If School Board Members want to do the right thing by ASD Students, they need to HEAR FROM YOU!! So please GO to the meeting. Speak out against this horrible plan. Directions for getting on the agenda are below. And if you cannot go, Email or call every school board member on the list. Below are their email addresses and phone numbers taken from the ASD Website. Below that is text for a sample letter which you should modify. Copies of the same letter are worthless.

Be smart, knowledgeable, professional but forceful with your comments. Have your facts at hand. Write clearly and briefly if you are sending an email. Speak briefly and to the point if you are calling. And if you are presenting at the meeting, PRACTICE what you will say. Be polite. Use data. Don’t whine. But get the job done. We cannot have this ridiculous schedule throw a blight on education in Anchorage. GOOD LUCK.

MEETING SIGNUP PROCEDURES FOR IN-PERSON TESTIMONY

Persons may notify the superintendent’s office to sign-up to testify to the school board up to one hour prior to the start of either the early or late session of the regular meeting. Contact may be made in one of the following ways:

Phone: 907-742-4315

Fax: 907-742-4318

Email: SchoolBoard@asdk12.org

In person: 5530 E Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage

If the person has not called in, or otherwise provided notification 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, they may sign-up with the school board secretary in the boardroom until the president has called the meeting to order. Persons wishing to testify should give the secretary their name, telephone number, and topic of their testimony. Persons may not sign-up other persons to testify.

A sign will be posted in a prominent place in the boardroom advising the public of their right to sign-up prior to the beginning of the meeting; this sign will also have a copy of the agenda and a list of those who have previously signed up (without telephone numbers) to testify.

Persons who wish to sign-up after the president has called the meeting to order will be advised by the president if they will be allowed to testify.

SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS

Tam Agosti-Gisler‌‌

President

Seat F through April 2015, first term

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 4

Email: agosti-gisler_tam@asdk12.org

Eric Croft

‌Seat B through April 2016

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 2

Email: croft_eric@asdk12.org

Bettye Davis

‌‌Seat A through April 2016

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 7

Email: davis_bettye@asdk12.org

‌Pat Higgins

Seat C through April 2014, second term

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 6

Email: higgins_pat@asdk12.org

‌

Kameron Perez-Verdia

‌Clerk

Seat D, appointed through April 2014

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 1

Email: perez-verdia_kameron@asdk12.org

‌

Kathleen Plunkett

Seat E through April 2015, second term

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 3

Email: plunkett_kathleen@asdk12.org

Natasha von Imhof

Vice President

Seat G through April 2015, first term

Phone: 907-742-1101 ext. 5

Email: von-imhof_natasha@asdk12.org

Dear SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS NAME

I am a PARENT / STUDENT / TEACHER in the Anchorage School District. I am writing with my concerns over the proposed 7-Period School Day for High Schools.

A 7-Period Schedule does not save the district money and results in reduced student contact time amounting to more than a month of lost time per class over the course of a year. How will Anchorage students be competitive if they are a month behind the rest of the world?

Claims of additional elective classes cannot be demonstrated when lost core classes from RIF’d teachers must be replaced. Alleged increases in Graduation Rates are not reflected in data presented by schools with these schedules, even in the Mat Su.

Finally students and teachers will be subjected to more homework to produce and grade respectively, resulting in diminished academic quality.

Please vote to maintain the 6 period day that high schools currently enjoy.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

(1131)

Why?

The argument is that teaching staff salaries and benefits are about 85% of the entire district budget. There is no disputing this. As one would guess, and hope, most of the district money should be spent on teachers.

Now I could get into a huge argument about how this is merely the operating budget and not the capital budget, or how grant money is not included, etc etc. But that would be smoke and mirrors and I won’t resort to ASD tactics to convince you of something. The reality is… the school district spends MOST of its money on teachers, supplies and building upkeep. And that is a good thing.

But “MOST” is a relative term. What is the PROPER expenditure? Is 85% too much? Too little? What about how much is spent on Administration?

If you wade through the more than 600 pages of the 2012-2013 Budget proposal from the district http://www.asdk12.org/media/anchorage/globalmedia/documents/budget/12-13/12_13_Preliminary_FinancialPlan.pdf you will find a chart on page 43 showing that the General Budget is hovering right around $565 Million and increasing (probably closer to $570 Million by now.) About half of that money comes from the State, the rest coming from local and Federal sources (pg. 44.) On page 82 is a great chart showing numbers of personnel and their cost. Look at the line with teachers and principals. You will notice in 2010 there were 3385.58 teachers at just over $231 Million, or an average of about $68K per teacher. In 2013 this has gone to 3271.62 at nearly $233 Million or an average of $71K per teacher. Principals at the same time have been 149.3 principals at $15 Million for an average of $100K in 2010, to 148.8 Principals at almost $16 Million or an average of $105 K. Notice something. Principal salaries have increased by 5K while teacher salaries only increased by 3K. Furthermore, 113.96 (3%) teachers dropped off the rolls, while only .5 (.3%)Principals did. By percentage, 10 times as many teachers were eliminated as Principals over the same period.

Surely, if we need to cut the budget so much, everyone should share the pain. But teachers are clearly taking more of a hit than anyone. The numbers prove it. And for anyone in Admin to say that this year it’s the teacher’s turn haven’t looked at their own documents. And while there has been a minor effort to cut some minor budget areas, the vast majority of planned cuts are from teachers.

But why not other areas?

1. If numbers are going down in certain schools resulting in reduced FTE for those buildings in terms of teachers, why isn’t there also a commensurate cut in Principals of those schools. For example if one school has 2000 students and 5 principals, shouldn’t a school that has 1500 students only have 4 principals? But look around the district and you will see this is not the case. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
2. A school (call it X) in our district is WELL under capacity and has much space. There is a small program in our district which is housed in a building with its own staff. There is plenty of room in X to house the program. Why not move it to X, reduce or eliminate the staff, get rid of the building and its maintenance. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
3. We have a department whose sole purpose is to set up rental agreements with schools. Typically a community user will contact this department to rent a classroom or auditorium. The department will call the school to check for availability. Then the department will follow up with the community member, whereupon all further contact is done with the school (for keys, etc.) Why not just let the school manage the whole thing since they already do most of it anyway? Doesn’t it make more sense for the user to call the school directly anyway? WHY NOT CUT HERE?
4. We have numerous ASD properties which are empty, underused or undeveloped. Yet they are all maintained to some degree. Population trends, land availability, etc., all seem to indicate there will not be any massive growth in Anchorage any time soon. So why are we paying for empty space. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
5. Legislators are considering dropping the HSGQE as a required test. http://juneauempire.com/local/2014-02-10/bill-could-cut-high-school-exit-exam#.UwHxBc76SRM and replacing it with the WorkKeys or other tests which are already in place. This could be a good savings in time as well as money. But there is a rumor that the ASD is already working on a test to replace the HSGQE and have already paid a large sum to have this test developed. A test which is allegedly in line with COMMON CORE standards which the State of Alaska has refused to comply with. Why is ASD paying for a test we may not need? Why are they paying for one that fits standards the State has declined? And why are they doing so before HB278 is even out of committee? WHY NOT CUT HERE?
6. Zangle, implemented in 2009-2010 at a cost of over $200K http://www.asdk12.org/school_board/archives/2008-2009/20080811/H04M007.pdf has been working like a lumbering dinosaur since day one. It is inflexible and subject to numerous hiccups. We’ve only had it for a couple of years really, even though the company went chapter 11 shortly after we implemented it (good job researching the company!) Now there are rumors we are going to bid Zangle adieu in 2015 and pay for another “Custom” software gadget. Are we throwing good money after bad? How about a nice gradebook program that ALREADY WORKS like “Easygrade Pro.” Or will we rather spend another quarter million on something we will throw away in 5 years. WHY NOT CUT HERE?

