School Board Newsletter #45, October 19, 1998

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: Schoolboard Newsletter #45
Date: 10/19/98 10:14:28 AM EST
From: jklagge@bev.net (Jim Klagge)

Dear Friends,

We are having what I hope is a particularly interesting meeting tomorrow night. I thought some of you might want to come if you knew the topics. In fact, you can always check the agenda for upcoming meetings (usually they are posted by Friday before a Tuesday meeting) at www.mcps.org/admin/board-agenda.html.

1. Gifted Program. We will have a report on how the gifted program operates. Some of the interesting issues include: how, and how many, and at what stage students get identified (have we "over-identified"?); the merits of pull-out vs. inclusion instruction; etc. The Superintendent and SB anticipate doing a thorough review and assessment of the Gifted Program next year.

2. Class size. In the Spring we had a work session about what the research shows concerning the effect of class size on student achievement. Now we will be looking more specifically at where we are in this county on class sizes at all levels. Since it is very expensive to reduce class size, we need to look at what the remaining needs still are and where we wish to focus our attention. This is a timely topic since we will soon begin work on next year's budget, and need to decide on some trade-offs, as usual. Class size impacts buildings (the lower the class size, the smaller the enrollment capacity of a building), and teacher salaries (the more we spend on having more teachers, the less we can spend on paying teachers more), as well as impacting the educational experience in the classroom.

3. SoL Results. First we will hear from 3 teachers in the county who participated in the state-level discussions of what the proficiency cut-off scores should be for various tests. This will help us learn about this process. This week public hearings are being held around the state on the issue of what the proficiency cut-off scores should be, before they are then officially set by the State Board of Education. (One such hearing is being held Thursday evening in Wytheville.) Then the administration will release what the average raw scores are for each of the schools in our county on each of the tests. These scores don't yet "mean" anything, since the state has yet to determine what the passing scores are. But since the state has released these raw scores, and they are already being published in newspapers around the state, it seemed best to share these at this point. The most noticeable thing about raw scores so far, both in this county and statewide, is what a strong negative correlation there is between percentage of at-risk students in a school and average raw scores. This is not surprising, but the state has insisted that this factor will not be taken into consideration in evaluating schools with SoL results. These facts are part of what has been driving the SB's attempt to allocate extra money to programs that address needs of at-risk students last year and this year.

4. BMS. Although this will not be discussed at the meeting, you have no doubt been hearing about this in the newspaper. After we made an extensive presentation about all the cost (comparable between the options), population growth (favors the 2-school option), and educational (favors the 2-school option) factors relevant to choosing between having one or two middle schools in Blacksburg, we have been awaiting an endorsement from the Board of Supervisors of the idea of having 2 middle schools. When this item finally did appear on their agenda, it contained the following provision: "the Board of Supervisors shall maintain engineering and architectural oversight, and will concur with the design concept and site utilization prior to the development of construction drawings." The motion, with this provision, was tabled due to the fact that some supervisors felt it interfered too much with the SB's right and responsibility to build and control schools. The superintendent and I then worked with the county administrator (Jeff Johnson) and the chair of the BoS (Joe Gorman) to find mutually agreeable wording. We agreed to the following provision: "the Board of Supervisors shall continue to work cooperatively with the School Board, and expects the School Board will continue to provide information on design concepts and site utilization prior to future appropriations to ensure the most cost effective construction of school buildings. This resolution is not intended to remove statutory authority of the School Board to erect, furnish and equip necessary school buildings." The wording acknowledges that the BoS has a right to information concerning what it is making appropriations for, and the SB has the right to control the school design and construction process. The motion with this new provision was again tabled at the most recent meeting due to the absence of two BoS members. Presumably it will be voted on at their next meeting (Monday, 10/26, 7pm). Though I am hopeful that this will pass, and we will be able to move forward on securing land and beginning to plan for the future of BMS, this is illustrative of the enormous effort that the SB and the school administration have to expend in working with the BoS on building and budget matters. I think we have a much better working relationship than we have had in the past, but it can be quite draining of our efforts to work on issues of direct educational impact (see #1, 2 & 3 above!).

-Jim Klagge
Chair & District F Representative
Montgomery County School Board.

email: admin@gisone.com