RSS Feed
Email Us
Follow Us
Like Us
Photo Gallery
GeistTV
Lawrence Township’s two elementary magnet schools will be taking a hit next year with Monday’s School Board vote to decrease enrollment for 2009-10. Students at Forest Glen and Indian Creek also will lose about 40 minutes of instructional time due to a new shuttling system.
On the surface, the votes seem inconsistent with the district’s push for greater choice and expanded magnet programs at the elementary level. However, board members say it’s just a temporary hiccup in a master plan to increase magnet offerings district wide in 2010-11.
Eighteen months ago, the district began studying how best to balance enrollments at its 11 elementary schools. That initiative, known as EXCEL, evolved into a quest for educational equity in a very diverse school district.
The new plan calls for setting up magnet-type programs at all 11 elementary schools and giving parents a choice to send their child to any school on their side (east or west) of the district. Only Forest Glen would remain a stand-alone magnet program, offering a dual immersion experience, where both native English and native Spanish speakers would be immersed in foreign language.
The current Global Studies program at Forest Glen likely will be moved to Amy Beverland, which would adopt an International Studies focus for 2010-11.
With all the logistics to work out, the district needed an extra year to shuffle staff, provide additional training and work out the nightmare of transportation. Yet, school administrators and board members felt the problem of overcrowding at some schools — and declining population at others, like Amy Beverland — needed to be dealt with for next school year. Hence, the vote to decrease the number of incoming first graders at Forest Glen and Indian Creek by one classroom in 2009-10.
Board members received dozens of emails from parents and teachers, warning them not to make a hasty cut this year without first having a comprehensive, workable plan in place for the entire elementary transformation in 2010-11. Several patrons also spoke at Monday night’s meeting.
Not only did the board choose to limit options for next year’s first graders, it also voted to decrease the school day at its marquee magnet programs by 30-40 minutes in favor of saving on transportation costs next year. Instead of instructional time, the kids will be spending more time on the bus, riding to and from school. The shuttle system also will go into effect for students in the STRETCH gifted and talented programs. These students will ride their neighborhood bus to their “home” school, then be transported to the magnet or STRETCH school site.
Add it up, and these students may be losing close to three weeks of instructional time over the course of the school year. Forest Glen Kindergarten Teacher Becca McBride told the board, if anything, she could use more time at school, not less. School Board Vice President Henry Fernandez, himself a Forest Glen parent, was the only board member to vote against this proposal. The driving factor was that the move is projected to save the school system about $800,000 in transportation costs.
Board Member Adam Goldstein sized up the temporary cuts at the magnet schools as an investment into a long-range plan to increase school choice for all Lawrence Township families. While many parents and staff members are supportive of the future plan for elementary programs, their excitement is tempered with uncertainty, as the administration has yet to produce a workable plan for 2010-11 and teachers have not been told what the shake up will mean for their jobs.
A diverse student population calls for creative solutions, and the Lawrence Township administration has done a good job of involving stakeholders in shaping their future. However, the logistics of implementation are proving to be challenging.
Unbelievable. So what will get cut–P.E., music, art, and technology, not to mention the nearly non-existent recess? I transferred my daughter from a neighborhood school to Indian Creek because of its outstanding reputation and have been less than impressed! And now she will get even less education time, the quality of which has already been disgustingly reduced in order to teach to NCLB tests? This is absurd! Why did the board rule to punish magnet school students, whose parents want a BETTER education for their children, not worse? What can parents do about this? They obviously haven’t been listening during the many meetings they’ve feigned.
I’m thankful for the opportunity your publication offers to write here and hopefully lend some balance to your article about the 11/24 Lawrence Township School Board vote impacting elementary schools. My perspective is as a mother of an Amy Beverland 4th Grader, PFO president (3 years), and someone closely involved in small and large group meetings on the topic for the past two years. I appreciate your effort to cover a complicated subject within limited space, but rather than report on the intricacies of this massive undertaking, the article instead focussed on the projected short-term sacrafices of a minority (22%) of the elementary student population.
As anyone involved with this project will surely agree, re-designing Lawrence Township’s Public School elementary system is a challenging and delicate task….trying to strengthen programming for the majority while not eliminating what is working well for the minority. It is frankly a project that could make or break the public school district that serves our community.