Have I come up to $25 Million yet?

(1934)

Colony High School teacher Dianne Wagner said if there was an understanding about what teachers do there would not be a seven -period day. She said they were admonished at the last meeting for speaking out about the seven-period day (1)

Wasilla High School teacher Linda Holler said in 38 years of living in the Valley thisis the second time she has felt the need to speak. She said since she started teaching we have chipped away at education. The seven-period day is a sledge hammer to the education of students. In her advance placement classes she has lost valuable time.The seven-period day was supposed to reduce class size, but that was not realized. (2)

Mat-Su Education Association President Jill Showman spoke about the seven-period day schedule. She said MSEA recently surveyed their members regarding the schedule. The majority said the schedule is hurting student learning and teachers ability to teach. (2)

Brenda Winder said the reduction of physical education in elementary schools needs to be looked at again. She said they have lunch in their classes and the students need to get out of the room more. She said the seven period day schedule has caused teachers to be exhausted, she feels the students are losing out, and she doesn’t feel the quality of the education is as good as last year. (3)

Colony High School teacher Brenda Rupp said she teaches algebra, geometry, and health. She said struggling students are not doing well on the seven -period schedule. She said many students who are failing would be passing under a six -period day. The shortened amount of time to teach is not working and she has written more discipline referrals this year than ever before (4)

Wasilla High School teacher Tim Walters said the data and analysis presented at the School Board Retreat was not a complete representation of the facts. He said scores at the high schools dropped. He is not sure how the information present ed at the retreat was complied. If this is about children he doesn’t see why we are continuing with the seven-period day. (5) [Editor’s note: I could not find minutes of the School Board Retreat. But it doesn’t surprise me that Mr. Walters has questions about how districts portray numbers. See my post on ASD’s creative mathematics.]

But this is all whining from a few crackpot teachers in the Mat Su right?? WRONG!! In a survey done in 2012, over 86% of Mat Su teachers felt implementing the 7-period day was a MISTAKE! But don’t take my word for it… read the survey.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmseak.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2F7-Period-Schedule-Report.pdf&ei=ueEBU4z7LMb0oASsw4DgCg&usg=AFQjCNGW8-bqAViTh3QEpNjXGcpKtNsSmQ&bvm=bv.61535280,d.cGU

1. http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/18/Meeting%20Archive/Minutes/FY12/03.21.12%20minutes.pdf
2. http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/18/Meeting%20Archive/Minutes/FY12/03.07.12%20minutes.pdf
3. http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/18/Meeting%20Archive/Minutes/FY12/09.07.11%20minutes.pdf
4. http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/18/Meeting%20Archive/Minutes/FY12/04.18.12%20minutes.pdf
5. http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/18/Meeting%20Archive/Minutes/FY13/08.01.12%20minutes.pdf

(1219)

But even those with the best intentions can be in error or beguiled. And when that happens, men and women with the noblest of goals might do harm. So let us look at the issues and not the personalities of those seeking the 7PD.

There are only three positions from which one can argue for a 7PD, all of them justifiable if true. The first is that the 7PD will afford more options for students, a position being voiced currently by ASD administration in favor of the change. The second position is that there will be some sort of added efficiency from a 7PD which will result in a cost savings. Finally, the third position is that the 7PD will raise graduation rates, a goal which ASD has championed for some time. All of these are the root of the administration’s reasoning behind the 7PD and all of them are false. This can be seen easily through reason and anecdote, but it can be proven through data. Let’s examine each in turn.

STUDENTS WILL HAVE MORE ACCESS TO ELECTIVES

This argument has been made several times by ASD administrative staff over the past many weeks. At first blush, it appears to be a self-evident truth. If we add more classes to the school day, then more might be offered. But let us look at what is really happening, and I apologize in advance for the math and I’m doing a little rounding here for simplification, but the numbers are sound. Do them yourself if you are unsure.

We will look at a typical high school in Anchorage with 1800 students. A school of this size will have about 70 classroom teachers (not counting counselors, librarians, nurses, etc.) each teaching 5 periods out of 6. This means in any given period, about 60 teachers are teaching classes which are full of 30 students. There are 350 courses per day (70 teachers x 5 periods.)

Under the 7PD, those numbers change. We now have 420 courses a day (70 x 6 periods) which means there are 70 new classes kids can take. Since the 350 already existing classes cover all the core courses students need, the 70 new classes can all be Electives!! Voila!

However, the 7PD is not being advocated for only. Additionally, AND SEPARATE, from the 7PD are budget cuts. At a current 1800 student high school, the number of teachers to cut, in ADDITION to counselors, nurses, etc., is 7.2, or 10% of the teaching staff. What does this do to the 7PD?

Cutting 7 teachers means we are reducing the total classes per day by 35, (7 x 6 periods.) That is a 35 class reduction in CLASSES ALREADY BEING COVERED. Which means that those 35 classes will have to be made up for. These are classes students are already taking, and include core courses. So, of the 70 NEW classes offered by the 7PD, 35 of them, or 50%, will actually be classes that have to be covered due to the loss of teaching staff. So there are NOT 70 new electives. At best there are 35.

Still… that’s 35 right?

Not really. Here is why. While the number’s keep being modified, the fact is that the ASD has reported they will need to adjust spending by $49 million over the next two years. ($ amounts from many news articles including http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/less-class-time-asd-considering-adding-extra-periods-to-fill-budget-gap/23913958 ) In the first year they will reduce $25 Million by the eliminations being currently discussed. But next year, they will have to cut nearly another $25 Million!!! What this means is another rash of cuts leveled at students. $25 Million means another 7 teachers per high school, which means another 35 classes need to be covered. 70 “extra” classes have quickly become 0.

Bye bye electives.

There is a further impact here in regards to student/teacher ratios and extra homework, but I will cover that elsewhere. For now, let us move on to the second argument for the 7PD.

THE SEVEN PERIOD DAY SAVES MONEY

One of the many arguments for a 7PD is that it saves money over a 6 period day. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, according to http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shorelineschools.org%2Fnews%2Fdacpo%2Fdocuments%2F6_vs_7_period_Day.ppt&ei=VdABU-SvOMyFogTCyYKIAQ&usg=AFQjCNFuzlo7iee9RZIuDpw6-O1Cz4bY2A&bvm=bv.61535280,d.cGU&cad=rja it will increase over $700K in just two middle schools in the Shoreline district.

Additionally there are hidden costs in moving to a 7 period day.  More course offerings mean more supplies for those courses.  Books for example.  Numerous district forms will have to be designed and reprinted to reflect the new schedule.  This may seem like chump change, but it all adds up.  And in a year we want to SAVE money, why would we do anything to spend more?

Why else will a 7 period day INCREASE Costs? It’s simple… more classes means more teachers. That is, unless you just require the teachers to teach more classes and cut the number of teachers.

Let me say that again…

A 7 Period day will NOT decrease the budget. Only decreasing teachers will. But do not believe me, listen to Mr. Mike Graham who wrote the following in an Email on January 10th to Principals.

“Does having teachers teach six of seven periods save money, and if so, is that the reason we are looking at it?

Having teachers teach six of seven periods rather than five of six is technically 2.3% more efficient, but this is not the reason for making the change. Schools will be staffed the same regardless of the schedule. What the change does is utilize the staffing a school has to provide far more opportunities for students, including academic support classes, AP courses, and elective offerings.”

(Bold emphasis added by me)

Mr. Graham says a 6 of 7 schedule is 2.3% more efficient. Not sure what “efficient” means in that way, but his math comes from this: 5/6 = 83.33% 6/7=85.7% 85.7-83.3 = 2.4%. This is simply a comparison of ratios, I’m not sure it means any savings in efficiencies, but let us grant the man his mathematical analysis. But there is one thing that is sure.. that “efficiency” is only gained if you are teaching the same number of classes and decrease the numbers of teachers. There is no budgetary gain unless you reduce costs. Simply shifting the schedule does not create a savings. You have to actually SAVE something: Ie. Cutting teachers.

In the same breath he says budget cuts are “not the reason for making the change.” If that is true, what is the reason?

And finally he says that staffing will remain “the same.” This is a blatant incongruity with facts in front of us right now.

So the reality is that moving to a different schedule does not save any money. Cutting teachers does. And cutting teachers will be done REGARDLESS of the schedule. So switching to a 7-period day simply adds insult to injury. We will lose teaching staff. On top of that, we will have less teacher/student contact time.

GRADUATION RATES WILL INCREASE

If graduation rates will increase with a 7-period day, by all means we should do it. But do they?

According to the data from the Mat Su, the shift to a 7-period day has been a statistically neutral event. Let’s look at the numbers.

According to the Mat Su school districts 2012 Annual Report, their 4 year cohort graduation figures are as follows:

2008 69%

2009 69%

2010 70.5%

2011 70%

2012 71.5%

(http://www.matsuk12.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=10782&dataid=22980&FileName=2012%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf )

Over five years, their graduation rate has increase a whopping 2.5%. In 2011, the year in which the 7-period day was implemented the rate actually decreased .5%. Not a ringing endorsement. And in 2010, a year with a 6 period day, the rate increased the same amount as 2012, a year with a 7 period day. There has been NO GROWTH in graduation rates due to the 7 period day. (In fact the stats are further confused by the fact that the school day started 15 minutes later in 2011. So what might any changes be attributed to?)

But wait just a minute!! It makes SENSE that having extra class periods would allow failing students to fix mistakes and use that opportunity to graduate on time! Right?

Only if you believe that students fail to graduate because of mistakes they want to fix. But students fail to graduate for many reasons:

. Serious developmental disabilities

. Economic or Cultural pressures

. Lack of language proficiency

. Substance abuse

. Lack of desire

Students who make a few mistakes and WANT to graduate already use existing programs and systems to achieve their goal. Sometimes this takes a fifth year. A 7-period day MIGHT help this small group. But those that fall into the groups mentioned above will not be positively affected by a change in school schedule.

And this is EXACTLY what is borne out by the data from Mat Su.

CONCLUSION

So we look again at the Districts reasons for implementing a 7PD and we find….

7PD saves money? FALSE

More Electives? Only true for one year, then FALSE

Raises Grad Rate? No evidence to support this. FALSE

So then why implement it?

(2048)

Intereting to note is the fact that this large PDF contained a great deal of information about the more than year-long process it took for Mat Su to implement the 7 Period Day, a process ASD intends to do in weeks. Additionally, it appears that this document is the source for many of ASD’s answers to public questions about the 7PD, as many replies are lifted verbatim from the Mat Su text.

Curious that the document would disappear. Curiouser and Curiouser. Probably just an internet thing. Probably.

(843)

7 period day does NOT impact budget positively.

Improving Student Learning When Budgets Are Tight Prepared for the The Education Policy and Leadership Center Conference on November 17, 2011

http://www.eplc.org/notebook2012/Allan%20Odden_November%2017_Education%20Finance%20Symposium.pdf

6 period day saves money over 7 period day!!

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1995-10-03/news/9510030124_1_seven-period-six-periods-school-day

At least the wisdom in the 90’s was to move AWAY From 7 and go to 6. Cost savings etc. So what? Now the math has become inverted?

There IS a budget impact from reducing Middle School planning periods

We know this is true and there are numerous articles which support it, like the one below. But for the district to say moving to a 7 period day is a savings is NOT accurate. The savings comes from reducing conference hours ONLY at middle school. Forcing high schools to do the same is merely a “we are all in this together” idea. Not any sound pedagogy. But there are a LOT of things different between middle school and high school. We do not have to have the same number of classes.

http://www.vbschools.com/administration/content/pdfs/budget/MSPlanningBudgetPres.pdf

Min/Max Concept

There is a optimal time to meet students etc. What this is, nobody really has determined, but isn’t more contact time better than less?  Notice these schools CUTTING the number of classes per day.

http://www.ripon.k12.wi.us/cms_files/resources/RASD2011-13BudgetFAQs.pdf

School moving from an 8 period day to a 7 because it is more cost effective and better contact time. A similar argument could be made for 6 period day??

BLOCK vs 7 Period

There is a lot of mumbo jumbo coming out of ASD that switching from “our block schedule” to a 7 period day is being done all over the Lower 48. This is smoke and mirrors talk. Why? Because we do not have a Block schedule like they do in the Lower 48. What they call a Block Schedule is one where students meet in 3-4 classes every day for 9 weeks (or so) and get a full years credit for that class (because they meet for 2 hours each.) Problems with that schedule are many, including less class contact. But the main problem is that in a Block class, say Math, it only lasts from August to October. Now the kid takes the HSGQE in April, but he has not maintained any retention of the material. So he doesn’t pass. Most of the schools moving to a 7 period day are doing so from a 4 period AB Block system, which has clear disadvantages over a multi-period day (whether it is 6 or 7). But since we already HAVE a multi-period day with no “Block” style, moving to the 7 period doesn’t yield the benefits suggested.

7 Period Transition FAQ

http://www.neisd.net/ComRel/NEISD_ABScheduleChange_09/documents/ReplacingtheABSchedule.pdf

Notice this suggests moving from a BLOCK schedule to a 7 period day is a savings and gives more class time. We do not HAVE a BLOCK schedule. So all the “benefits” suggested by the 7 period day are lost. In fact, all the benefits suggested by 7 period day over a BLOCK are even more in the 6 period day over the 7.

Changes in Classroom

http://newspaper.neisd.net/reagan/2010/09/23/changes-in-the-classroom/

Similar to above

Lee County

http://www.wrbl.com/story/21333396/lee-county-boe-discusses-budget-7-period-day

Yet another

Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/17/budget-cuts-force-schools-drop-block-scheduling/

This school district has had Block scheduling and is moving to a schedule almost identical to what they have at West. See the last few paragraphs. Clearly what people are saying is that the BLOCK schedule (not what we have) is more expensive etc than a multi-period day. But the more classes you add to the multi-period day, the less return you get. In this article, they chose 6 as being better than 7.

(602)

Read the memo, then read the follow up below it.

——————————————————————————————-

From: XXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:47 AM
To: High School Principals; High School Curriculum Principals
Cc: XXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Seven periods and Advanced Placement

Principals,

During testimony last night at the Board meeting, a teacher did a fine job of articulating her fear of fewer instructional minutes as it related to her AP classes and students. She asked for some research or information that could assure her that fewer minutes and a 7 period day would not harm her AP program. I think many of our teachers may have the same question.

The information below is from the Mat Su Valley and clearly illustrates that AP was not hurt, but actually enhanced (I would guess because of the support offered during the day for AP students).

