Greenburgh 7 Elementary School Reconfiguration Options

1
Greenburgh 7Elementary School Reconfiguration
Options
Presentation by Elementary Task Force December
2003
2
Meeting Agenda

• Welcome
• Elementary Task force Mission
• Task force Membership
• Decision Process
• Review of Top 3 Reconfiguration Options
• Individual Presentations
• Smaller Group Breakouts
• QA / Feedback

3
Elementary Taskforce Mission

• The Elementary School Taskforce was assembled to
  provide a collective recommendation on how best
  to leverage the Free Choice Grant at the
  elementary school level.
• The groups focus was to
• Better our students overall academic
  achievement
• Increase our students test scores on state wide
  exams
• Maximize the opportunity the grant presented

4
Elementary task force members

• Teachers
• I. Alves
• M. Besig-Zmuda
• E. Cherico
• S. Davenport
• V. Galdua
• M. Heckler
• J. Iamonico
• J. Mirra
• M. Parker
• S. Sheppard
• J. Santo
• N. Rosen
• Administration
• S. Burns
• B. Bennett
• N. Stirling
• P. Constantine
• H. Coles

• Parents
• M. Bee
• C. Brooks
• H. Ha
• T. Jackson
• A. Lake
• D. Rawlins
• S. Spagnoli
• D. Warner
• Community Members
• P. Brown
• R. Forehand
• S. Penchansky
• N. Webb
• Individual Voters
• Each school received 3 votes

5
Taskforce Decision Making Process
Present final recommendation to Board of
Education
6
The Taskforce identified 6 School/Grade
configurations and researched each one.
Option 1 Two K - 4 Two 5- 8
Option 3 K- 1 Two
2- 6
Option 6 K- 2 3 - 6 K- 5
6 - 8
Option 5 Three K- 5
6 - 8
7
The Decision Process

• The Taskforce utilized a Paired Choice Decision
  process to identify the
• top 3 recommended configurations
• On November 1 - the task force agreed to six
  reconfiguration options
• On November 15 - the task force completed a
  decision matrix. They
• Weighted the decision criteria using a pairwise
  comparison analysis
• Assessed the six reconfiguration options against
  each criterion, one at a time, on a 1 9 scale
• The groups raw votes for each option in the
  matrix were multiplied by the criteria weights
• The weighted scores across the matrix were added
  to get a Total Score for each of the six
  reconfiguration options

8
Task force decision criteria

• Curriculum and Instruction The option will build
  on the district's strengths ensure continuity
  of instruction through a spiraling curriculum
  that is integrated, balanced, and flexible.
• Developmentally Appropriate The option will
  provide a developmentally appropriate model for
  all ages.
• Test Scores The option will improve student test
  scores without compromising instruction.
• Equity The option will ensure equal availability
  of school choice and equity for all students
  including special needs students (spec ed, ESL,
  gifted).
• Student Diversity The option will maintain the
  Board of Education's existing policy on diversity
  within the school community.
• Safety The option will maintain or increase
  student safety.

9
Taskforce Decision criteria (continued)

• Community Support and Participation The option
  will promote community support, cooperation and
  participation across all demographics.
• FacilitiesThe option will work within the
  district's current facilities and minimize the
  need for renovation and/or new construction.
• Choice The option will maximize school choice.
• Cost The option will not require significant
  expenditures beyond the scope of the grant's
  budget.
• Transportation The option will work within the
  district's current student transportation
  capability.

10
(No Transcript)
11
1 2 3
12
The taskforce will present their findings for the
top 3 configuration options
Option 1 K- 1 2 - 3
4- 6
Option 2 K- 1 Two
2- 6
Option 3 Three K- 5
6 - 8
13
RECONFIGURATION 1

• K-1, 2-3, 4-6

14
Why maintain the current configuration?

• Contrary to the statement in the grant that the
  present configuration has not worked, there are a
  number of strengths to the present configuration.
  According to Dr. Alan Robertson, Director Ed.
  Services, Finneytown School Dist., Cinn. Ohio,
• The Princetonconfiguration groups students
  developmentally (academically and socially) and
  provides the opportunity to focus on a smaller
  range of student needs. This arrangement
  increases opportunities for a greater range of
  academic enrichment, academic intervention, and
  to match teaching and learning styles within a
  specific grade level.

