeneous school communities throughout our school system using either the grade level or district school model? If we were to go the way of the district school, we could be creating competitive schools within the same system. Arguments could be made of perceived inequities between the district schools, especially with regard to socioeconomic representation, physical facilities, parent involvement, and HPTA funding. In grade level schools, students would experience a similar set of factors. As they move through the school system together, they would share common resources, experiences, and facilities, so there would be fewer issues related inequity and lack of socioeconomic balance. To achieve a balanced faculty in district schools, a negotiated procedure would need to be established when assigning teachers. The main point of concern would be establishing balanced districts with enough variance built in to prevent re-districting. This was a major concern among our respondents. Professional Development/Professional Collegiality Currently teachers access professional development in the following structures: faculty meetings; grade level common planning meetings during early release time and during the school day; in-district courses/workshops held after school; in outside courses; and informally throughout the day. With our current grade level schools, there are many opportunities for professional development that are targeted at a single grade level. Mentoring of teachers, one of our district’s professional development goals, is a natural occurrence with many colleagues available at the same grade level within one school. With grade

- 10 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

level schools, however, professional development opportunities across-grades are more limited because of the multiple school schedules and minimal opportunities for department/content area meetings. District schools would provide easier and more time for cross-grade professional development, however it could require the need to replicate these programs across the different elementary schools. Workshops aimed at a particular grade level would have to be repeated if school schedules were not similar. If early release times could be the same, there would be many opportunities for cross-school professional development. Some respondents thought that district schools with larger grade spans might even raise new forums/topics for professional development leading to new educational programs, e.g. looping, multi-age classrooms. Collegial discussions covering academic expectations along a wider grade span would broaden teacher’s understanding of the learning sequence for students and an appreciation for what others teach. Budgetary Implications Maintaining grade level schools to the extent possible, would minimize budget increases related to balancing resources and needed changes to ensure parity of facilities and resources. Equity among facilities is a major concern in the community, especially the differences between older and newer facilities. The process of dividing into district schools would have initial costs to replicate grade level materials and equipment. Library collections would need to be divided among the schools and then filled out. The most significant cost would be the personnel costs of curriculum specialists in reading/language arts, math, science and social studies who would work across the elementary schools. There may also be a need to increase the number of specialists in order to prevent having specialists who must travel between buildings to service students. Finally, if it was determined that increased professional development time/meeting time was necessary to bring together teachers by grade level or department/discipline, then there could be contractual salary increases for teachers, e.g. increased number of professional development days, weekly meetings after school, etc. Conclusion In either the grade level or district school model, the town of Hopkinton will be able to provide quality educational programs/curriculum for its children. There will need to be adjustments and accommodations made for either scenario. Identifying the concerns for the selected model will help us target those problem areas and take an active approach to mitigating them.

- 11 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Experience of Other Communities Subcommittee Report (see Addendum #3)

Executive Summary In summary, eight of the fourteen school systems contacted by the subcommittee have neighborhood schools with at least five grades in each building. Three of the systems have grade level schools similar to Hopkinton’s configuration. One district, Westboro, has a blended configuration with K-3 in neighborhood schools and grades 4-6 in a large town wide school. The majority of districts with K-5 schools perceived their schools as reflecting a strong neighborhood tradition in their town. Many of these systems also stated that they believe that broader grade spans are preferable educationally. Westwood has very recently changed to a K-5 configuration to decrease the number of transitions the students must experience and to promote a neighborhood culture and family feel within the school district. Four districts that we interviewed have a grade level configuration, three of which came about due to community opinion and building availability. Two of them arrived at this configuration to mitigate concerns about equity. Several of the neighborhood-based districts have either redistricted recently or are in the process of it. In each case, the redistricting was brought about by school construction. Each district views redistricting as a hot topic and is dealing with it via a parent/educator task force. There are a variety of approaches to maintaining curriculum consistency. Many of the districts have district wide grade level meetings two times per month to four times per year. A few districts mentioned having district or building-based curriculum specialists to implement the curriculum across schools. A couple of schools had designated team leaders at each grade level to facilitate communication among their colleagues in other schools as well as with the principal and curriculum director. Each district that we spoke to has a “Director of Curriculum and Instruction” and places a high value on developing and maintaining consistency. The districts that have a grade level configuration feel that grade level consistency is easier to implement with all of the teachers in the same building. On the other hand, communities with district schools also felt that they were also able to maintain a strong core curriculum throughout the grade level. At least some of the districts mentioned formalized planning to assure that curriculum flows from grade to grade. Among the methods mentioned were district centers, cross grade meetings on a routine basis, curriculum specialists, and curriculum review cycles. Cross grade interaction of students was easily implemented in the K-5 schools. In two instances in the grade level schools, the close proximity of either an upper grade elementary school or a secondary school allowed for older students to work with younger students (i.e.; reading buddies, pen pals, project help). Step-up days were the primary way neighborhood as well as grade cluster schools prepared students to transition to higher grades and different schools. Equity was not an issue in the grade level schools but was an issue in a minority of neighborhood schools.

- 12 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

The data collected from our survey is included in the following text and in Addendum #3. We included the text that follows in order to allow the reader to examine the survey summaries directly, after reading what we excerpted as the key findings and to reveal a fuller context of the interviews. Addendum #3 presents additional information in a format that provides district comparisons on key features.

ACTON Acton has a unique tradition in their elementary education. Families can choose which of the five K-6 schools they want their children to attend. The district values and encourages autonomy among the schools and each has its unique style. There is an Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction who is charged with balancing this school autonomy with consistency. District-wide grade level teacher meetings occur regularly. Schools are viewed as having similar resources. Logistically, they have two bus runs for elementary schools, which cover the whole town and make multiple drops to the schools. Each year the schools swap their start-times so the ones that start earlier one year then start later the next year, etc. ASHLAND Ashland has had three elementary schools since 1997 which are configured Pre K-K, 1-3, and 4-6. This configuration was established at the time due to building availability (a new Middle School addition had just been completed at the High School). Due to increasing enrollment, Ashland has also been considering building a new high school and changing the configuration of their schools with the building of this new school. A needs committee was established, made up of school council members, parents, and educators. A survey was sent to all parents and they overwhelmingly wanted to keep the grade cluster configuration due to a distant problem with equity in neighborhood schools. When the new HS is built the elementary configuration will be Pre K-K, 1-2, and 3-5. Ashland currently has options for students’ education at the 4-6 level. They have a multiage neighborhood (1/3 grade 4, 5, & 6) who has the same teachers for three years, a grade self-contained program, and a pilot program with a 2 year looping group where two fourth grade teachers have students for two years. Parents have a choice of program. Curriculum consistency is maintained via grade level team meetings and by cross grade-level meetings via representatives. Transitions are dealt with via step-up days. DEDHAM Dedham is a neighborhood-oriented town that has not experienced significant growth because it is built-out. Its four 1-5 schools have existed for years and are seen as positive, integral parts of their neighborhoods, with most students walking to school. Curriculum consistency and webbing grade to grade comes about through the Curriculum Director and grade-level team leaders. These are classroom teachers who have additional responsibility to facilitate cross-school and cross-grade meetings on a monthly basis. Their schools also share resources through a district-wide Science Center and Literacy Center, where instructional materials are kept and shared. Their PTO’s are unifying across the district. DOVER The town of Dover is regionalized with Sherborn for grades 6-12. Due to the small populace of the community there is only one elementary school that houses grades K-5 (576 students). The only changes in configuration occurred several years ago when enrollment growth forced grade 6 out of the elementary school and into the regionalized school.

- 13 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

FRANKLIN Franklin, a much larger community than Hopkinton has five elementary schools. One building has PreK-5 while the remaining four buildings hold grades K-5. There are district curricula and system wide professional development and training to insure curriculum consistency throughout the buildings. HARVARD Another smaller community is Harvard that has a total K-12 enrollment of 1,169. The town has two schools and they are divided into K-6 and 7-12. HOLLISTON A town of comparable population, Holliston has a unique situation that incorporates the advantages of both grade cluster and longer grade span schools. There are two elementary schools which are connected by a shared cafetorium. The new building holds PreK-2 (853 students), while the adjacent renovated building has grades 3-5 (700 students). Until three years ago they were clustered as Pre K and K in a no longer used school and grades 1-3 in the now renovated school. The current plan creates open opportunities for teacher planning, sharing of materials and curriculum consistency, as well as possibilities for cross-grade and inter-grade exchanges and programs. It is important to note that although there are the benefits of both grade and district schools, students in Grades K-2 attend school at different times than those in grades 3-5. Busing times are still an issue. MEDFIELD The Medfield school system is very similar to Hopkinton. Medfield has three grade cluster elementary schools with K-1, 2-3, and 4-5 grade spans. During the last five years, elementary school configuration has been examined on two occasions due to increasing enrollment. They looked at forming two K-5 schools, two K-4 schools, and one K-2 and one 3-5 school. Across the board teachers and parents voted to keep the configuration the same because: “Medfield is a small town with a history of problems with different configurations”. Curriculum consistency is maintained with grade level meetings (all teachers per grade level) two times per month. Teachers at different grade levels meet periodically, especially at all day in-service training sessions (time is provided for K-5 teachers to meet and discuss curriculum maps). Each grade leader meets with the principal and curriculum director regularly. Due to the fact that the K-1 school is physically close to the 4-5 school, students at different grade levels have an opportunity to work together. The elementary start times are 8:30AM for K-1 and 4-5 (same campus) and 9:10AM for grades 2-3. METHUEN Methuen is a much larger community than Hopkinton with a diverse population as well as landscape (city, suburbs, agriculture). For the past three years, Methuen has had four K-8 (full day K) “Grammar Schools”. This configuration came about due to educational philosophy (to decrease transitioning) and because of the 11 year positive experience they had had with the K-8 Comprehensive Grammar School (CGS) that housed the bilingual program. The CGS over a short period of time developed a neighborhood feel/culture with increased parental/community involvement and satisfaction. Based on this positive experience, Methuen converted its K-4 and 5-8 schools to K-8 neighborhood schools. Each school has K-4 and 5-8 houses within them that share media and communications but have all other areas (gym, music, cafeteria, library etc.) separate. There are about six grade levels at each school and bilingual programs in two schools. There is no school choice. Redistricting was done via a large committee consisting of parents, school council members, and educators. Curriculum consistency is maintained via grade level meetings four times per year. Transitioning is minimal in this system. Resources are viewed as similar since all 4 schools have been completely renovated in the past several years.

- 14 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

NATICK Natick’s five K-4 schools are neighborhood-based. Their configuration is also based on educational philosophy favoring longer grade spans, including in middle high (which is 5-8 in Natick). Their schools are viewed as different, but not better or worse. Their one very old school is viewed a “gem” , having recently won the Blue Medal designation. Curriculum consistency is highly valued. Curriculum review and implementation is cross-district and crosses all grades, K-12. District-wide performance assessments are used as a tool to be sure all children arrive at Middle School with the same preparation. Grade-wide teacher meetings occur four times per year on early release days. They are currently redistricting because of a school construction project. A parent/educator committee is addressing it. NEEDHAM In Needham, a much larger community than ours, there are five elementary schools. Each school houses grades K-5 with the enrollments ranging from 256 to 649, and two to five sections of a grade per school. They have traditionally been configured this way and it meets with their educational philosophy. To accommodate communication across grade levels and insure consistency in curriculum the system provides district wide training by grade level. NORTHBORO Northboro is another community that is similar to Hopkinton in regards to number of students per grade level. Northboro has always had neighborhood schools which are geographically based. Until four years ago, they had three K-4 schools and then due to enrollment increases, a previously closed school was renovated so that Northboro now has four K-5 schools, two of which have full day K (lottery determined). Two of the schools have been recently renovated and are state of the art, two are older. This configuration has continued due to tradition, space issues, and the neighborhood culture which is well received in Northboro. No redistricting has taken place since the fourth school was opened. Curriculum consistency is maintained via monthly grade level meetings, cross grade level meeting two times per year, and by a curriculum study team at each grade level. Children attending full day K may have to transition to their neighborhood school, otherwise transition occurs after 5th grade. Due to the fact that two of the schools are considered “state of the art” and two are older, the schools are not viewed as having similar resources by everyone. Two elementary schools start at 8:30AM and two start at 9AM. SOUTHBORO The school system in Southboro is slightly smaller than the school system in Hopkinton. Southboro currently has two elementary schools, a K-2 school and a 3-5 school however, due to enrollment increases, as of 2003 they will have three elementary schools configured K-1, 2-3, and 4-5 (and addition is underway to an existing school). This configuration was decided on due to community opinion. The community was not in favor of neighborhood schools due to a distant history of a north/south (Rte. 9) division in the town and problems with equity. Curriculum consistency is maintained at grade level via two teams. Each team meets separately every week and then a sub team of these two teams meets. Cross grade level meetings occur every Monday. Communication across grade level was felt to be superior with the current configuration. Transitions were dealt with via step-up days. Since the middle school is in close proximity to the K-1 school, interaction of students across grade level can be conducted. WALPOLE Walpole’s school population is slightly larger than Hopkinton’s at the K level but increases as it goes up the grades. They have one Pre K-K school and three 1-5 buildings.

