Last chance for board to make school decision

Controversy still seethes over a revised school calendar for Sisters students next year, and whether eighth graders will attend the middle/high school or return to the administration campus as part of a reconfigured 6-8 middl

e school.

Board members Connie Morris, Charles Warren and Bill Reed declined to vote on these questions on April 14 because the other two board members, Jan van den Berg and Harold Gott, were unable to attend that meeting (See The Nugget, April 16 issues).

The board is considering a modified calendar for the entire school district, grades K-12, with eight weeks off in July and August, four in December and three in spring.

An alternative would split the schedule, with high school students out of school for 12 weeks in June, July and August, with two weeks off in December and one week in spring.

But after calendar options were presented last fall, the board was told in public meetings that most parents wanted one calendar for all students, K-12. The board then directed a committee studying the options to go in that direction, according to Swisher.

In February, the board decided that the calendar presented at that time did not break up the summer vacation enough to have adequate educational benefits. They directed the committee to revise the calendar, which evolved into the option with an eight-week summer, four-week December vacation and a three-week spring break.

On April 2, staff of the elementary school gave a strong endorsement for the proposed calendar in a letter to the school board.

"The long, minimally interrupted in-school sessions provide solid blocks of teaching time, and the vacation periods allow ample time for recreation at traditional calendar breaks. It is both mindful of the workings of our community and designed with education in mind" wrote the elementary staff.

However, some staff at the high school, and principal Dennis Dempsey, oppose this calendar for high school students. In a letter dated April 7, Dempsey wrote that "a three-or-four week break in April and the same in D

ecember, causing a shortened summer, will really have some negative effects, at least initially, on secondary students."

Dempsey listed potential conflicts with job opportunities, athletic and activity programs.

Those concerns were reiterated by high school coaches, teachers and some parents at the April 14 board meeting.

Swisher said that for the first time at that meeting, there was some support from parents for a split calendar, one for grades K-8 and another for 9-12, and this is something the board may want to reconsider.

However, having the two schools on different calendars could cost the district as much as $1,000 day in transportation costs ($500 in payroll and $500 in fuel, oil, wear and tear as well as depreciation), according to Swisher. The schedules could be 10 to 20 days different, with the district eligible for up to 70 percent reimbursement for about half of the additional cost.

The recommendation to form a middle school of grades 6-8 is needed soon if district staff is to have time to make the changes, according to Swisher.

While some parents are concerned that bringing next year's eighth graders back to the old school after a y

ear at the high school would be detrimental, the planning group headed by vice-principal Rich Shultz recommends "doing it all at once," according to Swisher.

At the meeting on April 14, other parents worried that their children would not have access to the nicer facilities at the high school. Some said they felt the facilities at the old school were simply inadequate.

Some parents expressed support for the move however, saying that not enough is being done for seventh and eighth grade students in the middle/high school setting. There were also concerns about 13-year-old seventh graders mingling with 18-year-old high school students.

High school principal Dempsey echoed some of these concerns in his April 7 letter to the board.

"Sixth, seventh and eighth graders are what I affectionately call, humans becoming. They have different needs, socially, emotionally and educationally. Unfortunately in a 7-12 complex, it is really hard to meet all of their needs because of the sharing of staff and the modeling that is being done by older children in the same building," Dempsey wrote.

The student population bulge would favor just keeping next year's seventh graders at the old school and letting next year's eighth graders move on to the high school, Superintendent Swisher said. However, curriculum and staffing concerns would make that transition more difficult to implement.

Swisher said that staff had anticipated being able to work on the changes, especially configuration of a 6-8 middle school, during February and March. Now they are "intensely busy, and it is tough to pull teachers out of the classroom this close to the end of the year for planning. They are trying to organize their own summer school schedules and vacations," Swisher said.

The school board is unlikely to have more than three members present until April 29, which could be the last opportunity to implement any changes. The board was informed by Swisher that planning and executing the transition, especially to a 6-8 middle school, would be exceedingly difficult after May 1