Pottsgrove Business Administrator Daid Nester, standing at right, discusses bus transportation with members of the elementary redistricting committee Tuesday night
POTTSTOWN PA – Accusations flew Tuesday (Nov. 29, 2011), during the last of four meetings of the Pottsgrove School District’s Elementary Redistricting Committee, as several of its volunteer members charged administrators with selectively presenting facts to make a case for significant change in the way kindergarten through fifth grade classes are organized.
At issue are two proposals to balance attendance and reduce class sizes at Lower Pottsgrove, West Pottsgrove, and Ringing Rocks elementary schools. The first would simply re-draw map lines that determine which children attend which schools. The second would dramatically overhaul the buildings’ populations by creating two centers housing grades K-2, and a third with grades 3-5.
“I think some of the facts are slanted. I think the administration wants the centers. I get the feeling this is a done deal,” a first grade teacher and committee member claimed. Others – some parents, some teachers – readily agreed. “It’s hard to see” why the centers proposal is being considered, one added, “when it’s such an easy change to just move the boundaries.”
Superintendent Dr. Bradley Landis denied any bias in presentations to more than 30 committee members since their meetings began in October. He acknowledged favoring the centers model, however, because in his opinion it “makes it easier … to improve academic achievement.”
Busing rutes could change somewhat under either edistricting proposal, Nester said
The committee disbanded without making any recommendation on either proposal to the Board of School Directors. Instead, Landis said, its findings will be presented Dec. 6 to board members, three of whom attended Tuesday’s meeting, and will be followed by another month or more of research and discussion.
“The board will debate the pros and cons,” Landis said, “and we’re not going to be rushing this through.” There will be at least three opportunities, he promised, “to gather public comment.” He did expect, however, that the board would act to adopt one of the two choices by no later than the end of January 2012.
Vocal opponents of the centers model, who claimed to represent a committee majority, considered the timetable too hurried. “We’ve talked about this for only four meetings in six weeks,” one man noted. “That’s awfully fast to get something like this approved. I only hope the (school) board gets a fair, very clear representation of what we’ve talked about here.”
“Every family in the district would be impacted by a move to centers,” another offered. “Moving a line affects a hell of a lot less people.”
Elementary redistricting is being examined as additional classroom space becomes available at Ringing, thanks to its new construction, and at Lower, and in the face of increasingly crowded conditions at West. It also coincides with the prospect of even tighter budgeting during 2012, as Pottsgrove anticipates more state and federal funding cuts coupled with an unwillingness by district property owners to pay more in taxes.
The consolidated centers model would reduce the need for some teacher travel between buildings, and might even reduce the need for some staff positions, the school board has been told. It provides “a much more efficient use of space and resources,” Landis repeated Tuesday.
Beyond that, committee member and Pottsgrove Middle School Principal Bill Ziegler said, it also allows Pottsgrove to institute full-day kindergarten classes. “We should jump at that,” he said. “We can’t fiscally have those in our current model.” Music teacher Kathy Williams added that consolidation would focus learning among smaller student groups, which she believes would help improve Pottsgrove’s state-measured academic progress.
Related (to Pottsgrove School District redistricting):
- Redistricting Info ‘Slanted,’ Pottsgrove Volunteers Charge
- Pottsgrove Redistrict Discussions Quietly Move Ahead
- In Pottsgrove, Redistricting Study Work Gets Started
- Pottsgrove Sets Dates For Redistrict Committee Work
- As Expected, Interest A’Plenty In Pottsgrove Redistricting
- Landis Calls For Pottsgrove Redistricting Volunteers
- Touchy Pottsgrove Redistricting Now Being Considered
Good morning Joe,
You have been in attendance at these committee meetings. What is your perspective on the findings, etc?
Good morning Joe,
I believe that you have been in attendance most, if not all the committee meeting. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on the information being shared at the meetings.
Mike:
Your comment was submitted twice in different wording. I’m replying to this version because it was the latest submitted, but I also retained the earlier submission to ensure it remains part of the reader record.
The committee meeting I attended Tuesday (Nov. 29) was my first of the four. I did not attend any of the other three. I have read, and produced stories on, the agendas, information, and questions posed earlier by committee members as made publicly available on the district website. I lack the expertise, and am therefore in no position to judge, the quality or veracity of what was presented to the committee by the administration. The final findings of the committee have not yet been written, so I’m also unable to comment on them.
My reporting from Tuesday, however, as published in today’s edition, clearly indicates the administration faces a credibility gap among some, if not most, of the volunteers it selected to serve on the committee. If I were a school director, I would be far more concerned about how they perceived the information they received. As my reporting makes obvious, those who spoke Tuesday believe something is amiss.
