Editor’s Note: This following article was written by Pottsgrove School District residents Rick and Cheryl Rabinowitz. It was offered Feb. 9 (2012) to The Post for potential publication, and Managing Editor Joe Zlomek agreed to publish it given the continuing controversy over the proposal to create educational centers within the district. It does not conform to The Post’s usual publication standards. It does not reflect, represent or constitute an opinion of The Post. Its publication is part of The Post’s Sunday Contributor series, begun during 2009, for which guest authors are invited to offer submissions. If you’d like to become a Sunday Contributor, please e-mail The Post.
By Rick and Cheryl Rabinowitz
Reconfiguring the K-5 elementary schools of the Pottsgrove School District into grade-level centers would be a massive, radical undertaking which would impact every family and every community within our school district. The magnitude of this proposal, particularly in the hurried and unsupported manner in which it has been presented to those outside of the central administration, cannot be overstated. All of the elements of a well conducted, community-driven effort have been lacking. There has been a lack of planning, preparation, collaboration and foresight. There is no evidence that substantial thought and consideration were given to the idea of merely redistricting versus reconfiguring to address the issue of the overcrowded elementary schools. Despite the district’s push for expediency in making the decision, there are too many questions and concerns that remain unanswered and unaddressed to the satisfaction of parents, teachers, and members of the community.
The Centers model for redistricting K-5 elementary schools, while on the surface presented as a collaborative effort, actually began as a series of preset agendas during a Budget Task Force meeting. At the initial meeting in Feb. 2011, The Centers model was floated to a group of volunteers comprised of parents, teachers, administrators, and board members. The purpose of the Budget Task Force was to find ways to cut costs across the elementary schools as well as the district as a whole. While the goal of the collaborative teams was to propose ideas, the Centers model was one that was provided by members of the administration during the meetings and has proven to be the initial salvo in a concentrated effort by the administration to make the case in favor of a K-2 and 3-5 configuration. (see Feb. 2011 minutes, here).
Six months later in August 2011, a team of parents, board members, teachers, and administrators were solicited by the administration to collect information and offer feedback and evaluations as part of a Redistricting Committee. Some of the committee members joining the team believe they were misinformed about the intention of the group as they were presented with the Centers approach and encouraged that this was the best choice available. The alternative of redistricting and keeping elementary schools intact was presented as a less viable option, or in later meetings, completely ignored. No other options were explored.
One parent volunteer for the Redistricting Committee who as an administrator has extensive experience in the field of education spoke for the group of redistricting members and members of the community in commenting that he was “disappointed and concerned” by what transpired during the course of the four meetings. He went on to state that “With each successive meeting of the Elementary Redistricting Committee, it became increasingly evident that consideration of a reconfiguration of our kindergarten through 5th grades into two K through 2nd grade and one 3rd through 5th grade Centers was THE predominant charge of the committee, far outweighing the time and conversation allotted for the other charges outlined at the first meeting of the group.” In contrast, the initial invitation from Dr. Bradley Landis, Pottsgrove Superintendent, soliciting interested constituents to join the formative Redistricting Committee clearly stated that the Redistricting Committee would study elementary enrollment patterns across the townships, evaluate attendance borders for the current K-5 configuration and “make recommendations to the School Board regarding attendance borders and whether they should be adjusted to balance enrollment numbers across the three schools.”
Following the final report of the Redistricting Committee, the concern of parents and teachers became overwhelmingly strong given the “bait and switch” method of proposing the Elementary Centers approach along with the lack of supporting evidence to ensure its viability and success. In addressing the issue of transparency and communication, many commented that information, including the dates and times for the board meetings, was not presented in a manner that encouraged parent involvement and representation.
The first of the board meetings was held in early December. It was during this and subsequent meetings that it became clear that there was overwhelming parent opposition to the idea of the Centers model as the one and only option to cut costs and rebalance class sizes. Parent questions and concerns included numerous areas, many of which had not been considered by the administration. Parents reported that the Pros and Cons list, while paying lip service to consideration for both options (Centers and Current Configuration), was designed to sell the community on the Elementary Centers approach by minimizing the importance of the stated cons. Ironically, the cons carried far more weight than the pros.
