The Benefits of Clustering
There are many benefits in clustering for a district our size. Of course, as with anything in life, there are cons as well. The most obvious is that many children will have to travel a greater distance for their entire school career. As you begin to formulate your decision on whether to support the October 26th bond here are some clear advantages to clustering:
- Class size
- The variance in class size will no longer exist. When all of the students in the same grade are in one place you can equalize class size. There will no longer be some classes at 16 while others are at 22. Over the last few years the Board of Education has been stead fast in adhering to the class size guidelines and there is no indication this commitment will change going forward. In fact it makes it easier since it streamlines staffing.
- Facilities
- Currently all of our buildings are not equal. Some have new Library media centers while other do not. Some have proper electricity and wiring for technologies while others don’t. Clustering provides the same facility for all of the children.
- Any work done on a specific building benefits all of the children in the district. It is not necessary to spend more money to replicate the same project in multiple places
- Heterogeneity
- There is a better ratio of heterogeneity in classes where there are more students-mixing ESL and special needs students within an overall larger number of students allows for more of a balance between different needs of students. This is especially noteworthy in inclusion classes, where the proportion of disabled and non-disabled students is critical to the overall learning needs in the class
- Professional Development
- Having a greater number of classes and teachers at a grade level provides more opportunity for teacher’s to collaborate, share ideas and work together as a team. Students are the beneficiaries of teacher collaboration and teaming.
- Training and collaboration for new initiatives and program is easier to implement
- Staffing
- Combining schools would reduce or eliminate most or all of the shared staff and duplication of services. Shared staff imposes many challenges, not only on the staff, but on the schedule and the accessibility of the staff members and services for students. Staff travel time would be completely avoided providing for more time for instruction in the classrooms
- Students would have better access to teachers and more supports and services. The positions that are currently shared in the smaller schools are: library, computer, music and art, ESL, reading, gifted and special education.
- AIS, reading teachers, ESL teachers would be dedicated to a grade, thereby allowing for on-going collaboration and efficient and flexible scheduling to meet the NYS mandates and the needs of each student. Math teachers would be dedicated to each school.
- Curriculum
- With more classes, teachers and students in fewer buildings, it is easier and more efficient to implement new programs and new teacher positions. For example, it took us four years to phase in the literacy collaborative and reading recovery. These are excellent, but costly programs that could have been phased in more quickly if we had fewer schools.
- Often times the high cost of program implementation and hiring new teachers and staff in small schools are an imposition on the school district, and therefore, we aren’t able to bring certain programs, services and/or positions to fruition-programs and positions the students would greatly benefit from.
- There are differences in the specific options presented, i.e., which grades are in which buildings. Specific to the 8th grade moving to the high school there are programmatic and academic benefits-more 8th graders would be able to participate in accelerated classes. We currently offer two sections in accelerated science and two sections of accelerated math in 8th grade. These opportunities could operate more as an open enrollment option.
- There are great benefits to creating buildings dedicated to developmentally appropriate teaching and learning. An early childhood PreK-1 building allows for a complete focus on reading development and social interaction. A Grade 2-4 building reinforces reading readiness and prepares student for state assessments. A grade 5-7 building actually extends elementary school. It allows for an extended transition to departmentalization. Finally an 8-12 High School will allow for an extended elective program that will benefit all of the students.
- Assembly programs, parent workshops, professional development activities and resources/ materials would be specifically selected and dedicated to students at specific grade levels.
Posted in Around the District and School Closings 13 years, 8 months ago at 6:51 am. 10 comments
Previous Post: Propaganda Next Post: “Research”
I respectfully request that the idea that Debbie Tobar supposedly came up with not be referred to as “the Tobar Plan”. This was a plan that was discussed months back when the CCC first began meeting. It was also a plan, that at the time, was not what the community was interested in due to too many transitions which was a MAJOR concern to people. Due to the amount of transitions it was taken off the table. I hope I speak for the whole CCC committee when I say I believe we took in to consideration every configuration possible
This is the article in the NYT regarding Brockton High School in Massachusetts with 4100 students…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/education/28school.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=september 28, 2010 schools&st=cse&scp=1
This is link to the downloadable Harvard study on which the article was based….
http://www.agi.harvard.edu/events/2009Conference/2009AGIReport.php
There are lot of interesting points in the article and study. The NYT article acknowledges that Brockton “is an exception to what has become received wisdome in many educational circles – that small is almost always better” and refers to the “Waiting for Superman” movie which portrays small charter schools as the “way forward for American schooling.”
