Board Supports Grade Level Change

Board of Education Adopts Recommendation with 2 Amendments

On April 23, the Poudre School District Board of Education voted 5-2 to support reconfiguration of grade levels to Kindergarten-5th grade, 6th-8th grade, and/or Kindergarten-8th grade, and 9-12 high schools in a three- or four-year phase in process. 

Grade Configuration Recommendation (Passed 5-2 on April 24)

• PSD moves to a K-5, 6-8, and/or K-8 and 9-12 grade configuration in a three- or four-year phase in process. 
• Year one (2007-2008):  The district will conduct a boundary review process which will include defining new high school boundaries by April 2008.  School readiness plans begin to be developed as part of feeder coordinated plans to be approved by assistant superintendents.  In feeder systems, junior highs and elementary schools will define programs that will implement K-5, 6-8 models and/or K-8, and 9-12 models which fit with Board Ends. 
• Year two (2008-2009):  Feeder systems coordinate site plans and staffing plans to implement K-5, 6-8, and/or K-8 and 9-12.
• Year three (2009-2010):  Ready feeder systems implement K-5, 6-8, and/or K-8 and 9-12.  If additional time is required, a fourth year (2010-2011) will be used to bring all schools into K-5, 6-8, and/or K-8, and 9-12 configuration.
• At the high schools, 9^th grade students should have a closed campus.
• Middle Schools will be implemented when grades 6-8 are grouped together.
• The district will provide a process for elementary schools with atypical or unique school or school community needs to seek a variance from the K-5 model.

This revision (made on April 20) will allow junior highs and elementary schools to meet and discuss the development of 6-8 middle schools and K-8 elementary schools.  While these junior high feeder systems are complex, this type of discussion will facilitate the consideration of optional K-8 models within a geographic context that would meet community interests.  At the same time, the district will be defining criteria for the consideration of K-8 schools.  These criteria will be presented to the Board in a monitoring report in September 2007, and then utilized in the junior high and elementary feeder discussions.

Click here (47 KB) for the full 11-page recommendation presented April 9. 

Click here (99 KB)   for the PowerPoint visuals of the presentation. Both include goals, background on the process and timeline, research studied, community engagement activities, 9^th-grade rationale, 6-8 rationale, and K-5 rationale, a middle school recommendation, implementation considerations, the 4-year implementation scenario, human resource staffing considerations, the boundary change timeline, and facilities/costs information.  

Click here (245 KB) for the report on the Design Team's April 16 meeting with the Board of Education, during which they presented the compelling reasons and basis for their recommendation to change grade levels in PSD.

Background for the Study and Recommendation:

In February 2006, the Board asked district administration to study grade configuration options.  Since that time, district administration, the Rationale Team and Design Team, have been studying a complex set of factors to help balance school enrollments, improve transitions between grade levels, and provide equitable educational opportunities, given limited funding.

October 2006 through March 2007: The Design Team, which has been meeting on a regular basis since October 2006, has hosted six community and staff forums to gather public and staff input.  The team then held two in-depth meetings to narrow the configuration designs from four to two options, using various sources of data, including: research, Implications Wheel information, decision-making criteria established by the team, school and district data, and parent and staff input (including forums and other types of feedback such as letters, discussions, and e-mails).  April 2, 2007 -- Design

Committee presents recommendation to PSD Cabinet:
On April 2, the Design Team, comprised of parents, principals, teachers, and administrators, presented its recommendation to the PSD Cabinet, which is comprised of Superintendent Jerry Wilson, Assistant Superintendents Ron Maulsby (elementary schools), Manny Ortega (secondary schools), and Jim Sarchet (business services), and Executive Director of Human Resources Cathy Smith.  The PSD Cabinet advises the Superintendent on recommendations made to the Board of Education.

The Design Team focused on the following areas of consideration: 

• To provide high school students with the best 4-year experience possible;
• To improve Poudre School District’s dropout rate;
• To improve equity and access of educational opportunities for all students;
• To help balance enrollment between schools;
• To address the lag in achievement that currently occurs during the “transition years” as students move from one level to the next, regardless of the grade where these transitions occur;
• And an overall focus on what is best for kids.