Additionally, parent concerns included overlooked and yet pivotal issues such as the following questions asked and still unanswered, or unanswered adequately:
- How would dividing up students across various school buildings affect parent volunteer efforts that currently are an area of strength due to proximity and K-5 grouping?
- How would parents handle drop offs or pickups at two buildings at the same time, when those two buildings could be West Pottsgrove and Lower Pottsgrove—nearly 20 miles apart?
- How would a parent of kids in both of the above schools handle the drop off when they miss the bus? Won’t one kid end up being late for school? Which one should they choose?
- How will parents decide which family-oriented events to attend when they will inevitably be held on the same day at different schools?
Pottsgrove administration has answered these concerns in a manner that ignores the effect on families in their community. The response of administration officials is that these critical, day–to-day issues is not an area of concern for the district. They seem to miss or ignore the difference between a 7th and 4th grader in distant buildings and a 4th and 1st grader in the same situation. 7th graders are old enough to be left alone (at least for short periods of time). 1st graders are not! In responding, the district has pointed to another school district that does have a Center, Springfield Township School District, to indicate that they have been able to make this system work despite similar problems. The devil is in the details, however, the Springfield Township K-1 and 2-5 are located on the same campus rather than nearly 20 miles apart.
Additionally, unanswered questions include the following:
- How would teacher communications across grade levels be handled? There is an immeasurable benefit for teachers who have knowledge of students to act as a resource to later teachers in future years. Additionally, wouldn’t teacher training be less effective as the 2nd to 3rd gap was created? Wouldn’t materials be less available for sharing?
- What if a child were held back in the 2nd grade? How would that affect him/her by remaining in the K-2 school building? (This issue evolved into a lawsuit in the Springfield Township School District—between administrators)
- What if a child in 2nd (or even 1st grade) were capable of handling higher grade level challenges (very common)? Wouldn’t they be limited in terms of access to materials and other teachers who could provide more advanced opportunities?
- Would library resources for overachievers be available in 1st and 2nd grade? What about library resources for underachievers in 3rd through 5th?
- What about the gap between 2nd and 3rd grade created by physical distance? How will information be shared about medical needs, IEP goals, accommodations, etc?
- Wouldn’t students in lower grades miss opportunities (lack modeling) to view works/performances of students at a higher level? Concerts? Art displays? Performances?
- What about the mutual benefits to younger and older children that comes from the Safety Program? The district handled this question at the second meeting by suggesting that 2nd graders could be Safeties. This caused 200 parents to erupt with laughter. But it wasn’t funny at all!
- Gifted programming is now offered to 2nd graders. Wouldn’t this be eliminated entirely to save on transportation costs?
- Wouldn’t school wide events be less enriching for the students? Parades? Plays? Concerts? Field Day?
- What about the stress for 3rd graders starting school in a new building with older students who they’ve never met before? Again, the district answered this by saying the same thing happens now when 6th graders go to the middle school, ignoring the differences in ages.
- What about the effects of creating a “little middle” school, given the drop off in behavior and academics that frequently begins in middle grades?
- What about the security that younger siblings feel going to school/riding the bus with older siblings?
- What about the sense of community and security a child feels knowing the teachers through multiple grade levels?
One consistent answer to many of the questions from the administration is that “children will adapt”. This is specious. Kids will adapt to anything, but the adaptation is often far from positive. Different kids adapt differently. The kids most likely to be harmed from this change in grade level grouping and buildings are the kids that can least afford it!
Further, Pottsgrove elementary teachers who presently oppose the Centers model by over 80% with 10% undecided have received communications from the administration to keep their opinions private. Elementary teacher groups received visits from members of the administration where they were informed that the Centers model was a “done deal.” Additional information provided at the time suggested that the end result of keeping the current configuration would be more cuts than the Centers-pushed configuration. It was strongly suggested by the members of administration that they support the Centers model. When I (Rick) confronted Shellie Feola, Assistant Superintendent, at the January 10th meeting about the “muzzle” placed on the teachers, she sharply denied such claims. Nonetheless, these bullying tactics, sanctioned and used by members of administration, have been confidentially confirmed by teachers from all three schools. One teacher said, “Isn’t Pottsgrove Middle School a Center? Isn’t the High School a Center? These results were far below AYP this year in most subcategories!”