- 15 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

WAYLAND Wayland, a school system with a similar number of students as Hopkinton has three K-5 elementary schools. The schools are geographically based and have 400-600 students in them and occasionally district lines have been changed (every 10 years) over the years due to changing enrollments. There is no school choice in Wayland. The configuration has remained this way due to tradition. Curriculum consistency is maintained via two elementary curriculum specialists who coordinate the curriculum across the grade level (one reading/language arts and one math/science). Each school has its own PE, art and music staff, elementary strings instructor and band instructor is shared. Speech, PT and Special Ed. services are shared by a maximum of two schools. Wayland bus times for elementary schools are 8:45AM. WELLESLEY Wellesley has a long-standing tradition of neighborhood schools. All schools have about 240-320 students. When they were planning their seventh elementary school, brief thought was given to making it a district-wide upper elementary school. There was strong consensus to stay with neighborhood K-5 schools. Their strong core curriculum is kept consistent across these schools through monthly cross-district grade-level meetings and through four curriculum specialists (literacy, math, science, and technology). They have several multiage classrooms among their schools. Because of the small size of their schools, professional resources are routinely shared (fine arts, PE, SPED and other services). Although their schools are of differing ages, they are viewed as having similar resources, with the older schools seen as “charming.” The schools are viewed as reflecting the neighborhoods and areas that already exist in this relatively densely populated town. They are currently redistricting with the addition of a school, for the first time in ten years. WESTBORO Westboro has a balance between neighborhood schools and a popular desire to bring all the students in town together before Middle High. In Fall 2002, they will have three neighborhood-based Pre-K-3 schools and a new, 1100-student grade 4-6 school. They will have one school with 2-3 sections per grade and two with 4-6 sections per grade. They strongly considered configuring as five K-5’s, but town opinion swayed the School Committee to the current plan. This is partly driven by a perceived socioeconomic and resource difference among the elementary schools and a desire to pull all kids to one school (4-6) before the end of elementary to mitigate that difference. They have reconfigured grades often as the town has grown and changed in demographics. Curriculum consistency is facilitated by building-based curriculum specialists, who meet 2-3 times per week. They are classroom teachers, who rotate through this position on a 2-3 year rotation. They are active in the classroom through team teaching and modeling lessons. They typically have some looping or multi-grade classrooms. WESTWOOD Westwood is a community that has recently reconfigured their system due to enrollment growth but based on educational philosophy. In September, 2001 the town changed from grade cluster schools to five K-5 schools. To provide consistency in grade level curriculum there are monthly common planning meetings. They feel that this reconfiguration process allowed them to look at all programs from the ground up and has given them the opportunity for vertical transmission of ideas and communication

- 16 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Transportation Subcommittee Report (see Addendum #4)

Executive Summary The Transportation sub-committee was charged with researching the effects various grade configurations might have on transportation time and costs. The three basic concerns are:

1. What grade configuration system offers the most economical transportation system? 2. What grade configuration system leads to the least amount of time spent riding buses? 3. What grade configuration system offers the greatest advantages for school start and stop times?

In researching numbers gleaned from other school systems, the transportation sub-committee could not reach any definitive quantitative conclusions. In juggling Hopkinton’s numbers, however, the committee did uncover some interesting facts. It appears that no matter how one juggles the grade span, two runs will be needed to transport elementary students to school, based upon an enrollment of 1800 students. This would mean staggered start times for the schools. In speaking with other school systems and with experts, the committee did find anecdotal evidence that grade configurations supporting a longer grade span in each school or school districts did save some costs and did lead to students riding the buses for shorter periods of time. In a districting scenario, whether the decision is to divide the town in two, three or four sections, the travel time of the buses would be reduced as each bus would make fewer starts and stops and each bus would travel fewer miles. Information Obtained (see Addendum #4) In trying to determine the effects of different grade span configurations, the sub-committee placed calls to 29 different communities. Some were members of the TEC Collaborative and others were high growth or neighboring communities. We asked the following:

How many students do you have in grades K-5? How many elementary schools? Are they district schools or grade level? How many miles of road do your buses cover or what is the square mileage of your town? How many children, on average, does each bus carry? How long, on average, is each bus ride? Do you lease or own buses? What is your yearly cost per bus? How many buses? How many runs? How many students walk to school? What are your start and end times for school? Do start and end times vary among elementary schools within your town?

- 17 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

From these questions, we intended to gain answers to questions such as: • If a town has district schools or grade level schools does that affect the start time and whether or

not the start times stagger and by how much? • Would district or grade level schools require more or fewer buses? • How might district or grade level schools affect the cost of buses? • Do the number of schools affect the start times?

What we discovered was that each town has a unique situation that is affected by all of these factors. In a town that has a large geographical area, students spend longer time on the bus. Whether or not all the schools start at the same time or stagger, depends upon how many buses the system is willing to pay for and how many walkers the town allows. For Hopkinton, the numbers proved that the town is different from others. There are towns that are close to our situation, but none that could prove to be a role model. The combined experience of other towns, however, does offer some anecdotal advice for Hopkinton. Qualitative Data In speaking with other towns and experts in Hopkinton, we did learn some interesting anecdotal information worthy of consideration. Westwood changed from grade level schools to district schools this year. The assistant superintendent of schools says it does reduce their transportation budget. He also said, however, that now 162 students walk to one particular school where only one walked before. The School Committee now requires students to walk who live under a mile from the school, despite the lack of sidewalks. He also said that they consolidated their bus stops so that children are not necessarily picked up in front of their homes but at a communal bus stop, sometimes up to one half mile away. These two factors alone may account for the reduced costs. We cannot isolate whether it was strictly the change in grade spans that affected the transportation budget. Some school districts increase the number of buses at their disposal through creative means. In Wellesley, they have a lottery to win seats on the bus. In Franklin, they simply charge high school students to ride the bus. Dover went from two grade level schools to one elementary school for all grades K-5. They found that this did not reduce the costs, but did reduce the time spent on the bus as the buses picked up more students at single bus stops. Medfield went from K-5 district schools to the same grade configuration as Hopkinton. Like Hopkinton, they also have a double drop between the K-1 school and 4-5 school. With the grade level schools, as compared to the previously districted k-5 schools, transportation costs were higher and more bus runs were needed. The total numbers of buses was increased because adding numbers of children to the bus would have made their ride unacceptably long. Although Northborough and Southborough share a superintendent and have a regional high school, Northborough has four K-5 schools, while next year Southborough will have three schools configured as Hopkinton’s is currently. The geography of the two towns is different as are the desires of the population.

- 18 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Westboro is going through a reorganization of their schools for next year. They will have three schools for grades K-3 and then one school for grades 4-5. The problem is that they built their new grade 4-5 school near the Grafton border, meaning that children who live on the Southborough side of town will have a minimum ride of 40-50 minutes. It was also clear, that much of the busing issues were determined by town history. It is based on how people have always done it and how well the people of the town accept different ideas. Hopkinton Numbers Based on the lack of usable quantitative data and trying to use some of the qualitative responses, the transportation sub-committee began to review the numbers for Hopkinton. We attempted to determine what might be feasible. With four elementary schools, it would be highly unlikely that all of the schools would be able to start and stop at the same time. Most likely, the elementary schools would require two runs as they do today. However, with districting, it is thought that the lapse between the two start times could be reduced by 10 minutes because of the shorter travel distance of the buses and the ability to eliminate the double drop. Recognizing that there is a number of potential options, the following two scenarios serve as examples of how time could be saved: Scenario: two schools grades K-2 and two schools grades 3-5 If, for this scenario, the town is divided in half with two K-2 schools starting at the same time and the two 3-5 schools starting at the same, it is believed that the bus ride length would be reduced by 10 to 15 minutes. However, if the recommendation is that Center School can only house 350 students, the new elementary school would have to be built to house 600. Scenario: Center School as Pre-K-K and 3 district schools with grades 1-5 The best way to route this would be to have one run for the Kindergarten children and one run for the three district schools. However, this scenario would require adding three more buses in 2010. On average, each bus would carry 64 students, based upon 308 students per grade as recommended by Design Partnership for the year 2010. (By that time, the Middle School and High School might require more than the current fleet of 21 buses.) For example, in the year 2004, the NESDEC numbers would look like this:

# of # of Grade Students Buses Grade K 241 Grades 1 – 5 1432 29 buses @ 50 kids each or 24 buses at 60 kids each Middle School 853 21 buses @ 40 kids each High School 866 21 buses @ 40 kids each

These are average numbers per bus. Because of population differences in some neighborhoods, some buses would require more than 68 or 40 children and others less. Elementary school buses legally hold 72 children.

- 19 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

In Hopkinton, we generally estimate 45 elementary children per bus because of the geographical area the buses must cover in a set amount of time. However, if the buses were covering a tighter geographical area, more children could be put on a bus. This scenario shows 4 runs: kindergarten, elementary, middle school, and high school. Further Insights The number of buses required for the town depends greatly on the number of students for the high school/middle school run and the area the buses need to cover. Whether Hopkinton stays in a grade level scenario or district, we still need buses to cover the high school/middle school run. If the town can be divided into two or three sectors, the travel time on the buses would be reduced and the need for a double drop would be eliminated.

- 20 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Enrollment and Facilities Subcommittee Report The Enrollment/Facilities Task Group was asked to explore options for housing various grade configurations. Our goal was to provide the same number of classrooms per grade level in each building. All options are based on the following class sizes: Pre Kindergarten – 15 students per session Kindergarten and Grade one – 18 students per class Grades two through five – 22 students per class The classroom sizes noted are consistent with the NESDEC class sizes. The projected enrollment figure is 308 students per grade level, provided by Design Partnership. There were innumerable options that could have been considered; eight (8) grade configuration options were chosen for further investigation. The viability of an option was based upon the current number of classrooms in use at each building as indicated below: Center – 20 classrooms Hopkins – 23 classrooms Elmwood – 26 classrooms Although the classroom numbers might differ from the current building inventory, these numbers take into account space for Developmental Reading, Fine Arts, and Special Education classrooms. It is also essential to note that the final number of classrooms that will be available at Center School is still unknown and is pending the final plan for the renovation of the building. All options include full day kindergarten programs. Option I is the only option that does not include the construction of a new building, because it represents the current (2001-2002) grade configuration. Following is a list of the eight (8)options explored with comments regarding their viability.

- 21 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

OPTIONS FOR GRADE LEVEL CONFIGURATIONS

OPTION ONE: (current configuration)

Center School: Kindergarten – Grade 1

Elmwood School: Grades 2 – 3 Hopkins School: Grades 4 – 5

This option, with projected enrollments, exceeds the available number of classrooms in the three elementary schools.

OPTION TWO:

New School/Center School: Pre K, Kindergarten and Grade 1

Elmwood School/Hopkins School: Grades 2 – 5

This option exceeds the classroom space utilized at Hopkins and Elmwood Schools.

OPTION THREE:

New School: Pre K – Grade 5 Center School/Elmwood School/Hopkins School: Grades Kindergarten – 5

This is a viable option that takes into consideration the current classroom space utilized at Center, Hopkins and Elmwood Schools and includes the construction of a new school building.

OPTION FOUR:

Center School: Pre K and Kindergarten New School/Elmwood School/Hopkins School: Grades 1 – 5

This is a viable option that takes into consideration the current classroom space utilized at Center,

Hopkins and Elmwood Schools and includes the construction of a new school building.

OPTION FIVE:

New School: Pre-K, Kindergarten, and Grade 1 Center School: Kindergarten, Grade 1

Elmwood School/Hopkins School: Grades 2 – 5

This option exceeds the classroom space utilized at Elmwood and Hopkins Schools.

- 22 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

OPTION SIX:

New School: Pre K, K, and Grade 1

Center School/Elmwood School/Hopkins School: Grades 1 – 5

This is a viable option that takes into consideration the current classroom space utilized at Center, Hopkins and Elmwood Schools and includes the construction of a new school building. However, this option would require ninety Grade 1 students to be assigned to Elmwood, Hopkins, and Center Schools for grades 2-5. Also, one additional room at Hopkins would need to be reassigned as a classroom.

OPTION SEVEN

New School/Elmwood School: Pre K – Grade 2 Center School/Hopkins School: Grades 3 – 5

This is a viable option that takes into consideration the current classroom space utilized at Center, Hopkins and Elmwood Schools and includes the construction of a new school building. Also, one additional room at Hopkins would need to be reassigned as a classroom.

OPTION EIGHT

New School: Pre K – Grade 2 Elmwood: Kindergarten – Grade 2

Hopkins/Center: Grades 3 – 5 This is a viable option that takes into consideration the current classroom space utilized at Center, Hopkins and Elmwood Schools and includes the construction of a new school building. Also, one additional room at Hopkins would need to be reassigned as a classroom.