15
Self Assessment

• A self assessment of the elementary schools was
• done by the entire staff. In addition, a team of
  parents and
• staff went into every grade level classroom,
  including
• special education classes, art, music, library
  and
• physical education classes.
• The self assessment showed problems in the way
  district-
• wide programs have been implemented.

16
Self Assessment (cont.)

• Namely
• Lack of articulation between buildings which has
  led to divisions in the staff.
• Lack of consistency in the ongoing training of
  staff in
• the language to be used in instruction.
• teaching strategies.
• content of the district wide reading and math
  programs.
• Curriculum development has not been completed
  which has led to a break in the continuity from
  grade to grade and has made building transitions
  harder for the students.

17
Models

• To address the concerns revealed by the
  self-assessment, we propose
• implementing one or more research-based
  curriculum models.
• From a list of over thirty models, the task force
  has narrowed our
• choices to
• Comer School Development Model
• International Baccalaureate Program
• Accelerated Schools Model
• These models are compatible with each of the
  three physical
• configuration options. They will described in
  detail at the end of the
• presentation of the options.

18
Grade Span Configuration

• To determine whether to reorganize, we need to
  look at grade span configuration research.
• According to the Northwest Regional Educational
  Laboratory researchers
• Research on the impact of transitions and
  grade span configuration on
• student achievement focuses on the middle
  grades when students
• move from traditional elementary
  self-contained classrooms to a school
• in which students change classes and
  teachers every periodthis is
• where test scores decline.
• Very little research attempts the more
  difficult task of determining if a
  cause-and-effect relationship exists between
  grade configuration and academic
  achievement, while controlling for other factors,
  such as school size, student socio-economic
  status, and teacher experience.
• No proof exists that there is a
  cause-and-effect relationship between
• grade span configuration, transitions, and
  student achievement.

 

19
Grade Span Configuration(cont.)

• In fact, local scores from surrounding districts
  show no correlation (as you will see in a later
  slide).
• In Ossining, with a configuration and community
  similar to ours, scores continue to improve. A
  site visit to the Ossining district by a team
  from Greenburgh found staff, administrators and
  the community uniformly supportive of this
  configuration.
• There are other successful districts in
  Westchester with this configuration. We need
  to study them. In fact, at one time,
  Greenburgh was the model for this configuration
  in the country.
• Therefore, maintaining the current configuration
  in no way suggests business as usual. The grade
  span research and the self assessment clearly
  show that the configuration is not the problem.
  By maintaining the current configuration, in
  fact, we will be able to focus squarely on the
  specific areas that the self assessment showed
  needed changing in the implementation
  articulation, staff and curriculum development.

 
20
Grade Span Configuration (cont.)

• Without having to focus on the dramatic changes
  that would occur through building and staff
  reorganization, we would be able to concentrate
  on the very areas that impact student achievement
  which
• Would allow for consistent staff development
  throughout schools
• Maintain greatest possible heterogeneity
• Maintain current level of staff expertise in
  classroom and special
• area teachers. Research shows this has a direct
  impact on student achievement.
• Allow for the greatest horizontal articulation
  within buildings at each grade level
• Allows for greatest depth of development of peer
  relationships
• Offers most opportunities for mainstreaming and
  partnering with other classes for special Ed.
  Students

 
21
Curriculum and Instruction

• By making the changes necessary, the current
  configuration will build on
• the districts current strengths and ensure the
  continuity of instruction with
• a curriculum that will be consistently
  implemented from one building to the
• next for grades k-6.
• Current grade levels are maintained to allow for
  consistency and equityin staff development and
  delivery of instructional programs.
• This option
• Allows for teacher expertise in particular
  grade levels to be developed
• in-depth, and applied uniformly so that all
  students receive excellent
• instruction.
• Encourages teacher peer coaching and maximizes
  collaboration across each grade level.
• Allows the children to develop relationships
  across the entire Greenburgh
• community.
• Allows use of resources, both human and
  material are maximized.

