Dec 03
Alpine School District Reduces Class Sizes Without Additional Appropriations from the Legislature
2006 at 11:23 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 6 comments
Recently, I attended the annual Alpine School District PTA District 9 luncheon held in the UVSC ballroom. Following the lunch portion of this event we “broke up” into smaller legislative district groups to have a little “one-on-one” time with PTA representatives from District 57 (Pleasant Grove, Cedar Hills, and American Fork). “What are you doing about reducing class sizes?” was one of the questions asked. The implication was that the Legislature should fund class-size reduction through additional appropriations. Also, implied was that charter school class sizes are much smaller than those of their non-charter-public-district-school counterparts. I gave an answer I thought appropriate for the situation and moved onto the next question.
Now that I’ve had time to look into it…I need to tweak my answer a bit. The fact is, regardless of what you’re hearing out there about Alpine School District’s increasing classroom sizes, ASD’s administration has been able to hold their classroom student population to a constant or even REDUCED student count for the past 10 years. NO KIDDING! It’s all right there in the Alpine School District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year Ended June 30, 2005, page 107. (Click ASD_CAFR2005.pdf for a .pdf copy of page 107)
The chart on page 107 (Click ASD_CAFR2005.pdf for a .pdf copy of page 107) shows the “Number of Students Per Teacher, Last Ten School Years.” The matrix reveals that in all grades Kindergarten through 12th, between 1996 and 2005, budgeted class sizes have stayed the same or have been reduced by, in some cases, up to 3.6 students (First and Second Grades). Wow! So, ASD has managed to reduce class sizes over the past ten years, without additional appropriations from the legislature for this specific purpose. Congratulations to ASD! We ought to take this one on the road and share ASD’s strategy with other districts throughout the state who haven’t been able to decrease student populations “in-house.” (Click ASD_CAFR2005.pdf for a .pdf copy of page 107)
6 Responses to “Alpine School District Reduces Class Sizes Without Additional Appropriations from the Legislature”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Good observations, Craig, from the Alpine District CAFR. However, there is a major point that you missed. Your headline and article state that the ASD has done this “without additional appropriations from the legislature.” That isn’t true. ASD has done this WITH major appropriations from the legislature (citizens and taxpayers). Consider that in the last ten years the legislature has appropriated additioanl tens of millions of dollars every year to keep up with enrollment growth. That amount was over $ 61 million for this year alone. The “enrollment growth” appropriation is enought to “maintain the status quo” in the face of ever rising enrollments. Then, the legsiature (taxpayers) have appropriated additional tens of millions of dollars every year for the specific purpose of “class size reduction.” That amount for this year is $ 70,162,440. Last year it was about $ 69.5 million and the year before that it was $ 65.9 million – specific to “class size reduction.” Consider also that in the last ten years the state’s (taxpayer’s) appropriation for public ed has increased $ 1.1 billion, or 58% – and that the per pupil funding from 1992-2004 (last data available from LFA) increased by 67.6%. All of this suggests a heroic effort on the part of Utah taxpayers to meet the financial challenge of educating Utah children. Many in the education establishment will claim that it still isn’t enough. That’s OK, we would expect them to ever advocate their own interest and cause. But, as policymakers representing all the interests and all the taxpayers, you have to strike a balance. So, good for the ASD. But, they were able to do that specifically because the taxpayers, through their representatives in the legislature, HAVE alloted huge dollars for that very purpose. And, legislators thought so much of the “class size reduction” appropriation that made it formula driven so it appears in the base budgets every year without debate. In fact, you will pass next year’s “class size reduction” appropriation in the first two weeks of the next general session. Legislators thought it that important. And, as you have pointed out, that deliberate policy decision bears fruit right here at home in the ASD. – Good luck next month. I won’t be there to join the dialogue with you this time as the voters of my district chose to throw this bum out. However, I do plan to visit a Mexican beach in February with my wife. I’ll think of you then! All the best to you and all the rest. – Jim
December 5th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Congratulations to Alpine–they’re doing some great things. However, there isn’t a consistent way to calculate class size across the state, so the numbers aren’t always comparable. (include aides or not? What about counselors, librarians, or certified administrative staff? Is a teacher’s “prep period” included in the ratio?)
Additionally, the number can be misleading in other ways. In early elementary grades, ASD starts half of the class early for more one-on-one instruction, and keeps half of the class late. Do the numbers represent class size at the overlapping (peak) times, or are the less-populated literacy sessions included?
I’m not disparaging the work ASD is doing. Their solution is a good one given limited resources. I’m simply suggesting the number may not be the whole picture.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Note that the page says these represent budgeted ratios. Craig, have you asked the district whether they met those budget targets? I hope the actuals agree with the budget ratios, but that’s not certain. The note also says that some “productivity models” can produce actual class sizes higher (like 34.5 in jr high classes), which seems to indicate that this student-teacher ratio isn’t the actual size of the average class (probably due to prep periods in their jr high example).
December 5th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
It appears as though I may have missed a couple relatively important \”embeded\” factors in the ASD matrix. Thank you for pointing them out. I haven\’t spoken directly to an ASD representative for their interpretation of this Chart shown all the way back on page 107 (of 112 pages). I guess if this really was a BIG DEAL they would have moved it up to a more prominent place in the CAFR. My bad!
Don\’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see!
December 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
A couple of quick observations with regard to Rep. Ferrin’s comments. 1) The legislature appropriated money for class size reduction in FY1999 and FY2000. Since then, no new funding has been appropriated to reduce class size. The original funding is still there and has been increased over time for enrollment growth and inflation, but no additional funding to reduce class size has ever been appropriated. When adjusted for inflation, today’s “class size reduction” appropriation equals $121 per pupil. The original FY1999 appropriation equalled $123 per pupil. 2) I hope that when the Representative says that he expects the “education establishment . . . to ever advocate their own interest and cause” he realizes that the interest and concern he talks about are those shared with the Legislature: that of quality education for Utah’s children.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:48 am
So, we might ask ourselves, if $ 70,000,000 is appropriated this year to public ed, earmarked for “class size reduction,” but, last year they did the same and the year before that too, back six or seven years, then, is this year’s $ 70 million “new money” for “class size reduction” or is it not? I suppose that is a matter of financial semantics in budget definitions. But, it still remains that $ 70 million of this year’s budget is earmarked for “class size reduction” as it was last year and the year before that since 1999 – maybe 1/3 – 1/2 billion dollars over seven years. Whether we define it as “new” “old” “on-going” or whatever, it is still a signifcant investment in “class size reduction” that had been overlooked in the original blog article. Let’s hope that that targetted appropriation has produced some result, whether we regard it as “new” money or not.