She concluded, “Why would we replace a system that is working with a model that is not?” Another teacher, when told that Ms. Feola theorized at the last board meeting that teacher opposition results from “fear of change” and Ms. Feola’s claim that teacher opinions are becoming more accepting of the Centers model, became indignant, saying, “Almost every teacher in my school is against the Centers. We believe that this change is not in the best interests of the children. And, no teacher I know has changed his or her minds; we’ve just been forced to keep quiet!”
In defense of the Centers model, the Pottsgrove School District Administration has cited a number of positive instructional impacts that Centers would provide for our students. Among others, these include “increased consistency in feeder schools to the next level”, “development of a literary focus in K-2 schools”, “opportunity to expand subject area expertise in a 3-5 school” and “greater opportunities to match teachers to student learning styles”. The educational jargon here has no direct research associated with it, and there is certainly no basis in current data or research to lend credibility to the claim that they will in fact contribute to a greater end result in our elementary classrooms. Essentially, what has been put forth as the upside to a Centers approach is characterized by fuzzy explanations and presentations by the Pottsgrove administration as opposed to anything of merit or substance. Indeed, we already have a literary focus in K-2 as the curriculum was changed several years ago to accommodate that focus. For example, the district dropped science as a subject in the early grades in order to put more emphasis on reading. Finally, all of these so called positives are rendered meaningless by virtue of the word “opportunity” that describes them. In this context, “Opportunity” means it won’t get done.
Countering this lack of supportive evidence for a Centers model, concerned parents have turned out at meetings to object to this takeover by the administration and supplied research articles to the Board and public that clearly indicate the need for further study, if not complete rejection of the Centers model. While the Centers model is a relative rarity in PA, it has been investigated more commonly by districts in various states in recent years as schools look for cost cutting measures given tight budgets from the State. Most, if not all, have rejected the idea of a Centers model when confronted with the evidence that this type of narrowly configured model comes with its own set of costs including an overall negative effect on student achievement and performance at the elementary level.
Other studies have yielded results that have been the same. As grade span configuration increases, so does achievement. The more grade levels a school services, the better students perform. The more transitions a student makes, the worse a student performs (Wren, 2004).
The task of restructuring elementary grades throughout a school district is a monumental undertaking requiring many, many months of research, surveying, analysis, discussion and planning and resident involvement if the goal is to ascertain feasibility and practicality before pursuing implementation. This is evidenced by the numerous school districts throughout our State and nation over the past decade which have devoted the necessary time and carefully and thoughtfully carried out the requisite steps before making recommendations for significant change.
In contrast, the presentation of the Centers concept to the Redistricting Committee and subsequently the Pottsgrove Board of School Directors has been hurried, shallow, research-deficient, and consequently ill-advised. It has been rife with pre-set and hidden agendas, subterfuge, collusion, and deliberate attempts to thwart opposition to the Centers plan by whatever means are possible. The weakly supported reasons for quality improvement to the educational program finally presented as an afterthought at the January 24th board meeting has left parents of children in the elementary schools questioning who is at the helm of the Pottsgrove School District. Born out of a preset Budget Task Force meeting agenda, the decision by all counts is a cost cutting measure, pure and simple.
A member of the central administrative team felt compelled to point out to the Redistricting Committee during the final meeting that she and her colleagues are employed by Pottsgrove School District to make decisions that are in the best interests of students, not teachers. We, the parents and community members of the Pottsgrove School District say that what is best for a child’s teachers, what is best for a child’s community, what is best for a child’s family IS, in fact, quite often what is best for the child! As members of the Pottsgrove community, we have a shared responsibility to work together to make sound budgetary decisions in good faith without compromising the quality of education and welfare of our students.
PGSD PowerPoint Rebuttal
With questions left unanswered at the first January meeting, parent frustration running high, and the lack of supporting information for the rationale behind the Centers approach, President of the Board, Michael Neiffer, urged the school administration to present reasons for the aggressively unprecedented change to the current grade configuration.