- 23 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

OPTION ONE

Center (K-1) Elmwood (2-3) Hopkins (4-5) *Kindergarten: (full day)

17 rooms @ 8 students 306 students

*Grade Two:

14 rooms @22 students 308 students

Grade Four:

14 rooms @22 students 308 students

*Kindergarten: (1/2 day) 9 rooms/17sessions @ 18 students

306 students

*Grade Three: 12 rooms @22 students

308 students

*Grade 5: 14 rooms @22 students

308 students*Grade One:

17 rooms @18 students 306 students

Total Enrollment: 612 students

Projected: 616 students Rooms Needed 26/34

Total Enrollment: 616 students

Projected: 616 students Rooms Needed 28

Total Enrollment: 616 students

Projected: 616 students Rooms Needed 28

Maximum number of rooms available: Center 20, Elmwood 26, Hopkins 23

OPTION TWO

NEW SCHOOL (PRE K-1) CENTER (PRE K-1) HOPKINS (2-5) ELMWOOD (2-5) *Pre K: 2 rooms (4 sec.)

ea. section @ 15 students 60 students

*Pre K: 2 rooms (4 sec.)

ea. section @ 15 students 60 students

*Grade Two:

7 rooms @ 22 students 154 students

*Grade Two:

7 rooms @ 22 students 154 students

*Kindergarten: 9 rooms @ 18 students

162 students

*Kindergarten: 8 rooms @ 18 students

144 students

*Grade Three: 7 rooms @ 22 students

154 students

*Grade Three: 7 rooms @ 22 students

154 students*Grade One:

9 rooms @18 students 162 students

*Grade One: 8 rooms @18 students

144 students

*Grade Four: 7 rooms @ 22 students

154 students

*Grade Four: 7 rooms @ 22 students

154 students *Grade Five:

7 rooms @ 22 students 154 students

*Grade Five: 7 rooms @ 22 students

154 studentsTotal Enrollment:

384 students Enrollment (Pre K-1): 732

Total Enrollment: 348 students

Projected: 736

Total Enrollment: 616 students

Projected: 616 students

Total Enrollment: 616 students

Projected: 616 students

Rooms Needed: 20 Rooms Needed: 18 Rooms Needed: 28 Rooms Needed: 28

Maximum number of rooms available: Center 20, Elmwood 26, Hopkins 23

- 24 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

OPTION THREE

NEW SCHOOL (PRE K-5) CENTER (K-5) HOPKINS (K-5) ELMWOOD (K-5) *Pre K 8 sec. @ 15 students 4 rooms: 60 AM/60 PM students *Kindergarten

5 rooms @ 18 students 90 students

*Kindergarten

4 rooms @ 18 students 72 students

*Kindergarten

4 rooms @ 18 students 72 students

*Kindergarten

4 rooms @ 18 students 72 students

*Grade One:

5 rooms @18 students 90 students

*Grade One:

4 rooms @18 students 72 students

*Grade One:

4 rooms @18 students 72 students

*Grade One:

4 rooms @18 students 72 students

*Grade Two: 4 rooms @22 students

88 students

*Grade Two: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students

*Grade Two: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students

*Grade Two: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students*Grade Three:

4 rooms @22 students 88 students

*Grade Three: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students

*Grade Three: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students

*Grade Three: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students*Grade Four:

4 rooms @22 students 88 students

*Grade Four: 3 rooms @24 students

72students

*Grade Four: 3 rooms @24 students

72students

*Grade Four: 3 rooms @24 students

72studentsGrade Five:

4 rooms @22 students 88 students

Grade Five: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students

Grade Five: 3 rooms @24 students

72 students

Grade Five: 3 rooms @24 students

72 studentsEnrollment: 652 students Enrollment 432 students Enrollment: 432 students Enrollment: 432 students

Total Enrollment (Pre K – 5): 1,948 / Projected Enrollment (Pre K – 5): 1.968 Rooms Needed: 30 Rooms Needed: 20 Rooms Needed: 20 Rooms Needed: 20

Maximum number of rooms available: Center 20, Elmwood 26, Hopkins 23

OPTION FOUR

CENTER (Pre K-K) NEW SCHOOL (1-5) HOPKINS (1-5) ELMWOOD (1-5) *Grade One:

6 rooms @18 students 108 students

*Grade One:

5 rooms @18 students 90 students

*Grade One:

6 rooms @18 students 108 students

*Pre K: 4 rooms (8 sec.) ea. section @15 students

120 students *Grade Two:

5 rooms @22 students 110 students

*Grade Two: 4 rooms @22 students

88 students

*Grade Two: 5 rooms @22 students

110 students*Kindergarten:

17 rooms @18 students 306 students

*Grade Three: 5 rooms @22 students

110 students

*Grade Three: 4 rooms @22 students

88 students

*Grade Three: 5 rooms @22 students

110 students *Grade Four:

5 rooms @22 students 110 students

*Grade Four: 4 rooms @22 students

88 students

*Grade Four: 5 rooms @22 students

110 students *Grade Five:

5 rooms @22 students 110 students

*Grade Five: 4 rooms @22 students

88 students

*Grade Five: 5 rooms @22 students

110 studentsTotal Enrollment: 548 Total Enrollment: 442 Total Enrollment: 548

Total Enrollment: 426 students Projected: 428 students

Rooms Needed: 21 Rooms Needed: 26 Rooms Needed: 21 Rooms Needed: 26

- 25 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

OPTION FIVE

NEW SCHOOL (PRE K-1) CENTER (K-1) HOPKINS (2-5) ELMWOOD (2-5) *Pre K: 4 rooms (8 sec.)

ea. section @15 students 120 students

*Kindergarten

8 rooms @ 18 students 144 students

*Grade Two:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

*Grade Two:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

*Kindergarten

9 rooms @ 18 students 162 students

*Grade One:

8 rooms @18 students 144 students

*Grade Three:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

*Grade Three:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

*Grade One:

9 rooms @18 students 162 students

*Grade Four:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

*Grade Four:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

Total Enrollment: 444

Total Enrollment: 288

*Grade Five:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

*Grade Five:

7 rooms @22 students 154 students

Total Enrollment (Pre K – 1): 732 students Projected Enrollment (Pre K – 1): 736 students

Total Enrollment: 288 Projected: 616 students

Total Enrollment: 288 Projected: 616 students

Rooms Needed: 22 Rooms Needed: 16 Rooms Needed: 28 Rooms Needed: 28 Maximum number of rooms available: Center 20, Elmwood 26, Hopkins 23

OPTION SIX

NEW SCHOOL (PRE K-1) CENTER (1-5) HOPKINS (1-5) ELMWOOD (1-5)

*Pre K: 4 rooms (8 sec.)

ea. section @15 students 120 students

*Grade One:

4 rooms @18 students 72 students

*Grade One:

4 rooms @18 students 72 students

*Grade One:

4 rooms @18 students 72 students

_____________________ *Kindergarten:

17 rooms @18 students 306 students

*Grade Two: 4 rooms @24 students

96 students

*Grade Two: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Two: 4 rooms @22 students

110 students

*Grade Three: 4 rooms @24 students

96 students

*Grade Three: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Three: 5 rooms @22 students

110 students

*Grade One:

5 rooms @18 students 90 students

*Grade Four: 4 rooms @24 students

96 students

*Grade Four: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Four: 5 rooms @22 students

110 students *Grade Five:

4 rooms @24 students 96 students

*Grade Five: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Five: 5 rooms @22 students

110 studentsTotal Enrollment:

516 students Total Enrollment:

456 students Total Enrollment:

492 students Total Enrollment:

512 students Total Enrollment (Pre K – 5): 1,964 / Projected Enrollment (Pre K – 5): 1.968

Rooms Needed: 26 Rooms Needed: 20 Rooms Needed: 24 Rooms Needed: 24

- 26 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

OPTION SEVEN

NEW SCHOOL (PRE K–2) ELMWOOD (PRE K-2) HOPKINS (3-5) CENTER (3-5) *Pre K: 2 rooms (4 sec.)

ea. section @15 students 60 students

*Pre K: 2 rooms (4 sec.)

ea. section @15 students 60 students

*Grade Three: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Three: 6 rooms @22 students

132 students

*Kindergarten: 9 rooms @18 students

162 students

*Kindergarten: 8 rooms @18 students

144 students

*Grade Four: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Four: 6 rooms @22 students

132 students*Grade One:

9 rooms @18 students 162 students

*Grade One: 8 rooms @18 students

144 students

*Grade Five: 5 rooms @21 students

105 students

*Grade Five: 6 rooms @22 students

132 students*Grade Two:

7 rooms @23 students 161 students

*Grade Two: 7 rooms @21 students

147 students

Total Enrollment: 528 students

Total Enrollment: 396 students

Total Enrollment: 545 students

Projected: 522 students

Total Enrollment: 495 students

Projected: 522 students

Total Enrollment (3-5):924 Projected Enrollment (3-5): 924

Rooms Needed: 27 Rooms Needed: 25 Rooms Needed: 24 Rooms Needed: 18 Maximum number of rooms available: Center 20, Elmwood 26, Hopkins 23

OPTION EIGHT

NEW SCHOOL (PRE K–2) ELMWOOD (K-2) HOPKINS (3-5) CENTER (3-5) *Pre K: 4 rooms (8 sec.)

ea. section @15 students 120 students

*Grade Three: 8 rooms @22 students

176 students

*Grade Three: 6 rooms @22 students

132 students

*Kindergarten: 8 rooms @18 students

144 students

*Kindergarten: 9 rooms @18 students

162 students

*Grade Four: 8rooms @22 students

176 students

*Grade Four: 6 rooms @22 students

132 students*Grade One:

8 rooms @18 students 144 students

*Grade One: 9 rooms @18 students

162 students

*Grade Five: 8 rooms @22 students

176 students

*Grade Five: 6 rooms @22 students

132 students*Grade Two:

7 rooms @21 students 147 students

*Grade Two: 7 rooms @23 students

161 students

Total Enrollment: 528 students

Total Enrollment: 396 students

Total Enrollment: 555 students

Total Enrollment: 485 students

Total Enrollment (3-5):924 Projected Enrollment (3-5): 924

Total Enrollment (Pre K-2): 1, 040/Projected: 1,044 Rooms Needed: 27 Rooms Needed: 25 Rooms Needed: 24 Rooms Needed: 18

Maximum number of rooms available: Center 20, Elmwood 26, Hopkins 23

- 27 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Addendum #1 Committee Members by Subcommittee Research Subcommittee Michelle Carbonneau, Parent, HPTA V.P., Center Karen Gunther, Teacher, Elmwood Kay Schiedler, Asst. Superintendent, Curriculum Dr. Eileen Sullivan, At Large Educational Programs/Curriculum Subcommittee Jean Bertschmann, Parent, HPTA V.P., Elmwood David Hamacher, Parent, At Large Ellie Porter, Teacher, Hopkins Martha Starr, Principal, Hopkins Erin Welch, Teacher, Center Experience of Other Communities Subcommittee Tracey Chessare, Parent, HPTA V.P., Hopkins Roxanne Donahue, Parent, HPTA V.P, Elmwood Karen McCaw, Teacher, Center Transportation Subcommittee Lyn Branscomb, Parent, School Council, Center Kathy Dlugolecki, Parent, Hopkins Ilene Silver, Principal, Elmwood Enrollment and Facilities Subcommittee Tom Argir, Principal, Center Sue Bagley, Teacher, Elmwood Carol Costa, Teacher, Hopkins Kevin M. Lyons, Asst. Supt. For Student Services and Program Development, Chair

- 28 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Addendum #2 Grade-Span Configuration Research Report Prepared by Teresa Schiffman 10-19-01

What constitutes the best grade-span configuration at the elementary suburban school level has not been researched. Studies relating to grade-span organization that are helpful in the consideration of elementary level configurations, includes research on the effects of transitions, number of grades per building, school size, and cost effectiveness of school configurations. Transitions Developmental psychologists report that in order to attain optimal development, young students do best in stable, unchanging environments where they are familiar with the people around them and vice versa. These psychologists point out that transitions are hard for children, especially at a young age, and suggest minimizing them, even though the only direct research with regards to school transitions has been conducted on the home-to-school and elementary-to-middle-school transitions. The lack of research to-date on the effects of transitions at the elementary school level appears to be due to the fact that very few districts have children attending more than one school from kindergarten through grade five. Research does indicate that numerous school transitions over time may have a negative effect on academic achievement, result in more high school drop-outs, and lower attendance rates once children reach high school (Alspaugh, 1998; Alspaugh & Harting, 1995). In addition, Alspaugh and Harting (1995) found that students may perform less well on group standardized tests during their first year in a new school building, taking two to three years to get test scores back up to where they were before the transition (this study lacked sound research methods). Number of grades per building The more grades per school, the fewer transitions students make, and the less likely they are to experience any negative effects from these changes. There is a lack of research comparing different grade spans at the elementary suburban school level, leaving educators to gain what knowledge they can through related studies. Such research has been conducted on the pros and cons of having more (mainly urban schools) as opposed to less (mainly rural schools) grades in a building, including comparing different grade configurations. The outcomes of students in schools with as many as 10 grades in a building (e.g. K-6 and K-9) have been compared to middle, junior, and/or senior high schools. Pros of having more grades per school include being able to spend more time on academics and less on orientation, developing relationships and engaging in activities to help children feel comfortable in a new setting (Elliot 1997 in Deason, 2000). Time dedicated to transitions can add up to many weeks of lost teaching-time over the course of a child’s education. Other factors that make having several grades in one school an attractive option includes the ability to develop a sense of community, stability, and continuity which is not possible when there are only a couple of grades in a school and a large percent of the students turn-over each year. Having several grades in one school also enables peer tutoring, kindergarten buddies, older role models, siblings and neighborhood children together, and greater parent involvement as their children are more likely to be in the same building (Paglin & Fager, 1997). Factors such as these, make students feel comfortable, increases their confidence, self-esteem and sense of responsibility, while enabling a positive environment for better learning (Blyth et al, 1981; McPartland, Coldiron & Braddock, 1987; Paglin & Fager, 1997; Vann, 1998; Wihry et al., 1992). When there are more grades per school, teachers are better able to communicate across grades, allowing teachers to discuss problems they are having with students with previous teachers to find out what works or may not work to help a child better learn and behave in class. In addition, it facilitates the identification of students in need of special attention, help, or services, as teacher communication is easier

