Results 1 to 15 of 62

Thread: Class sizes: FY09 vs. FY08

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default Class sizes: FY09 vs. FY08

    In the rapidly becoming unwieldy Our School "Reconfiguration" thread, Kim Reichelt asked for a comparison of this year's class sizes relative to last year.

    Noting that class sizes aren't yet "official" (they become so on October 1), I looked at the number of empty seats (relative to the class size guidelines) per section this year versus last.

    • FY08: 127 empty seats, 59 sections, 2.15 empty seats per section
    • FY09: 68 empty seats, 57 sections, 1.20 empty seats per section

    That is, on average, we have about one more student per ES section this year versus last (an intended consequence of the reconfiguration). Countering that somewhat is the fact that we have 2 sections above the guideline this year versus 9 last year.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    In the rapidly becoming unwieldy Our School "Reconfiguration" thread, Kim Reichelt asked for a comparison of this year's class sizes relative to last year.

    Noting that class sizes aren't yet "official" (they become so on October 1), I looked at the number of empty seats (relative to the class size guidelines) per section this year versus last.

    • FY08: 127 empty seats, 59 sections, 2.15 empty seats per section
    • FY09: 68 empty seats, 57 sections, 1.20 empty seats per section

    That is, on average, we have about one more student per ES section this year versus last (an intended consequence of the reconfiguration). Countering that somewhat is the fact that we have 2 sections above the guideline this year versus 9 last year.
    The above is an average across all grades. OK, how many sections are at max size this year vs. how many were at max size last year? My supposition, admittedly lacking the numbers to support it and thus my question, is that there are many more classes at the max than last year.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    I'd also like to know how many are at or near the max this year vs. last year.

    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Baron View Post
    The above is an average across all grades. OK, how many sections are at max size this year vs. how many were at max size last year? My supposition, admittedly lacking the numbers to support it and thus my question, is that there are many more classes at the max than last year.
    Interestingly enough, I was expecting to find more classes at or above the guideline this year relative to last. It turns out that the opposite is true. [Correction: In response to a question at the 10/6 School Committee meeting, I went back to check the numbers and discovered that counted incorrectly the first time around--in FY08, there were 2 *fewer* sections at or above guideline relative to FY09.]

    FY08: 17 sections at or above guideline
    - 8 at guideline [incorrect prior number: 13]
    - 9 above guideline (4 at the K level with an aide)

    FY09: 19 sections at or above guideline
    - 17 at guideline (7 at the K level with an aide)
    - 2 above guideline
    Last edited by Jeff Dieffenbach; 10-06-2008 at 10:52 PM. Reason: Error correction

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Interesting.

    Jeff, could you post the actual numbers, class by class for this year and last?

    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Jeff, could you post the actual numbers, class by class for this year and last?
    I don't have them in electronic format--you'll need to request them from the Superintendent's office.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    Interestingly enough, I was expecting to find more classes at or above the guideline this year relative to last. It turns out that the opposite is true.

    FY08: 22 sections at or above guideline
    - 13 at guideline
    - 9 above guideline (4 at the K level with an aide)

    FY09: 19 sections at or above guideline
    - 17 at guideline (7 at the K level with an aide)
    - 2 above guideline
    Thanks for the numbers. I still don't get it, though. How did we only lose 11 net kids in K-5 and have this kind of a swing? You are more privvy to details than I, maybe you can explain it...a concentration in a last year's grade 5 of max or over classes perhaps?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    In FY08, we had a number of classes well below the guidelines laid out in the Class Size Policy. This wasn't intentional so much as it was an implication of how the policy works with relatively few sections per grade (as was the case at Happy Hollow and Loker, and to a lesser extent, at Claypit Hill).

    Here's how it works. Imagine 46 hypothetical second graders. We'd have two classes of 23. Now, imagine that 8 more children of this age materialize, for a total of 54 students. Since we'd be 4 students over the guideline in each of two classes, we'd probably open a third section. As a result, we'd now have three classes of 18 (5 below the guideline).

    With more sections in a building, we aren't "caught" between two and three sections, but more likely between three and four, four and five, or even five and six. When you move from five to six, the resulting "underage" is lower.

    This is one reason that a pure "grade level" model (K-2 and 3-5, for instance, in two schools) is more cost-effective than a neighborhood model--the number of sections per grade level within a building is higher still. These scenarios highlight the difference between a class size policy "on paper" and how it works out in reality.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    ... We'd have two classes of 23. Now, imagine that 8 more children of this age materialize....
    We'd better hope this doesn't happen because at this point you've left us with no place to put them....


    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •