Below is information from the West Coast Coaches Alliance which is a group combining California, Oregon, and Washington coaches, activity directors, sports facilities, and many more. The goal is to get the states to look at ways to open all of this backup. Letters are provided as well as email addresses provided in the letters. We are asking anyone who supports this action to take a look at this information and support it in any way you feel comfortable. I know there is a lot of material included in this email but we feel the outcomes are worth looking at the material.
Recent email from TSD superintendent Sean Dotson and a short clarification:
“Subject: Schedule Clarification
Dear Tumwater Families,
I want to follow up to share a couple of clarifications regarding the sample schedules you received earlier today. It is important to note that the times listed for classes on these schedules are not intended to imply that students will be on the computer throughout the time assigned for each class or subject. We recognize that excessive screen-time is not best for students and it would not be practical for students to spend many hours per day in front of a computer screen streaming live and recorded video. This is not an effective practice for distance learning, nor is it possible for many of our families to support.
Technology will be an important and valuable connection between students and teachers until we can return to in-person instruction. At the same time, our goal will be for students to have a healthy balance of activities away from a computer. We want our children to be active and healthy.
The schedule for a typical day will include opportunities to connect with teachers, and it will often include short instructional videos students will watch that teach new content. Along with the times when students will use a computer, the school day will also include time for students to work on activities independently. This may include reading, assignments, physical activities, and other projects they will do away from a computer screen. We know that some families’ schedules simply will not allow their children to access their learning at the times we have proposed. We also know that some of our families have Internet connectivity challenges, and we are finalizing plans to help these students access learning.
Please know that our intention is to provide flexibility that allows students to work on activities either during the scheduled time later if their schedule does not allow them to participate or work during the scheduled class time.
I hope this information helps clarify how the schedule will work.
Have a great weekend,
Sean Dotson, Superintendent”
“August 21, 2020
Dear Tumwater families,
As we continue in this time of uncertainty, one thing that has become very clear is our community is FULL of families, staff, teachers, administrators, and board members who are committed to making sure each and every student in our schools are taken care of!
We have been meeting with our employee associations to plan for school to start in the fall. Some of the fine details are still in progress; we know that you are waiting for all of the answers, and we appreciate your patience.
One thing we can share is the SAMPLE schedules that have been developed for elementary, middle, and high school students who are enrolled in their neighborhood schools (not TVA, CHS, or NMHS). Scheduling for our early learners (ECLC) and our 18-21 LINCS program are still under development.
As you review these schedules, please keep in mind that we are committed to being as flexible as possible knowing that every student/family has a unique situation and that sometimes a normal “school schedule” may not be possible. These schedules were created with these, as well as many other, considerations incorporated into them:
The schedule should allow us to transition smoothly from remote to hybrid instruction when conditions improve.
The State of Washington requires that all schools have a calendar with a 180 day school year.
The State of Washington requires that we provide Kindergarten students at least 1,000 hours of instruction and students in 1st-12th grade an average of at least 1,027 hours of instruction during the 2020-2021 school year.
The schedule meets requirements of our bargaining agreements with employee groups.
The schedule provides regular daily routines for students who need consistency, and it includes flexibility for families that cannot access remote learning during the regular day due to a variety of circumstances resulting from the pandemic.
At the secondary level, the number of classes and transitions are limited every day to help students focus during remote learning and reduce transitions and exposure when we return to hybrid instruction.
Of importance to know is that new content should be delivered asynchronously (recorded) or by other means so that all students can access this information and review it as needed. Live sessions (synchronous) are for class meetings, review of previous learning, and social emotional learning.
Once you see the schedules, we expect that more questions will arise. Please watch our district website COVID-19 section for FAQ’s that will be updated by early next week.
Attendance will be taken daily, understanding that not every student can sign into a class online at a specific time. Flexibility will be built into the attendance requirements. More information will be available soon.
This fall, grading practices will be more closely aligned with our regular grading system. A team of teachers and administrators are reviewing best grading practices in a virtual learning environment and will recommend any changes needed to our current policies and procedures for this year.
For families with connectivity limitations, we are looking for ways to provide alternatives which may include:
Home and/or mobile Wifi hotspots
For homes that have no internet options, possible small groups to meet at the school and, under supervision, access live and/or recorded instructional videos or class check-ins.
We appreciate your patience and partnership as we prepare to start a new school year in a way that is making history. This is new to all of us, and I know together we can make it work!
This past week has brought on many changes for each of us. One of those has been how to keep our children learning while schools have closed for at least 6 weeks.
As each of us navigate the homeschool experience, several resources keep popping up from companies that are offering services free of charge. I thought it might be helpful to have these resources listed in one place. The list is comprised of the resources I have come across during the past week or so. Hopefully you find some of them useful.
Some that don’t fall into the homeschool category, but are
important are the following:
This one has many different resources and is a pretty comprehensive list of some great free resources can be found on this website: http://www.amazingeducationalresources.com
From Audible.com: With all of us experiencing varying degrees of social distancing and school closures, we have created something that we hope makes our customers’ lives a little easier. At stories.audible.com, you will find hundreds of our titles available completely free. The collection has been handpicked by our editors and is a mix of stories to entertain, engage, and inform young people, ages 0–18.
www.musicplayonline.com is a fantastic interactive music website for elementary ages (and probably older). All students can access it now for free.
Username: snow
Password: 2020
They’ve had a lot of traffic so check back later if it’s down.
The Crash Course has lots of resources for high school and
middle school students. There are also
some for younger kids too. https://thecrashcourse.com
“Each
show will feature a science lesson, math activities, interactive games, and
stories. If you’d like to share your creation with other families who are
following along with Quarantime, post it to Instagram with the hashtags #quarantime and #sciencemomsquad.
Feel free to tag me too! We can’t wait to see what you come up with!
Each day we post a simple worksheet that goes
along with the show. You can find those at www.patreon.com/sciencemom.”
Actor Josh Gad (voice of the snowman in Frozen) is reading books to kids online. You can access these through Twitter. Go to your Twitter account and search for his name, the videos are all on his page.
The board meetings are recorded and available at some point after the meeting on the District website. I will do my best to summarize the meeting, but for the full report you can view the recording when it becomes available.
All Board members were present. The meeting was held at the District Office.
PGS 3rd grade music students performed under the direction of Marie Williams, who also received special recognition, Chinook Region Music Educator of the Year.
High School Student Representatives reported on the before and after school learning supports at their schools.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Katie Gates on disrespect by students.
Discussed the concern from teachers about the student behavior and disrespect teachers are enduring. Concern that teachers are leaving because of the disrespect from students. The concern is happening at all levels, they don’t feel safe and they will see it every day.
Melissa responded with a comment about Steilacoom SD focusing on Social and Emotional learning, and her disappointment that more parents aren’t at the Candace Lund-Bollinger classes put on by the District. (A list of classes is on the TSD website here).