- 29 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

and more likely to take place. When children attend the same school over time, it allows special educators to work with the same children over the years, decreasing the amount of time that would otherwise be spend making the children feel comfortable and developing trust. In addition, it facilitates IEP planning, as teachers know what services will be available to the child the next year in their building. Some studies have found that schools with more grade levels per building, evidenced higher academic achievement, attendance rates, self-esteem and attitudes towards school, with fewer suspensions and behavior problems, regardless of socioeconomic status (Alspaugh, 1995; Offenberg, 2001; Wihry, Coladarci & Meadow, 1992). One study on this topic did find inconclusive results (Vaccaro, 2000), and another found no differences in achievement, self-esteem or attitudes when 8th graders in Catholic elementary and middle schools were compared (Manchester, 1991). Another pro of having more grades per school has to do with accountability. Tucker & Andrada (1997) found that performance on standardized tests was higher when schools were held accountable. When there are few grades in a school, the likelihood that standardized testing will take place decreases, and if so, the greater the chances that student achievement will not be as high as it would be if testing were taking place. Regardless of when testing is conducted, feeder schools must be held responsible for future test scores of students coming out of their buildings. In the literature, there is some discussion as to the benefits of having all students at a particular grade level in the same school. These include cross-team planning, collaboration and mentoring, as well as facilitating the provision of elective, exploratory and enrichment classes (Paglin & Fager, 1997; Vann, 1998). Having all same-grade level classes in one building facilitates the matching of student-teacher learning styles, separating students who do not get along, grouping students by ability, putting an equal number of students in each classroom, balancing ethnic and socioeconomic composition, and focusing on specific developmental needs (Paglin & Fager, 1997; Vann, 1998). School Size The federal government that is providing grant money to districts wanting to reduce their schools’ sizes is advocating for small schools. Research on the benefits of small schools was compiled by the Small Schools Workshop (www.smallschoolsworkshop.org). This research has mainly been conducted on rural and urban schools, and is predominantly a discussion. Mentioned pros of small schools include raising student achievement, less violence or disruptive behavior, less student anonymity and isolation, higher attendance and graduation rates, and better teacher satisfaction and school climate. Inter-personal relationships between teachers and students are another discussed benefit of small schools, one that keeps students from feeling anonymous, lost or ignored (MacIver & Epstein, 1992), forcing them to be accountable and responsible for their academic achievement and behavior. Cotton (1996) listed other pros of small schools, including higher personal and academic self-concepts, higher self-esteem, more parent involvement, and higher college enrollment. In small schools, students tend to have classes with the same students over time, a factor that MacIver and Epstein (1992) mentioned allows students to feel attached to a group of peers. Students in smaller schools do tend to participate more in clubs, offices and teams (Cotton, 1996). The more students participate in school activities, the higher attendance rates are, the fewer students drop-out, and the higher students perform academically (Alspaugh, 1998; Howley, 1994). One factor that research has shown again and again over time, is the fact that the lower the socioeconomic status of the school’s community, the more pronounced the benefits of small schools, regardless of urbanity. When studies held socioeconomic status constant, or when large high schools in affluent neighborhoods were compared to small rural schools, academic achievement and attendance rates were similar (Howley, 1994).

- 30 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Cost-effectiveness of school sizes Bickel (2000) examined the cost effectiveness of different grade configurations, and found that districts with fewer schools and more grades per school, spent less money per pupil. the most cost-effective school configuration is a one-school district with all grade levels in the same building. The larger the school, the less money was spent per pupil’s education, up to a certain point. Bickel (2000) did not indicate what school size that “point” represented. Summary Research specific to the elementary school level grade-span configuration is lacking. No studies have been conducted specific to the effects of school-to-school transitions between elementary buildings, but developmental psychologists recommend minimizing these, based upon what is known about transitions and young children in general. The effects of transitions on academic achievement are yet unclear. Similarly, no research has been conducted on the benefit of having more versus less elementary grades per building, but has been conducted on longer versus shorter grade spans and the outcomes at the middle and high school level. This research points towards having more as opposed to less grades in a school building. In addition, research on optimal school size in a suburban school district that is not predominantly a low socioeconomic community has not been done, but the research in general, points to keeping schools small. Finally, research does indicate that the larger the school, the less money spent per pupil, but the ideal size is not provided. Recommendations Keep transitions down as much as possible at the elementary school level, with more as opposed to less grades per building, while keeping the number of students per building down. The following are recommendations in the literature that have been published by administrators who have gone through the reorganization process. Administrators, who have gone through district reorganization or grade reconfiguration, have published several recommendations. These include finding out what parents, teachers, and administrators want with regards to grade configurations, as their support seems necessary for smooth and successful changes. It is recommended that communication between these groups of people be two-way, with a broad-based committee that has lots of planning time, and is flexible and willing to make changes to plans as information presents itself. Vann (1998) recommended that schools be examined to determine whether they are practically and physically suited to the grade levels that they will house. He also recommended that a list of modifications be made to ensure that buildings are readied for the different grades they will serve. Other recommendations include the discussion of the following topics: cost of bus transportation; inequity of school buildings; would school boundaries need to be re-drawn every couple of years; and how will resources be affected. Questions that administrators recommend committees ponder, include the best configuration for the provision of special education services, and what might maximize those resources. Also, might teacher burnout might be reduced by the variability introduced when there are more grades per school.

- 31 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

Addendum #3 Experience of Other Communities: Summary Table

- 32 -

Grade Configuration Study November 1, 2001

- 33 -

Addendum #4 Transportation Information from Other Communities

If this facilities project seems large,the planning process was even larger.It began four years ago with thehiring of CannonDesign, anarchitectural firm in Grand Island,NY, to conduct an engineering studyof every building in the Albany CitySchool District.

Their conclusion: Only one building,the Albany School of Humanities onWhitehall Road, is meeting the needsof its students. Twelve of theremaining schools need to becompletely replaced or substantiallyremodeled, while four needrenovations and some additions.

MEET OUR PLANNING TEAM:

Architectural advisor

Educational ProgramSpecialist

Architectural firms

Construction manager

Historicpreservationist

WHAT'SDECIDED?

How to configure theschools

Ideal school sizes

One high school or two

Renovate or build

Avoiding the chaos ofconstruction

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (1 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

Finding acceptable sites

Buying and disposing ofproperty

WHAT'S NOTDECIDED?

Enrollment issues

Initially, the architects worked with a district Facilities PlanningCommittee made up of staff and community residents to develop a $300million master plan for upgrading the district’s facilities. However, as thedistrict grappled with a variety of issues, it was able to scale the plan backto a more affordable figure. The total cost of the project to go to the votersis $174.6 million.

The planning process has included not only a lot of internal discussion butalso a great deal of public input on a whole variety of issues. Indeed,community meetings have been held at various steps along the way,beginning in October 1998, and continuing right up until the present. Intotal, there have been well more than 100 public meetings over the lastfour years at which the facilities plan has been shaped and reshaped.

Here is a look at all the issues that have been discussed, including thosethat have been resolved and those that are still to be decided.

ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RESOLVED

HOW TOCONFIGURETHESCHOOLS

Grade configuration –– Deciding on how to configure the schools wasbasic to the rest of the facilities plan. Very early in the process, thearchitects, district staff, the board of education, and the community lookedat various ways to structure Albany’s schools. These included:

K-6, 7-8, 9-12 (the current organization)●

K-6, 7-9, 10-12●

K-4, 5-8, 9-12●

K-2, 3-6, 7-9, 10-12●

K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12●

K-8, 9-12●

K-5, 6-8, 9-12 (the one that was finally selected)●

The major problem with the current organization is that it produces verylarge elementary schools and a very large high school, which goes counterto the idea of having small learning environments. It also means thatmiddle school students stay in one place for only a short time, making itharder for many of them to adapt to their new surroundings and to succeedacademically.

Most of the other configurations investigated were either expensive,impractical or both. One alternative that has attracted a lot of attention isK-8, 9-12, especially given the public’s concern about sending theirchildren to the middle schools. This would not only be costly, requiringthe district to put middle school type laboratories in every elementarybuilding, but it would also produce extremely large schools.

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (2 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

In the end, the district chose the configuration that most other schooldistricts in the state and country have already gone to: K-5, 6-8, 9-12.However, the Board of Education has agreed to design School 20 as a K-8school.

This new configuration will allow the elementary schools to be reduced insize. It will also allow the district to make the sixth grade curriculum morechallenging and better prepare students for the rigors of high school.

IDEALSCHOOLSIZES

The ideal elementary school size –– The discussion of school sizehappened in tandem with the discussion on grade configuration. Thedistrict determined that the ideal elementary school is 300-450 students,because it is small enough to make sure every student is well-known, yetlarge enough to be managed in a cost-effective way. With a K-5configuration, the district will be able to maintain three sections per gradelevel at eight of its elementary buildings, and two sections at four of itselementary buildings. This will help to prevent teacher isolation, byallowing for a lot of communication and collaboration among those whoare teaching at the same grade level. Less isolation, more communicationand collaboration, in turn, always contributes to a stronger educationalprogram.

The ideal middle school size –– The board of education decided that theideal size for a middle school is 600-650 pupils broken down into smallerteams of about 100-115 students each. The combination of a small schooland small teams are particularly important in an urban environment,because they give teachers an opportunity to get to know the needs of eachand every child. It also makes it easier for teachers to maintain gooddiscipline, which leads to a safer, more secure learning environment for allstudents.

The ideal high school size –– The ideal size of a high school is 1,600pupils. However, this is not achievable in Albany. The current 9-12enrollment is about 2,200, and it is expected to rise to about 2,400 over thenext several years. The district looked at the idea of building a second highschool but rejected it. For more on this, read on.

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (3 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

ONE HIGHSCHOOL ORTWO

One or two high schools –– At one point, the district was projecting anincrease in the high school enrollment from its present 2,200 students to asmany as 3,200 students (an estimate that has since been scaled back to2,400). This spurred discussion of building a second high schoolsomewhere else in the city and splitting the population in two. But districtofficials only had to look at the controversy created in one nearbysuburban community over splitting high schools to come to the conclusionthat one is better than two. Many community residents who came out forpublic meetings also stressed that they preferred one Albany High School.

If the original enrollment estimates had held steady, the district probablywould have considered building a brand new, larger high schoolsomewhere else. But now that those estimates have been scaled down, thedistrict has opted in favor of keeping its present high school but expandingit slightly and renovating it to be able to break it down into four houses of600 pupils each. These smaller houses seem particularly ideal in an urbanenvironment, where there are a significant number of students who need alot of motivation and attention.

Nature of the high school houses –– Once it was decided that "houses"are the way to go at the high school, the next discussion centered on whatthose houses should be like. Ultimately, it will be left up to the high schoolstaff and parents to develop the details of the house plan, but a committeeof district and community representatives was set up to developguidelines. They recommended that:

The houses should be separate and autonomous, although flexibilityof movement should be built in for students who do not need asmuch structure.

●

The Abrookin Vo-Tech Center should be moved on campus into afacility of its own and should function as one of the four houses,with the possibility of turning it into a full-day, grade 9-12 careeracademy.

●

Team teaching should be employed in grades 9-10 to allow forteachers to get to know the students better.

●

The houses should not be based on themes or employ a lotterymethod for entry.

●

AP/Honors, special education and alternative education programsshould be offered in every house.

●

Opportunities for greater parent involvement and student mentoringshould be built into the house plan.

●

Most of the high school portion of the plan has been postponed for furtherdiscussion and is not included in the facilities project, as it currentlystands.

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (4 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

RENOVATEOR REBUILD

Which schools to renovate, which ones to rebuild –– A major decisionin the process was whether to renovate some of the older buildings or tearthem down and completely rebuild them. The architects rated everybuilding on its suitability for the educational program, its structuralsoundness, its mechanical and electrical infrastructure, itstelecommunications system, and the quality of its site. Most of the schoolscame out with a poor rating. Some came out with a fair rating. Only one,Albany School Humanities, came out with a good rating. In the end, it wasdecided that in the interest of cost-effectiveness, Schools 16, 18, and 26should be completely replaced; Schools 19, 20 and 27 should be expandedand remodeled; Schuyler should be replaced with two smaller elementaryschools elsewhere (one to be located in a renovated and expanded School21 and the other to be located in a brand new building at the HarrietGibbons site); and Livingston and Hackett should be completelyrenovated. The remaining schools were considered worthy of remodelingand upgrading, including Arbor Hill, Thomas O'Brien Academy, Giffen(which will get a new cafeteria), and Sunshine School (in Lincoln Park).

