March 18, 2024

Forums focused on many issues, including special education

Number of specialists at each elementary school was major discussion item

Image 1 of 2

There were many, many topics covered during the two public forums about possible Newton Community School District reconfiguration.

One subject that received a great deal of focus was specialist involvement, and how many special education, Title I and Level 2 and 3 behavioral-disorder special-education teachers can be on campus. The amount of co-teaching that can take place was also an item discussed more than once.

The forums revealed how many questions the public still has not had a chance to ask, such as whether reconstruction of the Berg Complex is related to configuration, as well as how many decisions and choices the NCSD board and Superintendent Bob Callaghan must explain to area parents, teachers, taxpayers and voters.

The format for both forums involved a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation by Callaghan, followed by a breakup into about nine table groups. Those groups helped formulate questions for note cards, and school board members helped weed out duplicates and common themes.

The tables at the forums, held in one of the Newton DMACC campus’s second-floor conference halls, were all equipped with brochures, showing three different configuration options for kindergarten through the sixth grade, along with a single packet of statistics, survey results and district student enrollment data.

The forum that was held on Thursday, Feb. 26, lasted more than two and a half hours, and many of the teachers, parents and others in attendance returned for Tuesday’s forum.

There is no specific board vote planned on reconfiguration as of press time Thursday, but board president Sheri Benson said the topic will likely be on an agenda this month or in April. The board, which has yet to set a 2015-16 calendar or discuss the annual budget at a regular board meeting, is set to meet Monday at 6:30 p.m. in the Emerson Hough building’s conference room.

In Tuesday’s forum, Callaghan tried to emphasize that the brochure’s specialist teacher numbers at each campus, for each of the three configurations detailed, are not carved in stone.

However, some parents and teachers wanted to discuss exactly those issues — including describing for the public the limitations of the district’s current special-education arrangement. Sarah Muhs, the parent of a special-education elementary student, was one of many who spoke during at least one of the forums against reconfiguration.

“As a parent who has a child in a fantastically co-taught classroom, taught by fantastic teachers, we want to keep something that’s working,” Muhs said. “Teachers cannot be in two places at same time. We are talking about moving backward.”

No index-card questions or follow-up questions at either forum advocated for a large-scale reconfiguration, and no one who has signed up to speak at any of the board’s recent meetings has encouraged grade-level changes in the district’s schools.

The brochure mentions a possible increase from the current district roster of 20 special-education teachers to 22 under “Option 2” and 23 under “Option 3.”

There would be 16 co-teachers available under Option 2 and 14 under Option 3; and those two options would allow for six and nine Level 2 or 3 behavioral-disorder special-ed teachers, respectively. The number of core teachers is nearly the same in all three plans (76, 78, 74), and the number of Title I teachers is seven for all three plans.

Callaghan said transportation regulates a number of issues, not only because the school day starts and ends with busing in mind, but also because staff are often involved in helping students board or change buses. Option 2 eliminates the elementary busing relay “hubs” that are currently in place at the Hough building and at Newton High School.

“We are largely driven by bus schedules,” Callaghan said.

Some of the questions asked in the groups or on index cards were regarding why reconfiguration is being discussed at all, and why returning to K-through-6 elementary schools isn’t being discussed as an option.

Callaghan acknowledged at both forums that class sizes — especially the optimum class size of 18 in the lower grades — are the driving force behind reconfiguration discussions. He also said the K-6 option would be tough to configure and reduce class and school sizes, as not all of the district’s elementaries have the same number of classrooms.

One teacher mentioned some type of magnet school (or portion of a campus) to help draw in more students and their families to Newton. Callaghan didn’t answer that question directly at the time, saying he and the board pursue all avenues of academic excellence, but he did say later that the Hough building might end up being used for magnet purposes if no reconfiguration takes place.

One of the questions asked at Tuesday night’s forum regarded natural attrition: “If our district is slowly getting smaller, won’t we naturally have smaller and smaller class sizes?”

Callaghan said yes, initially, class sizes for small grade groups, such as this year’s kindergarten class, will be smaller, but not necessarily every year. He also said a shrinking city and shrinking school district are bad, because state funding is based on enrollment.

“If we continue to lose enrollment, we will continue to lose funding,” Callaghan said. “Eighty to 81 percent of our budget is people. If we lose 100 students, that’s $636,000 (depending on funding formulas for a particular school year). At some point, we will have diminishing returns. We will lose people, and none of us want that. We feel this is the best school district in the state, and we want to succeed and grow.”

Contact Jason W. Brooks at 641-792-3121 ext. 6532 or jbrooks@newtondailynews.com