Superintendent Dotson said he would follow up with Katie.
CONSENT AGENDA
No comments or questions, consent agenda was approved.
ACTION ITEMS
Resolution 06-19-20-Temporarily Altering the Establish Amount of the Unreserved Fund Balance of the General Fund. There was a change in the resolution paragraph, they removed the sentence that said the fund balance would never go below the minimum fund balance. They established a year end fund balance minimum of 4%, this allows them to go down to no lower than 3% if needed. Further discussion will be in the Superintendent report.
Rita expressed concern about going below the 4%. “I find this really upsetting. You know I know it’s an absolute necessity at this point that we have to do this, but I just want to stress how important this fund balance is to the stability of the District and how hard we need to work to bring it back up. Because that is what keeps us going and gives us an emergency fund for things that happen. We all know that they happen, and so I really encourage us to work on that to reinstate this to where it should be.”
Melissa asked how it effects the district bond rating, Jim explained that it is part of the rating, and he met with the Bond council this last week and they will be providing information about that question. (The bond rating affects the ability of our district to sell Bonds). Superintendent Dotson stated that the District is not trying to sell bonds right now, but if it isn’t recovered in the future that might affect the rating.
Rita asked how long this would effect our bond rating in the future.
Melissa asked if they would be able to make payroll every month. Jim stated they will make payroll every month.
Scott asked Superintendent Dotson to explain what the Fund Balance is used for. Superintendent Dotson explained how the fund balance goes up and down throughout the year based on when we get levy payments and when expenses occur. Their monthly payments are not equal. They need to keep the fund balance up to cover the lower payment months. He explained that what most districts like to have in the fund balance is one months expenses. One month’s expenses for TSD would be $7.8MM, so in the months where they get down to $2MM they are in an uncomfortable place. He said they will work to get the fund balance in a better place, in case of unforeseen expenses. The fund balance in good economic times can help cover when you get to lean times so you don’t have to cut programs. They want to get the fund balance back to a place where if they were the economy turns they need to be in a place where they have something solid to take care of the needs.
2nd Reading, Revisions policy 1400-Meeting Conduct Sean reminded them of the major changes, they took out the specific meeting times to allow some flexibility. They added a section on study sessions.
Melissa added it allows them to meet in the evening especially for study sessions. The said they would still visit the schools, but not necessarily as a meeting.
Rita asked about how they were going to get site reports from the schools. SI Dotson explained that since they were shifting to evening work sessions, they would have site reports prior to the meeting. They will also have times in the morning to visit the sites.
Revisions policy 1400-Meeting Conduct passed
2nd Reading, Revisions Policy 3131–Attendance Area (Intra-District) Transfers A couple changes from the 1st reading, language about non resident students was removed since this is an intra-district policy and that language does not apply. A sentence was added to state that they District will provide applicants with written notification of approval or denial of the application in a timely manner. Rita asked if another boundary revision were to occur, would these polices work or would they need to be changed again. Superintendent Dotson explained that they should work.
The revision dates were also discussed. The date was unclear if that was the only times it had been revised or if that was only the latest time it was revised. Rita also stated there was a time they went through all the policies to update them since they hadn’t been updated in a while.
Policy 3131 passed.
Policy 3141 – Non-resident students. There are no changes with this policy. SI Dotson discussed the Thought Exchange, but did not feel there was any feedback that really impacted the policy. The feedback received was more related to the procedure.
Melissa thanked SI Dotson for facilitating the updating of these policies.
Policy 3141 passed.
The Board took a short break for 10 minutes.
OTHER BUSINESS
20/21 Budget Development and timeline.
Jim explained that they have been meeting with each building and looking at certificated staff and other staff needs at each of the buildings.
March 12 is the date for the legislative session to end, they are hoping for more equity from the legislature.
March 20th is the departments and building budget allocations will be sent out by Jim. The principals can decide where to put that funding in their buildings.
April 1st is the last day to turn in additional funding requests.
April 15th is the deadline to let the Bargaining Unions know if they will be planning a Reduction in Force. The deadline to send to the affected employees for Reduction in Force is May 15.
Draft Budget available to the public July 10, Final budget adopted August 27.
Melissa asked about the budget work session, they talked about doing that on July 23rd.
Melissa also asked for the budget to be divided by staff and building and staffing levels at each school.
Rita asked what they plan to do with the boundary changes and if the teachers are going to move with the students. Superintendent Dotson explained they are going through that right now, and they have met with the principals at each building and the HR team to start that discussion. He discussed the intersection with the transfer process. He hopes to accommodate all the kids who want to stay. They want to make as few shifts as possible. He mentioned staff additions, to serve all the students.
Rita asked if there was a deadline for students to decide if they are going to stay. Superintendent Dotson explained he would show the timeline in his Superintendent report.
Rita brought up the K-3 compliance, Jim stated TSD compliance is around $237K. He also stated TSD is not in compliance at the moment, they are at 17.4. They are working with HR to look at a couple positions that are split with LAP, and they can move those to help with the average and get it down to 17 so they don’t lose that funding. Jim stated the funds are minimal.
Superintendent Dotson also reminded the Board that the 17 is not an actual number, but an average of teachers, specialist etc to get to that average.
1st Reading, 20/21 School Year Calendar Beth Scouller discussed the proposed calendar for the next school year. Since Labor day is so late, they had the option of asking TEA if they would like to vote to have the school year start a week earlier. The teachers voted not to start early, so school is set to start the Wednesday after Labor Day (Sept 9, 2020 and end June 21, 2021). A few changes from the past practice were discussed. The Wednesday before Thanksgiving is a day off instead of a half day, due to the instructional hours needed. TEA suggested to try to build snow days into the school year, Feb 16 and May 28 would be scheduled as no school days unless there are days that need to be made up for snow or like in the past, a strike. February 16, the day after President’s Day is typically mid winter break, but May 28, the Friday before Memorial Day weekend, has not typically been a day off in the past. The Board was concerned that teachers and students would consider these days off even if they were changed to school days and concern over having a Monday as the last day of school. There was a lot of discussion on this, so there still could be some changes. A copy of the proposed calendar is also available on our resources page.
1st Read Proposed 20/21 school year calendar
1st Reading, Policy 3211, Gender Inclusive Schools Language changed to match practices. A copy of this document is also available on our Resource page.
SUPERINTENDENT REMARKS
Enrollment– TSD enrollment is right around the budgeted number, they started out below, rose above it and then dipped below. This is a general trend for enrollment the past several years. A discussion on how numbers are calculated and why Skills Center and Running Start students aren’t counted. They don’t count them in enrollment for budgeting purposes since the money follows the student. They work with FTE(full-time Equivalents) for budget, so part time students are counted as part time for budgeting. Overall they are staying very close to the budgeted numbers.