The design of urban schools –– Even with rebuilding some of theschools, the architects saw right away that many of the sites were too smallto be able to create the suburban model of a school. Besides, thecommunity made it very clear they wanted their schools to reflect theurban environment in which they are located. The architects, therefore, setout to create building designs that rise up rather than spread out. Thecommunity cautioned the architects that they do not want every school tobe a "cookie-cutter" replica of the next one. They indicated that they prizeindividuality and diversity not only in their students but also in theirschool buildings.

AVOIDING THE CHAOSOF CON-STRUCTION

Shielding students and staff from the construction work –– Buildingnew schools or reconstructing old ones is all well and good. But whathappens to the students and staff while the work is going on. During thecommunity input sessions, parents made it clear that they don't want to seethe students in any one building split up and sent to several differentplaces. The district also learned from the reconstruction at ASH in 1995that you can't have students learning amidst the chaos of construction.

For this reason, the district has decided that transitional buildings areneeded throughout the construction process. Whole student bodies will betransferred to those transitional schools (in most cases for one year only)while their buildings are being constructed or renovated. Philip SchuylerElementary School and the current Montessori Magnet School (leasedfrom the Catholic Diocese) have been tentatively designated as transitionalbuildings.

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (5 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

FINDINGACCEPTABLESITES

Finding an acceptable site for a third middle school –– This hasprobably been one of the most agonizing tasks of the entire planningprocess. The architects and district officials have looked at 30 sites, mostof which have been found unacceptable for a variety of reasons.

In the eleventh hour of the planning process, the Mayor of Albany cameforward with the proposal that a third middle school be built on the edge ofWestland Hills Park off Central Avenue. The location is ideal in manyways. There currently is no middle school in that part of the city, and it isone of the few spots in Albany that is large enough to meet the state'sacreage requirements for a middle school.

Many neighborhood residents have expressed concern about giving upparkland to a middle school. It is important to point out, however, thatWestland Hills will still remain a park. In fact, the "footprint" of theschool, or the actual land on which it sits, will only occupy two acres intotal – one acre of the 26-acre park and another acre of private land next tothe park to be purchased by the district. Some confusion has existed overthe fact that the Albany City Council recently recommended "alienation"(or setting aside) of up to 4.5 acres of parkland for the project. Besides theone acre on which the building will sit, some of the parkland will beneeded for a roadway, a bus turnaround and possibly an access road fromthe school to Central Avenue (which would be used only for emergencies).Much of this 4.5 acres will still remain as green space, but the alienationprocess requires that the district legally designate a maximum acreage tobe used.

In the meantime, the district is planning to contribute $1 million to theCity of Albany to upgrade the park, including its Little League fields,wading pond and playground. Neighboring residents will also have accessto school facilities such as an indoor pool, gym, library and meetingrooms.

Finding a site for the Montessori Magnet –– The current Montessoriprogram is located in cramped quarters at Park Avenue and Eagle Streetleased from the Catholic Diocese for $200,000 a year. The district wouldlike to move the program into a larger facility that it owns. Two sites wereseriously considered:: 1) the Sunshine School site in Lincoln Park; or 2)the School 26 site on Tremont Street. In the end, the Board of Educationchose the School 26 site so that it could keep an elementary school in thatneighborhood. The site also is near Westland Hills Park, as well as theAlbany Pine Bush, giving the Montessori teachers plenty of naturalresources to carry out their curriculum, which is very hands-on and oftennature-based.

Relocating the alternative programs –– The district has several off-sitealternative programs that will need to be relocated as part of the building

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (6 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

project. One of these is the Harriet Gibbons Alternative High School,which is located in a building on Sheridan Avenue leased from theCatholic Diocese. The district would like to purchase that property, razethe building and construct a new school there to serve part of the SchuylerElementary population. This would present an opportunity to not onlyrelocate but also rethink the alternative high school. One idea underserious consideration is to establish a "school-to-work" alternative thatoffers students a half-day of academics and a half-day of internships inlocal businesses. This program would be located somewhere along CentralAvenue where many of the city's businesses reside.

Other off-site alternative programs include:

The Sunshine School in Lincoln Park – This program for studentswho are transitioning back from penal and psychiatric institutionswill remain where it is, and the building will undergo modestrenovations.

●

The Middle School Alternative Program (MAPS) – This programwhich is located at the Adult Learning Center on Western Avenuewill be relocated to the Philip Schuyler building.

●

Tutorial Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS) – Thisprogram, which serves middle and high school students onshort-term suspension, will move from the Adult Learning Center tothe Philip Schuyler building.

●

Adult Learning Center – This program will move to the PhilipSchuyler building.

●

Relocating the district offices –– The board of education has decided tomove the district offices, now located downtown in Academy Park, to awing of Livingston Magnet Academy once it is renovated. This will allowthe district to make good use of the extra space there freed up by thereduction of the number of students in the building. It will also open of thepossibility of selling Academy Park and using the revenues to offset someof the cost of the facilities project.

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (7 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

BUYING ANDDISPOSINGOFPROPERTY

Purchasing additional property –– The proposed facilities plan calls forpurchasing additional properties to locate new schools and to expand theamount of land around existing schools. The district was originallylooking to purchase 35 sites, but has since scaled that back to thefollowing sites around five schools in the interest of saving on costs. Theseare as follows:

Property along Colvin and Central Avenue for the proposed newmiddle school.

●

Property on Sheridan Avenue (site of the present Harriet GibbonsAlternative High School) for the Schuyler "B" elementary school.

●

Two parcels adjacent to School 18 to accommodate a largerbuilding.

●

Four properties near School 21 on Clinton Avenue (which willbecome Schuyler "A").

●

Two parcels adjacent to School 27 to accommodate an addition onthe building.

●

It should be noted that before going out to purchase new land, the districtlooked carefully at all its existing property to see how it might be bestused. Early in the process, the board of education also decided that ifadditional property is needed, that property will not be taken by eminentdomain. In other words, the district would only purchase property from awilling seller. Furthermore, the board asked that other alternatives beconsidered in case a piece of property was offered for sale at too high aprice.

Disposing of unneeded property –– While purchasing additionalproperty, the district also will be able to dispose of some property orconvert it to other uses. This includes:

Moving the Montessori Magnet School out of its rented buildingdowntown possibly to the School 26 site, thus saving the district$200,000 a year in leasing costs.

●

Converting Schuyler Elementary into space to house the AdultLearning Center, the Middle School Alternative Program (MAPS),and Tutorial Opportunity Program for Students (TOPS).

●

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT ABOUT ISSUESSTILL TO BE DECIDED

Home · Facilities Overview · The Plan · The Process · The Vision · Funding · Timeline · Voting · FAQs ·Feedback · More Info · Academics · News Releases · Board of Education · Human Resources · DistrictBudget · What's New

The Process - Albany Central School District

http://www.rebuildalbanyschools.org/process.htm (8 of 8) [6/12/2004 4:57:37 PM]

Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and ManagementCollege of Education · University of Oregon

Research Roundup 16, 3(Spring 2000)

Grade Spanby Ron Renchler

Despite the likelihood that grade span, or grade configuration,has a significant influence on the success of school systems andthe students they serve, empirical research on the topic in thelast decade has been very sparse.

A few studies have attempted to gauge the influence of variousgrade configurations on academic achievement of students atthe state and local levels, but most reports are anecdotal orqualitative in nature and describe the perceived benefits anddrawbacks of various grade configurations. Studies on therelationship of grade span to other measures of school success,such as students’ socialization skills or teaching effectiveness,are also scarce.

Perhaps the dearth of empirical research stems from the factthat grade configuration is to some degree out of the hands ofadministrators who run the schools. The exigencies ofgeographic location, student populations, limited financialresources, and community preferences, among other factors,may often dictate the grade spans within a school system, hencethe wide range of different grade configurations across thenation.

Statistics from the National Center for Education Statisticsreflect the current predominance of traditional elementary andmiddle-school configurations in U.S. public schools. As shownin the accompanying table, of the 45,601 publicprimary/elementary schools, 25,480 schools (56 percent) areconfigured to transition students into either middle schools orjunior high schools by the end of fifth grade. Another 15,578schools (34 percent) make the transition after the sixth grade.Only about 4,500 schools (10 percent) carry students from theearliest grades through the eighth grade.

At the intermediate level, NCES statistics show that in the1996-97 school year 10,499 schools were configured astraditional middle schools (grades 4, 5, or 6 to grades 7 or 8).Another 3,707 schools followed the junior-high model withgrades 7-8 or 7-9.

Catherine Paglin and Jennifer Fager provide an overview ofissues and concerns related to grade spans at all levels andprovide profiles of eight Northwest schools with varying gradespans.

ERIC/CEM - Research Roundup 16, 3

http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html (1 of 6) [6/12/2004 4:59:12 PM]

David F. Wihry and colleagues report on their empirical studyof the influence of grade span on the academic achievement ofeighth-grade students in Maine.

David L. Hough briefly surveys the history of gradeconfiguration in public schools and cites research indicatingthat "elemiddle" schools–that is, schools containing bothelementary and middle-school grades–may be most appropriatefor meeting the educational and social needs of youngadolescents.

Charlene Tucker and Gilbert Andrada present research resultsfrom a study measuring sixth-grade students’ academicperformance on the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) inrelation to student enrollment in schools having K-5 or K-6configurations.

John Alspaugh looks at the influence of grade span and relatedfactors on dropout rates in high school.

U.S. Public Primary/Elementary School GradeConfigurations–Number of Schools and Percentages ofConfigurations, 1996-1997

Pre-K,K, orgrade 1togrades3 or 4

Pre-K,K, orgrade 1to grade5

Pre-K,K, orgrade 1to grade6

Pre-K,K, orgrade 1to grade8

Total

Numberofschools

4,910 20,570 15,578 4,543 45,601

% oftotalschools

10.7 45.1 34.2 10 100

Source: Digest of Education Statistics, 1998. Chapter 2.Elementary and Secondary Education. Available online athttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/digest98/d98t099.html

Paglin, Catherine, and Fager, Jennifer. Grade Configuration:Who Goes Where? Portland, Oregon: Northwest RegionalEducational Laboratory, 1997. 43 pages. Available from:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, DocumentReproduction Service, 101 SW Main, Suite 500, Portland, OR97204-3297. (503) 275-9519. Free.

Every grade configuration has its own strengths andweaknesses relative to the context in which the grade spanoccurs, the authors note in this publication that includes profilesof eight Northwest schools with seven different grade spans.School size and, by extension, grade configuration, are oftendictated by geographic location of the student population. Bybuilding on the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses foundwithin every grade configuration, school administrators can

ERIC/CEM - Research Roundup 16, 3

http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html (2 of 6) [6/12/2004 4:59:12 PM]

provide effective educational services regardless of theparticular grade span being used.

The authors discuss three central issues related to grade span:(1) the appropriateness of grouping certain grades together, (2)the number of grades included in a school and the number ofclassrooms within each grade, and (3) the number of schooltransitions students will be required to make in their K-12educational experience.

Critical factors that typically come into play for schools withbroad grade spans include the nature of the role-modelingyounger students receive from older students, the school staff’straining and experience, and building size. Schools with verynarrow grade spans experience frequent student turnover,which can influence the school’s identity and sense ofcommunity. Narrow grade spans also impose on students thestress of frequent school transitions.

In a section entitled "Historical Trends in GradeConfiguration," Paglin and Fager note that since the 1970s thenumber of junior high schools has been in decline, signaling aconceptual change away from the junior high school as a"preparation for high school" and toward the middle school as a"child-centered institution" that affords opportunity for "teamteaching, advisory programs, and flexible scheduling."

The authors conclude that "no particular sequence of gradespans is perfect or in itself guarantees student achievement andsocial adjustment." The key, they say, is to focus on developingthe positive potential within any given grade configuration.

Wihry, David F., Coladarci, Theodore, and Meadow, Curtis.Grade Span and Eighth-Grade Academic Achievement:Evidence from a Predominantly Rural State. Journal ofResearch in Rural Education 8, 2 (Summer 1992): 58—70. EJ464 589. Availability: Not available from publisher.

In one of the few empirical studies on grade span in the pastdecade, Wihry and his colleagues used data from an annuallyadministered standardized test, the Maine EducationalAssessment (MEA), to measure the influence of grade span onthe academic achievement of eighth-graders. After statisticallyanalyzing the scores of eighth-graders in schools with differentgrade configurations, the researchers concluded thateighth-graders learning in elementary settings (K-8, K-9, and3-8) outperformed eighth-graders in schools with other gradeconfigurations. Eighth-graders attending school in junior/seniorschool environments (grades 6-12, 7-12, and 8-12) performedless well than eighth-graders in all other grade configurations."Full-scale" achievement and reading achievement were morerelated to the grade-span variable than was mathematicsachievement.

The question of why Maine eighth-graders in schools withelementary grade spans outperformed other eighth-gradersremains unanswered, prompting the authors to call for moreresearch in this critical area. They suggest that "suchconsiderations as instructional specialization (e.g.,

ERIC/CEM - Research Roundup 16, 3

http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html (3 of 6) [6/12/2004 4:59:12 PM]

departmentalization), tracking, and within-class abilitygrouping, as well as staff recruitment and training practices,expectations of student performance, and sensitivity toindividual differences among students" should be considered aspotential explanations for this group’s superior academicperformance.

