McKay settles on longer periods, two 5-8 middle schools
December 16, 2011
With 21 comments since publication
by Christine Yeres
Superintendent Lyn McKay announced Tuesday that she had decided to implement a new schedule of six 55-minute periods and a 38-minute lunch each day in the existing two 5-8 grade middle schools. She then listed her reasons.
1. It’s right for students. The benefits for all students, both general and special ed students, of the longer periods include: more balanced instruction, more differentiation, more small-group help.
2. No model is perfect. McKay and staffers are still working to mitigate the effects of decreased frequency for World Language and other “encore” subjects that are not the “core” math-science-English-social studies courses.
3. Although the research is not definitive or even strong, said McKay, what is strong, she said, is that “we’ve had a 5-8 model going for the last nine years and we’re pleased with it. And the word that I’ve been hearing, when I visited Roaring Brook recently [for the principal-search meeting], when I asked them what they valued most at Roaring Brook is ‘family.’” She heard this also at the high school principal-search meeting, said McKay. “We have a culture here,” she continued, “where a parent can drop a student off and feel secure that if the student has an issue of any kind—this is what we heard this over and over from Roaring Brook parents,” said McKay—“and that Eric [Byrne, former principal of RB] was great,” added board of ed President Alyson Kiesel, who had attended the same meeting. “But we want to know,” continued McKay, “as parents, that when we’re dropping students off that if there is an issue a teacher will help, a custodian will help, a clerical person will help—and that we build that kind of relationship within our schools.
So one of the things that came out in all of this work is that we really need to ensure that in going from fourth [grade] to fifth that we can keep the family feel, and what are some of the specific things that we can do to help students and parents with that transition. So we’re going to look at that with a smaller group when we go forward. And the same thing is true going from eighth [grade] to ninth, because that came up. So you learn as you have these conversations about things that one might do better.”
4. “Also we chose to do the 5-8 because logistically,” said McKay, as board member Randy Katchis brought up in past discussion about middle school, “it really doesn’t really make sense to make two major changes at one time. We prefer to do the schedule first, and then we can revisit whether it’s 5-6 and 7-8, or, depending on enrollment, a school that’s 6-8 and put the fifth grade back into elementary. That’s certainly is a possibility going forward.”
5. Busing was a consideration, since McKay learned that bus rides at Seven Bridges would go from a 35 to 50 minutes and at Bell from 40 to 50 minutes. That just didn’t make sense, she said.
Another main reason for the longer periods is that it is fiscally prudent, said McKay. “Not only is it educationally sound, but we have the potential of reducing saving close to half a million dollars in our budget.”
McKay explained further, “The 5-8 schools and the longer period—although they’re certainly are some people who do not agree—and I hear that and see that and I understand what they value—we have more people who are in support of it in terms of the community. Valuing the family atmosphere is very important,” McKay reiterated, “and we recognize that and we’re going to work on that going forward.”
McKay suggested that five years out, since enrollment projections at the middle school will be under 300 at each grade level, is a time when the community should look at the possibility of closing one middle school. “You don’t wait until five years from now to start that discussion. You start that in a couple of years as we begin to analyze what’s the next direction to take.” She reiterated that to close one middle school now and squeeze all current middle school students into one 5-8 would mean “art on a cart” and trailers, but five years from now it may be possible to fit comfortably into one.
It was going through no matter what. These Knowledge Cafes were just PR and a waste of time. So it’s “oh well” in reducing daily Foreign Language? Losing two weeks of instruction per year is eight weeks by the end of 8 th grade. “Oh well”. Students get to know their teachers over four years? Hah! They change teams (core teachers) every year! The only teachers they DO get more than once in four years are the Specials and Foreign Language. It’s all about money, so when it is said that budget cuts don’t impact program, don’t believe it!
Thank goodness Ms. McKay did not cave in to the demands of people who are more concerned about money than education. After moving here for the schools, we have been very worried about the trend of budget over schooling…
We are not of the very wealthy in this town - but we are more interested in our children getting the best education as opposed to our getting a new car or some other luxury item.