XXXXXXX

——————————————————————————————-

Most of us will look at the chart provided by a leader within the ASD only briefly. When we do so, we look at year 2009 versus 2013 and we see all the numbers have gone up. This “clearly illustrates” that the 7 Period Day has “enhanced” the AP program in Mat Su. But let us dig deeper shall we? And let’s use only the data provided above , which is being touted as a proof of the efficacy of the 7 Period Day.

First, we have no source for this data. Where does it come from. The memo states it is from the “Mat Su Valley.” This would be unacceptable source citation in my class. Is this from a school principal? The superintendent? A report of some sort? Does it apply to the entire district? Just one school? We have no answers to any of these questions. The lack of context for this data makes it almost worthless right off the bat. We have no way to assess its validity. But let us continue anyway and see what the numbers REALLY say.

The most important question to ask is, “What is the data attempting to prove?” According to the memo, a teacher asked for information showing that her AP classes would not be “harmed.” So this data must be attempting to show that the 7 Period Day (7PD) does no harm. But what is “harm?” Normally I would say that harm to an AP class is a decrease in AP test scores, any decrease in course standards or quality, and any additional impositions placed on AP classes in order to meet normal standards. The author of the memo, however, seems to indicate that numbers of students and tests taken is the criteria to look at. While I’m not sure I agree with that assessment, at least I can understand the concept. The author also mentions test scores as well. So, even though we do not know where these numbers come from, nor do they initially appear to address the real issue, lets move forward examining the numbers for what they mean.

Let’s look at the AP population first. According to the memo, we have the following statistics.

This indicates that from 2009-2013, the number of AP students has increase by about 130 students. At first blush this appears to be a good thing. The 7PD has not hurt AP population. But look closer. If we assume the dates pertain to the beginning of the school year, the 2011 number is when the 7PD was implemented. Between 2010 and 2011, when it was implemented, the population of AP students actually DROPPED! Since then, the population increased by an average of 40 students per year, which is good, but in the year prior to the implementation of the 7PD, the population increased by 50 students. I will admit that we cannot really show a trend with this limited amount of data, but there is no “clear” illustration that the 7PD enhanced anything when one can easily see in the year of implementation the population dropped and when in non-7PD years the growth was higher. But let’s move to the next row of data.

In this figure, we are looking at the number of exams students take. AP students can take more than one AP course or exam. We have no data of how many classes the students are taking. So, for example, while we have 363 students in AP during 2013, we have no way of knowing if they are taking only 1 class versus 3 classes the 238 students took in 2009. This is an important distinction which the author of the memo fails to inform us of. However, let us just interpret what is before us.

It appears that over five years, the number of exams taken has increased. Again, this appears at first glance to be a good thing. Closer observation reveals something else. From 2012 to 2013, despite the population increasing by 29 students, the number of tests taken dropped by 25. What this means is that students took an average of 1.62 tests in 2012 but only 1.43 tests in 2013. This is a 12% drop in per capita tests taken. Isn’t this a harm? In fact, the per capita number of tests HAD been increasing until 2013 where it dropped to about the same level as 2009. Does this “clearly illustrate” enhancement?

Now let’s look at test scores. This should be the big number. If the 7PD increases test scores, we should definitely do it. Looking at the scores simply as given, we see that students scoring at 3 or above has increased from 2009 – 2013. Or has it? Actually in 2011, 7PD implementation year, that number dropped from 159 to 149, despite increasing the year previous without the 7PD. But that’s not all. In 2013, despite an increase of 29 students, we see only an increase of 4 students getting a 3 or higher. We need to look at the percentage of increase to really do a valid comparison. Luckily, that is provided for us.

Using the percentages given, the numbers actually show the 7PD is NOT enhancing anything. In the year 2011, the year the 7PD was implemented, the percentage DROPPED by nearly 8%!! It even dropped more in the next year. But then we see it leaped to 70.1% in 2013. Wait… even though we only have a 4 test increase, that is a 8.5% increase? Does that appear correct?

Something appears amiss. Let’s do some math. The “% AP Students with Scores 3+” should mathematically be the “AP Students with Scores 3+” divided by the “Total AP Students.” In the case of 2013 then, we should take 201 and divide by 363 to get our percentage. Doing so yields 55.4%!!!! WHAT?!  The email says 70.1%  But the math says otherwise.  The 70.1% is … A Lie!

In fact, ALL the percentages are lies. The correct figures should be, 58%, 55.2%, 52.7%, 59%, 55.4%. In point of fact, the percentage from 2009 – 2013 has actually dropped by 3.4%. In two of the last three years with the 7PD the percentage of students scoring 3 or higher has actually been lower than 2009. This “clearly illustrates” an enhancement?

Furthermore, the number of students getting a 3 or better is a virtually meaningless number. For example, lets assume for argument sake that in 2009 the 138 students all scored 5’s and in 2013 the 201 all scored 3’s. The figure would still be “accurate,” but the interpretation of that data into information shows no enhancement at all! Scores would have been dropping!

Finally, there is information that is non-statistical which bears investigation. For example, in order to meet the rigorous AP standards, classes in the valley have had to add additional impositions. In AP Chemistry, students can only complete the course in THREE semesters instead of two. Students are required to complete chapters and readings during the Summer, an activity that has been forbidden for ASD classes since Fall of this year. Furthermore, the valley had to implement AP SUPPORT classes to give kids more time to do the work and meet the requirements of the AP course. CLEARLY this is NOT an enhancement!

This memo is just one more smoke and mirrors attempt to explain a personal decision made by individuals in the district leadership which has no pedagogical support. The data is clear, only inasmuch as it “clearly illustrates” that ASD is willing to mislead, misinform and, dare I say it, lie, about what they purport to be “data driven” evidence to support their concept. I do not, and cannot, accuse the author of lying about those percentages; perhaps the lie was given to him. But it is clear that SOMEONE fabricated those percentages.

That demonstrated, once again I must ask the question about whether we should adopt a drastic policy change, one that appears, on its face, to be detrimental to students. Why do we need this change? What good is it? And when every question asked is answered with prestidigitation, misdirection and mathemagical manipulation, the only thing that is “clearly illustrated” is that there is NO EVIDENCE to support this change. NO 7 Period Day!

(1671)

DOES THE 7 DAY SCHEDULE DO ANYTHING POSITIVE?

If the schedule does anything net positive, we should ABSOLUTELY do it. Whatever is best for kids we need to do. Period. But let us examine if this concept IS beneficial for students. Critics of the system indicate that class contact decreases and adding another class means another class students have to do work for. Additionally, students with special needs who already need more time for work will be given even less. Proponents show that additional class offerings allow students to take more electives, graduate even earlier and allow struggling students more opportunity to recapture lost credits. Some advocates also suggest there will be a budgetary savings. What is the REAL outcome? To determine this, we have a unique opportunity to look at the MatSu district which has already implemented the system.

WHAT HAPPENED IN MATSU

In the 2011-12 school year, Matsu high schools implemented a 7 period system. It was announced via district wide newletter (http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/7/News–Features%20and%20Information/Seven%20period%20day2.pdf ) and in the newsletter positives and negatives were listed. However, nowhere in the document does it suggest a fiscal savings. In fact, it merely says it will cost “no more” money. This was, in fact, not the case.

There were concerns from the public about the system, some of them showing up in the local newspaper. One of them suggests that the district did a survey which indicated wide spread disappointment with the change, yet the district failed to respond by changing back to the previous bell schedule.