The complex relationship among these difficult-to-quantifyvariables presents an especially challenging research problem.But the authors note that study in this area is of criticalimportance because their findings "call into question anysimplistic assertion regarding the superiority of (nominally)middle-level schools."

Hough, David L. "The Elemiddle School: A Model forMiddle Grades Reform." Principal 74, 3 (January 1995):6—9. EJ 496 194. Availability: Not available from publisher.

Hough proposes the label "elemiddle" for schools following"the current trend toward aligning middle schools more closelywith elementary programs." He characterizes these schools asincluding a focus on serving students between the ages of 10and 14, typically in grades 5 through 8. This grade sequence ispredominantly contained in K-8 schools, but also appears inschools having configurations of grades 4-8, 5-8, and Pre-K-8.

Hough credits recent research on "school programs, practices,and policies" with engendering a change in the educationalperspectives on this student age group. While noting thatempirical research has not identified an optimal gradeconfiguration, Hough nevertheless believes that thephilosophies of elementary-school education contained withinthe elemiddle school may well serve the needs of youngadolescents better than the newer middle-school structure(grades 6-9) or the traditional junior-high structure (grades 7and 8 or grades 7-9).

The impetus for establishing the primary-secondary schoolstructure predominant in the 19th century was economic; ithelped "facilitate the movement of children into the laborforce," Hough explains. The development of the three-tieredelementary, junior high, high school structure has a similarhistory: Child labor laws in the early 20th century required thatadolescents be better prepared for high school since theycouldn’t immediately become part of the work force. Althoughmiddle-school grade spans began to emerge during the 1960sand 1970s, it was not until the 1980s, Hough says, that trueeducational reform took place at the middle-school level.

Despite the changes in educational programs and philosophiesin middle schools, Hough still believes that "elemiddle schools,which include both primary and middle grades, may moreeasily facilitate the child-oriented programs conducive to youngadolescent learning." He cites several studies showing thatcritical differences in educational programs and practices doexist among elemiddle, middle, and junior high schools.

Tucker, Charlene G., and Andrada, Gilbert N. Accountability

ERIC/CEM - Research Roundup 16, 3

http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html (4 of 6) [6/12/2004 4:59:12 PM]

Works: Analysis of Performance by Grade Span of School.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March 24—28,1997. 23 pages. ED 411 278. Available from: ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, 7420 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110,Springfield, VA 22153-2852. 800-443-3742. $4.46 plusshipping and handling. Web Site:http://www.edrs.com/default.cfm

Since 1985, Connecticut has used the Connecticut Mastery Test(CMT) to measure student achievement in reading, writing, andmathematics at the fourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade levels. TheCMT has also been used as a de facto accountability measurefor schools whose students are taking the test. Three basicgrade configurations are used at this level in Connecticut: K-5and 6-8 (Type I), K-6 and 7-8 (Type II), and K-8.

Until 1994, the K-5 schools were not accountable for theachievement levels of students who had attended Type Ischools but had moved on to the sixth grade at a new school,while the K-6 schools were accountable for the achievementlevels of their sixth-grade students.

In 1994, a change in testing and reporting procedures requiredsixth-grade students from Type I schools to identify the K-5school they had attended. This allowed the researchers tocompare CMT data from this group of sixth-graders with datafrom sixth-graders who were still at their original K-6 school.The researchers hoped to learn whether students attendingschools with a K-5 grade span performed as well as their K—6cohorts.

The results indicated that in all subject areas the performance ofsixth-grade students at the Type II schools was better than theperformance of sixth-grade students from Type I schools.Tucker and Andrada pose three possible explanations for thisoutcome:

There were less incentive and little opportunity for theschool administering the sixth-grade portion of the test toprepare Type I students (who had just arrived at theschool after completing fifth-grade elsewhere) for theCMT because the administering school would notreceive credit for Type I students’ performance.

1.

Type I schools had no incentive to prepare theirfifth-grade students for the sixth-grade portion of theCMT because those Type I schools were not being heldaccountable for their graduates’ performance at theadministering school.

2.

Information about the nature and importance of thesixth-grade portion of the CMT was not being madeavailable to students and teachers in Type I schools;therefore, the teachers were not familiar with the bestmethods for preparing their fifth-grade studentsadequately for the sixth-grade portion of the CMT.

3.

This study demonstrates the subtle ways in which grade spancan work for or against students learning within a particularschool system. The authors conclude by noting that, as shownin the Connecticut example, school-level policies and practices

ERIC/CEM - Research Roundup 16, 3

http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html (5 of 6) [6/12/2004 4:59:12 PM]

can vary dramatically depending on the grade span used withina school.

Alspaugh, John W. The Interaction Effect of TransitionGrade to High School With Gender and Grade Level UponDropout Rates. Paper prepared for the American EducationalResearch Association, 1999. 17 pages. ED 431 066. Availablefrom: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 7420 FullertonRd., Suite 110, Springfield, VA 22153-2852. 800-443-3742.$4.46 plus shipping and handling. Web site:http://www.edrs.com/default.cfm

Alspaugh has conducted several previous research studiesinvestigating the effects of grade span on student achievementand other educational outcomes. In general, he has found thatstudents suffer achievement loss during each transition yearthey experience–that is, the transition year between elementaryschool and middle or junior high school, and the transition yearbetween middle or junior high school and high school.Alspaugh also found that students typically gain back theachievement loss in the year following the transition year.

In this most recent study, Alspaugh looked at the effect oftransition year, student gender, and grade span on high schooldropout rates. Using a sample of 45 high schools–15 withstudents in grades 10-12, 15 with students in grades 9-12, and15 with students in grades 7-12–he analyzed the relationship ofthe transitional year and other factors to the dropout rate withinthe groups of schools.

Alspaugh’s analysis revealed that students who made thetransition to high school at grade 7 (that is, those who attendedhigh schools with the 7-12 grade configuration) dropped outsignificantly less often than did students making the transitionat either the ninth- or tenth-grade level. Dropout rates werehighest for students who made the transition at the tenth-gradelevel.

Overall, boys dropped out more frequently than girls, but thetransition grade was still a significant factor among femalestudents–girls who transitioned at grade 7 dropped out lessfrequently than girls who transitioned at either grade 9 or 10.Students in this study dropped out most frequently at theeleventh grade, regardless of the year in which they transitionedto high school.

Alspaugh suggests that the high dropout rate attributed tostudents transitioning to high school at grade 10 may occurbecause of the achievement loss experienced by many studentsduring a transitional year.

Ron Renchler is a research analyst and writer for the ERICClearinghouse on Educational Management at the Universityof Oregon.

ERIC/CEM - Research Roundup 16, 3

http://cepm.uoregon.edu/publications/roundup/S00.html (6 of 6) [6/12/2004 4:59:12 PM]

Grade Organization Study CommitteeCommittee Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Background

Process

Recommendation

Supporting Documentation

Review of Literature●

Grade Organization●

School Size and Program●

Developmental Assets●

Educational Program/Design●

Childcare●

Special Education●

Desegregation●

Diversity●

Licensure●

Curriculum and Instruction●

Transportation●

Athletics●

Demographics●

Survey Results Summary●

Community Input

Implementation of New Grade Organization

Plan●

Timeline●

Budget●

Issues●

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (1 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:34 PM]

Other Considerations●

References

Appendices

A. Historical Information on Bloomington Schools●

B. Newspaper Articles on School Closings●

C. Grade Organization Study Committee Membership●

D. Desegregation Document●

E. Survey Results●

Executive Summary

The new proposed Mission Statement says: In partnership with our world-class, diverse community, theBloomington Public School System assures that each of our learners will develop the knowledge, skills,and ethics necessary to achieve educational excellence and thrive in a rapidly changing world byproviding dynamic learning experiences in a supportive environment and by integrating Bloomington'sunique local and global assets.

This mission statement, along with the beliefs and objectives, outlines a bold new direction for ourdistrict. The words and phrases are strong and depict a school system that seeks to excel and focus onlearner success. The nature of our work, preparing learners for our diverse, global society, compels us toorganize our systems to better meet their needs.

One system studied this fall by a committee of teachers, parents, and administrators was our gradeorganization. Our charge was to determine whether or not the current grade organization was the best aswe look at the future needs of our learners and our educational program. This report provides a summaryof the literature reviewed, research conducted, and process used to reach a recommendation regarding thegrade organization of the Bloomington Public School System.

Background

The historical perspective on grade organization in the Bloomington Schools is very interesting. (SeeAppendix A) Prior to 1987, the general organization of the grades was K-6, 7-9, and 10-12. During the1987-88 school year, the Bloomington administration and School Board realized there was a need toreview how the facilities were used in light of declining enrollment and limited resources. In February of1987, the School Board decided that the district would be organized on a K-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 basis. As aresult of this decision, fifth and sixth graders would attend the former Oak Grove Junior High School,and the seventh and eighth grade students would attend Olson Junior High School. Also, Riverside,Hillcrest, and Northgate elementary schools were closed. (See Appendix B)

Following the decision to change the grade organization, time was spent to identify and develop the

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (2 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:34 PM]

programmatic and facility needs of the middle level learners. The administration, staff, and parents atOak Grove Intermediate School and Olson Junior High School have continued to work to meet the needsof the learners and families. These efforts have resulted in teams and specialized programs at bothschools. Olson Junior High adopted a middle school philosophy in 1995-96 and became Olson MiddleSchool.

In 1991-92, Hillcrest Community School was opened as a K-6 districtwide school choice. Then in1993-94, BRAVO! Middle School was opened for seventh and eighth graders at the BloomingtonEducation Center. Also, Jefferson and Kennedy High Schools moved to block scheduling and theelementary buildings improved their programs to offer choices and be more responsive to learner needs.

As can be seen, while the grade organization of the Bloomington Schools remained primarily K-4/K-6,5-6, 7-8, 9-12 throughout the past decade, significant changes continued within each level. Ourstandards-based curriculum, the nature of work, our diverse, global society, and our children yearning foradult relationships and attention require that how we prepare students for the 21st century will be verydifferent than how we prepared them for the 90s.

So, we return to the question: How should we organize our schools to ensure students the bestopportunities for success in the 21st century?

Process

The following process was used by the Grade Organization Study Committee. (See Appendix C) Thecommittee members started their work by discussing the purpose of the committee and reviewing thehistory and background of grade organization in the Bloomington Schools. The committee then reviewedcurrent research regarding grade organization, the needs of middle level learners, school size, etc. Thereview of the literature resulted in the development of Statements of Rationale -- eight statements whichled to the creation of our grade organization scenarios. These rationale statements were:

Statements of Rationale for Determining Grade Level Scenarios:

We agree:

that grade configuration will have greater success when based on the values and beliefs of thecommunity, therefore, any changes will consider the results of a community survey.

●

that effective programs and practices have a greater impact on achievement than gradeconfiguration, therefore, our strongest focus needs to be on quality programs within our schoolsthat meet the developmental needs of our students and maximize student achievement.

●

that building transitions have a negative effect on student achievement, although students mayrecover the loss in following years, therefore, grade configuration should minimize the number ofbuilding transitions.

●

that diversity enriches the community, therefore, diversity is a factor to consider in gradeorganization.

●

that the Bloomington Schools are accountable for measuring student progress toward district andstate standards, therefore, grade organization must provide the continuity of curriculum andinstruction for students to successfully complete each level.

●

that school proximity, parental access to transportation, time and opportunity, school climate, short●

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (3 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:34 PM]

stays, large schools, and age of students are all elements which impact the likelihood of parentalinvolvement, therefore, they are factors to consider when designing grade organization.

that approximately 3,000 Bloomington students are attending alternative learning settings(alternatives to our basic K-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-12 schools), therefore, grade organization andprograms need to provide choices for parents to maximize student success.

●

that there is compelling evidence that school size affects student achievement, therefore, schoolsize is a factor to consider when designing grade organization.

●

The committee then brainstormed many possible grade organization scenarios. Applying the rationalestatements, the committee forwarded the following three scenarios for a more detailed analysis andconsideration.

Scenario 1

Status Quo●

Scenario 2

K-5●

K-8 community school●

6-8●

9-12●

Scenario 3

K-5 neighborhood schools with some choice●

6-8 attendance areas and possibly choice●

9-12 attendance areas and possible choice●

The next step was for the committee to hear reports on the following topics:

Educational Program/Design●

Facility Capacity●

Curriculum and Instruction●

Diversity●

Demographics●

Licensure●

Transportation●

Special Education●

Developmental Assets●

Childcare●

Athletics●

In addition to these reports, a survey of over 400 community residents, parents, and staff members wascompleted to determine the community's opinions of the current grade organization and the other two

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (4 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:34 PM]

scenarios. In addition, information from the survey was received regarding respondents' opinions aboutneighborhood schools and the value of districtwide schools.

Following the synthesis of the research, the reports, and much discussion, the committee made a decisionto recommend a change in the grade organization of the Bloomington School System.

Recommendation

The Grade Organization Study Committee reviewed the research, heard reports, and engaged indiscussions. Compelling reasons for change to a new grade organization, focused primarily on the needsof elementary and middle level learners, emerged from these activities. These reasons include:

1. The developmental needs of students require fewer transitions and sustained adult relationships.

2. Smaller schools and fewer transitions encourage stronger ties among schools, students, and parents.

3. The change in grade organization allows for better continuity in curriculum with fewer gaps andoverlaps.

4. Applying research about school size and instructional practices will ensure students the bestopportunities for success because in smaller schools:

a. Student attitudes are better.

b. Students experience a greater sense of belonging.

c. Students participate in extracurricular activities at higher levels.

d. Regarding dropouts, the holding power is greater.

e. Knowing and caring about one another and parent involvement is possible to a greater degree.

In addition, the development of programmatic options which meet the needs of high school learners andmaximize their success is an important part of this recommendation.

Therefore, the Grade Organization Study Committee recommends a K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 gradeorganization for the Bloomington Public School System to ensure students the best opportunities forsuccess in the 21st century.

Supporting Documentation

The supporting documentation provides a summary of the research conducted by the Grade OrganizationStudy Committee. This information provided the basis for the decision to change our grade organization,as well as gave valuable information for the upcoming transition and implementation phase.

A. Review of Literature

1. Grade Organization

The research about how grades are organized in the metropolitan area comes from a document, "GradeConfiguration, School Size, and Program Organization Study for Bloomington Public Schools, July,

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (5 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:34 PM]

1998" compiled by Dr. James Petersen, former Assistant Superintendent of the Bloomington Schools. Hewrites, "At the elementary level, grade configurations come in many varieties. There are districts whohave primary schools with grades K-2, K-3, 4-5, 4-6, as well as other combinations. There are districtswith kindergarten centers. There are districts, such as Bloomington, that have K-4 elementary schools.There are many types of grade configurations at the elementary level and, within those gradeconfigurations, may be other programmatic considerations, such as: multiaging; looping, which involvesteachers following students for more than one grade; departmentalization; and teaming. The mostprevalent grade configurations in the metropolitan area are K-5 and K-6. Many times it is based on thefacilities available and what the community will accept.

"At the middle level, the grade configuration usually affects students from grade five through grade nine.School districts are including students at the fifth and sixth grade level in middle education, and fewerand fewer are including grade nine. In the metropolitan area, grade configurations break out as follows.This information represents data from the districts of Anoka Hennepin, Burnsville, Chaska, ColumbiaHeights, Eden Prairie, Edina, Elk River, Forest Lake, Fridley, Hastings, Hopkins, Inver Grove, Lakeville,Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Mounds View, North St.. Paul/Maplewood, Osseo, Richfield, Robbinsdale,Rosemount/Apple Valley, Roseville, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, South Washington County, Spring LakePark, Stillwater, Wayzata, West St. Paul, and White Bear Lake."

Grade Configuration Number of Schools Percentage of TotalElementary Schools

K - 6 141 42%K - 5 124 37%K - 4 8 2%Other 11 3%

Middle Schools6 - 8 47 85%5 - 8 2 4%6 - 9 2 4%7 - 9 1 2%7 - 8 3 5%

Junior High Schools7 - 9 21 75%7 - 8 7 25%

Senior High Schools10 - 12 13 23%9 - 12 40 71%K - 12 1 2%9 - 10 1 2%11 - 12 1 2%

Dr. Petersen continues, "Based on the metro area schools' grade configuration at the middle level, it doestend to vary, but suggests that a 6-8 configuration is the most predominate. 'Research has indicated thatmiddle schools with 6-8 grade spans, and K-8 schools are most likely to implement child-centered

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (6 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

programs, practices, and policies than schools with 7-9 or 7-12 grade spans.' (Hough, 1995) McEwin andJenkins stated that the majority of middle schools cited in nationwide research reflect a 6-8 levelconfiguration.

"Senior high schools are configured either as 10-12 or 9-12 schools in larger communities. In the ruralareas, many times there will be a 7-12 or a K-12 school. Usually the difference between 9-12 and 10-12is one of space, as opposed to program considerations. Generally, grade configuration has been basedmore on facility availability than for program reasons. When the opportunity presents itself to look atgrade configuration, then school districts will look at questions of size and program organization."

2. School Size and Program

The most compelling evidence found by the committee was not specific to grade organization, as muchas school size and programming. Dr. Petersen found in his research that there is a growing body ofevidence that suggests that reducing school size will improve student outcomes. Data collected byresearchers at the universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois, suggest that small school size notonly improves student performance on grades and test scores, but lowers dropout rates, reduces violenceand drug abuse. (Hallett, 1996) The National Middle School Association states that the optimum schoolsize at the middle level is approximately 600-800 students. Further, the Carnegie Foundation's task forceon education of young adolescents reported that middle school students would benefit most from being insmall learning communities staffed by teachers who are expert at teaching that age group. (Maeroff,1990)

Research also indicated many other advantages of smaller schools. For example, student attitudes insmaller schools are better. "Compared to students in large schools, both the personal and the academicself-concepts of students in small schools are more positive." (Rutter, 1988; Stockard & Mayberry, 1992)Also, students experience a greater sense of belonging in smaller schools. There is significant evidenceof increases in social bonding to teachers and school. "People in small schools come to know and careabout one another to a greater degree than is possible in large schools, and the rate of parent involvementis higher." (Cotton, 1996) Another advantage is that students participate in extracurricular activities atsignificantly higher levels in small schools than in large ones. (Cotton, 1996; Fowler, 1995; Stockard andMayberry, 1992) Furthermore, students who would benefit the most from small schools are economicallydisadvantaged and minority students. (Cotton, 1996; Fowler, 1995; Howley, 1994; Lee & Smith, 1996)

This research clearly indicates that smaller schools are better for learners than larger schools. Currently,Bloomington has K-4 buildings ranging from 330 students (Ridgeview Elementary) to 519 students(Valley View). Many of these

K-4 buildings are using every available space with current enrollments while other buildings have theluxury of available space. Oak Grove Intermediate, our primary 5-6 building, has an enrollment of 1538students. Olson Middle School has an enrollment of 1569, while our two high schools each have anenrollment of 1700 students.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (7 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

However, small schools alone will not create successful schools. Research also shows that siteprogramming is a significant factor in the effectiveness of schools. Factors such as shared central values,effective principal leaders, developmentally appropriate instructional strategies, and site organization(flexible class schedules, team teaching, etc.) are important for learner success. It was determined by thecommittee that while a "school within a school" concept can have a similar effect on students as smallschools, the large physical buildings and frequent transitions (changing schools three times betweengrades four and nine) are detrimental to many learners.

As mentioned above, our current organization causes multiple transitions in the adolescent students'lives. The effect of these transitions can cause lower student achievement during the transition years, lessschool attachment, and less parent involvement. Two of these factors were illustrated in the results of theSearch Institute survey given to a random sample of over 1500 Bloomington students in grades 6, 8, 10,and 12. The results indicate that parent involvement decreased as the students got older. While this trendis predictable, the loss of 21% (from 6th to 10th grade) of parent involvement as reported by the studentsmight be slowed with fewer transitions and as parents become familiar with the schools and involved inthe activities. Also, only 49% of the 6th grade students and 48% of the 8th grade students report bondingto school, compared with 61% of the 10th grade students. (Only 51% of the seniors reported bonding toschool. However, the timing of the survey, in May, could have something to do with this response.)

B. Developmental Assets

The committee reviewed the developmental assets and the results of the survey, "Profiles of Student Life:Attitudes and Behaviors." Peter Benson, President of Search Institute, through extensive research, hasidentified forty assets which affect a student's ability to grow and learn. Developmental assets can givethe support, skills, and resources that will get students where they want to go. The assets protect andempower youth. The more assets students have, the less likely they are to struggle, and the more likelythey are to succeed in life. The research indicates that students need 30-40 assets to maximize theirchance for success. The survey results indicate that 17% of our students report 1-10 assets, 41% report11-20 assets, 34% report 21 30 assets, and only 8% report 31-40 assets. Some specific results as theyrelate to this report include:

1. Only 44% report having support from adults other than parents.

2. Only 30% report their school as a caring, encouraging environment.

3. Only 33% report parents being actively involved helping them achieve in school.

4. Only 55% report feeling safe in home, school, and neighborhood.

5. Only 40% report school as having clear rules and consequences.

6. Only 30% report having positive adult role models.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (8 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

7. Only 44% report having parents and teachers with high expectations.

8. Only 65% report being motivated to do well in school.

9. Only 65% report being engaged in school.

10. Only 49% report having one or more hours of homework per day.

11. Only 52% report they care about their school.

The average number of assets per student by grade is as follows:

Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 20.9 18.5 18.7 17.9

Of the forty assets, the ones listed above are some of the assets we, as a school system, may be most ableto positively influence. The correlation of these survey results with the small school research provides acompelling rationale to change grade organization. For example, research indicates smaller schools offermore students support (#1, 2, & 6 above); are more socially and academically engaging

(#8 & 9 above); and students have a greater sense of belonging in smaller schools

(#11 above). Therefore, smaller schools provide an environment in which the students will develop moreof the assets increasing the likelihood of a successful life.

C. Educational Program/Design

The Educational Program Draft Report is written to be a compass for school staff and sites as they moveforward with making educational program decisions for learners. The draft document was developed byBloomington educators. The specific standards (statements based on research and Bloomington bestpractices) serve as the framework and resource for a systemic approach to program design and schoolimprovement. Several standards support our grade level organization recommendations:

1. Schools that are impersonal with rapidly changing schedules must be transformed into smaller, morepersonal units that banish anonymity. (NASSP, 1996)

2. Schools will be organized into units small enough to create a warm, safe community that ensurespositive relationships and a sense of belonging, since large school settings have been associated withlower achievement. (Alspaugh, 1998)

3. Transitions, including students moving from school to school as they get older, as well as studentsmoving from room to room within schools, will be minimized and those necessary will be carefullyplanned to prevent disruptions to student learning. (Harnischfeger, 1980; Harter, et. al., 1992)

4. We will encourage student and parent choice by providing a variety of programs and options forlearners.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (9 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

D. Childcare

Over the past decade, the number of women in the workforce has dramatically increased which hasresulted in the need for additional childcare options for families. The Bloomington School System hasbeen a leader in the state in creating quality care programs for children before and after school and in thesummer, as well as providing programmatic options. A new concept which extends the academiclearning beyond the typical school day, as well as assisting with social and emotional growth, was startedapproximately three years ago and is now blossoming in our schools. The change in grade organizationwould lead to the following opportunities for K-5 and 6-8 learners. (Preschool programs are not largelyaffected unless Pond and/or Southwood become elementary schools.)

Opportunities for grade K-5 learners:

1. Age-appropriate activities.

2. Children in program longer.

3. Mentor and junior leader programs.

4. Grade 5 learners have increased opportunities to use gym space after school.

Opportunities for grade 6-8 learners:

1. Supportive and safe environment.

2. Enriching and age appropriate activities.

3. Structured with defined participant attendance.

4. Internship experiences in care program.

E. Special Education

Approximately 10.3% of the Bloomington School learners receive special education services. A changein grade organization would offer the following advantages for learners with special needs:

1. Fewer transitions are better for learners with special needs.

2. The proposed organization would be more developmentally appropriate.

3. The large size of the buildings overwhelms students, three middle schools would be ideal.

4. More space would be available to better meet the needs of existing learners and perhaps enable us topull more learners back into the district now being served in more restrictive programs out of the district.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (10 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

F. Desegregation

A review of the new desegregation document seems to indicate that the proposed changes would be incompliance with the spirit and letter of the regulation. However, the committee recommends thatparticular attention be given to this area as the rules could dramatically change over the next severalmonths. (See Appendix D)

G. Diversity

Bloomington's definition of diversity is "the many ways we differ." One of the goals of the DiversityDepartment is to assist with creating safe school environments characterized by demonstrating kindnessand respect to all people. While merely putting together people doesn't make respect happen, thelikelihood of respecting people with differences is enhanced when people interact with people differentfrom themselves.

Also, while the proposed changes in the grade organization do not significantly impact diversity asdefined above, the proposed changes could impact the socio economic and cultural diversity of themiddle level schools. The way elementary schools are paired to feed into middle level schools couldminimize this impact.

H. Licensure

As we consider moving to grades 6-8 middle schools, there is a question of teacher licensure. Ourresearch indicated that there is a middle school license, but this will not be a barrier to having qualifiedteachers in the 6-8 buildings. Options include having sixth grade teachers primarily teach 6th gradestudents, and likewise for 7th and 8th grade students. Specialist staff are licensed for K-12, so licensure isnot an issue with these staff members. Also, there are licensing rule exceptions that can be accessed witha letter of approval or a waiver. We would also anticipate partnering with area universities to provideon-site classes for teachers wishing to receive a middle school license. Furthermore, this licensure issueonly applies to current teachers. New teachers starting in year 2000 will be licensed K-8 or 5-12.