There were serveral ommissions and/or errors that, if included, might have presented a more balanced picture of our public school system attempting to better serve all members within a changing and vastly diverse demographic. Hopefully this will become more evident to readers when they consider the comments below:
1) Ommission: The process that led to the changes reported on, featured nearly 2,000 parents, teachers and administators having input on both the problems of over-crowded and under-utilzed elementary schools, and the possible solutions. Input was delivered in person at focus group and town hall settings, and via mail and on-line surveys. The process has been thoroughly documented and publicized quite well, and is available for all to see at: https://district.ltschools.org/initiatives/elementary-design.php
2) Error: You correctly reported that this is the first phase of a number of changes that will be implemented in the next few years. You incorrectly reported that Amy Beverland will be designated as a “global or international studies” school. Determining the specific areas of focus for each elementary school is still a work in progress.
3) Ommission: The change to a shuttle system for Magnet and Stretch students is going back to a shuttle system which was used when these special programs were first launched. Stretch and Magnet students seemed to do exceedingly well before the shuttle system went away the first time, and hopefully they’ll continue to excel in the shuttle world.
4) Ommission: You correctly reported that changing back to a shuttle system will save and estimated $814,631annually, for the cash-strapped Lawrence Township School District, by creating a more efficient bus transportation system. Getting away from a bus system that in effect chauffers the 22% that choose specialized programs (magnets/stretch) in these tough economic times seems logical by all standards. You ommited to mention that the drain created by this inefficient bussing system of NOT shuttling students to special programs, puts a financial drain on the school offerings for the 78% of elementary students who do not attend special programs. It seems likely that a public school system could utilize such a large savings to improve eductional offerings to all families.
5) Ommission: These changes were debated publicly and privately by a School Board dominated by members who are parents of children enrolled in the magnet programs (that includes the current and previous school board make-up). Obviously our School Board members believe in the strengths of such specialized programs, but also understand that the public school system is intended to deliver such great programing in a way that doesn’t detract from the experiences of the majority of students who are NOT enrolled or admitted (by Lottery nonetheless) into special programming.
Respectfully,
Lorene Graves, c-317-695-1058
Admirals Bay/Lawrence Township Resident
So you wouldn’t be OK with cutting your Amy Beverland child’s school day and lengthening his/ her bus ride, but it’s OK because the majority of students are not enrolled in the magnet programs and minorities don’t matter? With attitudes like that running the school, I guess I am glad I got my child out of there!
There was never ONCE any mention of cutting the magnet school day.
Kathy – Your assumptions about my beliefs are off-base, but it would be more productive to have a conversation rather then back and forth blogging. If you’d like to work to improve the situation with a fellow concerned community member, call anytime. Thanks for caring enough to read and write. Lorene 695-1058
I am delighted that we have the opportunity in a public forum for discussion about that which is unarguably the most important thing to our community, our children.
I would like to offer that I know a little bit about this process, what the Board was thinking when it took the vote, and what the goals are of which this vote was a small step on the journey to achieving these goals. I am delighted to share that with anyone who wants to listen and ask honest questions.
I encourage anyone and everyone to contact me, the other Board Members, and/or the administration before printing assumptions. Mrs. McKeen, for example, was kind enough to write me personally which gave me the opportunity to clear up many of her concerns.
Balancing the interests of all of the families in Lawrence Township with less money each year is a delicate effort for which this Board donates its time solely out of care and concern for all of the kids of this District. I encourage everyone to look for the possibility that we are making what we surely believe to be the best decision we can while facing some very difficult challenges. I ask everyone also to think that many decisions make at great deal more sense with all the facts at hand than at face value over a single issue.
If you are enthusiastic or interested or angry or curious, or… appalled, please take the time to talk to those who have all of the information, and inform yourself by asking honest questions. In turn, you may find that you agree, have additional input, or still disagree, but can contribute in a positive and meaningful manner.
Adam Goldstein
Secretary, MSDLT Board of Education
AdamGoldstein@MSDLT.k12.IN.US
Thanks for your response, Adam. And indeed, Lorene, there is certainly more information than could be put into one article.
As I have told all board members in private emails, I am grateful that they give of their time to study the issues and make decisions on behalf of all LT students. Restructuring the entire elementary school system is a huge undertaking. And I do applaud their efforts to involve the community.
I genuinely believe the district is on the right track with its vision to make every elementary school in essence a “magnet,” with a specialized area of focus. I hope this will result in less resentment and an enhanced educational opportunity for all LT children.
I understand that saving $800,000+ in transportation costs is hard to pass up. But cutting the hours of the school day for the kids in these programs for one year seems premature when, in all likelihood, IC will not be a magnet school in the future. As Dr. Fernandez said, there should have been other options presented.
