What were the "Guiding Principles" again?

Several have asked, so I dug up the following from our work a couple of years back.

Guiding Principles Used in the Feeder Pattern Alignment
Source: http://pisdtv.pisd.edu/communications/features/9P9s3yzeipsgdDKDWDNG

1) No split secondary feeders
2) Two high schools feeding into each senior high
3) Balanced enrollment over time
4) Provide growth capacity in eastern part of district
5) Consideration of existing facility capacity

Some have argued that the decision-makers failed on some of these principles as the 2009 realignment plan was adopted in December 2009.  Why would they feel this way?  Let me know what you think below.

Are big high schools bad?

In the August 16th work session, Plano ISD Board President Tammy Richards discussed the effectiveness of "smaller class sizes".  I haven't read the complete transcript, but she seems to be conflating this with the concept of a "smaller campus".

The background here is a premise that a future Plano West Senior High campus size will become "too big", and more generally that all Plano ISD campuses are now "too big".  So then it follows that the district should look into options that would reduce our Senior High campuses to something more palatable, perhaps around 2000.

Ms. Richards cited work by the Gates Foundation on reducing campus sizes in large urban districts such as NYC, Chicago, and Oakland and applying the rationale to our district.  This may not be a fair comparison since Plano ISD is not a mature district and certainly not urban.  In addition, the results from years of study by the "Small Schools Movement" are quite mixed.

Recently the Gates Foundation has backtracked on its original premise that "smaller is better".  From the 2009 annual letter from Bill Gates:

Executive Summary: After spending $2 billion on experiments with reducing high school campus size, the Gates Foundation has concluded that small high schools are not the answer to improving public school education. So it is changing its strategy.

5-second summary: The key to a great education is not a small high school, it is a great teacher.

Key quotes from the article:

Many of the small schools that we invested in did not improve students' achievement in any significant way.

We had less success trying to change an existing school than helping to create a new school.

While we were pleased with these improvements, we are trying to raise college-ready graduation rates, and in most cases, we fell short.

If you want your child to get the best education possible, it is actually more important to get him assigned to a great teacher than to a great school.

Sources:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/Documents/2009-bill-gates-annual-letter.pdf
http://blogs.sj-r.com/morningbell/index.php/2009/02/25/big-uh-oh-for-the-small-schools-movement/

Do we need to revise the current PISD feeder alignment plan?

I was chatting with a Robinson Dad today about the August 2, 2011 PISD Board of Trustees meeting, where we had a spirited discussion on "Senior High Enrollments".  We both agreed that the decision to table the vote for further study was in the best interests of our community, but we were stuck on the following questions:

What difference, if any, would an adjustment to the current feeder plan make to student learning or student achievement?  Would our student outcomes improve?

We decided these are exactly the questions we want our Trustees to answer before they launch into this endeavor.

One premise of the group asking for reconsideration of this issue is that "big senior high schools are bad".  This was not our family's personal experience with PESH, but it nonetheless intrigued me.  So I started to do research on this and so far am finding the results to be mixed.  Some of the research suggests that "classroom sizes" of between 15 and 22 may lead to improved student outcomes, but the actual "campus size" doesn't appear to be a factor.  Other research suggests that while smaller middle school campuses are effective in improving student outcomes, smaller high school campuses may not always show the same benefits.  I assure you that my research continues in this fascinating area.

My intuition tells me that if "large campus size" is a negative factor, then virtually every post-secondary public institution in the country (e.g. The Ohio State University, UT-Austin, The University of Illinois, etc.) would be turning out low-quality graduates.  For example, when our family searched for a college for our oldest child, we started with small liberal arts schools and expanded our search to larger public institutions because we learned that many had student-to-faculty ratios comparable to the smaller schools.

That said, it may not be fair to equate the college setting with that of PISD senior high schools.  This is probably the making of another blog post. 

One other question has to do with what is really triggering the desire to reopen the issue.  I asked this question several months ago via email with the Trustees.

Question:

As you are aware, the feeder realignment issue is still being discussed in the district.  I wanted to revisit it with each Trustee and ask for a yes/no answer on the following question.  Please respond at your convenience.

Many PISD stakeholders were involved in the feeder realignment hearings in the Fall of 2009.  Option 3, presented in November 2009, endured some heated debate, especially from some East-side parents.  When the final decision was handed down, some were relieved and some were upset.  Some who disagreed with the final decision has approached the board to ask for reconsideration on this issue.  If you are approached, would you consider reopening this issue in the near future?

Answer (from Trustee #1):

If new, compelling, and factual information is presented from credible experts to warrant such consideration, I am open-minded to reviewing the impact of such facts.

Answer (from Trustee #2):

I would listen to any parent’s reasoning for why any issue should be considered.  Is there new data or information that is now available?  Was there something missed previously?  The number one consideration has to be what is best for our students and community and what makes sense fiscally.  From my perspective, the adopted feeder alignment plan did not appropriately address the guiding principles of balanced enrollment and an end to split feeders. I don’t believe it would be necessary to reopen the whole feeder alignment issue to accomplish those goals.

So, my feeling here is if the Trustees can answer these basic questions in a compelling manner, then I will be the first person to get on board to help with any realignment work that is required.  If not, we should move forward with other critical work in our school district, and I'm also happy to help there as well.