The PowerPoint slideshow (below) presented by Dr. Brad Landis, Superintendent of Pottsgrove School District, at the Jan. 24th meeting, emphasizes this one-sided view. While originally received with some positive feedback for simply supplying a rationale for the radical move to Centers, the information presented at the meeting when carefully examined provides no credible data to support the notion that the move to this new configuration is advisable or will be successful.
The first slide is typical of the administration’s methods; in this slide, this year’s K-5 class size numbers are compared with next year’s proposed numbers for centers using two different districting models. In other words, they are comparing apples with oranges. Still, the most important thing to note on this slide is the reduction from 11 sections to 10 in the fourth and fifth grade. The district calls this “balancing class size”. However, that is simply doublespeak for increasing class size for 2/3 of the district in the fourth grade and all of the classes in the fifth grade. This doublespeak pervades the slideshow, and contradicts the very reasons the Redistricting Committee was formed: reducing overcrowding (class sizes) at West Pottsgrove.
As Mr. Nester and Dr. Landis admitted at the last board meeting, one component of the Centers Model to the administration is the ability to cut more sections from these and other grades with only incremental changes to class size. Realistically speaking, the result of the move to Centers will be future cuts. While some in the district might believe that anything that cuts costs is a positive, the reality is that increases in class size will have an inverse effect on our property values, creating a vicious cycle of decreased property values and decreased tax revenue leading to further cuts!
During the same Jan. 24th meeting, Dr. Landis also pointed to two purposes behind the rationale for Centers (K-2 and 3-5): cost and improvement in quality of education for students. Perhaps the most compelling selling point was the ability of the district to provide full day kindergarten to all students in a Centers model. The bar graph presented at the Jan. 24th meeting by Dr. Landis is designed to present the case for full day kindergarten (FDK) and, therefore, (to afford this option) a Centers model. Assessments of those initial FDK students’ achievement levels (in blue on the chart below) taken during 2010 (third grade) and 2011 (fourth grade), according to Dr. Landis showed they had made significant progress in catching up to achievement levels of their peers across grade level (in red). Landis concluded that the evidence presented so far shows the value and worthiness of the FDK’s program expansion.
At first glance the FDK option appears to be an effective offering. However, it was pointed out at the meeting that the graph is misleading as it is currently presented. The FDK students represented by the blue bars are compared against the entire grade (so they are being compared against themselves). This is an excellent example of how to use statistics to evade the truth. Obviously, if they had provided a more valid comparison of the FDK against the Half Day Kindergarten (HDK), the delta between the bars on the chart would have been significantly wider. Furthermore, there could be countless other reasons to explain the improvements by the FDK students, including: changes in curriculum, the existence of a pre-K program in the previous year, staff turnover, and student relocations in or out of the district, just to name a few. Additionally, one has to wonder why only one year’s worth of data was presented. Perhaps subsequent years didn’t look nearly as attractive? Essentially, no valid conclusions can be drawn from the graph as it is presented here.
Given the wealth of data available to the administration, it speaks to an underlying aim as to why this was the only graph available in support of a FDK program for all students. In short, this bar graph does nothing to support the positive effects of the FDK program. Parents urged that data separating the cohort be offered for the purpose of seeing the actual effect given the extra expense for this FDK program. To date, no follow up information has been made available. Meanwhile, Dr. Landis informed the board and audience that 3.5 new teachers would be needed to attain FDK if we stayed in the current configuration, and 1.5 new teachers would be needed if we moved to the Centers model (the other two teachers would come from “repurposing” the two lost sections from fourth and fifth grade). In other words, the only way to have FDK, even in the Centers Model, is to add cost! Dr. Landis admitted to one questioner that there was no guarantee that we would be able to add any teachers at all. In other words, FDK might not happen even if we did move to the Centers Model.
Further evidence presented to support the full time kindergarten (FDK) model was new standards for kindergartners. Dr. Landis presented the matrix (below) to demonstrate these new standards required of kindergartners by 2013.