That said, I’m more appalled at the reduction of first grade classes next year. Without the future plans hashed out, the board has voted to put a one-year “hole” in these programs. If I had an incoming first grader, I would be quite upset.
Furthermore, its my understanding that FG and IC are not “overcrowded” but just at capacity. The real issue is that the elementary aged population has decreased as a whole in Lawrence Township, causing many schools’ numbers to plunge in recent years. This has little to do with the existence of magnet programs.
My question to Lorene (whom I have met and respect), is why do AB parents turn out to speak in favor of every proposal that would hurt the magnet programs? It was the same way a couple years ago when the board was considering shutting down Immersion kindergarten. I fail to understand why cutting one or two classes at IC and FG means so much to you.
The main frustration I had with the vote was that it’s a one-year patch job that could totally need to be overhauled again for 2010-11. Right now, we don’t have a clear enough vision of what the new elementary programming and districting will look like. We have ideas — good ideas — but logistics need to be worked out before hasty action is taken. “Overcrowding” is not a real issue at FG or IC. There was no need to cut classrooms down for one year, reducing choice for incoming first graders in 2009.
I read with interest the comments made by participants in this blog, with special interest given to the comments of Ms. Graves and Mr. Goldstein. I think it important for any readers of the comments herein to consider the potential motiviation behind comments made, in addition to considering the comments on their face. I am a parent of an Indian Creek student. My family’s home (or neighborhood) school is Mary Castle. As Mr. Goldstein suggested with regard to making informed commentary, I have attended School Board work sessions, I have attended School Board meetings, I have spoken publicly at Board meetings, I have spoken directly with certain Board members and I have attended the public forums for community input. To the extent that information was made public via any of the above mechanisms, I have listened when appropriate, I have shared my analysis of the situation when appropriate, but above all, I have thought critically, and independently, about the Excel and Beyond Excel initiatives.
I must take issue and/or offer my observations concerning certain of Ms. Graves “corrections” of Ms. Gates’ original article:
1) Ms. Graves states in point 1 that over 2,000 members of the community gave feedback regarding Excel and Beyond Excel. This is true on its face, but Ms. Graves does not comment on the substance behind that statement. Participants in the public forums will vouch that many of the same people attended multiple sessions. Because of the manner in which the forums were conducted it was possible for a single person’s input to be represented as new input at each succeeding forum. In addition, the options for response provided on the feedback cards were limited, and to many parents biased, in that they implied a particular point of view with no opportunity to modify or clarify an answer. In other words, it was possible for people to “vote” multiple times and to bias any results taken from the forums. While certain of the the sentiments expressed at these forums are unbiased (i.e. people said what they believed), the volume of expression of any given sentiment cannot be considered credible because of the uncontrolled, random and haphazard method by which input was solicited. A professional pollster or other collector of public input would be extremely critical of holding up results from these forums as being credible due to the manner in which the forums were conducted and administered.
2) Regarding point 4, Ms. Graves implies that the savings in transportation costs would free dollars to be spent upon classroom instruction/content. I beleive this analysis to be false. Per my understanding of the District’s financial analysis, transportation expenditures are projected to exceed revenues available for transportation if no changes are made. As a simple example, the Administration projects that revenue will be $1.0 million, but expenses will be $1.8 million. The shuttling system as proposed is projected to reduce transportation expense by $800K, meaning that expense would equal revenue of $1.0 million. Reducing transportation costs does not, of itself, increase dollars available for classrooms because the revenue wasn’t available to begin with.
3) With regard to point 5, Ms. Graves states that the Excel and Beyond Excel initiatives were “dominated” by Board members with children enrolled at magnet schools. This is a false statement. The current Board has only one member with a child enrolled in a magnet, and that is Dr. Fernandez. While certain current and former Board members may have had children who at one time attended a magnet school, the Board is most certainly not “dominated” by people with children enrolled in a magnet.