Let’s all make sure we keep our children as our priority.
To K, Although I fully understand and appreciate your point (and I have always thus far voted “yes” for the propsed budgets), I am afraid you may not quite realize the situation many in our town find themselves in. For some, it’s not about getting a new car or some other luxury item. For some, it’s about whether or not they can’t pay their mortgage and taxes or if they will have to move. Our taxes have far, far outpaced the growth of many a person’s cost of living raises or bonuses (or, for some, lack there of). We all want our educational system to be top notch, but we also need to be sensitive to the fact that this economy has not hit all of the people in our town evenly. Best wishes for a happy holiday season!
This proves the Knowledge Cafe I attended was a charade. McKay signaled then and has now confirmed that she was opposed to any changes of our middle schools. I participated and sat at 3 different tables with multiple parents who attended expecting that our voices would be heard and that our opinions mattered about our children. In the end McKay will get her way and our school board will back her.
This idea of “family” that she stresses as the reason for not reconfiguring is a joke. These kids are 9, 10, 11 years old. You think they will be wounded and damaged if they moved from 5-6 to 7-8 together? McKay talks about the family atmosphere at middle schools yet ignores the disruptive practices of changing core teachers and teams every year. She ignores the disruption of splitting some elementary school children and creating 2 unequal middle school experiences. Does she mean “family” is the actual building in which they learn is more important than their fellow classmates and continuity of teachers?
Our children, all children, adapt quickly. It is ridiculous to suggest that their educational experience would be damaged if they had to move from 5-6 to 7-8.
To K - I am very concerned about the education of my children. I put their education ahead of money. Having said that I find the current 2 middle school system inadequate and unfair. Many experts believe grouping 5th graders with 8th graders is inappropriate- from my children’s experience I agree. I find it unfair some elementary school children are split from their friends as they go off to separate middle schools. I find it unfair that one middle school is modern, air conditioned, and spacious while the other is old and dark. I find it unfair that half the middle school students get the freedom and growing experience of walking into town while the other middle school students are far away and isolated. I dont see how changing teachers and teams over and over creates any family or continuity. I can not stand the “our middle school is better than you middle school” mentality.
There are other educational and developmental issues i could list but I want to be clear that my objection to maintaining the current 2 middle school configuration is not based on money. However we all recognize the inefficiencies and redundancies of having 2 middle schools.
A 5-6 / 7-8 configuration would allow all our children the same experience and move from building to building TOGETHER. That is “family” as far as I am concerned. Having our students in the same building for 4 year but regularly switching teams and teachers negates the family McKay references. McKay didn’t want change and she started and ended with that in mind – period.
Money has nothing to do with my strong objection.
I too applaud McKay for making a “best for the students” decision. It also turns out to be the biggest cost savings, tied with the longer periods and other configuration scenario. Win-win. Students and money.
It’s about education, not money. She is cutting World Language, as well as other cuts in the h.s. and elsewhere because of the doubling of maintenance, staff, etc. for a second middle school. The millions of dollars that could be saved by consolidating the middle schools could then be used for not cutting and even expanding programs, but is being wasted because our Supt. does not want to lay off her colleagues. McKay is a hero with them but by saving their jobs, she is not advocating for our kids.
We must keep our eye on HOW we spend our money. We are talking, in this case, about millions of dollars. That money should be spent on our children’s education. Think about what we could do in expanding and enriching the curriculum and programs for our children.
“‘Although the research is not definitive or even strong,’ said McKay, ‘what is strong,’ she said, ‘is that we’ve had a 5-8 model going for the last nine years. . . ‘“
I know people who have been smoking for the last nine years. . .
Why would you continue doing something that you know is not a good thing to do, especially when it involves educating our children?
To K - I moved here for the schools also. Since I have lived here my taxes have TRIPLED, my children were uprooted, redistricted, and separated from their elementary school classmates so they could attend a new unnecessary middle school. Did I mention an EXPENSIVE middle school with a $53million bond attached? I have 1 lest at Greeley.