On the front page of The New York Times today there is an article about the benefits of larger schools. So now we have dueling studies . All we are missing is the banjo music. Through this entire debate the one thing missing is the fact that the lion share of our grades are already clustered. From pre-k and kindergarten and then middle school and high school there is clustering. Nine of our fourteen instuctional years are clustered. So what’s the problem with a full clustering program? As you can see from one day to the next, or from one newspaper to the next, you can get some very different opinions. Who’s right ? Let’s vote on it and move foward. The kids deserve better.
In Newsday today, the benefits of smaller schools.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/hempstead-high-school-becomes-3-smaller-schools-in-1-1.2317477
“Debbie’s Plan” has merit and was discussed at the CCC. It was dismissed because of the two buildings with two year transitions. That is how (in part) the current proposal was reached. The problematic part of addressing this plan is that the Board and I stated the next course of action was a North South bond that kept 5th and 8th as is. Is changing that plan after a failed bond fair? Or said differently How can we ascertain why this bond failed (if it does)? Is it because of certain schools closing, money or people truly don’t want a cluster model?
Dr. Nagler,
I am very curious as to your opinion of Debbie Tobar’s “model”.
Respectfully,
Denise Heckelman
I have not commented in quite some time, but I was so intrigued by Debbie Tobar’s comments and new proposal that I wanted to share my own experience.
I have a somewhat unique perspective since my family has been Willie Parkers & Mineola Mustangs for 82 years. My grandparents moved to WP when it was built in 1928 & our family has never left this unique & wonderful community.
We’ve had 4 generations pass thru the MUFSD & now my youngest are in 1st and 4th grades at ME. I remember a time when Pre-K was in the HS. K was 1/2 day, and I personally lived through the closing of Cross St., mixed grade classes at Meadow, and having 6th gr. pushed up into the MS.
As such it has been extremely difficult to accept the fact that our home elem.sch.may have to close. It has been almost like a grieving process.
“The 7 Stages of Grief” are decribed as:
1. SHOCK & DENIAL-
2. PAIN & GUILT- 3. ANGER & BARGAINING-
4. “DEPRESSION”, REFLECTION, LONELINESS-
5. THE UPWARD TURN-
6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH-
7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-
During the last stage you learn to accept and deal with the reality of your situation. Acceptance does not necessarily mean instant happiness. Given the pain and turmoil you have experienced, you can never return to the carefree, untroubled YOU that existed before this tragedy. But you will find a way forward.
It may sound a little melodramatic, but I just wanted to share how my family & some others may also be feeling about the loss of their home school.
It would be great if we could keep emotions out of it & base our decisions strictly on facts & figures, but unfortunately it’s not that simple. These momentous changes can be hard for some of us to accept.
For 2 years of I listened to consultants, attended focus groups, completed surveys, heard ever changing proposals,
attended scores of meetings, and tried to discern fact from fiction in the never ending rumor mill.
This past summer I got to the point of just wanting to move my family to a SD that was not in turmoil. I couldn’t take living in limbo any longer, not knowing what our beloved MUFSD would look like after the dust settled.
We put our house on the market in July.
(So yes, there are people who would be willing to move just because of SD changes. I also know of at least 1 other family that is definitely planning to move next spring.)
Of the dozens of potential buyers that came to see the house, one of the most common questions was “What Elementary School are you zoned for?” I don’t know about any internet studies, but I can tell you from first hand experience that people’s home values are definitely influenced by what elem. sch. they are near and the proximity to that school.
We were 24hrs. away from going to contract and moving to a well established non-cluster school district in Suffolk county that offers amazing extracurricular activities, when I started to have second thoughts. I love everything else about my town & I’m not willing to give up almost 100 years of family tradition because of some uncomfortable changes on the horizon. Do I want my children to wind up in separate buildings & deal with all the scheduling conflicts that that entails? No. But I have faith in the strong traditions of pride & excellence of the MUFSD.
So here we still are, for better or worse, and I’m hoping even after the many lively discussions I’ve been a part of we will still be embraced by this amazing community. I have always stressed that we are all Mineola Mustangs regardless of what your zip code is.
Deep down we all want what is best for the children and we are grappling with some tough decisions to find a reasonable compromise that will save $/streamline our SD, but mostly will maintain the best environment for our children throughout their school years. This is why I find myself agreeing with Debbie’s reasoning as far as the voting choices.
‘It is my personal opinion after speaking with many people in the community that while they would be very upset to see their neighborhood school close, they feel even stronger about their opposition to having 5th and 8th grades moved up. There is no option currently on the table that incorporates a full cluster while keeping the 5th and 8th grades as is.