Fund Balance
Superintendent Dotson showed the graph from last month for the fund balance. The fund balance follows the typical trend lines of previous years. This month they dropped from $4 MM to $3MM, the minimum fund balance of 4% is at $3.8MM. So they have been above that number until this month. Each year there is a dip around this time of year and increases in October and April when they get the Levy money. This year October Levy money was not as much as last year since they put a cap on what could be collected, but April should be higher since they increased the cap. There was also talk of CTE enrollment being higher at the middle level and therefore the amount OSPI distributed was more. This may not be a true increase since CTE courses offered this fall may have been the courses offered in last spring and it may drop in the Spring. TSD predicts (using OSPIs estimator tool) that they will end the year right around the 4%. Superintendent mentioned they like to keep one months expenses in the fund balance and for Tumwater that would be $7.8MM, they are at about $3.8MM. With a bottom out number in March of $1.9 MM or 2%.
Some things they are watching that will impact the budget, CTE enrollment, SEBB payments, any employee over 630 hours will require TSD to pay into SEBB and TSD is planning for an increase in SEEB costs due to this change. Next year bargaining, step increases, increases in Sped and unexpected costs (the car breaks down) are all factors that will effect the fund balance. Superintendent Dotson has mentioned that they intend to work to get the fund balance back up.
Transfer Policies
Both transfer policies were approved. Superintendent Dotson explained the other side of that is the procedures that they have been working on. He mentioned the community was concerned about the order in which transfers were accepted. He mentioned the Thought Exchange and the feedback that was received. He stated he didn’t see anything that changed substantially, there are differing opinions and not everyone will agree. He stated the vast majority seems to continue to lean toward this being the right order. (I wrote a blog with the details you can read here or you can look at the documents on our Resources page).
In summary:
1-full-time staff children, by law, have first priority.
2-intra-district students continuing at the school they are currently enrolled(further divided to give boundary displaced students top priority). A discussion on the boundary changes occurred and Superintendent Dotson felt this procedure would work if another revision were to occur, he also stated this is not a guarantee that they will be accepted, but that they will be given priority.
3-intra-district siblings of students currently enrolled in a school
4-New Intra-district Students
5-Non-Resident renewals
6-Non-resident Siblings
7-New non-resident requests.
If enough spots are not available to accommodate all the applications, a lottery will occur at that level. No more first in first accepted.
Timeline for requests:
March -Most of the requests would be received beginning in March. All the full-time staff, intra-district renewals, new intra-district requests for 1st -12 grades. And then renewals for non-residents. At the end of March they could accept transfers in the order above, employing a lottery if needed.
April-new Non-resident requests. And then at the end of April they should have a good idea of how many spots they have available.
August-Kindergarten requests. The uncertainty of how many Kindergarteners they will have makes it difficult to accept transfers any earlier than August.
Annual Verification
Superintendent Dotson mentioned a lot of concern on the Thought Exchange for annual verification. He was hesitant to employ this as a District wide verification, but the procedures allow for a school wide or a grade level if they deem it necessary. Peter G was mentioned as a pilot school for this project.
Legislative Update
No levy or staff funding bills have moved out of committee before the deadline. Although if the members have a bill they really want to get through, they can deem it necessary to implement.
Senate Bill 6117 is a Special Education Appropriations Bill is part of this session. It is a bill recommended by OSPI which will provide a small increase in funding for Special Education.
There was a bill to correct for districts like TSD who have Senior staff, but are not receiving extra funding, but this does effect the budget Superintendent Dotson said he is watching to see if that bill ends up going anywhere, since it didn’t make the cutoff.
This is a list of bills with cost implications that did make the cutoff:
These are all bills that will cost more money and no extra appropriations for them.
February 27 Work Session
The following list are the topics they plan to discuss at the February 27 work session. Rita asked about adding the Diversity Policy, Superintendent Dotson explained they would need to cut something to add that in. Melissa asked about highly capable and accelerated enrollment.
BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Scott Killough mentioned that he has not been able to attend many things during the day, but attends things in the evenings. He attended Little Women, Momma Mia, the men’s and women’s basketball games. He is trying to get to each elementary PTA PTO meetings.
Rita Luce-met with legislators. She mentioned Olympia SD possibly changing the school start times. She attended the basketball games.
Casey Taylor-At the board meeting last month, they got to walk around BHHS, and the next day met with Lisa Summers and played some pickleball with the students. He also met with Jeff Broom and walked around THS. Attended basketball games for girls and boys. He attended the legislative conference but was disappointed in the politicians.
Darby Kaikkonen- attended the basketball game, She continues to be part of BMS PTO, She appreciated attending the legislative conference, and plans to visit Lisa Summers at BHHS.
Melissa Beard-She too went back to BHHS the day after the meeting to play pickleball with Lisa Summers. She visited THS for her alumni association, She mentioned she noticed THS had a meeting for Spanish speaking families, this group meets the first Tuesday of each month to help them understand the resources available. Next month they will be learning about Skyward. She attended the Momma Mia and Little Women. Talked about the sign holding for the Levy and thanked the community for the support.
Regular meeting recessed to Executive Session to discuss Personnel Performance, Evaluation or Qualifications for Employment
Casey Taylor, Melissa Beard and Darby Kaikkonen were present. Scott Killough and Rita Luce were not present. The Board meeting was held at BHHS. You can view the recording here. I have summarized a few topics from the meeting.
Superintendent Dotson recognized the Board members for Board Member Appreciation month. The student representatives were also recognized. They were each given a “small token”.
Lily Campbell and Ansley Campbell were recognized for their work in the club they created, the Girls Outreach Club.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jacob Meyers for Pathways for Hope spoke about the efforts in preventing human trafficing. He invited people to attend their meeting that was held on January 30 to help with child trafficing prevention.
CONSENT AGENDA
Darby asked Mel to explain a change order. Basically it is something that comes up during a project that will cost more money, and they ok the “change order” to keep the project going with the added cost of what is contained in a change order. Mel gave a couple examples of times it has happened.
Consent Agenda was approved
ACTION ITEMS
Resolution 06-19-20-temporarily altering the established amount of the unreserved fund balance of the general fund. The minimum fund balance is set at 4%, but during this year, keeping the budget as is, the fund balance will go below this set amount. They hope to end the year at the 4% Fund Balance. If they keep the language at “may not fall below” then they are in violation because they are below that number. Superintendent Dotson asked to look at the language and make changes where needed. He also showed the Fund Balance trends, this year TSD will hit near the zero balance at about $1.4 M in March, but should trend back up in April based on the levy collections. We should end above the 4% in June. If they were to prevent form ever going below the 4%, they would have had to make several more staffing cuts last spring. It would have to cut $2.5 M in cuts. He was asking to get approval to change the language to be able to go and end below the 4%. A challenge in ending at the 4%, is that we would be starting 2020/21 school year $2 M lower than TSD started at in 2019/20. There are some expenses in September 2020, which would put the Fund Balance below that $2 M mark again. Sean insured that they have money to pay all their bills at this point.
