Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elementary Schedule Planning Time topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers, specialists urge CUSD board to reject proposed 8‑section elementary schedule
Summary
Multiple CUSD teachers and media specialists told the governing board the proposed eight‑section elementary schedule would reduce planning and transition time, harm specials (music, PE, library, technology) and create logistical and safety problems; the board said the schedule will be discussed at a posted planning session April 11.
Dozens of Chandler Unified School District teachers, librarians and specialists urged the governing board on April 9 to retain a seven‑section elementary schedule and reject a proposed eight‑section day that they said would reduce planning time, eliminate transition buffers and harm instruction.
“The 8 section schedule may fit the hours of the school day, but it is not feasible in reality,” said Cameron Estrella, general music teacher and choir director at Riggs Elementary School. “I urge you to please adopt the 7 section plan to keep our arts, physical education, library, and technology classes thriving.”
The comments came during the public‑comment portion of the regular board meeting. Speakers who identified themselves as general music teachers, media specialists, a PE teacher and librarians described several practical problems they expect from the proposed eight‑section model: back‑to‑back classes with no five‑minute transition buffers; inadequate time to set up specialized equipment (ukuleles, drums, robotics kits); reduced opportunities for collaborative planning; and loss of space for physical education and recess overlaps.
Monique Bovey Landy, general music teacher at Fulton Elementary School, said specials are “more than just classes or teacher prep periods. They are core subjects that create lasting memories.” She and others said the seven‑section schedule tested at some schools last year included a short buffer between classes and protected collaborative planning time.
A media specialist whose letter was read by Katie Nash said the proposed back‑to‑back schedule “would severely limit our ability to properly greet students and provide a calm structured dismissal,” and would conflict with the district’s social‑emotional learning goals. Laurel Miller, reading a letter from a colleague with more than a decade of library experience, urged the board to reject the eight‑section proposal as an “unreasonable burden on media specialists and all specialists, as well as on other teachers at large or growing sites.”
Kirk, a PE teacher who identified himself as affiliated with CT Liberty, said the two proposed schedules (seven and eight sections) appear equitable on paper but are not logistically workable in practice, pointing to duty, breakfast supervision and equipment set‑up that currently require transition time.
Board President Serrano and Superintendent Jeff Narducci answered procedural questions after public comment. Serrano clarified that there had been no presentation about the special schedule during the meeting and that the board will receive a presentation on planning time and the proposed special schedule at a posted planning session on Friday, April 11; no action is scheduled for that meeting. “There will be a presentation for us to review and have discussion amongst the board,” Serrano said.
Speakers also raised concerns about equity across schools, split funding streams (student activity vs. district funds) and the additional duties specials teachers perform, including concerts, assemblies and school events that require extra preparation time. Several speakers offered to work with district staff to refine schedules, but urged that any change preserve transition time and collaborative planning minutes.
The board did not vote on scheduling at the April 9 regular meeting. The matter is slated for discussion at the April 11 planning session, per Serrano. The district will post materials for that session in advance of the meeting.
