Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Class Size topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MMSD presents second-semester class-size report; board members flag surplusing, scheduling and boundary review
Summary
The district presented its second-semester class-size report March 3, showing average class-size distributions, AGR kindergarten targets and content-area breakdowns for middle and high schools; board members asked for clearer community communication about surplusing and noted space and scheduling constraints amid city growth.
Madison Metropolitan School District staff presented the district's second-semester class-size report March 3 and briefed the Instructional Work Group on how allocations, scheduling and local demographic changes affect class-size distribution across elementary, middle and high schools.
The report: how to read it District staff walked board members through a two-page report that shows K'1 distribution for AGR (Achievement Gap Reduction) and non-AGR elementary schools, and middle- and high-school class-size distributions by subject. The presentation explained that the report lists the number of sections in size buckets (for example, 10—4, 15—9, 20'4 students) and shows average homeroom size at the elementary level and average class size by content area at secondary schools.
Key points staff reported - Kindergarten and early-grades targets: The district reminded the board that AGR schools and non-AGR schools have distinct class-size targets; the board supported budget investments this year to reduce K-1 class sizes (staff said AGR-school K-1 sections aimed for mid-teens, non-AGR K-1 slightly higher). - Secondary distribution: Middle and high school class sizes are reported by discipline (math, English, music, PE, etc.). Staff noted that the class-size policy permits larger sections for some special-area classes (the policy includes a higher maximum for these areas) and that being above the policy maximum does not automatically trigger a change because schedule, space and program needs are considered. - Adjustments during the year: Staff described an unallocated pool used to adjust staffing and sections as enrollment shifts through the year.
Questions from the board Board members raised several operational and community questions: how surplusing decisions are made and communicated, whether the report could be presented in graph form for readability, the need to report special-education or counseling surpluses when they occur, and how schedule and space constraints (for example, large middle-school PE sections) factor into allocations.
Staff responses and considerations District leaders said enrollment shifts in Madison are driven both by migration within the district (students moving between schools) and by net new migration into the city; both can create sudden imbalances at particular schools. Staff cited bilingual programs, new or growing schools and neighborhood housing patterns as causes for some of the concentration differences the report shows. They said middle- and high-school scheduling, course selection and student choice also affect class-size patterns and that principals have some flexibility to move allocations among grade-level teams to respond to needs.
Board requests and next steps Board members asked staff to: provide alternative visualizations (bar charts) to make the report easier to read; provide projected counselor-and-social-worker ratios to the operations work group; and explain how surplusing decisions intersect with class-size reporting. Staff agreed to bring the projected ratios to the next operations work group meeting and to consider alternate report formats.
Wider implications: space and boundaries Several board members urged early planning for boundary review and facility use as Madison's housing and enrollment patterns change. Staff said smaller targeted class sizes require more sections and classroom space and that designing new facilities allows more flexibility than retrofitting existing buildings.
Votes at a glance - Motion: Approve minutes of the Instructional Work Group meeting dated 02/03/2025. Second: Sabian. Vote: 6'0, outcome: approved (recorded as unanimous in meeting). - Motion: Adjourn the Instructional Work Group meeting. Mover: Savien. Second: Blair. Vote: unanimous, outcome: approved.
Ending: staff said allocations remain under review and that the report establishes a baseline for ongoing adjustments; board members asked for clearer public communication about surplusing and for more data visualization in future reports.