 
22
Curriculum and Instruction(Cont.)

• Allows for equal educational opportunities for
  each student by ensuring
• that staff development is consistent
  across each grade level.
• More classrooms per grade mean more
  opportunities
• To match students to teachers according to
  learning and teaching styles
• To place students together with other students
  with whom they work well.
• 3. To separate students who dont get along
• 4. For teacher collaboration or mentoring
  at a specific grade level

 
23
Curriculum and Instruction(Cont.)

• 5. For a special focus on problems particular
  to that grade level.
• 6. For new curricular instructional programs
  instituted time to mature and provide the
  best results possible. Examples Balanced
  Literacy, Mathland
• 7. To build a coherent educational program.
• 8. To coordinate long and short-range lesson
  planning across the grades.
• 9. For collaborative team lesson planning which
  allows teachers to use their
• depth of experience and new skills
  creatively.

 
24
Developmentally Appropriate

• For grades K-6, the current physical
  configuration allows each school to specialize
  in the instruction of students of a similar age,
  social and academic
• maturity, interests and physical development.
  It
• Maintains the current rich level of
  specialization and expertise in art,
• music, library and physical education
  including special extra curricular age
• appropriate programs.
• Allows for tailoring of parental involvement
  workshops for particular age
• levels, i.e.. Parent University.
• Allows for maximum and consistent administrative
  involvement and expertise at each grade
  level, for special programs and workshops.

 
25
Test Scores

• This option will improve student test scores
  without compromisinginstruction. The
  self-assessment revealed as stated earlier
• Inconsistent staff development
• Programmatic differences
• Curriculum development is still in flux.
  The math curriculum has been worked on through
  the leadership of the Math Instructional
  Specialist. The language arts curriculum is still
  incomplete because there has not been
  consistency in the leadership of the Language
  Arts Instructional Specialists.
• Insufficient support staff
• Lack of building to building articulation

 
26
Test Scores
To improve test scores, we need consistent staff
development in allcurricular areas, articulation
between schools, improved instructionalstrategies
, and commitment to a three-to-five year plan to
allow realchange to take place. Other districts
with similar configurations are doing well, and
we shouldresearch these to find out what we
might adopt. There is no correspondence between
the number of transitions and the improvement of
test scores.
 
27
Test Scores (Cont.)
For example, White Plains, Elmsford, and Trinity
school in New Rochelleare K-5 or K-6 schools
socio-economically similar to Greenburgh. Their
2002 results for the 4th grade reading test are
within the same range as Greenburgh Central 7
 
28
Test Scores (Cont.)
29
Test Scores (Cont.)
Fourth grade ELA score trends from 1999 to 2002
 
30
Test Scores (Cont.)
 
31
Test Scores (Cont.)
Fourth grade math score trends from 2000 to the
present
 
32
Test Scores(Cont.)

• Successful transitions are accomplished by
• Grouping students into teams
• Between school visits
• Special assemblies for new students
• Continuous communication between the facilities
  and administrators of the new school
• Test scores will only rise when there is
  sufficient articulation between schools and when
  staff development is consistent throughout the
  schools

 
33
Equity

• This option
• Ensures the greatest availability of school
  choice of all the reconfiguration models, and
  equity for all students including special
  needs students (Spec. Ed., ESL, gifted)
• Maintains the boards current policy on
  heterogeneity which balances
• classes according to race, sex, academic
  ability and culture.
• Provides the most opportunities to Special
  needs students by
• providing the most opportunities for
  partnering with mainstream
• classes.
• This increases opportunities for mainstreaming
  to provide the least
• restrictive environment for each child.