Melissa mentioned that TSD received hold harmless money last year that they will not receive this year. Based on TSDs estimate of $2.2 MM, the Board decided not to send out RIF notices last year, (eliminating the ability to reduce staff if needed). As it turned out, TSD only received $200K, Melissa stated that is why they are in this position.
THS Batting Cage Building: Tim Graham asked for a separate building for Softball and Baseball for practicing in inclement weather. Appears to be just asking for approval to have a community funded project to be built. Board approved the donation and the planning for the new batting cage building.
OTHER BUSINESS
Revisions to bid requirements in Policy 6220, just updating to follow WASDA policy model created by OSPI to adhere to state and federal regulations. May be added to Consent Agenda with no changes.
Meeting Conduct-1st reading Policy 1400. Changing board meeting times. Superintendent Dotson asked to change the language in the policy to not specify times and dates, leave it more flexible.
Transfer process policies 1st Reading:
Policy 3131 and Policy 3141(both can be found on our resource documents page). Superintendent Dotson explained the process up to this point; Thought Exchange, Community Work Group (you can check out my previous Blogs on this subject here, here and here). The Policies were updated to be in alignment with this process, legislative language and what other local districts have in place. This is policy, but there is also a procedure which is written by the Superintendent.
Legislative Priorities:
Superintendent brought a list of priorities.
Special Education-used ESD language (shortage in Sped Funding). Recommending for Legislation to fully fund Special Education.
Equitable Funding-inequity in funding regionally as well as statewide. Recommending expand the experience factor to reduce inequities, and correct regionalization to provide funding based on an areawide workforce model.
Staffing Enrichment-Increase funding for school nurses, counselors, social workers and safety officers.
Board Committees/Assignments:
Legislative Representative- Rita Luce, renew or update? Tabled since she was not present.
WIAA representative- Casey Taylor
Technology Committee Representative – Casey Taylor
Military Representative – Darby Kaikkonen
Budget Committee Representative- Melissa Beard
Graduation Taskforce – Melissa will talk to Scott Killough?
Replacement Levy Representative – Melissa Beard
SUPERINTENDENT REPORT
Equity Programs – Sean Batstone looked into partnering with SPSCC equity groups, there was a conference Jan 24. Each HS sent a representative to the conference.
Enrollment:
Enrollment reports usually include Skills Center Enrollment, but they are separate. Tumwater West and Open Doors also contribute. Funding for Running Start and Skills Center go directly to those programs.
Projected enrollment. Actual Enrollment
The actual enrollment in December was a net positive 15.4 students. However, when you look at January, enrollment was a net negative 8.9 students from projections.
January Actual Enrollment
Looking at trends for enrollment it starts low and then increases and then drops down again. Budget should be done with the Skill Center and Running Start numbers removed.
Enrollment trends
They estimate the numbers based on past years. Skill Center stays about 300, Running Start was estimated based on projected enrollment. Running Start is expected to grow. A discussion on conservative budgeting, using conservative numbers for budget purposes.
Superintendent’s Remarks:
The following chart shows the next steps for budget planning to get the fund balance back to where it needs to be.
Staffing. They need to begin early staffing planning. With the boundary changes, staffing changes will need to occur to accommodate those changes.
Transfer Workgroup Update.
Main points in the changes to the policies and procedures.
The main change was the intra-district requests will be prioritized before nonresident requests, this was done based on the thought exchange and community requested that TSD residents should be prioritized above nonresidents.
By law staff would be prioritized first. Then the students impacted by boundaries would be prioritized next. Siblings will be prioritized within each group.
If there are not enough space in each group, how do you decide who gets the spots Historically they have used a first in time. There are problems with determining who is actually first. We need to provide something with greater equity, so if they get to a group without enough spaces to take everyone, then a lottery would be implemented.
The proposed timeline:
New Kindergarten applications would not be accepted until August 1.
Timeline:
The Community Forum held on January 27. Since it was such short notice, they also put out a Thought Exchange for the new procedures. Superintendent Dotson realizes that these policies and procedures will not please everyone. Homeless students are not under these policies.
Casey Taylor asked about staffing, and budget. The timelines are set so that the high schools can have master schedules set so they can determine where they have room or not.
Superintendent has been giving several presentations on the Levy, to get accurate information out there.
BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Darby -met with District leadership members, attended graduation pathways forum, spending time in schools. Attended the Tumwater-BHHS wrestling match. Her son wrestles as an 8th grader.
Casey -Thanked Ainsley and Lily, thanked Dave Meyer, thanked Jacob Meyer. He met with District Leadership team, thanked the leadership team. Thanked Mel Murray. Was at wrestling meet. He went to girls and boys basketball games.
Melissa- bought tickets for BHHS musical, gave play schedule. The choreographers were highlighted in Thurston Talk. Thanked BHHS leadership for their work with the promoting student leadership with the play.
****UPDATED****New information was received. See highlighted sections below to see the new updated information.
Transfer Review Committee-We Made a Little More Progress-But Was It Enough?
That depends on what you wanted to happen as a result of the Transfer Review Committee’s work. Here are some of the highlights:
Priorities were changed.
Application acceptance dates were changed.
UPDATED to move ALL intra-district requests BEFORE nonresident requests including renewals. Not all Tumwater residents will get priority over nonresident transfer students
UPDATED to change to a lottery system when spaces are LIMITED. No changes were made to the inequitable first in-first approved process.
Nomenclature was changed
UPDATED-discussion of the addition of dropping off applications at the schools and forwarded to the District Office. All applications must go to District Office.
The District can request residency verification from all students if needed.
As our readers know, I am on the recently formed Transfer Review Committee for TSD. We had our third meeting on January 13th and made a little more progress so I wanted to provide an update.
Superintendent Dotson provided revised policies and procedures for both the intra-district transfers and the nonresident transfers for our review and feedback.
UNDERSTANDING THE NOMENCLATURE The nomenclature was changed to Intra-District and Non-Resident, which reflects the nomenclature in the law. Intra-District refers to Tumwater Residents who transfer from one TSD school to another. Nonresident refers to students who reside outside the Tumwater School District area.
CHANGES IN PRIORITY I discussed the priority proposals that the group voted on in my prior blog (which can be found here), so in this blog I am focusing on the changes proposed at the most recent meeting.
The following priority was proposed:
1-Students who are children of a full-time certificated or classified employee and are requesting enrollment in the employee’s assigned school or a feeder pattern school”, have first priority above any other transfer or renewal of a transfer, as required by law (RCW 28A.225.225).
2-Intra-District students who would be continuing enrollment at a site or in a program (this would include students impacted by boundary changes and renewals).
3-Nonresident transfer renewal request. (See update. Note-this gives priority to non resident students over some Tumwater resident students)
4-Students whose siblings are enrolled at the same site. (See update. Note-Again this gives priority to nonresidents over some Tumwater resident students.)