The PA State Board of Education adopted the Common Core Standards on July 1, 2010. PA’s Learning Standard’s for Early Childhood (Kindergarten) are in the process of ensuring alignment to the national Common Core Standards. Currently, the “New Reality 2013” standards are incorporated in the kindergarten curriculum of the Pottsgrove School District. In short, our students are already receiving instruction and provided with assessments aligned with the 2013 standards. This too, is another example of using data in a misleading manner. The administration’s argument that our teachers need instruction that can only be provided in the Centers environment in order to meet these new standards has no validity at all, because the teachers are already meeting these standards in the current configuration!
In determining the benefits versus costs of FDK, most school districts weigh these effects by going out about 5 years to see and compare results with HDK. Then most districts look at the cost to get FDK. Schools offering FDK, based on the results of performance levels of grade level students over time, generally extend this programming to students most in need. What most studies say is that the effects of FDK, though initially positive in the first year, level out by about 3rd grade.
Therefore, Pottsgrove is using the FDK to lure residents into supporting the move to Centers instead of basing the decision on need as determined by comparative data. If we could SEE the results of the cohorts broken into the two groups over a series of years, we would likely see that the FDK kids leveled out anyway—even after offering them the full day program.
Finally, here is a chart that shows the percentage of Full Day Kindergarten in nearby districts. Notice that the highest performing districts based on PSSA results have the lowest percentage of FDK!
The Centers model was also emphasized as a means to provide more specialized classes in the new configuration. The goal in this regard was to enable the district to return special education students from out of district placements. One important consideration, even acknowledged by Dr. Landis during the meeting, is the potential lack of interest for out-of-district students to return to Pottgrove. While the desire of centers model proponents may be to lure back students placed elsewhere, the likelihood of these students returning is slim. Transitioning for special needs students is especially difficult and often unpredictable.
The district has provided no information to indicate that the THREE families of students receiving the out-of district services have been contacted to determine whether they might move back if the Centers model existed. This question may have been resolved in the 20 minutes it would take to survey this group, despite the fact that the costs associated with these out of placement students amounts to $88,000.
Finally, since Dr. Landis acknowledged that the district was able to bring back two students this year in the current configuration, this suggests that, if possible, more such children could be brought back without radically changing how our children are educated!
In the next two slides, the district spoke about the limitations put upon it by Act 1, rightfully saying that the amount of money they can raise through tax increases is limited. At the last meeting, one parent in favor of the centers suggested that our taxes will go up if we don’t go to centers. However, it was pointed out by another parent that our taxes will go up either way. The board agreed with this. I (Rick) pointed out that all the districts in our area are facing the same problems, and yet the very large majority of them, including the most highly rated (OJR, Great Valley, Treddyferin, Lower Merion, Downingtown, and 98% of the top schools in PA as rated by SchoolDigger.com), are NOT considering this option. I asked Dr. Landis what these schools are doing to cope with Act 1 and with reductions in grants from the state and federal governments. He said he didn’t know. I asked why other options than the two on the table hadn’t been considered, and received no answer.
There is no arguing against the reductions in subsidies. Indeed, the decision on Centers was delayed until 2/28 because the district anticipated yet another reduction from the state and had this happened, Full Day Kindergarten would not be possible, even with Centers, given the need for an additional 1.5 staff. Mr. Nester said, in answer to a question I asked about this, that we may need centers just to keep the current number of FDK sessions. Despite the so called proof that FDK is critical, many districts in the state, including some of the best, are dropping FDK. What do they know that Pottsgrove doesn’t? Furthermore, as previously stated, the only way the move to Centers can do this is by increasing class sizes. Though the educational benefits of Centers are unstudied and unproven, it has been very well established that the lower the class size, the better the results. Furthermore, despite reductions in state subsidies, other subsidies exist. Indeed, just this past week, Pennsylvania schools were awarded $41 million in the federal “Race to the Top” program. Our district might be eligible for a share of these funds; however, since transparency at schools is a key criterion, it is unlikely that we will earn a share!