 
34
Equity Special Education
The development of social relationships is
sometimes very difficultfor students with
disabilities, and it would be very beneficial for
them to be able to progress through the grade
levels with the same students year after year,
rather than having to establish social
relationships with a slightly or totally
different group of students each year. through
the current configuration -- Michelle Doll,
Director of Pupil Services, Finneytown School
Dist., Cinn. Ohio
 
35
Student Diversity
We have organized our schools with a goal in
mind. We believe that education is not only
about books and papers. Its about people. The
content of our curriculum ultimately relates to
people, their beliefs, their customs, their
attitudes, their hopes, their expectations, their
prides, their prejudices. We believe that our
childrens education is enhanced by their
proximity to and experience with children of
different backgrounds and races. This, we
believe, is not a substitute for their knowing
how to read, write, and compute, but a
supplement, a laboratory in which they can apply
their skills in a relevant and meaningful
way. -- Dr. Robert D. Frelow
 
36
Student Diversity(Cont.)

• This option will maintain the Board of
  Educations existing policy on diversity within
  the school community.
• This is a small district, and three schools are
  too few to offer real choice for everyone, and
  decreases the opportunity for true heterogeneous
  grouping

 
37
Safety
Current levels of student safety will be
maintained, since the physical configuration
remains unchanged.
 
38
Community Support and Participation
 The current configuration eliminates the
districts school boundaries, which helps to end
perceived social discrimination between the
student and parent populations.The benefits of
diversity would be lost if this configuration is
changed.
39
Facilities
No impact. No additional cost.
 
40
Choice
Choice will be provided through the model chosen
and the two themes at the Individual
schools. This method will enrich students
educational experience, while still allowingthe
interchange of information between classrooms at
the same grade level, since all classes at the
same grade level remain in the same building.
This will also fulfill the requirements of the
grant, and is similar to the strategy currently
being implemented at the high school.
 
41
Cost
Because there are no facility-adaptation costs,
this option maximizes the money available for
staff development, which showed up as a weakness
in the self-assessment.
 
42
Transportation
 
No impact. No additional cost.
43
Bibliography
Comer School Development Program Yale Child
Study Center URL http//info.med.yale.edu/comer/
Doll Robertson Curriculum and Testing,
Special Education topics Finneytown School
District, Cinn. Ohio URL www.finneytown.org
Frelow, Robert D. Orientation Day speech,
Greenburgh Central 7,September 2, 1980 Grade
Span ConfigurationWho Goes Where?Northwest
Regional Education Laboratory URL
www.nwrel.org/request/july97/article5.html Hopki
ns, Gary Grade Configuration Who Goes
Where?Education World. URL www.eductation-world.
com/a_admin/admin017.shtml
 
44
Bibliography (Cont.)
Howley, Craig B. Grade Span Configurations
American Association of School Administrators
URL www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_03/howley.h
tm Renchler, Ron School Organization Grade
Span Educational Resources Information Center
URL http//eric.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/organiz
ation/grade_span.html
 
45
Reconfiguration Option 1K-1, 2-3,
4-6Strengths Challenges

• Strengths
• Other districts are successful.
• Less money needed for physical changes.
• More money available for staff development.
• Maintains greatest heterogeneity.
• Developmental support.
• Peer relationships.
• Greatest horizontal articulation.
• Maintains current level of staff expertise.
• Most opportunity and flexibility for special
  education programming.
• Maximizes specialty area resources.

• Challenges
• Greater number of transitions.
• Transitions at key testing levels.
• Could lose grant allocation.
• Does not address middle school.
• Co-dependent on other schools.
• Minimum vertical articulation.

46
Reconfiguration Option 2

• Configuration K-1, 2-6, 2-6

47
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Curriculum and Instruction
• Maintain integrity of a comprehensive early
  childhood program, which incorporates the K-1
  component of the spiralling curriculum.
• This will afford young children two full years to
  explore curriculum through multiple modalities
  and for staff and parents to best understand each
  child's learning style.
• With this understanding, families can then choose
  between two exemplary schools each with an
  integrated and spiralling 5-year curriculum.

