Why? CONSIDER REDISTRICTING OR REALIGNING OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Why? CONSIDER REDISTRICTING OR REALIGNING OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

SASD Redistricting & Realignment Over Time 1988 – SASD realigned, closing the outlying community schools. 1999 – SASD realigned, creating the middle school and high school configuration. (Shuttling occurred until realignment) 2007 – SASD realigned, building the intermediate school. 2015 – SASD may realign or redistrict. All of these changes took place because of population growth in specific areas. By 2022, approximately 500 home sites will be developed. 350 are ready right now!

Class Size Policy No. 126 – Class Size Class size shall be determined by the Board of School Directors after consultation with the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, and Principals of the schools. The Superintendent shall prepare guidelines for class size which shall take into account the following: subject matter, type of instruction, ability of pupils, and help of aides. Suggested Class Size Guidelines ◦ Grades K-3 = 20-24 ◦ Grades 4-12 = 20-28 Classes under fifteen (15) will be approved by the Superintendent; classes under ten (10) will be approved by the Board.

Student Population by Building 12/1/14 Concerns: Year Total JB NG Difference by Building 1. Class Size Dec 2010 888 451 437 -14 2. Instructional Time Dec 2011 916 465 451 -14 3. Impact on Federal Funding in Title Dec 2012 947 471 476 5 Programs Dec 2013 972 501 471 -30 Dec 2014 947 512 435 -77 Overall 59 61 -2

Instructional Time Differences: Fountas and Pinnell Reading Inventory JAMES BURD ELEMENTARY NANCY GRAYSON ELEMENTARY Average 3 rd Grade Average 3 rd Grade Class = 28 Students Class = 21 Students Approximately 30 Approximately 30 minutes per child minutes per child 28 x 30 minutes = 840 21 x 30 minutes = 630 minutes (14 hours) minutes (10.5 hours)

Federal Funds and Supplies: (By law, the school with the greatest need receives the most Federal Funds). PERCENT POVERTY: TITLE I FUNDS DISTRIBUTION: James James • 53.1% Free and • $25,887.86 Burd Reduced Lunch Burd Nancy Nancy • 46.5% Free and • $8,000.00 Grayson Reduced Lunch Grayson • $17,887.86 Difference Difference • 6.6%

Reflections and Concerns: 1. Testing takes longer for teachers at James Burd resulting in less time to instruct and provide interventions suggested by the results of assessments. 2. Although the supply money is greater at James Burd, the need is not significantly greater. Nancy Grayson potentially goes without supplies or funds must be used from other sources. (Example: Leveled Book Rooms). 3. Supplies and services are duplicated at both buildings because both schools require materials for K — 3 rd . We can purchase more materials pertinent to grade level bands if the schools are aligned K/1 and 2/3.

Possible Solutions… 1. Increase Financial Support to James Burd by increasing professional staff and/or enlarging the building footprint. 2. Redistrict and send more students to Nancy Grayson. 3. Realign the grade levels (K/1 & 2/3) to lessen the impact of swings in student population.

Financial Challenges Impact of Act 1 – Limits a school district’s ability to raise taxes (Table include top three district cost categories only) Index % Increase % Increase % Increase (Revenue) Retirement Cyber/Charter Healthcare ($ Increase) Tuition ($ Increase) ($ Increase) 2011-2012 1.8% 8.65% 75% 0.75% ($577,074) ($56,026) ($246,059) ($31,060) Taxes were NOT raised to index due to reassessment in Cumberland County 2012-2013 2.2% 12.36% 56% 2.44% ($423,881) ($422,555) ($322,404) ($101,965) 2013-2014 2.2% 16.93% 7% 9.19% ($428,877) ($396,143) ($61,303) ($393,725) 2014-2015 2.7% 21.4% 50% 13.06% ($566,627) ($691,349) ($474,985) ($610,623)

