Good evening, I am Monica Caldicott, president of the D128 Federation of Teachers. I appreciate the chance to share with you a growing concern that Union educators have about class sizes. Because sectioning conversations are quickly approaching and because the Advanced Placement Act will demand much flexibility, we believe this to be a pressing issue that needs your consideration and attention.
Two years ago, our Union was in negotiations with this School Board and D128 administration, and for the first time in D128 history, expected class sizes were codified into our Collective Bargaining Agreement. In general, the size of AP classes was raised from 22 to 25 students, while the general size of college-prep courses was brought down from 28 students to 25. These changes went into effect during this 2023-24 school year.
The term used in our Collective Bargaining Agreement is “class optimum.” We understand the definition of optimum vs. maximum. We understand the administration’s expectation that, like a bell curve, a certain number of classes would have students over the agreed-upon number.
However, we also know that the word “optimum” is defined as “the most favorable outcome.” Any number of students over an agreed-upon optimum class size should be avoided when possible. We – the Union and this Board – collectively agree on the most favorable class sizes for students and for teachers. To us, those numbers reflect the most beneficial class sizes for students to learn and perform at their best because they can have the full attention and support of their teachers. We understand that some courses have seen a decrease in class sizes due to the new optimums and that there are inherently smaller electives such as Digital Art & Design or Auto Tech or Pastry Arts that are at the heart of the district’s commitment to multiple pathways. We are happy about that; however, we are noticing that there are certain populations of students who are experiencing more classes over optimum than others.
A new trend we have seen this year is that our college prep and Honors sections are over optimum more than our AP classes. For example, in core classes (which include science, English, math and social studies) at the college prep level, we have shifted from 5% of classes over optimum last year to 12% over optimum this year. An example is that 4 out of 9 sections of Algebra 2 at LHS are over optimum. These Algebra II classes were divided pretty tightly with 25.22 students per section, allowing for little wiggle room in a class we know every student will take. While we know that an optimum is not a maximum, we have concerns that our students in college prep level courses on average are over optimum more than students in AP level courses. Typically, our college prep level courses have a higher need for differentiation, personalized learning, and small group instruction. It is harder to give our students those individualized learning experiences when we are over optimum in those sections.
But if we were to accept that overages do happen, as administration asks us to accept, it leads to a new question: what percentage of students do you feel is acceptable to have above the number we collectively agreed upon is good for students? In what number of classrooms is it okay to put more teenagers with adult bodies, big personalities, and even bigger backpacks? What percent of classes is it OK for the teacher not able to give the individualized attention they wish they could? What number would raise the concern of this Board? Is it 5 percent? 10%? 15%?
Additionally, our core class sizes haven’t decreased in the way you might think. While our college-prep level core optimum class size dropped by 3 full students, the actual class sizes decreased by only .8 students. However, our AP core class size shifted from 22 to 25 students, and we reasonably see an actual increase of 2.2 students. From where we stand, AP class sizes proportionally increased whereas college-prep level classes only decreased slightly despite a 3 student drop in optimum. While most of the numbers we have shared have applied to our “core” classes, this problem exists in other departments as well. For example, over 20% of our Physical Welfare classes are over the optimum district-wide.
Now is the critical time to talk about class sizes. Due to a new state law called the Accelerated Placement Act, D128 and other districts will see more students than ever moving diagonally to academically challenging classes, based upon their standardized test scores. We are excited to see the opportunities this Act will provide students, but we know these challenges will mean more students seeking our help and support.
This brings us to our final concern: decreased educator staffing; this is defined as full-time equivalent, or FTE. Declining student enrollment has been used as justification for eliminating FTE from the classroom, but when it has gone so far as not to honor our optimums, have we gone too far? At the very time we need educators to support students striving to “level up,” we can’t afford to lose educator time. For example in the LHS English department, .4 FTE was reassigned to the English Learner department and not replaced. This comes off a recent retirement that was also not replaced. This is the same department that had no overages in their college prep and honors classes last year but now are at 15% over optimum. With this drastic increase, you might understand the staff picture a bit more clearly.
If you look at the staffing reports from the last two years (presented to the School Board each March), you will see that general education staffing has decreased by 6.6 FTE, or 6.6 full time teachers. Some, but not all, of that FTE has been reallocated to Special Services, our EL Department, and other non-classroom support roles. Also, administration allocated non-teaching FTE into 3 new administrative positions at the District Office. While these positions have been working on bigger picture items, they are not supporting the needs of our students on a day to day basis.
As sectioning numbers come through in the coming weeks, we hope to hear you discuss this pressing issue at this table. Class size directly impacts the way we support our students and the way they learn in our classrooms. We want to minimize where there are overages in classes to ensure there are no inequities at certain levels. We ask the Board to question where Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions are being placed to help students. We ask the Board to consider how we can best support our staff members in providing individualized learning experiences to students through class sizes that are at/below optimum. We ask the board to consider reinstating the FTE that has been lost from classrooms without shifting it from elsewhere. And we ask the Board to consider how to best use FTE to support students where it matters most: in our classrooms.