.

[Jiub]

Only have the rural republican voters to blame. Thanks to the corporate welfare and the union busting passed by Branstad and cretins like that state senator Mark Chelgren (R-Ottumwa, Business Management degree from Sizzler University, they have eradicated school budgets and are killing rural communities.

At least they bringing in the subsidized meat processing plants to your community, Enjoy!

 

[Incyte]

Only have the rural republican voters to blame. Thanks to the corporate welfare and the union busting passed by Branstad and cretins like that state senator Mark Chelgren (R-Ottumwa, Business Management degree from Sizzler University, they have eradicated school budgets and are killing rural communities.

At least they bringing in the subsidized meat processing plants to your community, Enjoy!

I'm sure its that and not farmers farming 2000 acres instead of 160 acres like decades before. School budgets don't bring kids back to middle of nowhere iowa. Your take sucks.

 

[Iowast8isgr8]

might be time to do like most other states.

"County Name" High school

That is the beginning of the solution. Every county seat should have a school district. Doing that means, in almost all counties, the max distance away from the school is about 20 miles. I know there are exceptions, but those should be dealt with situationally. The next requirement would be that if you are not a county seat town, you should have about 900 students, meaning the HS is going to have about 75 kids per class. Anything below that, and options get seriously limited by resources. Districts not in a county seat and not 900 would face mandatory choice of dissolution or consolidation. Efficiency would go waaay up, meaning the current funding stream could fund considerably more academic options for kids everywhere. The state probably goes from 333 districts to about 175. By the way, always pointing to too much administration as the solution is misguided. There are so many districts sharing administrators/supts. now, I think that bridge, and the costs containment possible, has already been crossed. If you don't like your administrator, you probably want to cut them, If they are good, you wouldn't want to live without them. Fewer total districts across the state would allow weeding out the admins. who should be doing something else. At the same time, with funding so short (mostly because of inefficiency) all administrators have to make decisions they don't like themselves, but people still hold it against them.

 

[Macloney]

What they need to do is what my hometown does, and that's get people to want to live in a small community and commute to M'town, not get kids from Marshalltown to open enroll. My hometown has done a good job of marketing the fact that it is a 10 minute drive down 4 lane Hwy63 to Waterloo, and by living there you can get all the small town benefits, like letting your kids take their bikes down to the gas station or grocery store, staying out with friends without any worry, etc. Plus smaller class sizes and the tight knit community feel.

By gas station do you mean Pony Express or Pronto? Kwik Star maybe?

 

[NWICY]

I fully understand how this question sounds but I'll ask anyway meaning no ill intent...

Why would people move to a town like that to raise their family? Is it legacy people who never left, retired folks, or what? Can kids take classes online? Where do the few kids that do graduate there work? At what point do towns draw a line in the sand and say they are unsustainable?

It took me 15 minutes to get to HS in the big city. Is 15 miles/minutes bad?

It's people who have jobs and live there. Do you want them to all move to the 35-80 corridor? The kids that graduate leave and go to college somewhere. Online and CC classes are usually free through the HS. Iowa would be better off overall by revitalizing these towns and spreading out the population growth across the state. Some towns are actually bouncing back a little bit. Fort Dodge has came back along ways from it's lows in the 80's. I hope as businesses become more internet connected some of them will be able to move out to some of the smaller towns and revitalize them. 30 jobs staffed by 30-40 yr olds would probably mean 20-30 spouses and hopefully 15-20 kids. Those aren't huge numbers but once things get started sometimes they keep going the right way.

 

[theshadow]

That is the beginning of the solution. Every county seat should have a school district. Doing that means, in almost all counties, the max distance away from the school is about 20 miles. I know there are exceptions, but those should be dealt with situationally.

As far as I can tell, only four of the 100 (b/c Lee officially has two county seats) aren't the primary/HS location for the district they're in: Dakota City (Humboldt), Toledo (South Tama), Allison (North Butler) and Sac City (East Sac).

Unless, you mean that the county seat should possess the primary/only district in the county. This would be problematic in counties where the seat is nowhere near the largest city (by population) in the county. O'Brien County would be a prime example: Primghar (county seat, central location, 900 people) vs. Sheldon (5,200 people, western edge of county).

 

[ForbinsAscynt]

As someone who did not got to HS in Iowa I find this thread and topic fascinating. I've also been interested in population changes so that helps.
One thing I can add, I recently spoke with an assistant Fb coach for Gilbert and he said that even though the class sizes are getting larger the participation is way down. I'd imagine we will see these smaller schools finding it difficult to field a team in the near future.

 

[theshadow]

As someone who did not got to HS in Iowa I find this thread and topic fascinating. I've also been interested in population changes so that helps.

 

[NWICY]

As someone who did not got to HS in Iowa I find this thread and topic fascinating. I've also been interested in population changes so that helps.
One thing I can add, I recently spoke with an assistant Fb coach for Gilbert and he said that even though the class sizes are getting larger the participation is way down. I'd imagine we will see these smaller schools finding it difficult to field a team in the near future.