***UPDATED*** 5-Other Intra-District transfer requests.(UPDATED-these have been moved to be prioritized over all nonresident requests including renewals)
6-Other nonresident transfer requests.
PROCEDURAL CHANGES The following changes were also included in the procedures:
***UPDATED*** They are discussing the possibility of adding the option of dropping off applications at the schools and forwarding to the District Office. All transfers must go directly to the District Office within the new timelines(details discussed below). Families used to be able to drop applications off at the schools, but that is not allowed under the new policy.
The nonresident procedures include a requirement that the student must show proof of release from his or her resident district, and submit the proof to TSD.
“The District may request verification of residencyfrom all students in a school, grade level, or program when the District determines it is necessary due to space/capacity limitations. Acceptable documents must show the parent/legal guardian’s name and address and must be dated within the past 30 days. Post office boxes are not acceptable as residence addresses….”
NEW APPLICATION WINDOWS Given the prioritization changes, TSD has implemented different application windows, depending on your status: The proposed application windows for each priority group are as follows:
February (3-28, 2020)
Full-time staff; new and renewal per RCW 28A.225.225
Intra-district students requesting to continue in their current school(includes boundary displaced and renewals)
Non-resident renewals (Note this is prior to new intra-district requests)
March (2-31, 2020)
Intra-District new requests**
April (April 1, 2020)
Non-Resident new requests(grades 1-12)**
August (August 3, 2020)
Nonresident new requests(kindergarten)**
**Siblings of current students will be prioritized for acceptance.
A couple changes I would like to see, but have yet to be addressed ***UPDATED*** to change to a lottery system when spaces are LIMITED. The lottery system would require a set date for lottery, which I have not heard of a date at this time. If after a groups application period there is space for everyone, no lottery wold be necessary, it would only take place if there were more applications than spaces. I would assume they would have a lottery with each group in order of priority if necessary.
The proposed policy continues to determine priority based upon “time stamping”, with a first in-first approved for transfer requests. This has been the prior practice, and I believe has lead to one group over another getting an unfair advantage. This is still a very inequitable method to accept requests, especially to many underprivileged families. This may require “camping out” at the District Office the night before to ensure a child is first in line, taking the day off work to get the application in on the day of acceptance, etc. This is unfair to many families(dual working parents, those with small children and no day care, those who do not know the system, those who are not computer savvy, etc). Further, serving the earliest applicants eliminates TSD’s ability to look at the group as a whole and decide where students can be placed that will be a good fit for the student and TSD.
***UPDATED***this appears to be the updated process (or something similar) as far as I understand. I would suggest using the timeline windows with no preference given to first in time, provided the application is received within the timeline window. If there are more applicants than spots, a random draw, with no preference to first in time, is the fairest solution. The District has in the past used a lottery system (all-day Kindergarten before it was mandated, and required at all schools) and it was a far more fair system.
From the drafted policies and procedures I also did not see any indication of limiting transfers or working towards limiting transfers. There was also no indication that the transfers be used to bring the enrollment at both high schools closer. However, I do hope that by pushing the dates out, TSD moves from an “accept all and figure it out later” to a more deliberate process of accepting transfers.
What was discussed:
I had hoped we would address some of the non-resident transfer procedures at this meeting. The process we used at this last meeting did not lead to much discussion or exchange of ideas as a committee. It was more of “social media” project. For example, we read the policies and procedures(not given in advance) and gave feedback such as, questions, what we liked and/or recommendations for each item. We had about 10 minutes for each step(to read the procedure and policy, discuss as a small group and give feedback). Then the next group in the rotation would also give feedback or “like” or “dislike” previous comments. It felt one dimensional and not as constructive and involved as the last few meetings. Someone asked if we could vote on the comments, and were told we weren’t doing that this time. There was no open discussion with the group or between groups. For instance, my conversations were pretty much limited to the 3 other people in my group, and although we did have some good discussions, no one else in the room or the Superintendent heard or participated in our conversation, and I am sure other groups had a similar experience. We were told the comments would go to an administrative team at the District office who will go through the feedback and decide if they wanted to incorporate any of the feedback or not. This process has begun and some of the committee comments have been addressed-see highlighted updates.
The Community Forum is scheduled for January 27, 2020 from 7-8:30 at Tumwater Middle School.
The policies have been updated since the last committee meeting, so I would suggest attending this meeting as the new draft policy may look very different from what the committee saw at the last meeting. These documents are still fluid at this point and community comment is necessary to make sure they represent what the community desires. Do you think they have or have not done enough? Mark your calendars and plan to attend the Community Forum to let them know what you think. During this forum, the public will be able to see the policy and procedures drafted at the District Office. This will be your last opportunity to ask questions and to let the Committee and the District know what your thoughts are on the process and the procedures that have been drafted up to that point. The last community forum I was involved in was fairly informal and small group discussion type idea exchange. Mark your calendars (January 27, 2020, 7-8:30pm) and plan to attend.
Or contact Superintendent Sean Dotson and the Board Members to give them your thoughts:
How is TSD doing on class
sizes at the High School level?
Last year I looked at how
TSD was doing with class sizes at the high schools. I thought it would be
interesting to see how they are doing this year. I also completed a
couple blogs earlier discussing the class size in TSD elementary
schools and middle schools. For those blogs you can click Elementary,Middle Schools,
Last year High Schools.
A little background….
Unlike class size studies
for elementary schools, there isn’t really much out there discussing recommended class
sizes for a high school class. This blog mainly addresses the seats
available in the classroom(likely around 25-35) and the stated threshold
capacity. Some classes are more intensive, and take more time outside of
the classroom, than other classes. For instance a PE class is less likely
than an English class to add a significant amount of time to a teacher with
added students. With not much outside TSD available, the contract
between TEA and TSD is used as the baseline for class size in this discussion.
Article 37.E.5 of the TEA
contracts states as follows:
“Secondary
Class Size and Targeted Average.
The employee workload in secondary classrooms (except band, choir,
orchestra, and PE) shall average no more than 27 students per period,
with a class size of 30 for impact. These calculations shall exclude
student assistants or peer tutors. If an individual class exceeds the
impact level (30), overload compensation will apply. If the overall
targeted average of 27 is exceeded, overload compensation will
apply. Employees will only receive overload compensation for one of
the two provisions, whichever provides the greater compensation.”
So what does that
mean? Classes averaging more than 27 students throughout the day,
or a single class over 30 students were agreed by TEA and TSD as the
threshold for impact. From this one can conclude that 27 is the
desired maximum in a class. From a budget perspective, this means that
any class over 30 students automatically qualifies for “overload
compensation”, and any teacher who has an average of more than 27 students
throughout the day qualifies for “overload compensation”.
What classes at BHHS and
THS would be considered “overloaded” based on the 27 student
maximum?