48
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Developmentally Appropriate
• A specialized K-1 school can best provide a
  challenging yet appropriate environment for young
  children. It also offers critical programs for
  parents that are necessary for long-term success
  in school.
• In the 2-6 schools, children will be ready to
  participate more fully in mixed-age experiences
  and for multi-year planning dedicated to their
  individual needs.

49
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Test Scores
• No child will be tested (in state-wide exams) in
  a year he or she changes schools.
• As of today, children will have two years in
  their school before their first testing year. In
  2006, testing will occur in 3rd grade.

50
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Equity
• K-1
• All children will have equal access to all early
  childhood resources, staff expertise, and
  curriculum.
• 2-6
• Special education classes may have larger grade
  spans than they currently do.
• We must dedicate resources to maintain equity and
  quality of special area programs library, music,
  band, chorus, physical education, art, science,
  and technology.

51
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Student Diversity
• BOEs existing policy on diversity is maintained
  at the K-1 level. No lottery needed.
• The impact on the BOEs policy at the 2 6 level
  is minimized with a well-designed and well-run
  lottery.

52
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Safety
• K-1
• No new safety issues are created. This option
  maintains monitors on all K-1 buses.
• 2-6
• Transportation waves enhance safety for all
  students by separating younger students from
  older students.

53
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Parent and Community Participation
• In K-1, children, teachers and parents become
  partners in thinking about options and choices.
• Having all families working together in K-1
  establishes a shared culture of school-community
  collaboration.
• Having only two 2-6 schools means each school can
  then enjoy benefits of a large parent and
  community network.

54
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Facilities
• Proposed schools can accommodate students.
• K-1 No new construction needed
• 2-6 Playground space may present issues. (We
  would like regular access to the Webb park field
  space for the older students at Highview.)

55
Playgrounds Bailey
250 ft.
56
Playgrounds Highview
Approx. Total21,100 Sq. Ft.
X X X X X
X
X X
12,600 Sq. Ft.
57
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Choice
• Each child and family is able to become
  acquainted with the meaning and the merits of
  choice through exploration during the K-1 years.
• Families can then make a more informed choice
  between 2-6 programs.
• Full choice then is offered in two separate 2-6
  schools, each with different themes or
  instructional models.

58
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Cost
• Transportation costs will increase for safetys
  sake. This is not included in the school choice
  budget.
• This option requires additional funding for
  special areas that may not be part of the VSC
  budget. Maximum cost is 225,000, including band,
  chorus, art, library, music, science, technology,
  and gym equipment.

59
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Transportation
• Two waves for 2nd 6th graders need thirteen
  additional bus routes.
• One wave for 2nd 6th graders needs additional
  bus monitors.

60
Option 2 K-1, 2-6, 2-6

• Final Thoughts
• Articulation among schools and collaboration
  within community is essential for any option to
  succeed.
• K-1 / 2-6 articulation drives this option because
  K-1 and 2-6 staff must both work together to
  assure that families make the most informed
  choices for their children.
• This option may provide a common ground for our
  diverse and legitimate concerns.

61
Reconfiguration Option 2K-1, 2-6,
2-6Strengths Challenges

• Strengths
• Cost reduction.
• Common entrance into middle school.
• Parents have time to learn about 2-6 buildings.
• Promotes greater community spirit.
• Fulfills grant requirement.
• Developmental support.
• No transitions for testing years.
• Vertical articulation present.
• Opportunity for K-1 to explore choice.

• Challenges
•  
• Appropriate distribution of specialty areas.
• Transition occurs after grade 6 with one year in
  middle school to prepare for grade 8 State test.
• Classrooms and specialty area classes too small
  for grades 4-6 at Highview building.
• Outdoor play area insufficient for older children
  at Highview.
• Horizontal articulation.

62
Option 3

• Configuration K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8
• Three developmentally appropriate schools will
  transition into one developmentally appropriate
  middle school with differing themes and/or models.