Quoting from this article: “As a result of the Race to the Top Grant award, funds will be allocated to increase transparency at Pennsylvania’s public schools,” Tomalis said. “Ultimately, the goal is to provide parents with the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding their child’s educational future.” Meanwhile, our district, as it relates to Centers, has been anything but transparent, setting up sham committees with no vote, putting forth specious slide shows that lack substance and mask the real reasons behind their plans, telling teachers that the Centers are a “done deal” and intimidating them into keeping quiet about their opposition. Another example of this “done deal” approach comes from a parent at West Pottsgrove Elementary, who just signed her child up for “Jump Rope for Heart” online and was surprised that her school was listed as “West Pottsgrove Elementary Center”. The school board President has assured us on multiple occasions that this decision has not been made, but our administration either knows something we do not, or is just plain arrogant. What is clear is that our administration does not think much about the parents of this district! Despite OVERWHELMING numbers of Parents against these plans, this administration considers it a “done deal.” Our opinions just don’t matter.
Meanwhile, we just learned this week that Pottsgrove’s state funds will not be cut, but they will be increased. However, there is no doubt that the administration was prepared to argue that whether state funds were increased or decreased, the move to Centers was necessary. Heads they win, tails we lose.
In the below slide, the district points out that costs are going up. Of course, those costs are increasing everywhere, and we’ve already pointed out that other districts are finding other ways to deal with these problems. And, the district is not sharing the fact that we have had unexpected surpluses ($500k) in recent years due to taxes from the new shopping “Giant” shopping center. What was done with this money? It went into a “general purpose fund” the district maintains with a balance in the millions. Perhaps we could have 3.5 new teachers by actually using a small percentage of that money? And, if we do have to cut, why would we cut class size in the elementary schools to save money? Why not cut programs that are not critical to academic performance? Why not cut administrators? Why not cut money for administrator travel to conferences held in choice locations throughout the country? Indeed, the administration does not share how much money they spend for this!
The administration pointed out in the below slide that they, along with the teachers, froze salaries last year to save jobs and money. While admirable, they did not mention that Dr. Landis and Ms. Feola have recently been provided 5 year extensions on their contracts, while our teachers are still working without a contract. They did not indicate what increases Dr. Landis will get to his $173k salary but we are quite certain the freeze was not extended! The administration also ignores the fact that the cuts to fund operations need not come from the elementary schools alone. We believe that the district could find the money for 3.5 new teachers in other ways without imposing this radical change on a community that does not want it! Or, they could add the same number of teachers (1.5) as the centers plan calls for, put those extra sections at Ringing Rocks, redistrict enough children to fill those extra classes, and continue to measure the impact of FDK without turning our whole elementary system inside out.
Dr. Landis presented information regarding the music program and gifted programming as benefitting in the Centers model. While it is understood that travel time does figure some inconvenience and lost time for these groups, it should be noted that they are a small portion of the total student body affected by the potential move. One might estimate that the gifted students account for 2-3% of all students. An estimate for music students might be somewhere around 8%. Given the small portion of students in these groups compared to the student body as a whole, it seems that the majority of students should determine the most logical choice for configuration.
As for the statement regarding the benefit of the entire staff together in one building, there is no research to justify or prove any benefit to program delivery. In fact, the research that does exist proves otherwise with local school districts extending grade level ranges rather than narrowing them.
The below slide is the only one that has some modicum of truth to it. But the idea that Centers will magically increase teacher quality is not supported by the facts.
The below misleading slide regarding teacher meetings and in-service days appeared to read as additional times provided for these purposes. The slide didn’t say that the daily common planning, 18 one-hour meetings before school, early releases and in-service days already exist. These are being carried out right now in the current configuration. There is no additional training or grade meeting days in the Centers model.
In fact, with the Centers model, teacher groups will be larger.
The research on group size is clear: “Performance gets worse as group size increases. Groups of nine generate fewer and poorer ideas than groups of six, which do worse than groups of four.”
Right now teachers work in groups of three, however, in the Centers model teacher will be meeting with entire grades. With excessively large groups, less information will be shared; the groups will be less effective.
Further, the 18 meetings are designed to examine student data; this has no effect on improving teacher quality.