As always, Mike, thanks both for reading and commenting.
This headline is very misleading. I am a parent as well as a part of the redistricting committee. I have been at the meetings and the school board and Superintendant have not been biased in my opnion. They have shown the pros and cons of both options. In addition, they wanted to hear what those on the committee thought.
The committee itself was comprised of parents, board members, and teachers. The mount of teachers at these meetings far outweighed the amount of parents, which is just ridiculous in my opinion. The teachers, unless a parent for a child in one of the elementary schools, should not have been allowed to be a part of this. They are employees and should do what the board (their employer) says to do…not buck their every word.
In addition, there was so much negativity from many of the teachers on this subject in general; this seemed to create a hostile environment. When the teachers were negative at the meetings some parents seemed to go along with this…why? I have no idea other than they think these teachers have the student’s best interests at heart, which I personally do not believe.
I have weighed the pros and cons, researched the centers approach as well as looked at other communities that have already gone this way and I believe that the centers approach offers the best options for the students for education purposes.
Will there be change? Yes. Do many people not like change? Yes. But we must do what is in the best interests of moving ahead to ensure the education needs of our children are served in the best way possible. Take the emotion out of “this is how it always ways” thoughts and look at the future and not the past.
Danielle, thanks very much for your comment and, much more importantly, for your willingness to volunteer to help make Pottsgrove a better district.
I hope and believe the headline and story we published Wednesday accurately reflect what happened during Tuesday’s meeting, and are not misleading. Whether the charges leveled at the administration by those in attendance Tuesday were accurate, or fair, I couldn’t say and wouldn’t guess. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to offer another side to the story that was not revealed Tuesday in any depth.
Thanks Joe; I do understand that many times only one side of the story is relayed to news organizations. I wanted to ensure that the public was aware that not all of us at these meetings felt the same way.
What would be great is an in depth article outlining the pros and Conn’s of both options from each angle including: monetary impacts, education impacts, family impacts, etc. There is also a wealth of information on this from other districts that have gone this route with much success.
I do agree that the district cannot make everyone happy, but if they keep in mind the most important thing (the children’s education interests) whatever happens will go well.
Also if the district does decide to go the route of a centers approach I think open communication, assistance with transition for families and teachers, as well as transparency will go a long way to making the move smoother.
Danielle, well said on all counts!
Danielle,
Let me first preface my repsonse by letting you know that I am the President of the School Board. The concept of a need for re-districting was first dicussed to a significant degree back at the start of the school year. The Board charged the Administration to form a committee comprised of volunteers from the Board (limit three)along with volunteers from the Administration, the teaching staff, and parents/non-parents from the community. Nobody was turned away. We asked the committee to look various options to address our redistricting while continuing to improve our academic programming.
We requested that they meet regularly throughout the fall and be prepared to present their findings, not recommendations, at the upcoming December 6th meeting. No vote will be taken that night nor was it ever planned. Our goal was to have the findings presented to the Board and the community as a whole on the 6th. While we wish we would have had more volunteers for the committee, that is not the only opportunity for people to become involved in the process.
Once the findings are presented, we will continue to seek input from all stakeholders. We have been very transparent in our our approach to date and will continue with that approach moving forward. Our hope is to have a final decision by late January or early February so that everyone involved has the appropriate amount of time to prepare for the upcoming school year.
Joe,
Can I ask that you, if time permits, to run another article on Monday reminding people of the meeting, its place, time, and purpose. Also share with them that no vote is being taken and that if they are unable to attend, they will be able to acess the findings on the District’s website after the meeting. We will all have a great deal to process and dialouge about in the coming weeks.
Warm regards,
Michael Neiffer
Mike, it was our intent to ensure Post readers were reminded of the meeting. Thanks for the suggestion. And as always, thank you for adding to the discussion. I expect there will be plenty more before the process ends.
I, and many parents I have spoken to, are against the plan to create little middle schools at the elementary level. I will be coming to the meeting, and I will present the evidence that I have found from the extremely small number of school districts that have embarked on this radical change. This evidence suggests that each time a child transitions from one school to another, there are negative consequences academically and socially. The effect on test scores in the third grade, for example, are almost sure to be negative. If test scores go down, then ultimately so will real estate values, negating the so called money saved by cutting teachers. Mr. Neiffer, I appreciate your comments and look forward to discussing this “little middle” proposal with you and the community. I, for one, would appreciate if the district would release the evidence that Ms. O’Brien points to that supports this experiment on our children in advance of Tuesday’s meeting!
