Redistricting Advisory Committee Minutes:

• April 1 , 2008 Updated Street List
• March 6, 2008 Final Redistricting Plan Approved March 10
• February 28, 2008 Proposed Redistricting Plan
• February 6, 2008
• January 30, 2008 Community Forum Notes
• January 28, 2008
• January 22, 2008
• January 16, 2008
• January 8, 2008

April 1 , 2008

return to top

Updated Street List

Street List (PDF)

March 6 , 2008

return to top

Final Redistricting Plan

Download the Final Redistricting Plan presented to the School Board on March 6th (PDF)

February 28, 2008

return to top

Proposed Redistricting Plan

Download the Proposed Redistricting Plan presented to the School Board on February 28th (PDF)

February 6, 2008

return to top

Redistricting Advisory Committee Minutes

Download February 6, 2008 minutes in PDF format

REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

February 6, 2008

These minutes were prepared by Margaret Hawkins to the best of her understanding.   If you find any inaccuracies, please contact the Superintendent of Schools Office at 871-0555.

Present:     Mike Eastman, Rick Carter, Margaret Hawkins, Jim Fredericks, Marie Cross, Kathy DePhillipo, Angela Emery, Matt Green, Tap Fitzgerald, Allie Gant, Kate Clark, Lue Bagley, Elizabeth Holland, Sue Trout, Suzanne Godin

Should anything be added to Guiding Principles?

• Question about the PTA money/socio-economic balance
• Strong support heard for not dividing neighborhood and come up with a plan that lasts for the next five years.
• Strong support heard for people staying close to their home because they bought their house in that particular neighborhood in order to go to that school.
• ELL survey – initial results were shared
• Should we add, “ do not divide neighborhood” as a guiding principle?

Conversation about the area across Main Street – Is it part of Thornton Heights?

Discussion about What is a neighborhood?

• Do we divide neighborhood?

How do you divide Redbank and Brick Hill?

• We send two buses into that area – one to Redbank, one to Brick Hill

More discussion about splitting neighborhood

• “Using the Transportation Department definition of a neighborhood, we will not divide a neighborhood.”   (All thumbs up, except one sideway thumb)

More discussion about moving 5 th grade to middle school

• If you take all the 5 th graders out of the elementary schools, you could actually close an elementary school because the numbers would be so low.
• We should not make the decision based on a facilities issue.   It should be a program change with much thought put into the decision.
• The idea should be explored for a later date.

Discussion about capacity and class size

CHANGES IN PRIORITY/IMPORTANCE

Are there any changes to the list of guiding principles?

• Add – not dividing neighborhood (high priority!)

TIMELINE

• This plan has to go to the Board first.   It will be at the workshop on February 28, 2008, which will be the second night of the budget hearings.   If the first budget hearing has to be rescheduled to the 28 th then the redistricting issue will come up on March 3.
• Budget timeline is very tight.

FINAL THOUGHTS

• Rick asked the group to give feedback now so that the Board can be prepared for the questions and comments from the public.
• The School Department needs to get more information out to the public so that more people know all the facts needed to understand the issues of the schools

January 30, 2008

return to top

Download the Community Forum notes minutes in PDF format

SOUTH PORTLAND SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

REDISTRICTING COMMUNITY FORUM

January 30, 2008

Priorities

• Equity across class size is important
• Socio-economic balance important – avoid targeting neighborhoods
• Don’t divide neighborhoods
• Equity from all perspectives (including academic)
• Proximity to school is important – overrides “hazard” zone
• Socio-economic Guiding Principle is important for whole city
• Maintain neighborhood kids to same school
• Diversity important
• Socio-economic is critical – fundraising/enrichment - important, but have it make geographic sense
• “Stick” to it for five (5) years
• Strong support for 4-7 situations
• Strong support for waiver process
• Same elementary – same middle, give a lot of thought

