Options for Elementary Band and Strings Program Delivery

Similar documents
Trends & Issues Report

Milton Public Schools Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Presentation

Program Change Proposal:

Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview. Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools

Definitions for KRS to Committee for Mathematics Achievement -- Membership, purposes, organization, staffing, and duties

Why OUT-OF-LEVEL Testing? 2017 CTY Johns Hopkins University

TRI-STATE CONSORTIUM Wappingers CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

Lakewood Board of Education 200 Ramsey Avenue, Lakewood, NJ 08701

Workload Policy Department of Art and Art History Revised 5/2/2007

St. Paul, St. Michael, Our Lady of Lourdes: Pupil Accommodation Review. December 7, 2016

Education in Armenia. Mher Melik-Baxshian I. INTRODUCTION

1. Amend Article Departmental co-ordination and program committee as set out in Appendix A.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS GUIDELINES

Student Assessment and Evaluation: The Alberta Teaching Profession s View

SINGLE PLAN FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. Peter Johansen High School

Transportation Equity Analysis

Chatswood Public School Annual School Report 2015

Best Practices in Internet Ministry Released November 7, 2008

Average Daily Membership Proposed Change to Chapter 8 Rules and Regulations for the Wyoming School Foundation Program

State Parental Involvement Plan

DISTRICT ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION & REPORTING GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES

Everton Library, Liverpool: Market assessment and project viability study 1

UNIVERSITY OF REGINA. Tuition and fees

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the Florida school district performance review is to identify ways that a designated school district can:

Executive Summary. Laurel County School District. Dr. Doug Bennett, Superintendent 718 N Main St London, KY

Linguistics Program Outcomes Assessment 2012

Evaluation of pupil premium grant expenditure 2015/16 Review Date: 16th July 2016

Personnel Administrators. Alexis Schauss. Director of School Business NC Department of Public Instruction

November 6, Re: Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal:

Financial Plan. Operating and Capital. May2010

AIS KUWAIT. School Improvement Plan (SIP)

GRADUATE STUDENTS Academic Year

Community Unit # 2 School District Library Policy Manual

OHIO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SALARY SCHEDULES Revised 7/3/12

CONTINUUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS

School Participation Agreement Terms and Conditions

Common Core Path to Achievement. A Three Year Blueprint to Success

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS

Elementary and Secondary Education Act ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) 1O1

Running head: FINAL CASE STUDY, EDCI Addressing a Training Gap. Final Case Study. Anna Siracusa. Purdue University

Major Milestones, Team Activities, and Individual Deliverables

CERTIFIED TEACHER LICENSURE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Ohio State University Library System Improvement Request,

Dentist Under 40 Quality Assurance Program Webinar

Backwards Numbers: A Study of Place Value. Catherine Perez

TALKING POINTS ALABAMA COLLEGE AND CAREER READY STANDARDS/COMMON CORE

African American Male Achievement Update

Tale of Two Tollands

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS CALENDAR

SEPERAC MEE QUICK REVIEW OUTLINE

Recommendations for Gifted Education Program for Advanced Learners

I. Proposal presentations should follow Degree Quality Assessment Board (DQAB) format.

2016 Annual Report 1

AAC/BOT Page 1 of 9

LEAD AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Audit Of Teaching Assignments. An Integrated Analysis of Teacher Educational Background and Courses Taught October 2007

ESE SUPPORT & PROCEDURES ESE FTE PREPARATION ESE FUNDING & ALLOCATIONS

If we want to measure the amount of cereal inside the box, what tool would we use: string, square tiles, or cubes?

Position Statements. Index of Association Position Statements

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

4.0 CAPACITY AND UTILIZATION

Preliminary Report Initiative for Investigation of Race Matters and Underrepresented Minority Faculty at MIT Revised Version Submitted July 12, 2007

Rethinking the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education

08-09 DATA REVIEW AND ACTION PLANS Candidate Reports

Frequently Asked Questions Archdiocesan Collaborative Schools (ACS)

CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24

Feedback Form Results n=106 6/23/10 Emotionally Focused Therapy: Love as an Attachment Bond Presented By: Sue Johnson, Ed.D.

