Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Class Size Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MMSD presents second‑semester class‑size report; district flags changing enrollments and possible boundary work
Summary
District staff presented the second-semester class-size report required by district policy, explained AGR and non-AGR kindergarten targets, and discussed enrollment fluctuations, scheduling pressures and the need for possible boundary review as city growth continues.
District staff on March 3 presented the Madison Metropolitan School District’s second‑semester class‑size report and told the Instructional Work Group the report is intended to track average class sizes, distribution by grade and content, and areas requiring adjustment.
Assistant Superintendent Green and an assistant superintendent for school leadership (names and titles provided in the meeting materials) walked board members through the report and the way the district displays data for elementary (by grade and AGR/non‑AGR designation) and secondary (by content area). The report is prepared twice per year under the district’s class‑size policy.
“Two documents: the memo that provides key takeaways and an overview around the class‑size reports that we provide per our class‑size policy,” the presenting staff member said, stating the report covers semester 2 and reminding the board that class‑size reporting is required two times per year.
Staff explained the district’s current planning targets at the elementary level: for AGR (achievement gap reduction) schools the district “tried, to the best of our ability to have class sizes of 15, 16” in kindergarten and first grade, while non‑AGR schools were planned toward 17–18 students per kindergarten/first‑grade class. The report shows distribution of section sizes, average homeroom sizes and counts in the policy bands (below minimum, optimal, below maximum, above maximum).
The secondary report is organized by content area and shows the number of sections falling in each size band and the average class size for each subject. Staff noted the report reflects scheduling realities at middle and high schools where course selection and student choice affect section sizes.
Board members pressed staff for clarifications about how allocations translate into schedules and asked whether a different visual format (for example a bar chart) could make the tables easier to read. A staff member agreed to ask the analytics team about alternate visualizations.
Board members also asked whether certain programs or schools consistently show outlier sizes. Staff replied that bilingual-program populations, new programs and continuing neighborhood housing changes can produce outliers. Staff explained the district keeps an “unallocated pool” to make adjustments during the year as enrollment changes.
On larger themes, staff and board members agreed that rapid city growth and shifting housing patterns are driving uneven enrollment changes across schools. “We are going to have to do some boundary review,” a district leader said, adding the district must develop processes for responding to changing enrollment patterns and facility needs.
The report was informational. The committee did not adopt policy during the presentation; the meeting proceeded to a motion to adjourn at the close of the item.