Questions

• Why ELL homeschool?
• Is the Outer Highland population á ?
• What are the success/failures of prior redistricting?
• Is there info from sister cities available?
• What about a student who has been “redistricted” being redistricted again?
• What is the timeline and notice of decisions to public?
• Is there more than one plan with best options?
• Can a sketch of transitions be placed on the web site?
• What are the costs of busing new vs. current practice?
• Why was ELL moved in 2005?
• What is the goal of balance with socio-economic?
• Have other options been considered?
• What about homeschooling of ELL students?
• Planning Decisions – data/date?
• What transitions as follow-up to redistricting?
• Are there budget implications?
• Which way is best for all ELL students?
• Will we be busing to day care?
• If all the elementary schools get to capacity soon, what happens next?
• Better communication to ELL students/families – Do they know the redistricting process is happening now?

Ideas

• ELL representation from community important
• Concern walkers shouldn’t be bused
• Explore 5 th grade to middle school – 5-6 school; 7-8 school
• Look at using modular classroom units
• What about fifth graders at middle level?
• Keep Thornton Heights at current home school (both sides of Rte. 1)
• Middle school   5-8, 5-6, 7-8
• Get updated figures from Brick Hill area.
• Map posted on web site

Comment

• Be careful with “ forced busing”
• Schools are all updated – new K-5 facilities/opportunities
• Concern with real estate – proximity/or not to school?   Proximity may affect real estate
• Safety (walking vs. busing)?
• Clustered areas need to be considered
• Shift in staffing?   (Keep the staff together.)
• Concern about future development off Outer Highland
• PTA monies vs. socio-economic issues
• Home ownership to a certain district
• Number of teachers/school personnel with whom students come into contact
• Knowing a safe adult
• There may be daycare issues if students is redistricted
• Try not to split neighborhoods – specifically Thornton Heights, i.e., splitting Main St.
• Don’t bus a student past the home school.
• Make sure the decisions do not create more issues relating to class size.

January 28, 2008

return to top

Redistricting Advisory Committee Minutes

Download January 28, 2008 minutes in PDF format

South Portland School Department

Redistricting Advisory Committee

Minutes

Tuesday, January 28, 2008

5:00 – 6:30 p.m.

These minutes were prepared by Steve Bailey to the best of his understanding.   If you find any inaccuracies, please contact the Superintendent of Schools Office at 871-0555 within one week after receiving the notes.

In Attendance:   Suzanne Godin, Lue Bagley, Diane Lang, Elizabeth Holland, Margaret Hawkins, Elizabeth Wexler, Angela Emery, Tap Fitzgerald, Sue Trout, Jim Frederick, Jennifer Kirk, Beth Penny, Ali Gant, Kathy DePhilippo, Kate Clark, Rick Carter, Steve Bailey, Marie Cross, John McHugh, Debbie Curry, Matt Green and Mike Eastman

I. Minutes from 1.22.08

Suzanne Godin, Superintendent presented and reviewed the following:

• Minutes from January 22 th meeting (these are posted to the www.spsd.org site).
• The following correction was noted:

Section G:   Walking vs. Bussing – Revisited:

Statement: If students live within a mile of a school they should not be bussed to another school.   Agreement by the committee could not be reached.   (Updated change) This will be low weight criteria and we will come back to this Guiding Principle for further consideration.

• Completion of “Walking – Bussing” Guiding Principle discussion:
• Question arose about “hazard zones” that might be within one mile of a school.   Several such were identified and do exist.
• Students currently bussed (or eligible to be bussed) are to be considered bus students.
• Students currently walking (and not eligible for the bus) are considered walkers.

