Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Master Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff explain master‑schedule process, timelines and tradeoffs to trustees
Summary
Administrators walked the board through the district’s master‑schedule timeline, the factors that shape course and section decisions, and the tradeoffs involved in allocating full‑time equivalency (FTE) and setting class caps.
District staff told the board on May 5 that building the high school master schedule is a multi‑month, iterative process that starts in the fall and involves balancing student course requests, staffing, room availability, contractual caps and program‑specific targets.
Why it matters: master schedule choices determine students’ access to courses, staffing levels, and whether students are enrolled in their first‑choice classes. Staff said the schedule is the operational backbone for graduation pathways, interventions and enrichment programs.
Key timeline and process items - Work begins in October–December (program proposals, enrollment review, articulation with middle schools). - January–February: course selection window, counselor outreach, middle‑school articulation and enrollment verification. - February–March: tally sheets and preliminary FTE requests (sites calculate sections needed from student sign‑ups); examples showed departments translating student requests into section counts and FTE needs. - April–May: build and refine the conflict matrix to avoid course collisions (e.g., AVID students who need trigonometry), finalize staffing and communicate assignments; work continues over summer for late enrollments and adjustments.
Current scale and numbers described - District enrollment: roughly 2,100 high school students across both sites. - Number of course offerings listed: roughly 80 distinct courses across the two high schools. - Sections reported in the presentation: Mountain View roughly 604 sections; Los Altos roughly 546 sections (presentation slide used these site totals). - Average class size cited: presented as 20.6 (including ELD and special education classes); presenters said the average excluding those smaller classes is closer to 26. - Percentage of students scheduled into a first‑choice course: about 94% reported during the session.
Tradeoffs and constraints Staff emphasized three persistent constraints: available FTE (teacher full‑time equivalents), legally required or negotiated caps (e.g., smaller caps for foundational freshman English and some math courses funded by foundation grants), and scheduling conflicts that cause domino effects when a course period is moved.
Questions from trustees included software choices (district uses Aeries; Mountain View piloting Losendo for scheduling and conflict matrices), the process for proposing new courses (new‑course proposal routed through department coordinators, principal and ed services with an added extended‑cabinet review), and how athletics and after‑school commitments are handled (coaches handle missed classroom work; athletics do not change slotting for courses).
Discussion vs. decision: this was an informational presentation; no policy or budget vote occurred. Trustees asked for follow‑up details including counts of students who change schedules after initial placement and clarification about software pilots and interoperability.
Ending: staff asked for trustees’ continued support of the multi‑stakeholder process; principals and counselors were acknowledged for detailed scheduling work that runs from fall planning through late summer adjustments.
