Has the Geneva School District Veered Off Course?Part II: When Lost, It's Okay to Ask Directions

In Part 1 of this series on the Geneva City School District’s proposed elementary school ‘realignment’, we focused on the decision-making process, whereby it appeared that district leaders were going forward with a major policy shift without signaling the change of direction to the public. In Part 2, we’d like to look at another aspect of school board decision-making: research-based solutions.

As we said in Part 1, the Geneva City Council and the Geneva School Board are very similar entities with regard to their governance structure and oversight. And both school boards and local governments are subject to the same laws of process, such as the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Act. However, it seems that, at least locally, residents don’t have the same standards of accountability for school board members as they do for the City Council. The recently revealed ‘realignment’ proposal is one case that might help to illustrate why people should have higher expectations for their elected officials across the board.

One of the primary functions of a school board is to seek improved methods of student achievement. They, as policy makers, must set performance standards and review student outcomes to ensure progress towards those goals. We wonder, then, how this realignment proposal fits in with these objectives. As with City Council proposals, we find it important to look for some indication of success from other communities. A local resident, Charles Achilles, who frequently submits letters to the local paper, has been urging district leaders to use ‘research-based’ decisions for some time now. Achilles, himself an education professional, suggests that any changes implemented by the district be supported by at least two independent research studies that indicate improved student performance.

We agree that his suggested approach is sound and that it ought to be applied to the current proposal. However, it appears that the ‘Achilles test’ might turn out to be an ‘Achilles heel’ for the district when it comes to elementary school realignment. A brief search of education journals and case studies did not turn up any research to support the K-2/3-5 school model as a way to improve academic performance.

Worse yet, the only materials we found suggested that moves of this sort jeopardize academics, for a variety of reasons. For one, more transitions for young children mean more time spent transitioning (seems like common sense). That means less time learning. Fewer years in a particular building mean less attachment to that school in particular and less attachment to schooling in general; changing buildings lessens students’ self-identity in that they are introduced to a new group of faculty and staff and begin ‘anonymously.’

In one study, “Alspaugh (1999) found a significant achievement loss during each transition year. He also found that some students regain what is lost in the following year, but it would seem that students who make fewer transitions need fewer years to make up for achievement losses caused by transitions.” You can read more about it yourself here.

In our last post on this topic we discussed the process undertaken by Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. That school had considered a similar realignment proposal, but with the input of staff, residents, and students, ultimately rejected it. Their elementary schools are very successful, even award-winning. Looking at the operational practices of successful schools seems useful and the 2008 U.S. Department of Education's "Blue Ribbon Schools" were just announced in September. The list of New York State schools receiving the award is available online here. In our review of the websites of each school, we did not find schools using a K-2/3-5 split to be in the mix. In fact, some of the award-winning elementary schools used multiple K-6 buildings, based on research that shows sixth grade to be a key year both educationally and emotionally for student success (and not a year for transitioning).

But according to sources within the district leadership, the problem to be solved locally is not one of academic performance, but one of finances. The realignment proposal might mean that the K-2 building would need only a principal, and class sizes in a combined facility would allow one teacher at each grade level to be cut. So, five teachers and an assistant principal's salary would be 'saved.' Well, not only do we believe that significant cost savings could be realized in areas of the district's budget other than classroom teachers, we also question the assumptions behind this argument. First, given the number of students in the district that have special needs classifications, we are not confident that proper student/staff and traditional/non-traditional learner ratios could be maintained with those proposed reductions, unless class sizes were significantly increased. But class size increases themselves carry negative consequences for student learning, as seen in this study: click here.

Second, while the staff salary line might decrease a bit, what happens to the transportation line items? Given the current location of the schools, many students are ineligible for bussing. That doesn't necessarily mean that they walk to school, but it means that the school isn't obligated to incorporate them into a bus run. But, if students start criss-crossing the city for school, we do not see a way that the school would avoid increased costs. That is still assuming a single bus run for elementary students, but is that possible? That would require both buildings to dismiss at the same time. A recent early dismissal due to a snow storm showed us the logistical nightmare of releasing multiple buildings at the same time. Under the realignment proposal, a family with a 2nd grader and a 3rd grader would need a parent at each of the two schools, or would need to let the child closer to home walk alone while picking up the other child, or some such arrangement. So we'd like to see the transportation numbers.

As a corollary to this last point, we’d also like district officials to consider the ‘collateral impacts’ of such a change. As we have discussed the City of Geneva’s strengths and areas of increased opportunity, and even in talk about the lakefront, concerns about attracting new residents, including young families, have been in the mix. With the current arrangement, there are several viable neighborhoods within walking distance to one of the two elementary schools. Parents can feel confident that their child (or children, in the case of siblings) will share classes with other children living nearby, and this promotes a strong sense of connection with that school, be it North Street or West Street. Strong neighborhood affiliation leads to strong parent participation, PTAs, and childhood “connectedness” that contribute to student success (read about Children’s Connectedness in this fact sheet from Child Trends). Studies also show that neighborhood-based schools discourage sprawl and promote neighborhood pride, two issues that the City has been working on. Read more about this here.

But if the likelihood of your child crisscrossing the city for school increases and the likelihood of any siblings attending the same school at the same time decreases, then the attractiveness of city living for young families decreases proportional to the increase in transitions! In short, studies and our own local take on revitalizing neighborhood and rebuilding community, the educational arguments against what amounts to consolidation and those that favor of de-centralized, neighborhood schools, are stronger.

Another thing that the District seems loathe to consider, is something we'd like to call 'administrative realignment.' While we agree that some positions within the district could be cut with minimal impact to student learning outcomes, we don't believe that cutting positions is always the answer. It's not our goal here (and as President-elect Obama might say it's "above the pay grade" of our blog) to solve the district's financial problems. But we would like to point out that creative solutions, meaningful and sustainable improvements to operations are not usually achieved by a handful of men sitting in a back room discussing where to cut back.

Bringing the teachers, staff, residents, and students into the fold, and making the discussions public will bring more ideas to the table. Once the community has determined the destination it’s trying to reach, there’s nothing wrong with seeking out directions to get there.