On Monday, Sept. 30, the Wayland Public
Schools' Elementary School Use Task Force presented its preliminary
results on how to reconfigure grades in the district’s elementary
The options include three different configurations. (Sources: Wayland Public Schools documents posted on their website.)
· K-5 Schools: each elementary school building would house students in grades K-5 within its geographic district.
· The district presented two sub-options including a “3,3,3” model and “2,3,4, K-5” option.
· “3,3,3”: In this model, each of the three elementary schools would have three classrooms per grade totaling 18 classes.
· “2,3,4,5, K-5”: In this configuration, the Claypitt Hill school would have four classes per grade totaling 24. The Loker or Happy Hollow schools would have two classes per grade totaling 12. The final school would have three classes per grade totaling 18.
· Lower elementary: the Loker school would house every K-1 student while the Claypitt Hill and Happy Hollow schools would take students in grades 2-5.
· Upper elementary: The Loker or Happy Hollow schools would house every student in grades 4-5. The other two buildings would take students in grades K-3.
Pros /Cons of Each Option
· K-5, “3,3,3” pro: no grade transitions, efficient busing for parents, stronger school community.
· K-5, “3,3,3” con: redistricting would impact families.
· K-5, “2,3,4,5” pro: no grade transitions, students would be closer to their homes and a stronger sense of school community.
· K-5, “2,3,4,5” con: redistricting would impact families.
· Upper elementary: Pro: better collaborative teaching in grades 4-5, “optimized” class sizes for grades 4-5 and better focus on developmental needs for grades 4-5.
· Upper elementary con: longer bus rides for grades 4-5.
· Lower elementary pro: efficient use of school space, easier transition form the current school use model and “optimize” class sizes for grades K-1.
· Lower elementary con: longer bus rides.
· K-5: This option would cost an additional $641,352 annually plus additional one-time costs that have yet to be determined.
· Lower: This option would costs $439,628 annually with more one-time costs to be determined later.
· Upper: This option would cot $433,303 annually with future one-time costs to be determined.
The task force plans to recommend one option at a later date.
What do you think of the options? Share your thoughts in the
comment box below.