Paying for. Cosmetology School S C H O O L B E AU T Y. Financing your new life. beautyschoolnetwork.com pg 1

Occupational Therapist (Temporary Position)

STUDENT ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION AND PROMOTION

NC Community College System: Overview

THE ST. OLAF COLLEGE LIBRARIES FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE

NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Policy Manual

COACHING A CEREMONIES TEAM

1 Instructional Design Website: Making instruction easy for HCPS Teachers Henrico County, Virginia

STABILISATION AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IN NAB

Davidson College Library Strategic Plan

WMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers, July 2015 V1. WMO Global Campus: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

A Snapshot of the Graduate School

Disability Rights Center v. Maine Department of Education: Recommendations of the Department of Education Corrective Action Plan Work Group

OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT. Annual Report

Cuero Independent School District

Comprehensive Program Review (CPR)

PATTERNS OF ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF BIOMEDICAL EDUCATION & ANATOMY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Hamline University. College of Liberal Arts POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

One Hour of Code 10 million students, A foundation for success

2015 Academic Program Review. School of Natural Resources University of Nebraska Lincoln

Event on Teaching Assignments October 7, 2015

Kelso School District and Kelso Education Association Teacher Evaluation Process (TPEP)

Comprehensive Program Review (CPR)

Course Content Concepts

Expanded Learning Time Expectations for Implementation

CAREER SERVICES Career Services 2020 is the new strategic direction of the Career Development Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

A non-profit educational institution dedicated to making the world a better place to live

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

El Camino College Planning Model

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Inter-site Conference. Improving Conditions in Detention Centers: Recent Innovations New Incentive System

The feasibility, delivery and cost effectiveness of drink driving interventions: A qualitative analysis of professional stakeholders

Teaching Financial Literacy to Adult Students: Different Strokes for Different Folks

DOES OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ENHANCE CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION AMONG GIFTED STUDENTS?

Transcription:

February 10, 2016 TO: Education and Student Services Committee III Item 1 FROM: RE: Nancy Brennan, Associate Superintendent Options for Elementary Band and Strings Program Delivery INTRODUCTION: A report was presented to Committee III in January, 2016, outlining the status of the optional 2015-2016 Elementary Band and Strings Program (see Appendix A). At that time, Trustees requested that in light of upcoming budget discussions, a briefing be prepared outlining other possible models for this optional program. This report outlines possible delivery model options. This report is provided for information. BACKGROUND: The following changes were made to the optional Elementary Band and Strings program for the 2015-2016 school year: 1. Offering Elementary Band at Grade 6 and 7 (instead of 5, 6, and 7) in schools with both existing optional programs as well as in schools with the new prep model 2. Offering Strings at Grades 5-7 (instead of 4-7) in schools with existing optional programs as well as in schools with the new prep model 3. Where practicable, offering existing optional Band and/or Strings programs in a preparation time model (as opposed to an optional model) 4. Increasing the user-fee contribution for those programs that remained optional from $25 to $50 per year. These changes have created ongoing savings in the amount of approximately $300,000 per year, but the District still spends approximately $500,000 per year on the remaining 44 optional programs. It should be noted that the optional Elementary Band and Strings programs are offered in addition to regular Fine Arts instruction (Music, Art, Drama and Dance) in our elementary classrooms, not as a substitute for the Ministry-mandated curriculum. 1

OPTIONS The following information outlines possible considerations for offering Elementary Band and Strings in a variety of formats: Option Financial Implications Considerations Maintain current status (6 schools with Band or Strings as prep, 44 schools with optional programs) $500,000/yr. ongoing costs for staffing Would not allow for any additional savings to the district Would allow district staff, teachers and admin to work through some challenges noted in earlier report. Would give staff time to analyze the impact that these changes have had to the delivery of Elementary Band and Strings programs across the district. Move six additional schools to prep model 0.71 FTE reduction in staffing (ongoing savings of approximately $70,000/yr.) Have identified additional schools with qualified teachers and could move 6 (perhaps more) to the prep model Would be challenging to schedule and could create programming concerns in this new group of six schools Lack of choice at school level as to which program delivers prep Increased costs to schools/district in terms of musical instruments (purchases, rentals and repairs) Move all 44 optional programs to prep model 5.85 FTE reduction in staffing (ongoing savings of approximately $575,000/yr.) Schools lose choice of which program they want for prep Would likely impact other programs in the school (i.e. library, music, PE) Not certain that there are enough Band and Strings specialist teachers to fill all positions Increased costs to schools/district in terms of musical instruments (purchases, rentals and repairs) Eliminate optional programs in all of the 44 remaining schools 5.85 FTE reduction in staffing (ongoing savings of approximately $575,000/yr.) Overall reduction of 5.85 teaching FTE across the district Reduced specialty Band and Strings programs, now only in those schools where it is offered as prep Currently, the community is very supportive of the ability to access an elementary Band and Strings program and would not like to see it eliminated 2