With regard to Ms. Gates’ question of why Amy Beverland (and certain other district) parents (including Ms. Graves) are adversarial to the existence of a magnet program, one should consider the long-term impact of the Administration’s proposed changes. First, understand that the Administration, per School Board policy, has no policy-based obligation to design an elementary school system that is balanced in socio-economic terms. Second, consider the socio-economic and demographic disparity that exists between nothern and southern parts of Lawrence Township. Third, consider that the Administration’s proposal appears poised to revert to a neighborhood shool system, whereby a student’s geographic location within the district will dictate where that student attends school. Fourth, consider the Administration’s statements that it projects that 90% of families would choose to attend their neighborhood school if given the choice. Fifth, and most importantly, consider that part of Amy Beverland’s student population (and that of many other schools) is made up of students transported to the school from southern Lawrence Township. Based on the above facts, I believe that certain groups within the township are not motivated merely by a distaste for the magnet program, but for reasons much more subtle. The Administration’s plan will likely result in the cessation of transporting students from southern LT into northern elementaries. This means that the student population of each elementary will likely be more closely linked to the school’s surrounding population. And this means that student populations in any given elementary will likely be less diversified, and more homogenous. In my opinion, the changes as currently proposed will result in greater separation of certain socio-economic and demographic groups, and I believe there are certain groups of parents who favor that outcome.
Lastly, Mr. Goldstein states that he would be “delighted to share” his understanding of the Excel and Beyond Excel initiatives. I find it disappointing that Mr. Goldstein took time to respond to this blog, yet did not take time to “share” any specific analysis of the pros/cons of Excel and Beyond Excel, and I find it disappointing that Mr. Goldstein did not exercise this opportunity to explain his reversal of position on the value of magnet schools, and his statements (pre-election) of unmitigated and unwavering support for the preservation of the magnet programs as they currently exist.
Regards,
Chris Bradburn
As follow up to my original comments, I must amend my statement regarding current School Board members with children enrolled at magnet schools. Mr. Goldstein currently has a child enrolled at a magnet school, and I inadvertantly omitted him. This fact does not change my observation that the Board is not dominated by parents with students enrolled in magnet schools.
Sincerely,
Chris Bradburn
I am a parent of 2 Indian Creek graduates! Our family had a wonderful experience at Indian Creek and received an exceptional education. When I attend academic award ceremonies at LN currently and in the past, it is quite amazing to me to see the majority of the top academic students attended either Indian Creek or Forest Glen!!
I understand the need to adjust the balance in our elementary schools but please do not disrupt what is being accomplished at these programs. They are very unique and very successful!!!
As a real estate agent I understand the need for our district to be competitive with other local school systems but to accomplish this at the expense of our children is unacceptable. I hope the district takes the time to explore all possibilities with the least amount of disruption to the students education.
As the mother of a first grade Indian Creek student who would otherwise go to Amy Beverland , I have to say that I am beyond disappointed with the public school system in Lawrence. Indian Creek has been wonderful, but the board is in effect, telling my husband and I that our child is not important to them. At least not important enough to not have to spend a couple of hours on a bus every day.
My son has always shown a great deal of interest in science education. My college roommate is now a professor of science education at Bucknell University, and my husband has been taking him along to the lab since he was big enough to sit in a stroller. We chose this district because of the magnet school option. We wanted our son to have the opportunity to be immersed in a math and science rich curriculum. We did not choose to pay outrageously high property taxes to give him the opportunity to get to know his bus driver so well.
Tell me with a straight face that would be politically correct if it were one of the kids from the southern end of the district who gets transported to Amy Beverland daily. Just how much do you suppose that costs? What message are those poor parents given? We can “fix” your kid, but in order to do it we have to bus them halfway across town? Forget about volunteering in their classroom, because your help is not needed. What a joke!
Please do me a favor: stop deciding how to spend my money for me. Cut me back the check that I waste in property taxes to this school system. I’ll take the money and spend it where I see fit, most likely at Holy Cross.
Any school system that can’t educate “gifted” children in a regular inclusion classroom where they “can” reach all but the most mentally impaired really should read a couple of pedagogy books before it tries anything else. The real “problem” with the STRETCH programs is how would Mary Castle and Brook Park ever meet NCLB standards without those kids? Why, they might have to teach something in the “regular” rooms in those buildings next year.
PS: As someone who helps the kids who are encouraged to drop out of LC and LN pick up the pieces of their young lives on a daily basis….maybe you should turn your attention to what is glaringly obvious. Fix the middle and high schools first. Our drop out rate is humiliatingly high.
Hello All,
Yes, yes I apologize but I am no longer able to remain silent.
I commend informed parents such as Chris Bradburn for being able to discuss in an adult and logical manner the issues.
On the other hand, I do think further information would be helpful as this appears to be turning into a session of bash the admin. There are currently two of eleven elementary schools in this district making adequate yearly progress. They are Amy Beverland and Indian Creek all others missed the mark so to speak. Of these schools some are in the redesign process. I am unaware of how familiar any respondants on this chat board are with regard to NCLB legislation. I have read the legislation and will admit to some, though limited, understanding of what it means for our schools and our district. For those who want to know, the ENTIRE corporation is failing with regard to NCLB.
