[Speed Gibson,
Friday April 18, 2008 at 9:32pm]
Setting Boundaries
Attending all these visioning sessions for District 281 has been very personally rewarding, having gained many new and interesting "stakeholder" perspectives. Most have been quite positive, but also quite realistic about this current situation. A couple of attendees should have been a little more diplomatic in expressing their opinions, but even that was at least illustrative of the east - west division.
I'll have more to say at the proper time, i.e., when the final report comes out. For now, allow me to discuss a general question, grouping grades into buildings and programs.
District 281 generally uses the "modern" K-5 elementary, 6-8 middle, 9-12 secondary model as do many adjoining districts. But District 279 (Osseo) uses the more traditional K-6, 7-9, 10-12. District 286 (Brooklyn Center) uses K-6 and 7-12. (Minneapolis N/A given their effective withdrawal from the north side.)
There are refinements like the K-2 / 3-5 pairing that Superintendent Stan Mack offered as an option earlier this year, primarily to save money, the 2007 referendum having failed. The affected parents in 281 made it very clear very fast: no thank you! I understand that Spring Lake Park has implemented this, however.
Another is pairing the high schools into 9-10 and 11-12, which White Bear Lake has done. This might be interesting for 281, pairing Cooper and Armstrong so that all students have equal access to all programs. Today, students must choose a track, a frustration for one of the parents at the session.
I'm still intrigued by the K-8 concept which an unnamed education professional in the Osseo district favors - and I agree with her reasons. But alas, much as I tried to put it on the table at the visioning sessions, no one "seconded" my motions. I found that there is such a public school in the Rochester, Minnesota system and I'm going to find out more about it. A road trip might be in order.
I bring these up because I'm hoping the final visioning process will consider such questions. What is truly the best arrangement for 281? Would multiple approaches make sense, given the significant demographic differences east to west?
These are important questions financially as well, significantly affecting the usage and utilization of the buildings and staff, even transportation. We shouldn't make such changes just to save money as our 281 parents made clear. But we shouldn't charge blindly ahead to either enhance the current model or adopt new ones without looking at the financial effects.
For ultimately, it's money or the perceived lack of it that has us all talking.
I'll have more to say at the proper time, i.e., when the final report comes out. For now, allow me to discuss a general question, grouping grades into buildings and programs.
District 281 generally uses the "modern" K-5 elementary, 6-8 middle, 9-12 secondary model as do many adjoining districts. But District 279 (Osseo) uses the more traditional K-6, 7-9, 10-12. District 286 (Brooklyn Center) uses K-6 and 7-12. (Minneapolis N/A given their effective withdrawal from the north side.)
There are refinements like the K-2 / 3-5 pairing that Superintendent Stan Mack offered as an option earlier this year, primarily to save money, the 2007 referendum having failed. The affected parents in 281 made it very clear very fast: no thank you! I understand that Spring Lake Park has implemented this, however.
Another is pairing the high schools into 9-10 and 11-12, which White Bear Lake has done. This might be interesting for 281, pairing Cooper and Armstrong so that all students have equal access to all programs. Today, students must choose a track, a frustration for one of the parents at the session.
I'm still intrigued by the K-8 concept which an unnamed education professional in the Osseo district favors - and I agree with her reasons. But alas, much as I tried to put it on the table at the visioning sessions, no one "seconded" my motions. I found that there is such a public school in the Rochester, Minnesota system and I'm going to find out more about it. A road trip might be in order.
I bring these up because I'm hoping the final visioning process will consider such questions. What is truly the best arrangement for 281? Would multiple approaches make sense, given the significant demographic differences east to west?
These are important questions financially as well, significantly affecting the usage and utilization of the buildings and staff, even transportation. We shouldn't make such changes just to save money as our 281 parents made clear. But we shouldn't charge blindly ahead to either enhance the current model or adopt new ones without looking at the financial effects.
For ultimately, it's money or the perceived lack of it that has us all talking.