When asked to choose two options for recommendation to the Cabinet, the committee was virtually unanimous in selecting Options A, the current design of K-6, 7-9, and 10-12 schools and Option B, which would consist of K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 schools.  When asked to select a preferred option among those two, a strong majority of the committee selected Option B, assuming a carefully considered and well-executed implementation plan is put in place to deal with the issues that may arise.

Some of the major, compelling reasons the Design Team recommended Option B (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) are:

1. Create continuity of the 9^th grade experience throughout high school in both academics and extracurricular opportunities.  The current configuration is creating equity issues statewide and nationwide for our students to compete, given that students do not have the opportunity to participate in extra-curricular activities and lack access to the full complement of extracurricular and academic opportunities.
2. Improve curriculum articulation (sequencing and coordination) for grades 6-8 and 9-12, and teacher collaboration between these levels.
3. The middle school model/teaming can better meet the needs of the 7^th and 8^th grade students without the constraints of the high school requirements of 9^th graders in the building. 
4. State mandates require us to accredit our schools with the data available.  With transitions different from the rest of the state, the impact on high schools is they are either in decline or significant decline on School Accountability Reports, because of the way the measure works.  Making this change would help use our data to improve instructional strategies. 
5. Allows more space for all-day kindergarten and early childhood programs in the elementary schools, if funding is available to support these programs.

For Option B, the Design Team listed numerous implementation considerations, which were not consensus items, but were meant to offer direction for an implementation plan. (The following are examples of brainstormed ideas by the Design Team):

• Have an implementation plan in place as soon as possible.
• Implement a middle school model, including grade level teaming and flex scheduling.
• Devise a system that provides and supports teaching staff and administrative staff options to decide at what schools or grade levels they will be teaching.  Provide smooth transitions and choices for both teachers and administrators so they will feel empowered about where they will be located the next year.
• Quickly address how we will handle pressures of high schools at capacity.
• Address open campuses as soon as possible with 9^th graders at the high schools.
• Emphasize this is a culture change for students, parents, and staff, especially grades 6-8; leadership and training are critical.
• Consider implementation in 2009 rather than 2008, or staggered implementation.
• Identify what decisions are district, feeder, or building level.

Some of the major, compelling reasons the Design Team recommended Option A (current levels of K-6, 7-9, and 10-12) are:

1. Elementary schools are more fully utilized and have higher enrollment numbers (efficient use of space)
2. Art, music, P.E. “specials” are less likely to be reduced if enrollments remain higher.
3. We can use our current resources (time, talents, people, and financial) toward student achievement initiatives as opposed to spending the same resources for systemic change during the transitional period. 
4. Poudre School District student performance on standardized assessments consistently ranks Poudre School District among the highest achieving districts in the state, demonstrating successful learning in the current grade configuration.
5. This may be the least expensive option (depending on implementation and building  utilization).

For Option A, the Design Team listed numerous implementation considerations, which were not consensus items, but were meant to offer direction for an implementation plan. (The following are examples of brainstormed ideas by the Design Team):

• Consider 9-12 as a continuous experience for students.  Drop the credit requirement for entrance into 10th grade so there is no retention in the 9^th grade.  Ensure that each student has strong high school counseling to help create a 4-year academic plan at the end of 8^th grade.
• Assure 9^th grade students have access to any course offerings at the high school level that they are prepared to take.  In other words, remove barriers to allow students to accelerate in course offerings beyond foreign language and math.
• Assure that 9^th grade students can access all high school extra-curricular activities regardless of their junior high location.
• Look at mill levy to support early childhood, universal preschool programs and all-day kindergarten, so that we have a viable, ongoing funding source for this area.
• Improve transitions overall for students, in both academic and social areas.
• Address high school enrollment inequities with magnet programs and/or curriculum changes (perhaps by combining with another program).  Develop magnet programs at lower enrollment schools to increase enrollment.
• Create true feeder systems in each of the high schools, dedicated feeders for each school, and/or cap enrollment at each high school, and consider transportation needs.