The administration must ,due to this legislation, make changes in order to continue as a system, if progress in an upward direction does not occur within a specific time the corporation will be under the control of the larger Department of Education as opposed to the Indiana Department of Education as I understand the law.
Progress for Indiana Corporations can be found at http://www.k12.in.us
The NCLB legistation can be found at http://www.ed.gov
On an more personal note, our daughter began her formal education in an area Catholic School (not to be named) and was withdrawn because said school was not following best practice guidelines. We researched LT and found more often than not LT does follow best practice. Therefore, I too have a first grader attending Lawrence Township. My husband and I entered the lottery and were lucky enough to obtain placement at the school of our choice. We opted to place our daughter in the as it was quoted earlier “gifted” program since she tested in, and release the magnet admission.
Our home school is (dah dah daaa) Harrison Hill. Yes, we are from the much talked about southern part of the district. She is attending Brook Park and believe this, her peers in the program are not carrying the school and making AYP for everyone, far from it. They are learning in a diverse, satisfying, and supportive environment as I hope all children are able to do regardless of the program, the neighbornood, and the judgements from which they come.
Re: Beth
I take an active role in my child’s education. I transport her roundtrip to school each day, I volunteer in the classroom as scheduled bi-weekly and attend lunch with her on the off week while working full-time. I choose to live in my neighborhood, own a prius, take three vacations a year, and let the bank help me grow my money. I am neither uneducated or in need of “fixing” and I take offense.
I know of parents who do transport their children to and from school to avoid long commutes (north side to south side of lawrence) and I know parents who don’t and have the children take the bus, it is a matter of personal comfort. The townships policy may very well stink with regard to the proposed but not because of the bus time because of the decreased educational time.
I agree youth are in need of a helping hand, as I too reach out to them daily as a family counselor and see the problems they encounter in their homes and lives none of which could have or necessarily should be addressed solely in the school or providers office for that matter. Rather, address problems where they began, in the home with the parents as active participants in the change process. Pointing fingers and yelling, fix this he/she is broken, is only solidifying a narrow view in an already impoverished mind.
Jessica,
I again am all to familiar with NCLB standards, as well as the fact that the parents on the southern end of town are not “broken. ” It must be the board who believes that, because while they are eliminating our bus services, they are not eliminating those that transport kids past three or four other schools before dropping them off on the other side of town. If you have read the NCLB standards, you will see that we are preparing a generation for mediocre achievement levels at best if simply meeting AYP is our aim.
As for the “broken” comment, it stems from the fact that I, much like yourself, work with many parents in a community program who have the “priviledge” (as some in my areas see it) of having their children bussed halfway across town to attend Amy Beverland. This all too often means that they cannot come in for lunch, volunteer, or even attend parent teacher conferences as those I know personally do not have reliable transportation. It’s wonderful that you can and do. That is what truly determines whether or not a student will be successful.
We are in absolute agreement that education begins in the home, and all of the special programs in the world aren’t going to change that. All too often at neighborhood events, I have been berated for sending my son to Indian Creek instead of Amy Beverland. Many of my neighbors will tell you that it’s horrible that so many of our kids go to the special programs in the area, and therefore kids get bussed in from the other side of town to our local elementary.
So you are in favor of your daughter and my son both losing forty minutes of instructional time a day, because “they’ll be fine anyway” as an earlier poster said?
Beth
“The townships policy may very well stink with regard to the proposed but not because of the bus time because of the decreased educational time.” jessica
Increased bus time/ decreased time in the classroom…six in one, a half dozen in the other. Basically, we agree then.
As for my earliest post, please forgive the poor stab at sarcasm as I was blown away by what I was reading and the perception by everyone else that as a mother of one of these “minority/ 21%” kids I should get over him missing forty minutes of instructional time a day while he instead gets the opportunity to know his bus driver even better. I can think of about a hundred ways I’d rather see active six year olds like ours spend forty minutes of their day.
Has anyone contacted the Department of Education or spoken with an educational law attorney about whether the School Board’s/Township’s actions are even legal?? How is it fair/legal to deprive some children of 40 minutes of education per day because he/she goes to a magnet school? Is anyone interested in contacting an attorney to investigate this and find out if legal action is warranted? I will be glad to chip in on a retainer if anyone is interested…
Nothing seems to be easier than seeing someone whom you can help but not helping.
I suggest we start giving it a try. Give love to the ones that need it.
God will appreciate it.