Both high schools have
several classes that are over the threshold of 27 students, with many over
the 30 student threshold too. (Band, Choir, Orchestra and PE were not
included in this investigation). It appears that, for the most part,
there are fewer overloaded classes compared to last year, and the average
class sizes for the most part are lower with some exceptions. This could
be due to the drop in overall enrollment in the District.
English, Math, Science,
and Social Studies, are, on average, more overloaded than non-core
classes. The following chart was compiled from the data showing the
sizes of English classes at both high schools:
The Freshmen English
classes are close to where they should be for student-teacher ratios. The average Freshman English class sizes at BHHS and THS sit at
26.5 and 26.3 respectively. This is right at the threshold for capacity
so it stands to reason that there would be a few classes that go over the
threshold based on scheduling the students. So having 17%-29% of the classes
over the 27students would be expected. The Freshman Honors
classes have fewer students at both BHHS and THS with average classes sizes of
23.7 and 21.5, respectively.
The Sophomore
English classes are close to where they should be for student-teacher
ratios. The average
Sophomore English class sizes at BHHS sits at 26.6 with 40% over the
27 student threshold. THS sits at and average of
25.4 with 14% over the 27 student threshold. These classes are
right at the threshold for capacity so it stands to reason that there would be
a few classes that go over the threshold based on scheduling the students.
The Sophomore Honors English classes are also sitting right at
capacity at both BHHS and THS with average classes sizes of 26.6 and 26,
respectively. BHHS has 33% of their Sophomore Honors English
classes at or over the 30 student threshold, this is not desirable since
hitting the 30 student threshold triggers the impact pay for the teacher.
The Junior and Senior
English Classes are also close to where they should be for student-teacher
ratios.
The average
Junior English class sizes at BHHS and THS sit at 24.3 and 26,
respectively. Both BHHS and THS have a few classes over the 27 student
threshold and BHHS has 25% over the 30 student threshold. The
average Senior English class sizes at BHHS and THS sit at 24.9 and 24,
respectively. The AP English classes at both high schools have averages
between 17 and 22 students, and none of these classes are over the the
threshold. THS has English 101 at the High school with an average of 24
students.
The same approach
with the math classes is as follows:
With Math
classes, there are still some classes that are well over the
capacity. BHHS has a few classes with averages over the 27 student
threshold and in each of those, with 17%-100% at or over the 30 student
threshold in those classes. BHHS also has a couple classes with
enrollment of 12.8 and 14, which is well below the student threshold and not
desirable from a budget perspective. THS has a couple classes over the 27
student threshold and only Accelerated Integrated Math III with 67% at or over
the 30 student threshold. As discussed earlier, having classes at or over
the 30 student threshold is not desirable as it triggers the impact pay
for the teacher and affects the budget.
The same approach for
Social Studies classes at both high schools is as follows:
Most of the Social
Studies classes are below the 27 student threshold with a few exceptions.
For example, Civics at BHHS has an average class size of 28.3 with every class
at or over the 27 student threshold. The same course at THS has
an average class size of 26.7 with 57% of the classes over the 27 student
threshold. Psychology is another course where BHHS has an
average class size over the 27 student threshold with an average of 28.3
with 67% over 27 students and 33% at or over 30 students. This same
course at THS has an average of 26.5 with 50% over 27 students.
On the other end of the
spectrum are the AP US History classes at THS with an average of 18.3 students,
well below the 27 student threshold, which is not desirable from a budget
perspective.
The same approach for
Science classes at both high schools is follows:
For the most part,
science classes are below the threshold, with many well below the threshold of
27 students. The only courses above the threshold average
are Physical Science classes at THS where 50% of classes are over 27
with an average of 27.1 students and 13% at or over 30 students. However,
there are several science courses at both high schools, with averages as low at
11.5 students per class. AP Biology, Phyisics, Chemistry, Earth Science,
and Enviro and You at BHHS and Honors Chemisty at THS are the smallest
class sizes ranging from 11.5 to 16 students. This is not desirable from
a budget perspective.
Last year we highlighted
the over crowding in the Health classes at both high schools. This year
appears to be the same.
BHHS has 44% of Health
classes over 27 students with an average of 27 students per
class. In contrast, THS has 70% of its Health classes over
27 students, and 50% at or over 30 students, with an average of 28.6 students
per class. Both schools have more students, likely Freshman, than
they have spots in Health classes.
The primary variables
that affect overcrowding are the number of teachers and the number of students,
both of which TSD controls to a significant degree.
The number of incoming
residents students is fairly predictable, and TSD can control the number of
transfer students approved. It would seem logical for the decision on
transfer students to be made in the summer(after most “move ins” have
occurred), when enrollment is more predictable and TSD knows how many resident
students will be in the classes. Our understanding is that this
has not been the past practice.
However, TSD has a
Transfer Review Committee formed that is working on some suggested changes to
the current transfer processes. Ideally, the master schedule would be set
with the resident students placed, and at a later date, the non resident
students placed in classes where available space exists.
Letting the transfer
students in before the spaces available have been determined does not make
sense unless TSD decides to add more classes/teachers, which has budgetary
impact.
Conclusion.
The TEA contract allows
for classes to be overloaded as long as the teachers are compensated, which may
not be a bad option at the HS level. However, similar to elementary
classes, when class sizes increase in a high school class, this can create
class management difficulties and increase the work load of the
teacher. Limited desk space may also pose a challenge if the class sizes
are large enough. Overall, this year there are fewer classes with overcrowding
which is likely due to the lower total enrollment, and/or better
distribution of teachers and students.
The current budget
situation may affect the class sizes in the future. The Board opted to
keep using savings instead of making severe cuts this year, which meant TSD ran
at approximately a $2 million deficit this school year. The TSD
Board will need to cut at least $2MM from the budget next year to
keep from going below the required minimum fund balance(which is required by
law to keep). This may mean class size increases, either by having fewer
teachers and/or fewer class options.
The raw data from our
records report can be found on our documents page, here.
How is TSD doing on class
size at the Middle School level?
A previous blog discussed
the class size in TSD elementary schools and High Schools. Unlike class
size studies for elementary schools, there isn’t really much out there
discussing recommended class sizes for secondary classes. (you can read
the latest blog on elementary class size here). This blog mainly
addresses the seats available in the classroom(likely around 25-35) and the
stated threshold capacity. Some classes are more intensive, and take more
time outside of the classroom, than other classes. For instance a PE
class is less likely than an English class to add a significant amount of time
to a teacher with added students. With not much outside TSD available,
the contract between TEA and TSD is used as the baseline for class size in this
discussion.
Article 37.E.5 of the TEA
contracts states as follows:
“Secondary
Class Size and Targeted Average.
The employee workload in secondary classrooms (except band, choir,
orchestra, and PE) shall average no more than 27 students per period,
with a class size of 30 for impact. These calculations shall exclude
student assistants or peer tutors. If an individual class exceeds the
impact level (30), overload compensation will apply. If the overall
targeted average of 27 is exceeded, overload compensation will
apply. Employees will only receive overload compensation for one of
the two provisions, whichever provides the greater compensation.”