II. Guiding Principle Agreements

• Initially reviewed concept of ELL phasing
• Processed ELL Guiding Principle
1. Question:   Include within waiver process?   Within transportation?
2. Can this be isolating for students / families?
3. Re-checked ELL “home school” Guiding Principle:

• All but 1 – “yes” and “can live with it”; 1 – “no”

• Prioritized Guiding Principles (1 to 3 scale – Must Have – Important – Nice to Have):
1. ELL students educated in “home” school. (2’s and some 1’s)
2. Try to achieve socio-economic balance across the city. (wide mix 1-3)
3. Same elementary – same middle school (2’s and 3’s)
4. Option to remain at current school for students in grades 4 & 7. (1’s)
5. Try not to bus students who can walk. (1’s and some 2’s)
6. Family needs and the Waiver Process will remain as part of redistricting considerations for extenuating circumstances. (1’s)
7. Recommendation not to create phased plan. (1’s)
• Suzanne will bring reordered Guiding Principles to the Community Forum, January 30, 2008.

III. Scenarios

      A. Four scenarios were presented as possibilities.   Each considered neighborhoods as clustered together and tried not to treat streets singly.   Each considered targeted school enrollments of:

• Brown – 260
• Dyer – 260
• Kaler – 240
• Skillin – 400
• Small – 280

B. Each had advantages and disadvantages:   some allowed growth at some schools and not others.   Some pushed socio-economic percentage way up and for others it was lowered.   Some caused students to be bussed by another school.   Some had students who were already bussed, also riding a bus but perhaps to a different school.

C. Following the scenarios several questions arose:

• Do we move grade 5 from Skillin to Memorial (several concerns were expressed and it was also noted that we can’t turn the clock back to not close Marsh.   We have the space within the schools for the K-5 population—just need to find the right combinations).
• Decisions should be based on educational best practice for students.
• Might this be a piece that we add to the mix—there may be no perfect solution.

IV.   Planning for Public Forum

      A.   Presentation will be prepared – not bringing a single plan or sharing scenarios

      B.   Share data / trends / considerations

      C.   Share beliefs   / Guiding Principles

      D.   Seek feedback from community in small groups – chart feedback

E.   Feedback will be reviewed by the District Administrative Team who will prepare a proposal to present to the Board of Education during the School Budget presentations (Feb. 27 & 28, and March 3 & 4).

      F.   The Board of Education will vote to determine a plan.

V.   Other information:

      A.  Kindergarten registration will be scheduled after the Board of Education decision on re-districting.

      B.   It was also noted that we currently are not educating all our ELL students at Brown School (distance, transportation, and other concerns).  

      C.   There is an increasing ELL population and this does impact all the city schools.

      D.   From a school population point of view, there are 33 more units for Brick Hill on the drawing board.

VI.   Next Meeting:

            Public Forum

            South Portland Community Center

            Wednesday, January 30, 2008

            6:30 p.m.

January 22, 2008

return to top

Redistricting Advisory Committee Minutes

Download January 22, 2008 minutes in PDF format

South Portland School Department

Redistricting Advisory Committee

Minutes

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

These minutes were prepared by Steve Bailey to the best of his understanding.   If you find any inaccuracies, please contact the Superintendent of Schools Office at 871-0555 within one week after receiving the notes.

In Attendance:   Suzanne Godin, Lue Bagley, Diane Lang, Elizabeth Holland, Margaret Hawkins, Elizabeth Wexler, Angela Emery, Tap Fitzgerald, Sue Trout, Jim Frederick, Jennifer Kirk, Beth Penny, Ali Gant, Kathy DePhilippo, Kate Clark, Rick Carter, Steve Bailey, Marie Cross, John McHugh, Debbie Curry, Matt Green and Mike Eastman

I. Minutes from 1.16.08

Suzanne Godin, Superintendent presented and reviewed the following:

• Minutes from January 16 th meeting (these are posted to the www.spsd.org site).
• K-5 school enrollment by grade by school as of January 2008.
• Color-coded maps of K-5 and middle school districts for 2007-2008.
• These last two documents represent the “what is.”

II. Guiding Principle Agreements

• Balanced Socio-economic schools?
• A comparison of Skillin and Kaler Schools was provided through the eyes of a parent who has had students attend both schools—was redistricted three years ago.   There are large discrepancies in what the PTA’s from each school can provide—had been much enhanced previously at Skillin School.   The comment: equal opportunity should be provided to all students.
• Question from the group: Is it possible to accomplish this without forcing the issue, or can it be done more naturally by looking at geographic groupings?
• Comment: We don’t have neighborhood schools now—we do have five elementary schools with Kaler and Dyer School very close together—need socio-economics to be included in final conversation.