I can understand the educational pluses of having the 8th grade in the HS. But you must also take into account the social and emotional health of the children. As a woman, a mom of 2 girls & a boy, and a Girl Scout Leader of 12 girls, I can tell you I do not think it is wise to have the younger girls especially moved up before they’re ready. I feel it robs them of an extra year of their childhood and innocence. They grow up fast enough, they don’t need to become teenagers any earlier than necessary.
I truly believe the 6-8 grade model at the MS provides a unique time period for the kids to explore & come into their own before moving onto the complicated HS world. I remember when 6th grade was moved from the elem. sch. to the MS. There was opposition then. 5th grade is just too young. I know there are 7-12 schools. My niece goes to one in East Meadow. But the school is large enough to allow complete separation of the younger grades. To my knowledge we do not have that room at the MHS.
Thank you for letting me share my story, opinions, and experiences. I’m sorry it was so long, but maybe it will help someone else work through their feelings at this difficult time.
Respectfully,
Patricia Schneider
I just wanted to offer some information on this subject. The CCC discussed many different options throughout the 6 weeks that we met. This type of option was dismissed because limiting the number of transitions was the second top priority among the committee members (and the different groups that they represented). (The first was equality in class size). Having two buildings in the plan where students were only there for 2 years increases the number of transition and this was a great concern for the majority of the committee.
Thanks for the information about clustering. I have accepted the fact that change is coming and we have to find a compromise for our district. My opinion is that full district clustering would be a better fit for Mineola than a north/south model. Dividing Mineola in half would have long-term consequences and inevitably one school would be perceived as “better” than the other. We have this problem now with four schools, and it will only become more magnified with a north/south arrangement.
We have been told that if the first bond fails, it would be a “clear indication that the community doesn’t want a cluster option.” I’ve shared my concerns with Dr. Nagler that the current full cluster model heading for the bond vote on 10/26 will not get fair consideration because it involves moving the 5th up to the MS and 8th to the HS. We know from the exit poll and much discussion that our community is overwhelmingly against this change. So if the bond fails, how will we know why? Then the second bond is a north/south model with no changes to the MS and HS… this does not provide a fair context for voters to express their choice. It’s not an “apples to apples” comparison.
How do I vote on 10/26 if I am pro-full cluster, but not THAT full cluster plan?
I realize the timing is less than ideal to discuss another option, but here is another full cluster idea that may be more attractive to parents and the Mineola community:
5 half-day Pre-K for all/Kindergarten at Willis (2 years)
1/2/3 at Jackson (3 years)
4/5 at Hampton or Cross or Meadow (2 years)
6-8 at the MS
9-12 and administration at the HS
- Willis, the MS, and the HS all remain the same – 5th and 8th DO NOT MOVE UP
- Jackson construction project would be the same – addition in the rear and multipurpose room/bus loop in the front – 4.4 million
- No (or minimal) construction needed on other building for 4th-5th grades – with 24 kids per class per district guidelines, we would need 9 sections per grade and 18 classrooms… Hampton has 19, Cross 20, and Meadow 22 classrooms so they would fit comfortably in at least two buildings with room for specials and support services
- Kids would have a three year span 1st-3rd grade
- All kids in grades 1-5 would be in buildings with green space and large grounds
- Willis would remain an Early Learning Center as it was intended, and programming would improve with 5 half-day Pre-K for all (at present only 54 children receive the 5 day program and the others 2-3 half days a week)… if we don’t plan for this space, there will again be no room to improve the Pre-K program in the future (could also be done without extending Pre-K and leaving administration as is)
- This plan is cheaper than the current full cluster model (4.4 million vs. 6.7 million) and keeps more things the same in our district
I understand many of the points listed above as to the benefits of clustering. But having served on the CCC, it is very clear to me that the only way to achieve these things in our District is to completely pick up the District, shake it up, chop off a few pieces and drop it back down. This is due to the constrictions that we have to work with – the geographical shape of the District, the locations of all of our buildings stretched out from end to end and also the small size of these elementary buildings. This is why I am still in favor of the 1st Bond Proposal (which in terms of voting is the 2nd). I really feel strongly that it is a compromise – it reduces the number of buildings, brings together more sections of each grade in the two early learning buildings, still gives the feeling of having a school near your home for our youngest students, clusters from 3rd grade on therefore achieving the things that you mention above. Dr. Nagler, you have made all the information available to us in many ways. And I feel you are right that everyone should take that information, read it, understand it, and vote as the feel is right for them.