In addition, the Design Team presented a summary of its rationale for not bringing forward Options C and D for consideration:

Why not Option C (K-6, 7-8, 9-12):

1. With a 7^th and 8^th grade middle level, 100% of the students would be either entering or leaving a school; research shows the longer students are in a school, the higher they achieve and more likely they are to stay in school.
2. If you look at pieces of this option in isolation (for example, K-6 and 9-12), this is appealing.  However, when the entire system is considered, 7-8 becomes a real concern for cohesion in a 2-year program.
3. Not as effective for curriculum articulation (sequencing and coordination) as Option B, because 6^th grade is still in elementary school.
4. Junior high school buildings would be significantly underutilized.

Why not Option D (hybrid model with some schools of each configuration):

1. Inconsistency of levels would add to inequity of educational access and offerings (e.g., 9^th graders in some parts of town would not have the opportunity to attend high schools, while others would).
2. Complex and difficult to understand for parents exploring all educational options – neighborhood schools and school choice.  Few school districts in Colorado or nationally use hybrid grade configurations for high schools.  Most are all 3 year or all 4-year high schools.
3. Professional development difficult due to inconsistent configuration across the district.
4. Reduces district wide horizontal articulation (curriculum sequencing and coordination).
5. Feeder configuration will be dictated by high school configuration.
6. Increases unhealthy competition between schools.

Recommendation presented April 9 to Board, and posted online:
The Cabinet met several times the week of April 3-6 to discuss the Design Team’s recommendations, and advised the Superintendent.  Dr. Wilson narrowed the recommendation to one option and presented the recommendation to the Board of Education for first reading on April 9 (no action is taken during first reading). 

The PSD Cabinet met with school and district principals and administrators on April 9 to share and discuss the recommendation with district leadership.

Board work session April 16; decision expected at April 23 Board meeting:
A public Board of Education work session on grade configuration will be held at 7:30 p.m. on April 16 (2407 LaPorte Ave., informational meeting among the Board, Cabinet and Design Committee; no decisions are made at work sessions and no public comment is held). 

For additional information, call 490-3427 or email info@psdschools.org. 

Public Meeting Feedback Reports Available for Review:
The feedback reports from the public 6 meetings, prepared by the CSU Center for Public Deliberation, follow:  Report Summary (336 KB) (10 pages), and Full Report (710 KB)   (336 KB) (66 pages).

In-Depth Information on Grade Level Options Presented at Public Meetings, Online
The Design Committee, comprised of parents, principals, teachers, and administrators, developed grade level configuration options for public and staff review in February and March.  (For in-depth information, click on: Overview & Options (381 KB)  ,  Overview & Options (Spanish version) (393 KB)  ,  Frequently-Asked Questions and Responses (231 KB)  ,  Frequently Asked Questions and Responses (Spanish version) (205 KB)  ,  Decision-Making Criteria (59 KB) ,  Issues & Possible Solutions (436 KB)  , and Process and Timeline (9 KB) ). 

The Grade Configuration Informational Issues and Options video (in 8 parts), by PSD Assistant Superintendents, provides background and information on the process and options.

• Introduction (4.9 MB)
• Why study grade configuration? (2.4 MB)
• Would boundary changes alone solve the problem? (1.5 MB)
• Who has been involved? (7.6 MB)
• What are the four designs? (1.8 MB)
• What would the impacts of these options be? (7.3 MB)
• Are there any other issues? (1.6 MB)
• Where can I get more information? (4.7 MB)

For additional information on the entire process, reports, and timeline for the Grade Level Configuration study, click here.

Goal to provide equitable education to all students
“The goal for considering these options is to provide an equitable education to all students district-wide, taking into consideration enrollment, budget, school efficiency, and student transition challenges,” says Jerry Wilson, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools. 

“We are asking parents, staff, and the community to look at a broader vision—what’s best for students 5, 10, and 15 years down the road. We must suspend our current reality and make decisions based on what makes sense for the future of Poudre School District students. We know it is difficult to make changes, and we’ll work very hard to make sure transitions are successful for all involved.”

Study process explores implications of changes
In June 2006, Rationale Teams leading the grade level studies began holding extensive input sessions with hundreds of stakeholders—parents, students, teachers, and principals—exploring many implications of the following grade level options: K-5, 6-8, K-6, 7-8, K-8, and 9-12 and 10-12. The implications provided information about the benefits of each grade configuration, and also helped the teams anticipate potentially negative outcomes to avoid.