Is the FB participation down because of parental concern of CTE? Gilbert is probably one of the faster growing districts around. No 1st hand knowledge just saw the buildings they've built.
I like FB but I believe every parent and their kid has their choice to make concerning sports. Well sorry for going off topic.

 

[ForbinsAscynt]

Is the FB participation down because of parental concern of CTE? Gilbert is probably one of the faster growing districts around. No 1st hand knowledge just saw the buildings they've built.
I like FB but I believe every parent and their kid has their choice to make concerning sports. Well sorry for going off topic.

I'm not involved as I don't have kids but according to him yes. They are the, or one of the, smallest of the 3a schools so it's an uphill battle already. At the risk of miss quoting him I believe he said there are 19 players in 8th grade, which I guess percentage wise is significantly smaller than say the senior class.

 

[SoapyCy]

Ames lost >20% enrollment???

 

[theshadow]

Ames lost >20% enrollment???

No. They lost between 10% and 20%.

 

[Iowast8isgr8]

As far as I can tell, only four of the 100 (b/c Lee officially has two county seats) aren't the primary/HS location for the district they're in: Dakota City (Humboldt), Toledo (South Tama), Allison (North Butler) and Sac City (East Sac).

Unless, you mean that the county seat should possess the primary/only district in the county. This would be problematic in counties where the seat is nowhere near the largest city (by population) in the county. O'Brien County would be a prime example: Primghar (county seat, central location, 900 people) vs. Sheldon (5,200 people, western edge of county).

So, I agree with your statement that all county seats have a district, and my point is, because of most of them being centrally located, and most of them being a vital community in the county, they should keep a district.

In your second point, O'Brien is a great example, and would likely have two districts in my proposed solution. One located centrally and one in another very viable community. That is why I thought the result is 175 districts, not 99. If all of O'Brien County went to Sheldon, the distance would be a serious obstacle for students who live in the SE 2/3 of the county. But in my scenario, Sheldon remains as a viable district of more than 900 and there is another county seat based district. That means one district, not one school. Each district could keep elementary schools in viable communities and even have multiple HS's if the student population supports doing so. How strong would the resulting O'Brien county district that included the rest of the county be? Academically, fine arts, ag, and athletically?

Prior post asked about Mt. Ayr. In that county, Mt Ayr would probably still be just short of 900 students, but they would be the centrally located county seat district in the county. Why is it in the best interest of kids to still have a Diagonal district? Over $2M to educate 100 kids.....do you see the efficiency problem, which is very evident in this situation and needs to be solved? Those kids go to Mt. Ayr and there is probably very, VERY little extra cost to the Mt. Ayr district. The $2M+ currently being spent on providing what is probably a bare bones education that replicates what is currently available only a few miles away in Mt. Ayr, could then be spent in giving all Mt. Ayr and Diagonal kids options that would rival large schools, and yet they remain a great small school environment. Win-win!!! Seriously, can you imagine what an awesome environment could be created if you add $2M to the annual budget of a district like Mt. Ayr? Sign my kids up to go there!

There are examples like this all over the state. We have enough money, we are just using way too much money to prop up buildings serving far too few kids. Closing a school doesn't kill the town.....the town is already dead if there aren't enough jobs to support enough families to fill the school with students. Sad, but very true.

My last point is to make sure everyone thinking about this topic is aware of a looming teacher shortage, and districts are increasingly going to have not just a hard time, but an impossible task of filling the tough areas with teachers. And I am not talking about it being tough to find a GOOD teacher, I am talking about it being hard to find someone even certified and breathing! Fewer districts, with classes full but filled with a reasonable number, is an achievable goal, which saves money AND improves the quality of education for all kids.

 

[Iowast8isgr8]

It's people who have jobs and live there. Do you want them to all move to the 35-80 corridor? The kids that graduate leave and go to college somewhere. Online and CC classes are usually free through the HS. Iowa would be better off overall by revitalizing these towns and spreading out the population growth across the state. Some towns are actually bouncing back a little bit. Fort Dodge has came back along ways from it's lows in the 80's. I hope as businesses become more internet connected some of them will be able to move out to some of the smaller towns and revitalize them. 30 jobs staffed by 30-40 yr olds would probably mean 20-30 spouses and hopefully 15-20 kids. Those aren't huge numbers but once things get started sometimes they keep going the right way.

I agree there shouldn't be incentives, either intentional or unintentional, for everyone to move to the DM, or IC/CR areas. However, it is living in dreamland to think Iowa is going to revitalize 333 communities, which is the number of current districts. Can we create 175 phenomenal districts, thus giving families an incentive to stay in rural environments? I think so, but even that is a challenge, because companies aren't likely to move to a place with no population to hire, and large numbers of people aren't moving to places where there are no jobs. Chicken or Egg situation. We don't have enough money to hope we can keep all the districts open, and letting them die on the vine is almost educational child abuse. You say revitalize "some of the smaller towns" and I agree, just can't be all of them. I think what I laid out does a great deal to strengthen 175 locations in every part of the state. You disagreed with my post, so what is your solution? Continuing to pay for half filled class rooms and schools is crazy, so if you don't like my idea, I look forward to considering yours that is based on more than just hope.