Responses to the change in Mat Su

http://www.frontiersman.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/periods-a-recipe-forfailure/article_0e3b825e-91bb-11e1-962a-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.frontiersman.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/is–period-day-really-a-goodidea/article_69068b1c-6433-11e1-9d36-001871e3ce6c.html

Proponents of Anchorage switching to a 7 period system hold data from Mat Su up as case study for why we should implement the concept here. But the system has only been in place for 2 years, so there is only a limited amount of data. Can it really reflect on an outcome this early? And what does the date really say?

COMPARISON TO WASILLA HIGH

We can do a little bit of comparing with one of the MATSU schools which use this system. Here is their bell schedule:

(http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/3188/Bell_Schedule.pdf )

The Wasilla bell schedule (website above) is quite different than what I propose later for Anchorage if we must go to a 7 period system, although class times come out to be about the same. In the case of their school, passing periods are only 6 minutes. This yields classes that are 1-2 minutes longer on Monday and Friday, but 3 minutes shorter on block days. They also have one class (period 4) which is

outside of the block rotation. Their lunch is 30 minutes long (the minimum allowed by contract in Anchorage, although some argue that contract language states our lunch should be 30 minutes PLUS a passing period). Additionally the Wasilla schedule is not even, that is, classes do not meet for the same amount of time (for example, 4th period meets 236 minutes a week while 5th meets only 226.) It is also interesting to note that MATSU’s calendar has 3 more days of school. [Note: the schedule shows block classes running at 67 minutes but lists the duration at 72 minutes elsewhere. The times listed show class is actually 67 minutes.]

BUDGET IMPACT

Does the 7 period day impact the school budget? Here are figures for the MATSU borough and school district based on their annual report. http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/Domain/1/Annual%20Report%20Web.pdf ) According to Mat-Su District yearly report, moving to this type of schedule has had zero positive budget impact. In fact:

Original Budget for FY 2013 was: $222,310,697

ACTUAL Budget for FY 2013 was: $230,535,432

This is an $8.2 Million overage from their original budget.

Cost of education in the district coming from the borough contribution has steadily increased from FY 2009 at $43.96 Million to $51.29 Million in FY 2013-14, a 17% increase over four years. FY 2012 ACTUAL budget was $208,892,958. Compared to actual FY 2013, this is a $21.6 Million increase over the previous year, or a 10.3% increase, not a savings. Clearly there has been no savings.

GRADUATION RATES AND OTHER MEASURES

District personnel have said that even if the process does not save any money, it raises the level of education by raising graduation levels. Does it? According to the MATSU 2012 Annual report, graduation rates for the 4th year cohort have been virtually stagnant:

2008 69%

2009 69%

2010 70.5%

2011 70%

2012 71.5%

(http://www.matsuk12.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=10782&dataid=22980&FileName=2012%20Annual%20Report%20Final.pdf )

The 7 period day was implemented in the 2011 school year. Based on the information provided above by MATSU’s own document, in the first year of implementation, graduation rates actually dropped .5% and only went up 1.5% the following year. Based on looking at trends from 2008, there is NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that the 7 period day effectively changed graduation results. Whatever may be being said anecdotally is not supported by the data.

In the same year, MATSU district changed school start times to 7:45 instead of 7:30. As we are well aware, COUNTLESS studies suggest later start times are better for student achievement. Could the nearly insignificant increase in graduation rate be due to THIS instead? We will never know, but it is clear that there is no statistical cause and effect connection that can be made between what may be a

statistically insignificant increase and a 7 period day. Additionally keep in mind that in some respects we are comparing apples and oranges. MATSU students only have 22 required graduation credits versus Anchorage’s 22.5. Perhaps this would not be significant if the additional ½ credit were an elective, but that is not the case. The additional half credit in Anchorage is in Math, which for many students is a difficult hurdle.

(http://www.matsuk12.us/cms/lib/AK01000953/Centricity/domain/3417/6000/Mat-Su%206146.1a%20CLASSES%202012.pdf )

Yet, according to ASD’s same reports, Anchorage graduation rates far exceed Matsu’s:

2008 64.3%

2009 70%

2010 69.7 / 71%

2011 72.1%

2012 72.8%

2013 76.2%

By comparison, West High’s 4 year cohort graduation rates even exceed the district’s:

2009 67.5%

2010 72.4%

2011 77.2%

2012 78.7%

(https://www.asdk12.org/media/anchorage/globalmedia/documents/assessmentandevaluation/POP_1213_District.pdf )

One is motivated to ask the question, “If we are already doing BETTER than the Mat Su, and there is NO Evidence that a 7 period schedule does anything positive to budgets or graduation rates, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?” In fact, across the board, our numbers have improved in dropout rate, attendance and graduation rates.

WHAT IS DRIVING THIS HEADLONG RUSH FOR CHANGE?

One can only guess. MATSU took a deal of time to research before they made their change. It does not appear that ASD has done the same. Instead they have taken a “if it is good enough for MatSu, it’s good enough for ASD” stance. Why one would make that argument when ASD’s rates are better despite having a more rigorous graduation requirement is curious. Looking at the data, it does not appear that the 7 period day is at all beneficial. And while there does not appear to be a negative effect, if there is NO positive effect, why implement the change?

Additionally, there IS a hidden cost in making such a change. Forms, websites, school calendars, and additional paperwork etc. will have to be modified at a cost. The Zangle program will have to be modified. While some will argue these are relatively small costs, and admittedly they probably are, they are still REAL costs. And if we are living in a time where we should be CUTTING budgets, is this sound fiscal responsibility?

One can only surmise that district leadership is responding to the community’s desire to see costs cut and education standards increased. By making a change, ANY change, it will appear that the district is, at least, doing SOMETHING.

WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE?

If ASD goes to a 7 period day, what will our schedule look like? Likely, something like Wasilla and Colony. Due to the variables involved, there is not a lot of wiggle room if the length of the school day is not increased. However, there can be some modifications While it is true that class time need not be impacted by a 7 period bell schedule, this is only true if one were to eliminate lunch and passing periods almost completely. Current contract language requires a duty free lunch for teachers of no less than 30 minutes (some argue 40.) A change in contract language might allow for some other options, but that is not the current situation. Acknowledging that we cannot eliminate lunch and that a reasonable passing period must be maintained in a real world yields a schedule that necessarily requires decreasing class time.

There are multiple options for 7 period day schedules. The two listed below illustrate two extremes.

The first maintains a long school lunch, the other offers the longest option for class time.

SHORT DAY VER. 1.0

Long Lunch

7:30 – 8:13          43

8:13 – 8:20           7

8:20 – 9:03           43

9:03 – 9:10           7

9:10 – 9:53           43

9:53 – 10:00         7

10:00 – 10:43       43

10:43 – 11:30       47 LUNCH

11:30 – 12:20       43 +7 for announcements

12:20 – 12:27       7

12:27– 1:10          43

1:10– 1:17            7

1:17 – 2:00           43

SHORT DAY VER. 2.0

Longest Possible Class / Short Lunch

7:30 – 8:15           45

8:15 – 8:22           7

8:22 – 9:07           45

9:07 – 9:14           7

9:14 – 9:59           45

9:59 – 10:06         7

10:06 – 10:51       45

10:51 – 11:26        35 LUNCH

11:26 – 12:14         45 +3 for announcements

12:14 – 12:21         7

12:21– 1:08            45

1:08– 1:15               7

1:15 – 2:00              45

BLOCK Scheduling

Due to having 7 classes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a blocking schedule that involves ALL 7 classes, so one class MUST be out of the block. This yields something like:

Time                     Tues                Wed           Thurs           minutes

7:30 – 8:17           7                       7                 7                   49

8:17-8:24                                                                                7

8:24-9:34              1                       2                  1                  70

9:34-9:41                                                                                7

9:41-10:51            2                       3                  3                  70

10:51 – 11:31                                                                         40

11:31 – 12:43       4                       5                  4                  72

12:43 – 12:50                                                                         7

12:50 – 2:00         5                        6                 6                  70

OUTCOME

Using short day v.2 on Monday and Friday with the rotating block on Tuesday through Thursday decreases total classroom seat time by 30 minutes per week per class. This is equivalent to decreasing class time by 10.8 class days per semester or 21.6 class days per year per class compared to current seat time. This means a teacher must cover the equivalent content with 12% less contact time each year. As student/teacher ratios are increasing as well, contact time between teachers and students is SIGNIFICANTLY reduced. Even so, the schedule proposed gives MORE time than the MatSu bell schedule as well as being more balanced. If we move to the MatSu schedule, contact time is even less.