So what does that
mean? A teacher having classes averaging more than 27 students
throughout the day, or a single class over 30 students, were agreed by TEA
and TSD as the threshold for impact. From this one can conclude that 27
is the desired maximum in a class. From a budget perspective, this
means that any class over 30 students automatically qualifies for
“overload compensation”, and any teacher who has an average of more
than 27 students throughout the day qualifies for “overload
compensation”.
What classes at
BMS and TMS would be considered “overloaded” based on the 27
student maximum?
Both middle schools have
several classes that are over the threshold of 27 students, with many over
the 30 student threshold. (Band, Choir, Orchestra and PE were not
included in this investigation).
The following chart was
compiled from the data showing the size of English classes at both
middle schools:
BMS and TMS both have
several English classes that would be considered overcrowded using the 27 students per class as the line where a class
is “overloaded”. Most classes have an overall average
below the 27 threshold with the exception of BMS 7th grade English and BMS 8th
grade Honors English.
6th Grade English. BMS has 30% of their classes over 27 students and 10%
at, or over, 30, where TMS has 11% over 27, and no class at 30 or
over. The overall average 6th grade English class size at BMS
sits at 25.9, and at TMS it is 24.8.
7th Grade English. BMS has more 7th grade students than it has room for. BMS has 88% over 27 and 50% at or over 30 students.
The average class size for 7th grade English at BMS is 29.3, which is
above the 27 threshold. TMS has 22% of its 7th grade English classes over
27, and none at or over 30, with an average class size of 23.2.
TMS does not have any 8th
grade Honors English classes over 27, with an average class size of 24. In contrast, every
8th grade Honors English class at BMS is over 27, and 67%
have 30 or more students, with an average of 30 students per
class. The average for the classes at BMS indicates there are more 8th
grade Honors English students than there is room for at BMS The 8th grade
English classes at BMS only have 17% at 30 with an average of 21.5. It
might be possible to have added an Honors class and taken away a regular
English class to alleviate this, but there are a few things that would have to
align to make that a workable possibility.
The same approach
with the math classes is as follows:
With Math classes, the
more advanced math classes are overloaded. For instance, at both BMS
and TMS the 6th Compressed Math(BMS only), 7th grade Compressed Math and
the Integrated Math are significantly overloaded with averages all over 27.
Almost every level of math class have a number of classes with more than 27
students.
*Although, I could not
locate the data for TMS 6th grade Compressed Math, it appears that course is
not offered at TMS. TMS 6th Grade Math have 67% of the classes with more
than 27 students, and 17% with 30 or more students and an overall average of 28
students. BMS has nearly 30% of the 6th grade math classes with 30 or
more students.
The Integrated Math
classes at BMS all have more than 30 students, with an average of 32.5
students. TMS is slightly less crowded with an average of 28.5.
Both schools have more students taking Integrated Math than they have space.
The same approach for
Social Studies classes at both middle schools is as follows:
With Social Studies
classes, the data seems to follow the English data for both BMS and TMS. Meaning,
the courses for each grade are overloaded if the English classes for that grade
are overloaded.
For example, 20% at BMS
and 44% at TMS of the 6th Grade Social Studies(SS) classes are over
the 27 students threshold.
7th Grade SS is greatly
overcrowded at BMS as were the 7th Grade English classes, with 75% of SS
classes over 27 students and 63% at 30 or more with an average class size of
29.1. This would suggest BMS has more 7th grade students than they have
space if several of the core classes are overloaded. 7th Grade SS at TMS
are also overcrowded with 50% over 27 students and 13% with 30 or more students
and an average class size of 27.1.
BMS also has several 8th
grade SS classes over the 27 threshold (44%) and 33% at 30 or more students with
an average of 25.6 students.
The same approach for
Science classes at both high schools is follows:
The science classes also
follow trends from the data above.
BMS has 67% of 6th Grade
Science classes over 27 and 33% at 30 or above with an average of 28.6.
There are more 6th grade students than they have science class space. TMS
is a little better, but still has 56% of the 6th grade science classes over 27
with an average of 25.7.
As the previous core
classes also indicated there are more 7th grade students at BMS than there
are space in the core classes. At BMS 44% of the 7th grade
science classes have more than 27 students and 33% have 30 or more students
with an average of 26.8. Again TMS is a little better with 25% of 7th
Grade Science classes over 27 and an average of 26.6 students. Both are
approaching an average number of students that would make it impossible to keep
class sizes below the threshold without adding more teachers and cost.
BMS is also has 44% of
8th Grade Science classes above 27 students and 11% at 30 or above with an
average of 24.9. TMS is much better with no classes over 27 students in
8th Grade Science and an average of 23.6.
From the data above it is
clear there are more students in each grade at BMS than spots available
in most of the core classes. Similarly, TMS has several core classes
that are overcrowded but to a lesser degree than BMS.
In looking at other
classes taken by students, there is a clear overcrowding of these classes
also. This further supports there are more students at the middle schools
than they have space.
This conclusion is
highlighted when looking at the Health classes:
BMS has 88% of its 6th
Grade Health classes over 27 students, and 63% at 30 or more students, with an
average of 29.1 students per class.
BMS also has 50% of its 7th Grade Health classes over 27 and 25% at 30 or more,
with an average of 26.9. BMS has 38% of 8th Grade Health classes over 27
students with and average of 26.4.
It is always going to be
that there are some hours during the day where a course may be more crowded
than another, however, when the average number of students is more than the
threshold, or very close, it is more likely to have several classes that are
over that threshold. The charts above are a good example of this
happening in our schools. BMS clearly has more students than it has
spaces, unless they hire more teachers at a cost or overcrowd the classes and
over work the teachers, giving them a little extra compensation.
The variables that effect
overcrowding are the number of teachers and the number of students, both of
which TSD controls.
The number of incoming
residents students is fairly predictable, and TSD can control the number of
transfer students approved. It would seem logical for the decision on
transfer students to be made in the summer(after most “move ins” have
occurred), when enrollment is more predictable and TSD knows how many resident
students will be in the classes. Our understanding is that this is not
the current practice. However TSD is in the process of changing the
transfer practice. I have written a couple blogs on the process up to
this point. You can read them here and here.
Since TSD does not keep
track of the which grades the non-resident students are in, it is difficult to
say exactly how much of an effect this has had on the class size. For
example, BMS has 23 non-resident students and TMS has 27 non-residents, these
non-resident students could be split evenly or all could be in one grade.
Without the data collected and stored, it is impossible to know which is
accurate. This would make a significant difference in the class sizes if
they are all in the same grade.