Reduce all 44 optional programs by one grade. Band offered only at grade 7 and Strings offered only at grade 6 & 7 2.2 FTE reduction in staffing (ongoing savings of approximately $217,000/yr.) Increased work load for Itinerant Band and Strings teachers. Band teachers would visit 12 schools per week (9 this year), Strings teachers would visit 10 schools per week (6 this year) Reduced number of minutes of instruction in each program could be seen to impact depth of learning Increase user pay fees from $50.00/yr. to between $350.00 - $500.00/yr. ($35-50 per month) per student, depending on program enrollment Program becomes cost neutral as fees cover all staffing costs ($575,000/yr.) A high percentage of families may choose not to participate or not to pay Financial hardship could prevent some students from participating Eliminate Optional Band and Strings Programs and Create Fine Arts Teacher Mentor positions (0.4 FTE each for Music, Visual Arts, Dance, and Drama) Reduce from 5.85 to 1.6 FTE (ongoing savings of approximately $420,000/yr.) Could enhance Elementary Fine Arts programs across the district by having teacher leaders working with school-based staff to build capacity in all areas of the Fine Arts curriculum Entire district would have equitable access to Mentor support in all areas of Fine Arts curriculum Existing schools could choose to still have a Band or Strings program as prep, and others could choose to implement such program, provided that there was a qualified teacher on staff. Currently, the community is very supportive of the ability to access an elementary Band and Strings program and would not like to see it eliminated 3

CONCLUSION: Any decisions involving changes to the current structure and organization of the elementary Band and Strings Programs would have to be made in advance of budget approval (April 28, 2016), as well as in time for the yearly staffing processes, which is occurring at approximately the same time (May). This report is provided for information. 4

Appendix A January 13, 2016 TO: FROM: RE: Education and Student Services Committee III Nancy Brennan, Associate Superintendent Elementary Band and Strings Programs INTRODUCTION: This report outlines the status of the elementary Band and Strings program after staffing and delivery model changes were made to the program for the 2015-2016 school year. This report is provided for information purposes only. BACKGROUND: During the 2014-2015 budget development process, the Board considered a proposal to eliminate the 8.0 FTE that supported the optional elementary Band and Strings program in 50 of Vancouver s 92 elementary schools. During those budget deliberations, the Board heard from many advocates for the program as well as for the delivery of a quality music program overall. The Board at that time made a decision to identify one-time only funding in order to continue the program for the 2014-15 school year. The Board also asked that the sustainability of the optional elementary Band and Strings program be explored. Former Associate Superintendent Dr. Valerie Overgaard was contracted to lead the review and consultation process and she presented a report of her findings to Committee III in February of 2015 http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/15feb11_op_commiii_agenda.pdf This report suggested several possibilities that in combination would reduce the level of costs associated with the existing additional district staffing and would maintain a program option for the 2015 2016 school year. Building upon those recommendations, Associate Superintendent Ciarniello submitted a report to Committee III in both March and April of 2015 http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/15mar25_op_commiii_agenda.pdf http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/15apr15_op_commiii_agenda.pdf with suggestions for the implementation of changes to the existing optional elementary Band and Strings for September 2015. These changes included: 1. Offering Elementary Band at Grade 6 and 7 (instead of 5, 6, and 7) in schools with both existing optional programs as well as in schools with the new prep model 2. Offering Strings at Grades 5-7 (instead of 4-7) in schools with existing optional programs as well as in schools with the new prep model