63
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Curriculum and Instruction
• Models provide a framework for
  implementing curriculum- common language
  and goals for a 6 year period
• Vertical articulation
• Increased accountability
• Better coordinated Staff Development

64
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Developmentally appropriate
• Most common configuration
• Better supports developmentally appropriate
  programs
• Increased school ownership

65
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Test Scores
• Increased accountability, vertical/horizontal
  
• articulation, building wide staff
• development, AIS programs with specific
• benchmarks over several years and long term
  school partnership with parents increased
• test scores

66
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Equity
• Most choice for most students (special
  education programming)
• Increase or reassignment of staff to support
  gifted talented/model facilitator
• Addresses Middle School Configuration,
  articulation, sharing of elementary secondary
  experiences

67
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Student Diversity
• Lottery System- support diversity
• Greenburgh experience- Magnet
• Other district experiences-White Plains
• Improved school through programs and
  configurations increased Diversity

68
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Safety
• Increase school ownership
• Long term relationships
• Policies, Procedures, Practice

69
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Community Support and Participation
• Longer and more enriching experiences for
  families and staff
• Comparison of schools/programs to foster
  improved schools will yield more community
  participation
• Better defined/diversified middle school
  program should yield more support

70
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Facilities
• Minor renovations depending on what is
  necessary verses what is wanted
• Schools- K, 1, 2 (three sections each)
• 3, 4, 5 (two sections each)
• 76 rooms available, 60 needed

71
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Choice
• The most choice
• Best management of themes, models,
• and vertical articulation
• Fulfills requirements of grant

72
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Cost
• Accelerated Schools- 45,000 (3yrs)
• Comer Model - 60,000 (1yr)
• 
  30,000 (2yrs)
• IB - 50,000
  (1yr)
• 30-50,000
  (2yrs)
• Middle School Wall - 7,000
• Principal and Guidance Counselor

73
Option 3 K-5, K-5, K-5, 6-8

• Transportation
• Accommodates configuration-some new
  scheduling for middle school and elementary
  schools.
• Transportation analysis needed.

74
Reconfiguration Option 3K-5, K-5, K-5,
6-8Strengths Challenges

• Strengths
• No transitions
• Greater choice, fulfills NCLB requirement.
• Addresses middle school.
• Vertical articulation.
• Continuity within schools for families and
  children.
• Older children with younger children
• Ownership of building.
• Students in one building during testing years.
• Healthy competition.

• Challenges
• Maintaining balance through the lottery process?
• General expense, facilities, staffing,
  transportation.
• Academic balance.
• Controlled choice.
• Horizontal articulation.
• Older children with younger children.
• Self-contained special education classes have
  limited choice.
• Students in the community come together for the
  first time in grade 6.
• Unhealthy competition.

75
International Baccalaureate

• Acclaimed Secondary Program with a new Primary
  Years Schools Program
• International Perspective
• Foreign Language Requirement
• Inquiry Based Learning
• Learners Constructing Meaning
• Supports present programs and curriculum

76
Comer School Development Program

• Research based model - Guiding Principles
  Consensus, Collaboration, No-fault
• Parent Team, School Planning Management Team,
  Student Staff Support Team, Comprehensive
  School Plan, Assessment Modification, Staff
  Development
• Committed to the total development of all
  children by creating learning environments that
  support childrens physical, cognitive,
  psychological, language, social, and ethical
  development.
• Essentials of Literacy, Balanced Curriculum,
  Teachers Helping Teachers

77
Accelerated Schools

• Research based model - All students will thrive
  in an atmosphere of high expectations and
  engaging curriculum.
• Designed to bring all students into the education
  mainstream by building on their natural strengths
  and having consistently high expectations for
  them, regardless of their background or ability
  level.
• Emphasis on placing school governance and
  decision-making in the hands of school staff,
  parents, and students
• Unity of Purpose, Empowerment Coupled with
  Responsibility, Building on Strengths, Powerful
  Learning, Process