In my opinion, letting
the transfer students in before the spaces available have been
determined does not make sense unless TSD decides to add more
classes/teachers at a cost. Transfer students can be helpful to the
budget if placed in classes that have available spaces. TSD has not made
adequate effort to place non-resident students where we need space until
the last couple years (and, it appears, only at the elementary
level). There still needs to be improvement at the elementary level, as
well as the secondary level. I am hopeful they are going to implement
some changes so that we see less overcrowding and non-resident students are
used to fill in gaps, not add to the overcrowding in our already overcrowded
classes.
Conclusion.
The TEA contract allows
for classes to be overloaded as long as the teachers are compensated, which may
not be a bad option at the MS and/or HS level. However, similar to
elementary classes, when class sizes increase in a high school class, this
can create class management difficulties and increase the work load of the
teacher. Also, with the move to a more inclusive environment(SpED), class
management will continue to deteriorate if class sizes do not go down.
Limited desk space may also pose a challenge if the class sizes are large enough.
It would appear that either a misappropriation of classes/teachers has occurred
or a miscalculation on the number of students attending the middle
schools.
The miscalculation is
evident with each grade at BMS and TMS.
The raw data from our
records report can be found on our documents page, here.
As
our readers know, I am on the recently formed Transfer Review Committee for
TSD. We had our second meeting on December 9th and made a little
progress so I wanted to provide an update.
We
took what we discussed at the last meeting and made some decisions for
recommendations for Superintendent Dotson. He plans to take our
recommendations and draft a policy for Inter-zone transfers. We have
yet to delve deeply into the nonresident student policy, which I hope will be
done at the upcoming meetings.
Sean
Dotson asked the group to approve(via a vote) some basic principles which
surrounded prioritizing transfer requests. These are the suggestions from
the committee(as I understood them), which will be presented to the Board for
consideration:
Changing the nomenclature to match what is in the statutes.
“Inter-zone” student instead of “intra-district”
student and “non-resident” student instead of
“inter-district” student.
Give School Staff children first priority, before any
transfer student, including inter-zone and nonresident renewals, siblings
etc.
Give all inter-zone transfers priority over any
non-resident student, including renewals, siblings, etc.
With-in the inter-zone transfers, give students displaced
by the boundary change priority over other transfer students.
However, the priority only applies to students currently enrolled in
the schools and lasts only until those students finish 5th grade since the
middle schools and high school boundaries were not changed. As an
example, a transfer student at the elementary school would be given no priority
when applying at the middle(or high) school, with no priority to siblings
who are not currently enrolled in the elementary school.
For the next meeting:
I
hope we address some of the non-resident transfer procedures at our next
meeting. I am hopeful that the District is trying to address the
concerns brought up in the Thought Exchange. From the comments and
ratings in the Thought Exchange it appears that the general desire was to limit
and possibly phase out most non-resident transfers to the extent possible. The
committee has yet to delve into that work, but I am hoping to get there.
As
a side note, in our meeting, the comment was made that “since the State
gives us money for the nonresident transfers shouldn’t we just accept as many
as apply?”. If you are still unclear about how the funding for
students works and how non-resident students impact the budget you can
check out Scott’s blog from a few months ago, here. In short, the per
student cost TSD reports to OSPI is about $2000 higher than what the state
actually provides to the district per student. The district fills that
gap with levy funds collected from Tumwater taxpayers. While the manner
in which TSD has accepted non-resident students in the past has had a negative
effect on the budget, with a more deliberate process, strategically placed
non-resident students could actually have a positive effect on the
budget. Scott and I are optimistic that such a result will be part of the
a product of the transfer committee’s recommendations.
Superintendent
Dotson indicated he would work on drafting some policies and procedures
consistent with the above and we will discuss those policies and procedures at
the next meeting which is set for January 13, 2020.
In
the interim, I would welcome any input for consideration by the Committee.
The Community Forum is scheduled for January 27, 2020 from
7-8:30 at Tumwater Middle School.
During
this forum, the committee will present its original recommendations. This
will be your opportunity to ask questions and to let the Committee and the
District know what your thoughts are on the process and the procedures we have
drafted up to that point. Mark your calendars and plan to attend.
To
see what happened at the first meeting you can read my recap here.
It has been a couple weeks since the
newly formed Transfer Committee met for the first time. With the
first meeting, the committee addressed the first task–inter-zone transfer
procedures. The transfer process is a pretty hot topic and I am going to
try and blog about the meetings.
Some Things I Learned
The committee has about 20 members, including the Principals
from each of the ten schools in the district, a few community members
and other district employees. Sean Dotson led the discussion, which was
done in the large group, and then small groups of 4 or 5.
Past practice appears to be that the Principals are the
primary decision maker as to acceptance of transfers. In
listening to the principals, a few of the elementary schools are denying
several applicants, while the high schools accept most applicants, with
the decision based primarily on capacity determined by the
Principals.
The first meeting focused mainly on the Intra-District
Procedures.
Policy vs Procedure. The Board sets policy, while the
Superintendent implements the procedure, which does not require Board approval.
With the Intra-district transfers, the committee is unlikely to deal with
the policy, and will focus on the procedure. This makes sense as the
policy is very vague and provides a lot of discretion.
Prioritizing. It seems one of the focal points for
the committee will be developing priorities as to transfers. Based
on the conversations, it appears interzone transfers(Tumwater residents who
want to transfer to another Tumwater school) will get priority over those students
that are seeking to transfer from out of district. Within the interzone
transfers, it also appears likely that those affected by the recent boundary
changes may get some time limited priority if the they want to remain with
their prior school.
Reasons for transfer. Historically, the application
allowed space for a reason the transfer is being requested. However, a
few years ago TSD moved to no longer asking for a reason. There were
several principals that pointed out the potential dilemma over deciding the
importance of one student’s need over another(i.e. is one family’s reason more
important than another family’s reason). Accordingly, TSD no longer
asks for a reason and, unless the principals have some knowledge about a
particular situation, the basis for a transfer request does not seem to factor
into the decision.
Timing. The applications have been routinely time stamped,
and TSD’s procedure mandates a response within 45 days. Some of the TSD
schools have accepted applications as early as mid-late January.
Accordingly, there has been some benefit to being “first in time”
with an application. There was some discussion about inequity with this
process as those who have more resources may be able to get in line first.
Some people also pointed out that the timing is really irrelevant, so it makes
sense to just have a deadline and then consider all applications at
the same time. If the reason for the transfer is not considered, and the
timing does not matter, maybe a lottery makes sense. If you have 20 applicants,
and 5 spots, put all 20 names into a hat and draw 5 out.
The next meeting is December 9th. The slated topics are
the Decision Principles–Keeping commitments to already enrolled students,
fiscal impacts, and applicable state and federal laws which affect
transfers.(2)Priorities——Inter-zone, boundary affected students,
Non-resident, renewals vs. new requests, siblings. If you have anything
you want me to take to the committee, please feel free to let me
know.
Mark your calendars for the community forum on January
27th, 7-8:30 pm at Tumwater Middle School. The Committee will be
there taking comments from the public.