Summary statement: As much as we can balance, we should try to achieve socio-economic balance across the city.   Group sense:   All “yes” or “maybe,” with one “no.”

(The difficulty and problem of looking at socio-economic lines street by street was expressed—the issue could be addressed by looking at region, not street by street.   The sense of the group was considered to be “good, but not great.”)

• Same Elementary – Same Middle School
• Nice to have, not absolute
• Create new districts w/ option of attending either middle school?   Can transportation be an option?
• If this can’t occur, it can have impact on students—many friends attending the middle school on the opposite side of the city.
• Transportation is a huge district issue—has great impact financially.
• Question:   How many students does this affect yearly?   Don’t have that information at this time.
• Reality is: we have 5 K-5 schools and 2 middle schools.   Enrollment of the five doesn’t allow for a 3 – 2 split within the middle schools without creating an imbalance of student population within the middle schools.

Summary:   Mixed response to keep it as a Guiding Principle.   Keep it, however, it will have lower weight on the list of Guiding Principles.

• Grandfather grades 4 & 7? Gr. 6?
• Definition: If students are grandfathered in these schools, they would remain in the school for the next year (so there would not be two transitions in two years).
• Felt to be very important to parents voicing opinions to committee members.
• Make it an option à not waivering an entire family à families need to make a decision if more than one child at the school.
• Question: How many families are impacted—won’t know until revised lines are created.
• This would be painful for whom?   Students? (differs by child)
• Specific streets could not be identified.

Summary: Option to remain at current school for students in grades 4 & 7.   Consensus reached—full group decision.

• Walkers vs. Bussing
• Take a geographic sense
• Policy is distance from school…not grade of student (K-12); requests for exceptions are carefully examined.
• Philosophical premise—prior districting had been created so that bussed students would not be bussed by a school to attend another school
• Problem of driving by a school to get to another school—hard to accept
• Difficulty of trying to merge a “neighborhood school scheme for walkers” within “a city with 5 elementary schools.”

Summary:   As much as possible try not to bus students who can walk.   No Decision.   The committee will return to this principle—no decision was reached.

• Family Needs   ß à Waiver Process
• Keep this in as a part of the process for “extenuating decisions/circumstances.”
• Not as an absolute.

Summary: Family needs and the Waiver Process will remain as part of redistricting considerations for extenuating circumstances.   Consensus was agreed to.

• Phasing
• Should this occur?   Should it be incremental or all at once?
• What would it look like?
• Perhaps it could be a way to transfer from one ELL K-5 school to 2 or more?
• Can we do it all at once to “ease the hurt?”
• Special Needs?   Should this be considered on a case by case basis?
• What is the level of needs?   What are the #’s?
• How big should the ELL % population be at Brown School?   We need to move forward at one time to remove the continual (year to year) stress on families—have the moves occur within the same year.

Summary:   Recommendation not to create phased plan.   Consensus—all “yes” or   “maybe”—more “yeses”

• Walking vs. Bussing – Revisited:

Statement: If students live within a mile of a school they should not be bussed to another school.   Agreement by the committee could not be reached.   This will not be a Guiding Principle at this point.  

III. Next Meeting:

            Monday, January 28, 2008

            5:00 – 6:30 p.m.

            Memorial Middle School Library

January 16, 2008

return to top

Redistricting Advisory Committee Minutes

Download January 16, 2008 minutes in PDF format

South Portland School Department

Redistricting Advisory Committee

Minutes

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

These minutes were prepared by Steve Bailey to the best of his understanding.   If you find any inaccuracies, please contact the Superintendent of Schools Office at 871-0555 within one week after receiving the notes.