My children have had multiple superintendants, multiple principals and multiple guidance counselors. My children have had their after school programs cut and/or reduced. Athletics, performing arts, curriculum, field trips have all been impacted.
The current middle school configuration is bad, it is wrong, and it is unfair. Having 2 middle schools does not provide a better educational experience for your children or my children. I was opposed then and I am opposed now. My taxes are of great concern to me as I am not one of the wealthy either.
I see an opportunity to dramatically cut waste and redundancies while providing a better middle school experience for our children. I think we can be both concerned with education and concerned about our taxes and our budget. They are not mutually exclusive. You make the common mistake believing that spending more means a better education. That has been proven false and patently incorrect. Our budget and our taxes go up even as our student enrollment declines. We have fewer students therefore it should cost likes to educate them. We have empty classrooms being rented out to outside programs and we have middle schools half empty with teams being eliminated. The reason our budget goes up is because we must continue to pay raises, steps and benefits to our teachers and administrators. That money goes to them not to your kids. Because of that we must cut waste and redundancies. There is no better place to make those cuts than in our middle schools. McKay had an agenda and our school board rubber stamped it.
To Good Call - you are absolutely incorrect. It is NOT the biggest cost savings. The biggest cost savings would be to sell Bell and consolidate into one middle school at 7 Bridges. Next year we will be at the same enrollment level we were at before we built 7 Bridges. All the middle school kids were at Bell. 7 Bridges is bigger so it certainly could handle all of them. In addition the CCSD would get millions in revenue from the sale and we would be able to cut redundancies.
The second biggest cost savings would be to reconfigure to 5-6 / 7-8 schools. This just approved McKay plan comes next and only doing nothing comes after McKays plan to leave the middle schools alone but increase class hours.
I certainly don’t agree with this being best for students since not enough money was saved and you can be certain that additional program cuts will be made to save money. I’d rather save money by eliminating redundancies of staff, janitors, administrators, etc then saving money by cutting curriculum, field trips, band, theater, athletics, etc. That has already happened and will continue to happen because this middle school measure does not save enough. So how is this “best for students”?
McKay is protecting her own – that is why she did not propose the tougher but better choices. So she will save jobs and maintain salaries, raises, steps, and entitlements for “her people” (she was an insider promoted by our school board) while our children pay the price. “Best for students” – I think not.
Your buying what she and the CCSD BoE is selling.
Where did our “family” problem come from? And how on earth does maintaining a 5-8 configuration correct this fabricated problem? What “family” problem at RB and at the HS? I didn’t come away from the RB meeting with this as an overriding concern. Yes, we want a person who loves kids and makes RB a great, welcoming, human place - but I didn’t hear any fear expressed by parents that the “family” feel of RB would at all be threatened by fourth graders going TOGETHER to a 5-6 middle school, or to a 6-8 middle school after 5th grade spent at RB.
Where did this “problem” we suddenly have to “work on” come from???? From the mind of Supt McKay!!!
Some one is going to bust chops no matter what the decision, but I never heard the “smoking gun” logic for changing current configuration. If someone really believe kids don’t take time to adjust to a new school and new surroundings, I think they have very unique children. The only kids who get split up from their friends are potentially RB 4th graders. How many of those kids are so social that we should have that tiny segment drive policy. It probably impacts 10 kids in the whole system. I would expect to have our super and our board have a preconceived opinion going into this and open up the floor for discussion to be guided to hear community input. They did that. They tweaked the scheduling to make the lunch a bit longer. I am sure their will be more tweaks.
I applaud the system for working based on what has been disclosed and for all those people who remain concerned about budget cuts and taxes, it still comes down to mandate relief. Focus your energy there, because without it, all NY is going down.
“Family feel” we have already. And a change in configuration would not have damaged it. How is this a reason to keep the same 5-8s?
