⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 3 findings
F1
Since the program was implemented just prior to opening of school in the fall, there was very little time for local school districts to plan for classroom rearrangement, to hire additional teachers, and to order needed portable buildings to accommodate the larger number of rooms needed. As a result there was strong competition among districts to hire additional fully credentialed teachers from an available inadequate pool of teachers. In some instances, the pool of substitutes was depleted as well as the pool of students who were just completing their teaching preparation. As of December, 1996, school districts sought and hired 335 additional teachers.
F2
Since state funding does not fully cover all expenses, local school districts have decided to allocate additional general funds to solve the shortfall in state funding. In the opinion of the school leadership, the 20% increase in operating cost is outweighed by the advantages to the children by having a smaller pupil/ teacher ratio.
F3
The general attitude of those interviewed was that everyone involved on a local level - parents, teachers and staff-was determined to succeed, viewing the advantages to children of individual instruction and response to individual strengths as paramount to any other inconveniences encountered. 93 - - COMMENDATION The local school districts, in spite of space, personnel, and fiscal problems, have responded well to this phase of the program. The local district leadership is to be - complemented for so quickly undertaking a massive change with such promising long term results. .,
Recommendations 5
-
R1Local school districts generate public support for pending budget proposals that will provide full state funding for the current class size reduction program.
-
R2Local school districts oppose expanding class size reduction to the fourth grade until full funding for K - 3 is achieved.
-
R3Ventura County Superintendent of Schools generate public support for addi- tional state school construction money or passage of local school bonds to build and/or modernize more schools to solve the space crunch.
-
R4Each local school district protect its general fund to avoid cannibalizing other academic programs.
-
R5Future Ventura County Grand Juries continue to monitor the progress of the classs ize reduction program in order to ensure the future financial stability and effectiveness of smaller classes in each school district that has implemented this program in Ventura County. RESPONSRE EQUIREC Ventura County Superintendent of Schools / Local School Districts .r Conejo Valley Unified w- Oxnard Simi Valley , 94 Ventura County Superintendent of Schools CLASS SIZE REDUCTION UPDATE February 14,1997 Pleasant Valley , . . . rade 1 & 2 at all sites. Grades K and 3rd at some sites ,.- -, _- 95 ,~,,_