In Attendance:   Suzanne Godin, Lue Bagley, Diane Lang, Elizabeth Holland, Margaret Hawkins, Elizabeth Wexler, Angela Emery, Tap Fitzgerald, Sue Trout, Jim Frederick, Jennifer Kirk, Beth Penny, Ali Gant, Kathy DePhilippo, Kate Clark, Rick Carter, Steve Bailey, Marie Cross, John McHugh, Debbie Curry

I. Welcome and Follow Up from 1.8.08

Suzanne Godin, Superintendent, presented two updated charts:

• Corrected Enrollment Trends chart (correctly showed Brown School’s enrollment for 2004-2005 to be 276 students (not 376 students). Total K-5 enrollment has grown from 2004-2005 from 1322 and projected to be 429 students in 2008-2009 (currently 1418).
• Updated ELL (English Language Learner) population shows 144 students (see updated chart).
• The current map for K-5 and Middle School districts was provided on the large easel.   Smaller colored versions will be provided at upcoming meetings.

II. ELL Trends

Elizabeth Wexler and Elizabeth Holland, ELL teachers at Brown School, provided an overview of instruction for the 62 students in attendance at Brown School.

• They work with classroom teachers to help them get to know students, provide knowledge and strategies for teachers to use, and help students access the curriculum and their assignments.
• They serve as a home/school link for the families of ELL students, creating a bridge for families to participate in school life.   They are present during parent/teacher conferences to help communicate, and they access translators for families as needed.
• Their #1 goal is to have students be successful in their school experience.
• They have NEP (non-English proficient) students and LEP (limited-English proficient) students, with a larger population of NEP students this past year.   This has more significance for NEP students at the middle or high school levels.
• Students receive instruction either in the classroom (integrated within classroom), in small groups or larger groups.   They work on ELL strategies, vocabulary development, and communication skills.  
• Average days for teachers include:
• Adapting assignments for students
• Coordinating with families—phone calls, setting up conferences, providing updates re upcoming projects and events, helping in classroom with Literature Circles, and doing whatever it takes for students to be successful
• Students are integrated into classrooms—their needs are varied
• 23 language are represented across grades K-12
• Teachers test all ELL students using the Access test in Dec. – Feb. of each year.   Students in the US more than 10 months also have to take the Maine Educational Assessment, grades 3-8 and the SAT at grade 11 ..
• The ELL teachers are the first line of communication and assistance to the classroom teachers.

Suzanne Godin provided a historical perspective of the number of ELL students and teachers over the past 5 years:

• 59 students, 5 years ago – 3 teachers (one each Skillin, Memorial,   SPHS)
• 76 students, 4 years ago – 3 teachers (same)
• 85 students, 3 years ago – 3teachers (same)
• 120 students, 2 years ago -- 4teachers (1@ Brown, 1 @ Mahoney, 2 @ SPHS, 1 Floater)
• 138 students, last year – 5 teachers (2@ Brown, 1 @ Mahoney, 2 @ SPHS)
• 144 students, this year – 5 teachers (same), 3 Ed. Techs (1 Brown, 1Mahoney, 1SPHS)
• Questions:
• How far to go?   Brown School currently at 25% ELL population in only served K-5 school.
• ELL teachers at each building?   ELL and Ed. Tech. shared between buildings?
• How is it working now?   What are the advantages / disadvantages of keeping things as is?
•  Margaret Hawkins, Principal of Brown School, noted that students and families enrich the school environment and culture.   It is working with the current %--ELL teachers are very busy and the Ed. Techs. at each level are very helpful.   K-5 students are on the bus a long time and distance from home to school (and school accessing families at home) is an issue.