3. Where practicable, offering existing optional Band and/or Strings programs in a preparation time model (as opposed to an optional model) 4. Increasing the user-fee contribution for those programs that remained optional from $25 to $50 per year. These changes were anticipated to save approximately $325,000 in the 2015-16 school year and were approved by the Board to be included in the budget development process. SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM AND FEEDBACK Schools with the Prep Model Program As a result of the changes made, there was a decrease in district staffing for the optional program from 8.85 FTE to 5.86 FTE, causing a savings of 2.99 FTE or $ 295,950. This reduction was accomplished by moving 6 schools (Carleton, Carr, Jamieson, Livingstone, Oppenheimer and Wolfe) to the prep model, as well as by reducing the program by one grade in all of the Vancouver elementary schools with an existing optional elementary Band or Strings program. In order to support the new program, the district has provided 2 inservice sessions for those Band teachers who are new to the prep model, one of which was facilitated by a teacher who has taught Band as prep in the past. The other was the opportunity for the group to meet and brainstorm common lessons and resources and work together, mentoring each other through this new process. During those sessions the teachers looked at common areas of concern that they are finding with the program. The opportunity exists for this group of teachers to be provided with additional release time again this year, if needed. The principals of the 5 schools where the Band program is now mandatory for all Grade 6 and 7 students have shared their concerns with and suggestions for the new prep model, including: 1. Offering Band and/or Strings as a prep model requires families to rent the necessary musical instruments. While those schools in more affluent neighbourhoods have fewer problems with mandatory rentals, the schools in less affluent neighbourhoods may struggle. It was asked if the District could provide each of those schools with a set of school-based instruments to either rent at low cost or provide to the students for free each year. As this could be anticipated to cost several thousand dollars per school site and no funding has been set aside for this purpose, this is not a viable option at this time. 2. Those schools that have had some instruments to loan out to students are now finding that their repair costs have increased as the instruments are being accessed more regularly. The district has offered limited financial support to those schools as requested in order to help with instrument rentals and repairs, but there are some schools that have still had to absorb the cost of rentals or repairs for those families claiming financial hardship. 3. Scheduling the band program has been found to be challenging as well, as the Band

teachers are also responsible for other teaching assignments in the school and the two assignments can sometimes conflict. 4. Providing prep through Band or strings reduces a school s choice in providing programs for students, through other subject areas and staffing. 5. Unfortunately, schools cannot always organize classes so that there are whole classes of Grade 6 and/or Grade 7. If the class receiving prep is a combined grade 6/7 class, it means that the Band teacher is required to teach students at two levels of learning those who are beginners and those who are in their second year. This cannot be avoided unless two teachers are willing to platoon (take all the Grade 6s while the Grade 7s have Band and vice versa) and often this is not possible. Schools with the Optional Program For those schools offering the optional program, the reduction in number of grades taught (grades 6 and 7 only versus grades 5, 6, and 7) has meant that less time is allocated to each school and therefore more schools are included in each itinerant Band teacher s schedule. For example, the two full time itinerant Band teachers now each visit 9 schools per week, as opposed to 6 last year. This creates many difficulties in scheduling for both the Band teacher him/herself and the nine schools that have to organize their schedules around each other. Finally, the anticipated $135,000 in savings that would be achieved by raising the user fee from $2.50 to $5.00 per month in the optional programs has not been realized. To date, slightly more than half ($71,000) has been collected. Some of this may be due to the students and/or their family s inability or unwillingness to pay. Some could be due to the fact that with the Band teachers are traveling between schools, and school admin and office staff having a myriad of other responsibilities, there has perhaps been no one person on site who has been able to assume sole responsibility for the collection and individual follow up necessary. After subtracting the money collected from user fees ($71,000 to date) from the cost of the 5.86 FTE of staffing necessary to run the optional Band and Strings programs (approximately $570,000), the annual cost of maintaining the optional Band and Strings programs in their current form is approximately $500,000. CONCLUSION: District staff (Learning Services and Employee Services) have begun to put together a list of schools which currently have a trained/experienced Band or Strings teacher on staff and which therefore might be able to move to the prep model next year, possibly creating further financial savings. At this point, we are in the very early stages of planning and minimal consultation has taken place. Conversely, it may be worth considering making no additional changes to the program for the 2016-2017 school year, and continuing only with the changes implemented this year. While this would not allow for further savings to the district, it would allow District staff, teachers and administrators to continue to work through some of the challenges that have been presented here. It would also give staff more time to analyze the impact that these changes have had to the delivery of the Elementary Band and Strings programs across the district.

Staff will await direction from the Board as to whether to move ahead with the consultations and planning with additional schools, or whether to maintain the program as status quo for the next school year. If requested, further information/options for consideration could also be provided at a future Committee III meeting. This report is provided for information.