And, what adult reading this article did not have poor teachers at some points during their schooling? The one thing I know about poor teachers is that no training will make them good. The reasons teachers are poor and less effective have little to do with their knowledge of curriculum, and everything to do with teaching style, temperament, classroom management skills, flexibility, intelligence and probably ten other factors that will NOT be affected by 18 one hour meetings with everyone in their grade. The idea is absurd and is just another red herring thrown out by the administration in a desperate attempt to move our attention away from the real goal: cutting teachers and increasing class size
None of the parents in opposition to Centers believe that the longest bus run, when buses will need travel (in some cases) from Lower Pottsgrove to West Pottsgrove, will be 42 minutes. Mr. Nester says they have run computer models that prove this to be the case. But computer models are not the real world. Computer models do not know when traffic jams up; they do not know when a slow driver will get in front of a bus, etc. If you think a bus with 15 or so stops can make it from West to Lower in this time, try it yourself at 8am in the morning or at 3:30pm in the afternoon without any stops!
Meanwhile, here is a link to an article that was produced by the State of Vermont (and was presented to the board and parents at the last board meeting). It shows the physical dangers of long idling time and long bus rides to the health of our children caused by Diesel exhaust. Every state in the Northeast has enacted strict regulations as a result. All, except for, of course, Pennsylvania.
The concluding slide below is incorrect on all counts. Cost savings is the primary goal, Mr. Nester admitted this himself. Balanced class size means increased class size for most, if not all. More resources allocated to primary program, I presume, means FDK. And, as we have shown, this is not the wisest way to invest extra resources if they were available. And, as the district has admitted, once we move to centers, there is no guarantee those resources will be invested into FDK. Teacher quality will not improve from this change, but most likely will get worse as the research shows with larger classes. And the enhanced special education programming will get cut too when the parents of the 3 children the district intends to bring back don’t agree and/or when future budgets require cutting.
The parents and teachers of this district are not convinced; they do not want to lose their neighborhood schools. Petitions from the community will soon be delivered to the Pottsgrove School Board. The petitions will illustrate just how widespread the opposition to these plans really is. This district will lose doubly if they impose this plan over our objections. They will lose the support of parents in the district, they will lose many students to private and charter schools, they will reduce motivation in their teaching staff, and they will ultimately lose the faith of their local community. EVERYONE in the district will lose based on the interests and decisions of a few.
The fact that the administration communicated that this decision is a “done deal” to its staff despite the overwhelming evidence and public opposition against the centers model shared here and at the school board meetings speaks to the callous arrogance of an administration out of touch with its constituents. The administration feels confident that their agenda will be executed via the board. As Courtney Quinones Glass, lifetime Pottsgrove resident, former Ringing Rocks student and current Ringing Rocks parents posted on the Facebook group Pottsgrove Parents Against Centers: “How will the public react if the Centers Model is implemented? How will the community feel about Pottsgrove? Will the anger eventually wear off and will complacency set in? Is that really what we want?? A bunch of irate or even complacent parents? Do we want parents feeling helpless and without a voice (because if this is true that the decision is made, then frankly our opinions don’t matter)? How does that move Pottsgrove FORWARD??
If you agree with us, please go online and sign our petition.
Related (to Pottsgrove School District redistricting):
Parents and their children seemed most delighted by the media center (above), the central feature of which is a grouping of plush, green-upholstered chairs intended to invite young readers to sit and be engrossed in their books. Special lighting fixtures in the library (right) not only focus light down to specific spots, but also up and out with the use of reflecting plates.
In the new classrooms, kids tried out desks and seats (above), envisioned themselves as teachers (left), and generally claimed the space as their own. Some district residents, both inside the rooms and down the hall during a reception at the cafeteria, took the opportunity to talk among themselves about potential changes in class make-ups as Pottsgrove considers its options in redistricting to better use available space at all three of its elementary schools.
While he smoldered during the board’s second monthly meeting at the district office, just south down the hill from Ringing, Neiffer suggested the district should offer a reward for information leading to a perpetrator’s arrest and conviction. So far, it has been only a thought; no reward was authorized by board members.