Consider the following scenario. Currently an English teacher has five classes of 28 students each. That is 140 essays to grade. Increase the student/teacher ratio to 30 and add a 6th class. Now the teacher has 180 essays to grade or a 28.5% increase in workload. This workload increase comes with a 12% decrease in their time to work with students on the assignment as well as a 12% decrease in their conference hour to correct the assignment and enter it into Zangle. How will this reality affect what teachers are able to assign? And this is just a typical class. What will be the impact on LAB classes when course time is cut by over 10%?

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

We don’t know. There has been little to no information provided by the Anchorage School District on how this concept even came up. But we do know some things.

Teachers were informed by principals on Friday, January 10 that ASD would be going to a 7 period concept in 2014-15. Not that we might, but that we would. When teachers asked union representatives if this was a “done deal” and if there were any contractual agreement to this through a memorandum of agreement, the Union President replied:

——————————————————–

No, there is no memorandum of agreement about this. In the past year, only one MOA has been signed. It’s an agreement that let’s me be an employee of the District with AEA reimbursing for my salary. Other than that, none at all. In fact, I asked Ed [Graff, ASD Superintendent] questions about yesterday’s meeting. He declined to discuss it. I asked if I could sit in, and he didn’t want to do that. I really have no details yet on what was said.

—————————————————————————————-

As more questions were generated, teachers received the following from Mike Graham at the district office:

—————————————————————————————-

Seven Period Schedule Questions for High Schools

January 10, 2013

Why are we considering a change to a seven period schedule?

We are committed as a District to the Destination 2020 goals of increasing proficiency in reading, writing and math, as well as the graduation rate. However, due to projected flat funding, the district expects a budget gap of $49 million over the next two years, which means schools will have fewer teachers. With fewer teachers in the foreseeable future, and given the current high school schedule of six periods, it is becoming logistically impossible to provide core instruction as well as meet the need for increased academic support and intervention classes, and still continue with quality elective offerings and opportunities the public wants and students deserve. We either do something different or face the reality of both increased class sizes and the elimination of specific classes and programs.

Does having teachers teach six of seven periods save money, and if so, is that the reason we are looking at it?

Having teachers teach six of seven periods rather than five of six is technically 2.3% more efficient, but this is not the reason for making the change. Schools will be staffed the same regardless of the schedule. What the change does is utilize the staffing a school has to provide far more opportunities for students, including academic support classes, AP courses, and elective offerings.

Why are we looking at implementing a seven period schedule next year rather than waiting another year to study and prepare?

With reduced teacher allocations to each school next year, and the increasing need for core plus more in core academic courses, the need to do something different is now. The opportunity cost of waiting a year in terms of programs or courses that may be cut could be very high compared with the advantages of waiting a year.

Doesn’t a seven period schedule result in less time per each class?

The decrease in available time for each class will depend on a comparison between a school’s current school schedule, number of passing periods and corresponding minutes per class per week with whatever new schedule is developed. Given available time, how much instructional time is decreased will depend on how a teacher uses the time available. The need to make the most of every instructional minute available will become paramount.

Will current academic plans and pacing guides still be viable if there is an overall decrease in the instructional time available for each specific class?

The academic plans that have been developed are intended to be living entities that are reviewed annually. The curriculum groups that review them will address any adjustments necessary due to a seven period schedule. Common Core State Standards also narrow and deepen the focus within the content areas.

Will student homework loads increase?

Depending upon the class a student opts to take as the seventh selection, the total amount of homework could increase. However, homework load is within a teacher’s scope of authority. Teachers have the opportunity and responsibility to ensure that all homework issued is directly related to learning objectives, takes into account student ability and need, and strengthens the classroom-home connection. Administrators should work with teachers to ensure homework is not just routine, but meaningful and enriching and provides students with valuable feedback. Depending on the schedule developed, which may include alternating blocks, students also may not have every class every day, allowing some flexibility in homework priority for students.

Will graduation requirements increase?

There are no plans to increase ASD graduation requirements beyond the current 22.5 credits. With a four-year opportunity to earn 28 credits, the new schedule could in fact be advantageous to providing opportunities for credit recovery and increasing the graduation rate.

Can schools schedule a study skills or academic enrichment class for regular education students?

Secondary Education will be working with the curriculum department to make sure such a course is available for regular education students. While we currently have study skills for special education students and tutorial courses for ELL students, the need this kind of class for regular education students, including those in honors and Advanced Placement, is something that has been requested for students at all levels, and no doubt will be in higher demand with the opportunity of an additional period that students can access.

Will teachers need to be highly qualified in the additional course they teach?

Just as happens currently, a teacher needs to be highly qualified in any course he or she is assigned to teach. If the teacher is not highly qualified for an assigned course, he or she will need to work with the principal and submit a plan for becoming highly qualified.

Will teachers have to teach a new prep in addition their other courses?

This will be up to the principal and what he or she schedules for each individual teacher. Principals will need to take into account student, program, and school needs, teacher qualifications and abilities, relative workload in terms of preparation and grading, and scheduling logistics and realities within the master schedule. It is possible that a teacher could be assigned a new prep in their content area, could teach an additional section of a course already scheduled, or be assigned another class that does not require as much preparation or grading time as his or her others.

Will teachers still get their instructional planning period?

All teachers will still receive their contractually guaranteed instructional planning period.

How will part time teachers be impacted by a six of seven schedule?

Given that a full time teacher will teach six periods, 80% teachers will now teach five, 60% teachers will teach four, 40% teachers will teach three, and 20% teachers will teach two class periods.

How will the new schedule impact intensives?

Intensives at the high school level happen mainly at alternative schools, which have an ability to be flexible in their scheduling and use of time. It is anticipated that all schools will still have the flexibility to allow for intensives if they choose to do so.

Will schools still be able to choose how many lunch periods they schedule?

Yes. Our middle schools, which currently operate on a seven period schedule, have as many as three lunches each day. One of the scheduling models being considered for high schools has a fourth period class happening every day. In this model, lunch could happen before the class, after the class, or both before and after.

Will school start and ending times remain the same or can the day be extended?

There are no plans to lengthen the school day at this point.

How would KCC fit into a seven period schedule?

This will depend on the schedule adopted, but it is certainly expected that morning and afternoon classes will still be possible with periods 1, 2, and 3 happening in the am, and periods 5, 6, and 7 happening in the pm. If 4th hour becomes a constant class every day, KCC may consider enrolling students in a 4th hour class at KCC in addition to the CTE course. No matter what schedule is adopted, the district is committed to working with KCC to ensure that students do not lose out on any educational or credit opportunities if they choose to attend KCC. With a seven period schedule, more students may have the flexibility to take advantage of the opportunities KCC offers.