I. Curriculum and Instruction

After reviewing the curriculum and instruction implications of a change in grade organization, it becameapparent that curriculum articulation will be easier with three grade groupings. The new organization willallow for more continuity and mastery of curriculum. Restructuring our grade organization also offers theopportunity to reexamine what we deliver and how we deliver it. The following statements provide asynopsis of our findings:

Enrollment/Registration: Registration in elective courses may change the availability of offerings in 8thgrade.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (11 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

Gifted/Talented: Splitting 6th grade G/T students among three 6-8 buildings will require reconsiderationof how G/T services are delivered. G/T services for elementary students will need to be redesigned forthe new organization. The task force recommendations from 1996 will assist with this issue.

Industrial Tech/FACS/Art/Media/Science/Health: Special facilities and materials for these programs willneed to be provided for each grade level in the three 6-8 buildings.

Curriculum Standards: The K-5, 6-8, 9-12 grade organization will provide an opportunity to paint abetter picture of the educational effectiveness of each school site. The curriculum standards will be moreeffectively delivered with this grade organization as it matches the way in which the state standards aredesigned and the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments and Basic Skills Tests are organized.

Music: Preparatory standards for music instruction are grouped into K-3 and 4-5, thus there would bemany positive effects with this grouping. For instance, the 5th graders will provide positive rolemodeling for the younger students. Instrumental instruction at the K-5 and 6-8 buildings will requireadditional equipment and creative staffing.

Phy.Ed.: The curriculum for fifth grade will need to be modified to reflect the change in accessibility totennis courts, gymnastic equipment, and swimming pools.

Technology: The need for technology has increased at all grade levels. Change in facility and gradeorganization will open the door to needed technology enhancements in all areas.

J. Transportation

The recommended grade organization will have a positive effect on our transportation system. Moregrades in a building means the bus can pick up more students when passing through a neighborhood.Fewer districtwide schools mean shorter bus routes. These factors should result in shorter bus routes. Theschool start times will need adjusting with the implementation of the new grade organization.

K. Athletics

The current configuration offers limited opportunities for participation and competition for the middleschool learners. Three middle schools would offer more opportunities for participation.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (12 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

L. Demographics

A demographic study, completed in December 1998, indicates a stable population with a slight decline inenrollment. The number of students not choosing the Bloomington Schools is projected to stay about thesame. We presently have the opportunity to stabilize or increase enrollment by creating schools andchoices that will bring back some of these students. Our greatest area of opportunity is to attract andretain our kindergarten population.

M. Survey Results Summary

At the time Bloomington's present configuration was developed in 1987, the biggest factors weredeclining enrollment and budget constraints. The two feasible options given the existing buildings wereto have an intermediate and junior high, or to have two 5-8 middle schools. It did not appear that themiddle school concept was possible to implement at that time.

A survey was conducted in November and December, 1998, by Decision Resources, Inc. Communityresidents, parents, and staff members were asked their opinions about preferences of grade organization.Major themes emerged from the responses which included:

· Support for neighborhood schools at the elementary and middle school levels.

· Support for program choice for high school students.

· Support for small schools for students.

In addition, the results of the survey showed that:

· Of the parents surveyed, 46% preferred the status quo, while 49% preferred one of the two differentscenarios both of which included 6-8 middle schools.

· Of staff surveyed, 34% preferred the status quo, while 65% preferred one of the two scenarios, both ofwhich included the 6-8 middle school concept.

· Of the random community members surveyed, 45% preferred the status quo, while 53% preferred oneof two different scenarios which included 6-8 middle schools.

While the results of the survey appear to suggest some support for the current grade organization, otherresults support the concept of neighborhood schools and indicate strong support for small schools. Dr.Bill Morris, President, Decision Resources, Inc., confirmed the inconsistencies of these results. Hesuggested that the responses to the open-ended questions offer some interesting insights. A theme thatemerged was the concern for frequent school changes with the current organization. For example, afterrating the first scenario regarding the current grade organization, 10% of the community residents, 10%of the parents, and 13% of the staff felt that there was too much changing of schools. In addition, 4% of

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (13 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

the community residents, 5% of the parents, and 13% of the staff felt that it was disruptive to move everytwo years for middle school. Further, 2% of the community residents, 5% of the parents, and 12% of thestaff do not like the 5-6 and 7-8 grade organization. It appears through the open ended responses thatrespondents were concerned with the frequent school changes in our current organization.

The committee reviewed the results of the survey. The recommended change grade organization is inalignment with the views of the community. (See Appendix E)

Community Input

Community input in this process was very important and employed in three ways. First, the committeewas comprised of representatives from the major stakeholders (parents, teachers, and administrators).The committee represented all geographical areas of Bloomington, including members from both highschools, the three schools serving middle level learners, and three of the elementary schools.

Second, Decisions Research, Inc. conducted a survey of over 400 community members, parents, and staffmembers. The survey results are discussed in the previous section. (Section M - Survey ResultsSummary)

Third, there was communication to the school community through a note that went home and/or schoolnewsletters. Information was also published in the Sun Current to keep people up to date with thecommittee's progress.

Board Action Schedule Options

Option A: If the Board is content with this level of community input into the recommended change ingrade organization, the Board action schedule could look like this:

1. Publicize through schools.

2. Public dialog by Board during January 11 meeting.

3. January 25 Board Meeting make decision.

Option B: If the Board is interested in seeking additional feedback from the community, here areadditional strategies that can be used:

1. Seek feedback from groups

a. PTAs●

b. SECAC●

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (14 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

c. PER●

d. Other●

2. Conduct neighborhood school forums coordinated by PTAs and principals.

3. Schedule

a. Publicize through schools.●

b. Hold forums January 5 - 21.●

c. Information forwarded to Assistant Superintendent by Friday, January 22 for processing.●

d. Present information at January 25 Board Meeting.●

e. January 25 Board Meeting make decision.●

Option C: Additional feedback can also be gained as follows:

1. Publicize through schools.

2. At the Board meeting on January 11, the GOSC will make a public report and receive verbal andwritten feedback.

3. January 25 Board Meeting make decision.

Implementation of New Grade Organization

Grade Organization Study Committee

Target: Fall 2000

A. Plan:

1. Convene a transition team consisting of major areas that will be involved in the change of gradeorganization. This team will include a leader from the following areas:

a. Educational Program

b. Curriculum and Instruction

c. Assessment

d. Technology

e. Special Education

f. Community Education

g. Human Resources

h. Staff Development

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (15 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

i. Educational Program

j. Middle School Research

k. Transportation, Start Times, Attendance Boundaries

l. Facilities

m. Athletics

n. Community (Parents, Business Partnerships, Higher Education)

o. Other

2. Team leaders will form teams to assist in the transition process

3. Tasks include:

a. Identify issues to be resolved

b. Research

c. Develop recommendations

d. Develop resource needs and budget

4. Present recommendation to Assistant Superintendent

B. Timeline

Timeline Planned Start Planned FinishBoard Workshop 2/1/99 2/1/99Board Meeting 2/8/99 2/8/99Convene TransitionTeam

2/9/99 2/19/99

Identify Team Members 2/22/99 3/5/99Team Work Begins 3/8/99 8/15/99Recommendation to 8/15/99 8/15/99Design Transition 8/15/99 9/30/99Implement Transition 9/30/99 8/31/00New Grade Organization 9/1/00 9/1/00

C. Budget

Cost of the Change - The approximate costs of the change will be outlined by each area of the transitionteam. These areas of the transition team are itemized in Implementation of New Grade Organization -Section I.A. It is expected that there will be widespread participation in the process of planning for thechange in grade organization. Also, it is anticipated that many activities and needs will be covered byreallocating current resources.

Each transition area (as itemized in Section I.A) has specific issues to identify and seek resolution. Someof these considerations for each area are mentioned under Supporting Documentation.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (16 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

D. Issues

1. We value neighborhood schools and diversity. How do we get three diverse middle schools inBloomington?

2. The parent survey of 1997-98 indicated that 21% of parents of K-8 students would send their studentsto a year-round school. Should we consider a year-round school?

3. If the Bloomington Education Center becomes a middle school of 800 students, what happens to theadministrative offices?

4. Potentially problematic is students from three middle schools going to two high schools. How do wedeal with this issue?

5. Choices need to be provided at all levels. What choices? How many choices?

6. The recommendation of the committee to have three 6-8 middle level schools is the ideal. If facilitiesare a challenge, how do we move toward the ideal?

E. Other Considerations

1. Hillcrest, BRAVO!, Oak Grove Intermediate, and Olson Middle School, as current entities, cease toexist. We need a process to review middle school research and take the best ideas and practices fromthese schools and create an enhanced design of the middle school in Bloomington.

2. Hillcrest Community School has a couple of options:

a. Neighborhood K-5.

b. Community choice K-5.

c. Develop a west side and east side elementary choice -- Hillcrest would be one of these schools.

d. Develop a choice in each of the three 6-8 middle school attendance areas - Hillcrest would beone of these schools.

3. The transition will be carefully and thoughtfully planned to minimize disruption for students, parents,and staff.

4. The needs of staff will be thoughtfully considered as staff members will be on transition teams.Resources such as planning time and staff development will be devoted to accomplish the transition task.

5. Communication among all stakeholders is extremely important. Our School Public Relations Specialistwill be involved in developing a communication plan. Also, informal communications will need to focuson correct information to avoid the pitfalls of rumor and assumptions.

6. Other.

http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/distinfo/schoolcomm/GradeReorg.html (17 of 17) [6/12/2004 5:01:35 PM]

IN THE NEWS: Wednesday, April 30, 2003

Grade Level Center Discussion 'Dormant' For NowIn Dist. 23

The topic of grade level centers in Prospect Hts. School Dist. 23 remains "pretty dormant" at this point in time, accordingto Supt. Ronald Bearwald.

There have been no further discussions of the grade center feasibility report since two new members joined the schoolboard earlier this month. Bearwald said the new members are familiarizing themselves with the report, and he believes theboard will eventually decide whether to hold more public discussions on the report or include it in future planning.

There are no plans to even consider grade centers as an objective for the 2003-2004 school year as the change in howstudents are housed will take much more time to implement if the plan is implemented at all.

Bearwald did say that results of a community survey asking families about their feelings on grade level centers will bepublished in a special newsletter that will be mailed to all homes in the district at the end of May. Approximately 1,200surveys were mailed out to Dist. 23 households in February and about 350 were completed and sent back to the district.

The survey results are also included in the final grade level center report compiled by a consulting firm hired by thedistrict.

If Dist. 23 did change to a grade center format, each school would consist of two grade levels, causing the most dramaticchange at Eisenhower School which currently houses kindergarten through fifth graders.

Many parents expressed concerns and objections to grade level centers during community discussions held earlier thisyear.

Back to top of page

Grade Level Center Discussion 'Dormant' For Now In Dist. 23

http://www.journal-topics.com/ph/03/ph030430.3.html [6/12/2004 5:04:27 PM]

ASHKUMELEMENTARY

SCHOOL

THE LITTLE SCHOOL WITH THE BIGHEART

203 North ThirdAshkum, Illinois 60911

Phone: 815-698-2212Fax : 815-698-2635

Ashkum Elementary School is part of CentralCommunity Unit District #4. In the spring of2002 the Board of Education voted to reorganizethe school district into grade level centers.Ashkum Elementary School, now called AshkumEarly Literacy Center, was assigned to be thePre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten building. The1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade students were all assignedto the Chebanse Elementary School. The fourthand fifth graders attend the Clifton ElementarySchool. Our sixth, seventh, and eighth gradestudents now attend school at Nash MiddleSchool, while the high school students remainedat Central High School.

The main focus of the Ashkum Early LiteracyCenter will be in the area of early literacy in bothreading and mathematics. The schoolconcentrates on early identification andintervention for all students. We are aligning ourskill statements to the Early Learning Standards

Ashkum Elementary

http://www.clifton-u4.k12.il.us/ashkum.htm (1 of 3) [6/12/2004 5:06:12 PM]

and introduction of Early Elementary Standards.The administrator and a teacher from each levelare attending workshops to help lead the schoolin this mission. Teachers with the help of aconsultant are developing and writing skillstatements in each learning area.

Parental contact and communication are essentialto the success of our school. Teachers maintainweekly contact through class newsletters and theprincipal communicates at least monthly via anewsletter with all parents. Parental groups meetregularly to help identify and address the needs oftheir school. Parents as Partners, the Box Topcommittee, and the Campbell’s Labels committeeare avenues where parents are helping. Amonthly parent meeting time has been establishedto help with the communications between thehome and school. Parents also have activeinvolvement with Family Fun Nights,conferences, and special events that they plan andcarry out.

Each classroom has computers in them andteachers use supplemental software for skilldevelopment and review. Each classroom isconnected to the Internet for the expandedresources that are available. All students receivecontact experience with technology during theirinstruction at the Ashkum Early Literacy Center.A reading specialist is present at the school toassist students and teachers to master the earlyliteracy skills necessary for future success. Ateacher works with the kindergarten daily forintroduction to Fine Arts and MotorDevelopment, which is coordinated with regularkindergarten instruction for reading and

Ashkum Elementary

http://www.clifton-u4.k12.il.us/ashkum.htm (2 of 3) [6/12/2004 5:06:12 PM]

mathematics readiness.

Top of Page

Ashkum Elementary

http://www.clifton-u4.k12.il.us/ashkum.htm (3 of 3) [6/12/2004 5:06:12 PM]