Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grades Reconfiguration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District outlines 'neighborhood' and 'house' model for reconfigured grades 4–8
Summary
District instructional leaders described a unified middle‑level schedule and a 'neighborhood/house' teaming model intended to foster smaller communities within large buildings, allow concentrated teacher collaboration, and create capacity to reduce sixth‑grade class sizes from roughly 30–34 students.
District instructional staff presented the rationale and early plans for reconfiguring grades 4–8 into intermediate and middle settings, emphasizing a focus on community, teaming and data‑driven supports.
The presenter described a "community, neighborhood, house" model that groups students by grade and assigns them to stable clusters of teachers to create a smaller, more intimate learning environment inside larger buildings. "Think community. Dwindle down a little narrow, narrow your focus into a neighborhood," the presenter said, explaining that students would be assigned to houses with shared teachers and flex spaces to reduce unnecessary movement and enable concentrated collaboration among educators.
Staff said the district has already developed a unified middle‑school schedule that will launch in 2026–27 and be used as a pilot to refine scheduling and instructional decisions for the new buildings. Administrators noted planned use of assessment data, IEP/GIEP/504 information and other criteria to inform placements and interventions so students who are below grade level—particularly readers entering fourth grade—receive intentional support within the schedule.
The presentation cited class‑size figures for planning purposes: sixth‑grade class sizes currently sit "about 30, 32 to 34" in the middle schools and the reconfiguration provides an opportunity to reduce that number through consolidated staffing and course planning. Board members asked about supports for younger students moving into larger buildings and were reassured that scheduling, interventions and staffing plans will be designed to address developmental differences.
No policy change was finalized at the Committee of the Whole; staff will continue teacher engagement, interest surveys and planning work ahead of decisions expected at future board meetings.