Will all high schools have the same 7 period bell schedule?

While there are advantages to having all secondary schools on the same bell schedule, the unique needs, traditions, and programs within each school community need to be taken into account. As has been true in the past, within the limits of the traditional daily starting and ending times, and keeping in mind the KCC schedule that must work with them, all schools will have the opportunity to develop their own bell schedules. Seven period days, block periods, rotating blocks, daily “skinny” periods, number and length of passing periods, lunchtime configurations, advisory periods, or even professional development time are all possibilities that can be considered when developing daily and weekly bell schedules.

When will we know for sure that we’re going to change to a seven period schedule?

Schools should count on building a seven period schedule for next year having teachers teach six periods. Because many schools begin the student scheduling process in January, and because there are many decisions schools will need to make in the transition to a six of seven schedule, the time is now to begin preparing and planning.

————————————————————

And that leaves us where we are now, at a precarious tipping point. There are a lot of questions still to be addressed. For example:

• Who made this unilateral decision?

• How was it made?

• Will there be any debate on the topic or is it a Fait Acompli?

• Why was the discussion kept secret and why were parents and unions left out?

• How will Northwest Accreditation and State mandates affect this decision?

• How will programs like IB, which has required seat time, be affected?

• How much latitude will a school have in deciding what this 7th class period is? Could a school opt for it to be a 20 minute study hall or advisory period, for example?

• What is the cost of moving to this system?

• How will NCAA view this decision? Will it affect NCAA eligibility?

• How and when will this information be revealed?

• Or is this all just posturing to force the legislature to adopt a new funding formula?

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

You should gather as many facts as you can. Look at the data yourself. Do not accept what you are being told here or anywhere. The numbers speak for themselves. Unlike the District, I have provided clear evidence, but I do not expect you to accept it without researching it yourself. So go check. Then make a decision about what you think is true about this 7 period system. If you find it to be sound educational theory, then sit back and relax and enjoy the ride. But if you do not, you need to call your school board member, your assemblyman, your legislator. You need to write letters to the editor. You need to gather others and get them informed. And then you need to tell the civil servants of the Anchorage School District who work for your Tax Dollars what your marching orders are. In the end, they are YOUR employees. You are the boss.

But if you are complacent and apathetic, you will receive what they decide to give you for an education. And then you will have nobody to blame but yourself.

APPENDIX

In the original version of this early diatribe I included an appendix responding to the memo shown above. As this post is already way too long, I will not put it here, but will list it as its own post.

(798)

First, let’s take a VERY BRIEF lesson on how education is funded in Anchorage.  There are several revenue streams.  But we will examine each in a very simplified form.  And please be aware, I’m only going to “ball park” these numbers.

#1. Municipal Property Taxes: The Anchorage School District (ASD) is largely funded by property taxes from Anchorage property owners.  Out of every dollar in property tax a person pays in Anchorage, a large portion goes to ASD for ongoing expenses that come from education.  Additionally, out of that same dollar, a portion goes to pay for capital improvements in ASD (new schools, roof repair, etc) through bonded indebtedness.  Roughly half of every dollar (and it is growing) goes to fund the ASD.  The rest goes to fund the municipality.  While there is a LOT of discussion about whether maintenance should be bonded etc., the fact remains that this is how the system works.  Further, bonded indebtedness is voted on by the people, so whatever those tax increases are, citizens of Anchorage are voting for it.  But that is grist for another mill.  Let’s move on to other funding sources.

#2. Grants: ASD receives a great deal of money in the form of grants.  In fact, ASD has dedicated grant writers on the payroll who do nothing but write grants and help others in the district write them.  A grantor publishes they have money available.  Grant writers apply for the money.  If successful, the District receives the grant money for the specified project.  ALMOST ALWAYS, money obtained in grants are used for VERY SPECIFIC purposes with a time limit.  A grant might be for technology, for example.  The recipient could spend the money on more computers, smart boards, etc., but would not be allowed to divert that money to pay for roof repair.  In fact, it’s illegal to misspend that money.  Often times we see grant money spent on something ridiculous and cry out, SPEND IT ON BOOKS INSTEAD.  But it can’t be done.  It must go to fulfill the grant.  These grants may be state, federal, municipal or even private funds.

#3. Federal Money: A large amount of dollars comes to schools from the Federal Government.  But wait!  That is not a Constitutional right of the federal level!  You are right to think that.  BUT, the Federal Government has infiltrated the education system in a variety of ways.  For example, through the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Federal government requires schools to be ADA compliant in their construction.  This costs additional dollars.  SOME of these mandates are offset by dollars the Federal govenrment allocates to schools.  But not all of them.  There is a GREAT DEAL of controversy over what are called “Unfunded Mandates” where the Federal Government requires schools to comply with some rule, but does not give schools the money to meet those standards.

#4. State Money: One of the largest streams of revenue comes from the State of Alaska.  In fact, many school districts in the interior are almost ENTIRELY funded through state dollars.  The state determines how much money each district should get through a formula called the “Base Allocation.”  In simple terms, the more students there are in a district, the more money that district receives.  But there is a LOT of argument about what the formula should be.  In recent years, local districts have been telling the state they need to redo the formula and increase the allocation per student.  The legislature has tussled with this one for years.  Some of the arguments can be found in newspaper articles like this one:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130524/while-some-alaska-school-funding-increases-basic-student-formula-remained-flat

So those are the MAIN sources of revenue for ASD.  There are others, like rental income, donations, etc., but they do not amount to a hill of beans compare to these other four.

So what’s all the shouting about?

Short version goes something like this….

Remember that Obama bail out money?  Well ASD got some of that money.  Much of it was spent on creating positions within the school district.  While the money was coming in, that was great.  But these were not one-time, short-term expenses.  When the money ran out, those people still had jobs.  And now, how do we pay for them?

But that is only part of the issue.  In addition to that, we all know oil revenues are in peril.  Whether you look at declining per-barrel prices, expanding per barrel expenses, or declining production, the reality is, the dollars are not flowing out of the pipeline like they once were.  And the future appears even bleaker.  This means the State has less to spend.

It seems like a simple solution to just cut the positions that were created and get back to a normal budget level.  The problem is, certain laws, contracts and other obligations prohibit some of those jobs going away.  So the onus falls on either other personnel, or non-personnel cost cutting.

While nobody argues that the District couldn’t afford to run a little leaner, ASD argues that the State needs to free up more money for education.  They say it is more expensive to educate kids today, with requirements like the internet, computers, and the additional duties schools have been asked to perform (such as school lunches.)  They want the State to adjust the Base Allocation.  Doing so could make budget cuts unnecessary.

The State argues, times are tough and we all need to do more with less. They do not want to adjust the Base Allocation because they argue it is fiscally irresponsible in an economy where oil contributions are declining.  Even if they could increase the Base Allocation, they argue it only Postpones the Inevitable.  The District needs to cinch its belt and suck it up like everyone else.

But the State and the District have had a LONG TIME history of political brinkmanship when it comes to school funding.  In the past, ASD has threatened massive cuts to programs, staff, etc., as a political maneuver to rile up voters.  This is used to coerce elected officials, and when the dust settles, the State has usually given in.