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your reply. I completely agree with your statements above and feel that so far everything the board has done has been communicated very well to all. Keep up the great job!!
Danielle
Hi Rick, first and foremost the 12/6 meeting is a not a decision making meeting about any redistricting. From being at the meetings (which you were at as well) they stated that the board will not make a decision on this until the New Year.
To answer your question on the research; I personally took the time as a parent and did my own research. I spent hours reading over research and industry papers and case studies from the University of Penn, Harvard, NCEF as well as a few smaller organizations. The main focus of the research was trying to determine the best grade configuration.
Overall there is not a single grade configuration that will work for every school district. There are a few main questions a school district must answer to help them determine what the best course of action is. Here are some questions they probably already have been asking or will be asking themselves.
1. Will the configuration likely increase or decrease parent involvement?
2. How many students will be enrolled at each grade level and what implications does this have for course offerings and instructional grouping?
3. How will the presence or absence of older students affect younger students in a particular school?
4. What are possible budgetary impacts (positive/negative)?
So Rick when I gave my opinion if was based upon answer the questions above and others. I personally believe that a centers approach will allow my children better access to educational resources. My younger son has sensory problems and there is no person at his grade school that can assist because they are at other schools. My older child is on the gifted line and will most likely be considered that within a year. Again there is not a program or teacher at his grade school equipped to handle this for his age level. In addition, I am done being over taxed as a homeowner to hire more teachers when teachers at other grade schools in the Pottsgrove district are underutilized.
My ultimate goal is to have the best education possible for my children. If you have a solution that would be able to provide a better education than they currently using the current system and without raising taxes I would be more than happy to hear it. We are all entitled to our opinion and this is mine. I will see you at the meeting tomorrow night. Have a great Monday!!
Danielle, thanks for your addition!
Danielle, thanks for your response. If we were to meet, I think we’d find a lot in common given the description of your two children. I’d love to be able to take our discussion off line. That said, I’ve done my research as well. Though I recognize the board has said that no decisions have been made, I fear that given the Superintendents support for the centers approach, the decision has been made in all but name. There are ways to handle the underutilized space at Lower Pottsgrove without radically experimenting on our children. I hope to exchange email addresses with you tonight so we can share the information we have found directly with each other.
Hi Rick, that sounds great! I would love to be able to work with other parents to help become a more unified district no matter what happens with re-districting. If we as parents continue to looks out for the children’s needs and try to keep an open mind about all options, I think we can move forward in a positive way.
To all,
The Redistricting Committee Report of Findings is now posted on the District website at http://www.pgsd.org if you wish to review it prior to the meeting this evening.
This is great news. Thanks.
Joe,
I also served on this committee. My background is in public safety. So serving on this committee I was looking for information about how the transportation, time line, school population etc.. would be handled.
What was presented to us was centers, centers, and more centers. We were given current enrollment and projected enrollment figures for the next few years. We were also told that Pottsgrove School District is a bit of an enigma in that over the last 10 years that population has only changed by around 100 students per year.
With the centers concept, it would relieve the over population situation in the West Pottsgrove Elementary. What it also showed but wasn”t brought up until a few committee member did some math, was that it would over populate the Lower Pottsgrove building. According to information provided by the district, Lower Pottsgrove Elementary can safely hold 730 students. The enrollment projected for the grade 3-5 model is 756 students for the 2012 year and 768 students for the 2013 year. When this was brought to light, we then were presented with a layout of the Lower Pottsgrove building with 22-25 students per classroom. This also makes the building over populated at 770 students. This also does not include teachers, office staff, cafeteria staff, support staff etc… What wasn’t presented is what the building is actually cleared for occupancy wise. This is a very large safety issue that needs to looked into deeper. With the question I asked and wasn’t answered “When would you be looking at a renovation of the Lower Pottgrove Building?”
While I can agree that a “centers” model does provide for consolidation of services among the speciality programs, no solid evidence was presented that the ciriculum delivery would be better. If the ciriculum across the district is not being presented with consistancy then that is a managerial and oversight issue.
I also took time to do some research into the centers approach finding that it generally works better in older grades not in the elementary/grade school levels. There is also research that shows higher disciplinary issues with moving from center to center to center. Also a centers concept seems to work best if the schools were set up in a campus setting not spread out across a district.
If this is the direction that the district wishes to go then the committee should be reformed and then broken down into sub-committees that focus on specific areas so that comprehensive report can be formed to make the informed decision.
Jon Herbsleb
John, thanks very much for your perspective and these comments!