The superintendent may as well have said “Change is hard. We administrators and principals are used to the 5-8 we have and we want to keep it just as it is.” Oh, really? Well “Change is hard for people” - this is what administrators told us when they rammed the hi school schedule change through despite teacher parent and student opposition.
Educators like to throw around words like collegial and collaborative and family. It makes the process sound so homey. But I agree with previous posters who question the entire “open” process. It is not open, not a process. It was a done deal. The biggest mistake this community ever made was passing that Seven Bridges bond so many years ago.
@ bad call: Wrong. Look at the presentation. The cost savings for the two options of longer class periods, the two 5-8’s v 5-6, 7-8 is the SAME. As for closing down Bell, that is a fantasy option. McKay was clear that that becomes an option in 4 or 5 years, but not now. You are acting like a troll.
What Ms. McKay and the board are trying to do is come up with creative solutions that are more fluid and open to revisions if needed…instead of rash major changes. If we had gone this route in the first place and came up with more creative solutions to overcrowding then we would not be in this boat. I remember a very seemingly sound proposal to add a building to Bell on an adjacent soccer field that is a perpetual swamp anyway. No one wanted to lose a soccer field. Really? What was more important in the long run? I just find it odd that there is so much support for major changes now, when the same thinking before has made so many people angry and upset. Let’s slow down and take this step by step and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
I agree with parent taxpayer and the many other commenter’s that are finally waking up to what is going on here. If only the CCSD school board would wake up. I attended the Knowledge Cafe at which middle schools were the topic. I sat at 3 different tables and heard many from all 3 elementary schools and both middle schools voice concerns over the current configuration and its educational and economic impacts. Supt McKay from the beginning indicated she was in favor of not changing anything. So what was the point if she had already made up her mind? During this Knowledge Cafe I do not recall any discussion about “family”. I agree with those that understand that children of middle school age are very adaptable and very flexible. As long as our children move from a 5-6 school to a 7-8 school TOGETHER as a community as a family they will not be harmed by this transition. People are much more concerened with 5th graders being with 8th graders than they are about moving from one middle scool to another. Thats what I heard.
McKay is taking the easy way out. It is much easier for the administration , much less work, to keep things just as they are. This fabricated issue of family is a transparent excuse. These are our children and our tax dollars. We could accomplish much by reconfiguring the middle schools. Our kids would have the same or perhaps a better educational experience while we the parent/taxpayer can best utilize our tax dollars. Why cant our CCSD BoE see thru this?
McKay says the research is “not definitive or even strong” yet the Board of Ed accepts this at face value.
It’s a shame that Dr. McKay didn’t ask her question “What do we value” in the $10,000 survey the board commissioned. Instead, we’re getting anecdotal info from Dr. McKay’s principal search meetings. Of course people want a “family feel” from a principal, especially for an elementary school! (and, ina different way even in a h.s.) I fail to see the connection between the search for a family-feel principal and her choice to remain with the m.s. configuration she says (again, anecdotal) “most” people want. I think the people who want it most are administrators.
What do you expect from a CCSD Board of Education that promoted a not ready for prime time curiculum adminsitrator to Superintendant. McKay is a wonderful lady but she is in way over her head and the Board of Ed is letting her make the calls. This is the same BoE that expressed surpise and astonsishment at our districts financial obligations to BOCES. We contribute millions of dollars to BOCES every year and send 12 students. This has always been a budget item. This is nothing new. How can they be surprised and so uninformed?
I agree with the posters that found the review of middle school structure disappointing. In my opinion, we need Superintendent/CEO leadership, strategic planning, innovation, and transparency. We do not need PR events for community input when decisions have already been made, homey jargon, cronyism, and fear of change. We also need highly effectively School Board performance that reflects strong leadership, proactive planning, and fiscal oversight. It would be helpful to have the major School Board and CEO roles & responsibilities and their annual (“SMART”) goals posted on the CCSD web site.
McKay’s first move as Supt. and this is the result? The next “Knowledge Cafe” should be picketed.