But this time it is different.  The State does not appear to be playing the same game of “Chicken” that ASD is.  And ASD has never threatened teaching personnel in this way before.  If this is political posturing from either side, it is a pretty crummy thing to do to threaten the livelihoods of Alaskans as your method to achieve your aims.  We used to call that “tyranny.”

So now we have the ASD screaming for an increase in the Base Allocation.  The State is threatening to increase the allocation but give allocation money to private schools (meaning public schools will end up with less anyway.)

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140203/parnell-education-plan-assaults-public-schools-alaska-native-civil-rights

http://www.adn.com/2014/01/22/3286565/parnell-lays-out-education-vision.html

Parents and Students have joined in with the ASD, at least in the base allocation fight.

But there is one thing I believe is being overlooked.  And that is… why is the District ONLY focusing on staff reductions.  There are a LOT of other places to get money from.  The District has whole departments that are superfluous.  Recently one Administrative appointee said she was going to retire and that she felt there was no need to replace her position.  But it is still on the chart.  The District owns huge amounts of land, much of it empty.  Yet they still pay to maintain it.  We have schools that are running under capacity that could be combined to result in cost savings, but we aren’t looking at that.  I have specific budget cuts that would have NO effect on class size or other teaching impact, that have no reduction in personnel, yet would directly save over $1 million.  But the District isn’t looking at any of them.  And yes, One Million isn’t 25.  But it is a start.  And it wouldn’t be missed.

I have many friends that are principals, so this next thing I’m about to say is a little harsh.  But….

Over the past several years, our education budget has been studied by professional auditors as well as two community budget task forces (implemented by Carol Comeau.)  In EVERY CASE, one of the top suggestions for saving money was to decrease the number of Principals in schools.  That has never been done and is still not even being discussed.  Not even through attrition.  Why isn’t this on the table?

Well… you have the basics of the budget argument.  I think the district is going to have to tighten its waistband.  I think the state is going to have to compromise a little, but I hope not much.  ASD MUST CONTROL ITS SPENDING!!  It is out of control and ridiculous.  But I think the District is irresponsible if it decides that the majority of cuts must come from the rank and file teachers who are the only ones in the district actually educating kids!  There are plenty of other places to make cuts which they aren’t even looking at.  In fact, in a recent meeting, a district official said that this round they would ONLY takes budget cuts from teaching and related staff.  Now why is that?

Don’t expect much more on the budget.  It is really a simple issue and I’ve laid it out for you.  Most of what I will be discussing next is the 7 period day.  I hope this has been helpful.

(2485)

The Anchorage School District is a spendy operation.  It is a huge employer in the city and has many departments.  Some estimates put the expenses each year at nearly a billion dollars.  To put that in perspective, it costs as much to run the Anchorage School District as it does to run the rest of the Municipality of Anchorage in its entirety: Cops, Fire dept., snow removal, city offices, etc.  This is a given.

In recent years, the district has continued to spend large amounts of money when it was becoming clear that their sources of money, especially money coming from the State of Alaska, were getting tighter.  There is a whole lot of finger pointing that could be made here about who is responsible and why.  But that isn’t what this blog or the hoopla is really all about.  So let’s stay focused on what it is.

In short, the District estimates that over the next two years, they will need to cut $49 Million from the budget to meet expected revenue streams.  This comes out to about $25 Million each year over the next 2 years.  In 2012-2013 there were drastic cuts made then as well, but mostly this was covered by attrition.  Some jobs were lost then, but most of them were not teaching positions and most were not a real loss of personnel, but more a cut back of unfilled but budgeted for positions, and not hiring to replace retirees.  There was pain, but it was a gouge in the eye, not a shot in the head.

This time around, though, things are different.  LARGE cuts are being made, and almost all of them are in the teaching arena.  In fact, in a recent meeting with school staff, one district official stated that cuts would be made in teaching staff and nowhere else.

Now let me take an aside here to talk about how I’m going to manage my comments.  Some will say “Hey!  If you know who said it, why not just say the jerk’s name.”  My response to that is the following:  First, I will not make any assertions or claims of quotes unless I was actually there in the room or heard/read the quote myself in email or from a recording.  I will not make an assertion unless I can back it up.  And if someone wants to come speak to me privately about the sources, I’m glad to provide those.  BUT, I’m not making this about name calling and finger pointing.  It is about ISSUES.  It doesn’t matter WHO said it, only that it was said.  Any information that is available publicly, I will show my source directly.  If this makes my commentary unbelievable, I invite you to check the information yourself.  Or come talk to me privately and I can provide details.  But I will not be the source of gossip or ruining a person’s name.  Even if they are mistaken about what is right and wrong.  Ok.. back to the story…

Subsequent to this statement about teacher cuts (this includes counselors, etc.) it was made public that there actually WERE some cuts in other areas, but the majority were indeed teaching staff.  Principals and related administration have been left alone.  Most programs have been left untouched.  There have been some “cuts” which on their face appear to be smokescreens rather than real dollars.  For example, one proposed cut is to eliminate swimming classes, which will save dollars that the district pays to Municipal Parks & Recreation.  This is really just a accounting transaction shifting money from one pot of taxpayer money to another.  It isn’t a real decrease in what is ultimately collected from property tax.

In any case, the vast majority of pain will be felt by teachers, counselors, aides, etc.  These are the people that are actually working with kids.

The other large cut will occur when Middle School teachers lose one of their “conference hours” and replace it with a class.  This will result in a decrease in staff because fewer teachers will be needed to teach the same number of courses.

Finally, cuts will be made down at the grade school level as well.

Principals were told last week (Last week of January) what their numbers would be and were told to start making plans regarding who they would give pink slips to.  Currently Principals are hoping that those who are thinking of retiring will make their decisions soon, so that as much of their reduction in force can be taken up by attrition from retirements as possible.  This has created a great deal of uncertainty amongst teachers, especially new teachers as they will likely be the first to go.

But there is a second change in the wind.  And nobody is quite sure what the purpose of it is.  The district informed teachers 3 weeks ago that high schools would move to a 7 period day over the current 6.  And the reasoning behind it is… well… a mystery.

In this system, high school teachers will be teaching an additional class with no additional pay.  Students will take an additional class during their day as well.  This SOUNDS like a contract issue.  But the Anchorage School District argues that it is not.  Their argument is that they pay teachers to teach for 6 hours a day, it shouldn’t make a difference as to how those hours are broken up.  Many teachers say this is a contract breach.  The Union has not really responded.  Things are in a bit of an uproar.

The worst part of the “7 period” issue is… well… nobody really appears to know what the heck is going on.  Principals and teachers have asked, what is this 7 period day supposed to look like.  Administration has responded with, “we don’t know… you figure it out.”  And have given a fairly ridiculous timeline to do it in as well.

Oh and… one last thing… this decision was never mentioned in any public meetings, public announcements or anything even remotely “transparent” until weeks later.  At least two members of the school board have said they knew nothing about the decision until well after teachers were informed it was the new law of the land.

And IS it the law of the land?  That’s unclear too, as some principals have told their staffs that until the Board votes on it, it isn’t real.

For families and educators in Anchorage, the Education system in Anchorage, always a bit confusing, is now a sea of chaos and uncertainty.  What is worse, rumors and lies are further confusing the waters.

Over the next several days I will blog here on this issue and try to provide some information that you may not have direct access to.  I will NOT be allowing comments.  I’m just posting what I know.  If you find it interesting, do with it what you will.  I urge you to get involved in the process.  I also STRONGLY urge you to fact check EVERYTHING.  Get your calculators out.  READ.  Do not accept what you are being told, EVEN BY ME.

See you at the other end of this…

(619)