 

[mb7299]

So, I agree with your statement that all county seats have a district, and my point is, because of most of them being centrally located, and most of them being a vital community in the county, they should keep a district.

In your second point, O'Brien is a great example, and would likely have two districts in my proposed solution. One located centrally and one in another very viable community. That is why I thought the result is 175 districts, not 99. If all of O'Brien County went to Sheldon, the distance would be a serious obstacle for students who live in the SE 2/3 of the county. But in my scenario, Sheldon remains as a viable district of more than 900 and there is another county seat based district. That means one district, not one school. Each district could keep elementary schools in viable communities and even have multiple HS's if the student population supports doing so. How strong would the resulting O'Brien county district that included the rest of the county be? Academically, fine arts, ag, and athletically?

Prior post asked about Mt. Ayr. In that county, Mt Ayr would probably still be just short of 900 students, but they would be the centrally located county seat district in the county. Why is it in the best interest of kids to still have a Diagonal district? Over $2M to educate 100 kids.....do you see the efficiency problem, which is very evident in this situation and needs to be solved? Those kids go to Mt. Ayr and there is probably very, VERY little extra cost to the Mt. Ayr district. The $2M+ currently being spent on providing what is probably a bare bones education that replicates what is currently available only a few miles away in Mt. Ayr, could then be spent in giving all Mt. Ayr and Diagonal kids options that would rival large schools, and yet they remain a great small school environment. Win-win!!! Seriously, can you imagine what an awesome environment could be created if you add $2M to the annual budget of a district like Mt. Ayr? Sign my kids up to go there!

There are examples like this all over the state. We have enough money, we are just using way too much money to prop up buildings serving far too few kids. Closing a school doesn't kill the town.....the town is already dead if there aren't enough jobs to support enough families to fill the school with students. Sad, but very true.

My last point is to make sure everyone thinking about this topic is aware of a looming teacher shortage, and districts are increasingly going to have not just a hard time, but an impossible task of filling the tough areas with teachers. And I am not talking about it being tough to find a GOOD teacher, I am talking about it being hard to find someone even certified and breathing! Fewer districts, with classes full but filled with a reasonable number, is an achievable goal, which saves money AND improves the quality of education for all kids.

I find it hard to believe there is a true shortage in teachers in any area, it almost seems like a misdirection from colleges to ensure they get students in the area that takes a lot of college work for low pay. There are several fields out there that such a technique is used for like pharmacy where there is a mass surplus. I can agree that there will always be a lack of candidates in super secluded areas especially western Iowa but in general the populated areas will always get a lot of candidates for all areas.

 

[dafarmer]

My perspective may be wrong, but in the smaller schools it is harder to keep outstanding teachers. If they are really good, they would like to be in a district that has the resources to survive and provide opportunities to the students. And if you are a mediocre teacher, it is hard to fire one and expect to hire and keep a new teacher.

 

[BCClone]

My perspective may be wrong, but in the smaller schools it is harder to keep outstanding teachers. If they are really good, they would like to be in a district that has the resources to survive and provide opportunities to the students. And if you are a mediocre teacher, it is hard to fire one and expect to hire and keep a new teacher.

Pertaining to your last bit, it was. The state legislature, cleaned up the issue of not being able to rid poor teachers if they have been there awhile. Some schools passed their agreements beforehand and some hit 2 year agreements. So in another year, that shouldn't be as hard.

Larger schools typically pay more, that entices several teachers also.

 

[IsuStu]

My perspective may be wrong, but in the smaller schools it is harder to keep outstanding teachers. If they are really good, they would like to be in a district that has the resources to survive and provide opportunities to the students. And if you are a mediocre teacher, it is hard to fire one and expect to hire and keep a new teacher.

Rural districts have traditionally been stepping stone jobs for both teachers and administrators assuming that they don't have a personal connection to the district.

 

[Cybirdy]

Is the FB participation down because of parental concern of CTE? Gilbert is probably one of the faster growing districts around. No 1st hand knowledge just saw the buildings they've built.
I like FB but I believe every parent and their kid has their choice to make concerning sports. Well sorry for going off topic.

I think that is more of a CTE participation concern. The freshman class (a very athletic class) has about 25 guys out for football, every other class in 10-12 has about 15 to 20 guys out. I know there are also kids that go out for CC in the fall. We have had a strong CC program and know a few 8th graders who run instead of play football.

 

[carvers4math]

A lot of trashing of smaller schools academically going on here. There are good and bad teachers in all schools. Our kids go to a smaller high school in a rural area, and ACT scores have ranged from 33-36 for four different boys so far. My sister keeps telling me how her suburban Chicago kids went to a high school listed as one of of the best in America, and both kids had 24 on the ACT. And when she would ask my husband or one of my kids to help her son with his math homework over the phone, somehow it would always be because he got the "bad" teacher in one of the supposedly best high schools in America.

Teachers, parents, and students all play a role academically. Small and rural doesn't always equal bad. Big and suburban doesn't always equal good.