III. Guiding Principle Agreements

• Areas to be considered:
• ELL services in home district?
• Balanced Socio-Economic?
• Same elementary – Same middle school?
• Grandfather grades 4, 7, 6 ?
• Walking vs. bussing?
• Family needs?
• Waiver Process?
• Equity
• What are other ELL advantages / disadvantages of current set up—does it still meet needs?
• Student registration has been centralized so that school is note determined until registration has occurred.
• If families refuse services (and don’t agree to attend Brown or Mahoney) it is problematic for home school students / families with greater needs.
• As more students reach high school age, will their needs be met?
• Students are not selecting services—this is more problematic at the middle level—tough to build language if not already acquired.
• The district is held accountable through MEA for Adequate Yearly Progress of all students, including   ELL students—certain schools have struggled to make AYP in schools where services have not been available.
• Looking at numbers of students, ELL services should be at Memorial (not Mahoney)—that skews the overall enrollment between Mahoney and Memorial.   Other schools are being robbed of richness if students are not in their home schools.   What funds are provided to support ELL?   Federal grants provide about $11,000 (mostly for translators) and about $800 in State funds.
• Demographics of the city are changing—dramatically felt by one K-5 school (Brown) and one middle school (Mahoney).   Brown now about 25% ELL—where is the cut off?   What is the optimal % ?   How to continue to staff if students stay at Brown?   How to staff if at each K-5 school?   What about expanding to 2 K-5 schools ala Brown and Skillin or Skillin and Dyer?
• Considering the data, numbers only say so much!   The needs of families are so different.
• What are the efficiencies of clustered staff?   What is the best practice for students?   What will the funding be?   What are the efficiencies regarding staff and staff travel?
• What are our beliefs?   How do we work toward them?

Guiding Principle Decision Question:   Is home district best place to educate ELL students?   Group split between “yes” and “unsure” (no “no’s”).  

Lingering questions: Is there a phasing process from one school to multi-schools?   Is there a target % ?   How to prevent isolation of students/families if % too low?   How to support students as well as spread diversity / richness of students.   Considerations of present set up: work, distance, language all barriers of families being able to connect with Brown School.

• Next Meeting review other Guiding Principles—will have Charts of Grades by School by Classroom and small Copies of Districting Maps.

IV. Questions

• Do Guiding Principles push the budget?   How are they taken into consideration in the budget? (S. Godin provided reminder that Redistricting Advisory Committee is advisory and that considerations should help provide belief system for community. Other committee members noted: In addition, the city has made major commitment to neighborhood schools through recent elementary school projects and that we have civil right responsibility to all students.   We need to strive for the ideal for all students.)

V. Next Meeting

            Tuesday, January 22, 2008

            5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

            Memorial Middle School Library

January 8, 2008

return to top

Download January 8, 2008 minutes in PDF format

Redistricting Advisory Committee Minutes

South Portland School Department

Redistricting Advisory Committee

Minutes

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

These notes were prepared by Steve Bailey to the best of his understanding.   If you find any inaccuracies, please contact the Superintendent of Schools Office at 871-0555 within one week after receiving the notes.

In Attendance:   Suzanne Godin, Lue Bagley, Diane Lang, Elizabeth Holland, Margaret Hawkins, Elizabeth Wexler, Angela Emery, Tap Fitzgerald, Matt Green, Sue Trout, Jim Frederick, Jennifer Kirk, Beth Penney, Ali Gant,  Kathy DePhillipo, Kate Clarke, Mike Eastman, Rick Carter, Steve Bailey, Marie Cross

I.    Welcome / Introductions

Suzanne Godin, Superintendent, welcomed all and provided a clear description of the purpose of the committee.  

• It is an advisory committee, not a decision making committee. The Board of Education is responsible for determining the decision.  
• The Redistricting Advisory Committee has been asked to meet to think through the data, consider some guiding principles for redistricting, and look at some scenarios throughout the city.  
• The School Administration will take information from this advisory group, create a plan and present to the Board of Education.   The Board of Education will consider the plan during budget deliberations February 27 through March 4.
• Minutes of these meetings will be posted on a Redistricting link on the district web site at www.spsd.org.   Hard copies will be available at all elementary and middle schools.