Budget Impact 2011 - 2016 Full Time Positions Eliminated to Lower District Costs 2 Kindergarten teachers, 1 5 th grade teacher, 1 Reading 2011-2012 coach, 1 Reading Specialist, 1 Spanish teacher, 17 full time teaching assistants, 1 full time custodian, 1 full time maintenance, 1 full time secretary 2012-2013 1 Instructional coach, 1 Reading Specialist, 2 Learning Support teachers, 1 Business Ed. teacher, 1 PE teacher 2013-2014 1 Business Ed. teacher, 1 Intervention counselor, 1 Wood Shop teacher, 1 Family & Consumer Science teacher, 1 Writing teacher, 1 Multiple Disabilities teacher, 1 Librarian 2014-2015 1 Tech Ed. teacher, 1 Language Arts teacher $1,080,000.00 in cuts needed to balance 2015-16 budget

Budget Projections 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Expenditures $45,773,356 $48,182,047 $50,277,065 $51,972,829 $53,794,489 Revenues $45,049,826 $46,657,758 $48,136,746 $49,456,378 $50,896,735 Deficit $723,530 $1,524,289 $2,140,319 $2,516,452 $2,897,753 Total $9,802,343

2014-15 District Enrollment & Average Class Size 12/1/14 Grade JB JB Class Sizes NG NG Class Sizes K 115 23 100 20 1 132 26.4 (22) 108 21.6 2 128 25.6 121 24.2 3 137 27.4 106 21.2 * Highlighted classrooms over recommendations by district policy.

Redistricting Template Grade # of Students Daycare Students Historically Underperforming Subgroup Students Queen Street K 18 3 1 25 8 2 24 3 3 28 5 95 71% Prince Street K 7 0 1 2 0 2 6 0 3 8 0 23 75%

Redistricting Template Grade # of Students Daycare Students Historically Underperforming Subgroup Students Stoney Point/Mainsville Rd. K 4 0 2 1 6 0 4 2 4 0 2 3 6 0 3 20 11 55%

Redistricting vs Realignment Current Redistricting Re- Prince Street alignment Grade JB NG Grade JB NG Grade Combined Class Size Class Size Class Size Class Size Class Size K 23 20 K 21.6 21.4 K 215 21.5 1 26.4 21.6 1 26 22 1 240 24 2 25.6 24.2 2 24.4 25.4 2 249 24.9 3 27.4 21.2 3 25.8 22.8 3 243 24.3 Redistricting Queen Street Grade JB NG Grade JB NG Grade Combined Class Size Class Size Class Size Class Size Class Size K 23 20 K 19.4 23.6 K 215 21.5 1 26.4 21.6 1 21.4 26.6 1 240 24 2 25.6 24.2 2 20.8 29 2 249 24.9 3 27.4 21.2 3 21.8 26.2 3 243 24.3

Redistricting vs Realignment Current Redistricting Re- Stoney Point alignment Mainsville Rd Grade JB NG Grade JB NG Grade Combined Class Class Size Class Class Class Size Size Size Size K 23 20 K 21.8 21.2 K 215 21.5 1 26.4 21.6 1 24.4 23.6 1 240 24 2 25.6 24.2 2 24.4 25.4 2 249 24.9 3 27.4 21.2 3 25.6 23 3 243 24.3

Redistricting POSSIBLE GAINS CONCERNS 1. No change for some Students 1. Probable Negative Impact on Building Demographics 2. Possible Lack of Compliance by Impacted Families 3. Possible Inconsistency for Teachers and Students and their Families (redistricting will likely need to be adjusted in future to keep schools balanced)

Realignment POSSIBLE GAINS CONCERNS 1. Equitable Building Demographics 1. Timeline for Implementation 2. Equitable Title I Funding 2. Additional Building Transition for Students 3. Consistency in Professional Development 4. Consistent Class Size 5. Educational Program Designed around Student Developmental/Educational Needs

Guiding Committee Recommendation 16 teachers, 5 administrators, Director of Transportation The Guiding Committee recognizes that redistricting could provide a viable short term solution for the district. Due to the short term nature of redistricting, the probable negative impact on building demographics and the negative impact on the families being relocated, the guiding committee recommends that the district consider realignment of grade levels to address future growth at the K – 3 level.