II. Why Redistricting Now?

• The reality is, we need to do it…no one will love it (any decision)…we are coming together to think through hard questions.
• Last year a proposal was considered during the budget deliberations.   It was considered “stop-gap” and didn’t take into consideration enough factors when looking at the population and K-5 student enrollment across the city.   The Board decided to wait until this year to take a more comprehensive look at the factors and broader possibilities that would have a longer lasting term.
• Three elements of the issue need to be examined:
• Enrollment trends: We now are in our 3 rd year of five elementary schools.   Some have larger enrollments than anticipated, and some have fewer students than anticipated.
• Equity: Within the original elementary school plan, equity of type of facility, program for students and the same opportunity learn was the cornerstone of the plan.   The same programmatic equity is expected within the middle schools.   Within this definition of equity, is there equity for all students…especially considering socioeconomic factors within our school enrollments?
• English Language Learner Program:   Where instruction for ELL students had occurred during earlier years at Skillin and Memorial, once the 5 elementary schools were on line because of space and focus of staffing, the program moved to Brown and Mahoney Schools at K-5 and gr. 6-8.   With a commitment to educating students within their neighborhood schools, the two school model doesn’t meet this commitment to these students.   There are about 67 English Language Learner students within grades K-5 and 32 ELL students in grades 6-8.  

III. Explore the Data

• Questions
• What is the capacity of the schools? (See Sheet titled Elementary School (K-5) Student Capacity)
• Do the projected enrollment numbers include students in their neighborhood schools? (See sheet titled South Portland Enrollment Trends)
• What about Skillin kindergartens—have been 4 for the past 4 years, and 3 have been projected for each of these years?
• The Enrollment Trends and School Capacity Sheets were reviewed.   The projections are based on current students (where students are today) and moved forward a grade as determined by building principals.
• Within the enrollment trends, Skillin has grown beyond expectations, as has Dyer School.   Kaler has held steady, but below capacity.   Small and Brown are pretty close to target enrollments.   The entire picture reflects where room for development within the city has been impacting the school populations.
• 2007-2008 School Enrollment sheet was examined, including the concern with equity and in this case socioeconomic diversity.   Schools range from 15% free and reduced student population at Dyer School to 40% and 47.7% at Skillin and Kaler respectively.   A district average would be 29.7%.   This presents a large discrepancy and impacts a local school’s ability to provide extras (field trips and enrichment) as other schools might be able to do.
• English Language Learner data (see English Language Learners sheet).   K-5 program is at Brown (last three years—now at 59 students of 67 identified at K-5 level) and Mahoney Middle School (now at 20 students of 32 identified at middle level).

IV. Questions

• What are trends of our ELL population?   Up, down, steady?
• What do we know from our 3-5 year old ELL population that attends PROP on Moser Street and within Redbank?   What are these numbers?
• How do we prevent the decrease of services for our ELL students?
• If everyone were to return to their neighborhood school, Skillin would expand to over 450 students.   Doesn’t this emphasize the point that we need to do something?
• Is there data relating to students who receive academically gifted services?
• What is the breakout of classrooms by grade by school (current enrollments)?
• What is the current districting for middle schools and are there current maps of districting for the city?

• Considerations for next time for the development of Guiding Principles:
• Students from the same elementary school attend the same middle school (currently happens for all but Kaler School).
• Concern for grade 4 & 7 students--# of moves within a 3-year period.
• Needs and movements of students with special needs?
• Those who can walk to one school, not be bussed to another?
• Can there be flexibility within the plan to work out individual family needs within new drawn lines?
• What about the Waiver Process?
• What about a 4 th grader who is “grandfathered” at current school but incoming K student is in new district school?
• Will the neighborhood school be the best decision for all students?
• Can programs, i.e. ELL at middle level move?   Impact on classrooms, needed services by teachers?
• What have been the benefits and impact of added ELL positions?
• High needs ELL students and benefits of full-time ELL staff person.
• ELL students fall within the regular education student enrollment…they are not special education students.
• Day Treatment Program at Kaler School needs to remain there…and cannot be replicated within each of the other 4 elementary schools.

V. Next Meeting

            Wednesday, January 16, 2008

            5:30 – 6:30 p.m.

            Memorial Middle School Library