ABANDON THE HEN HUD TWO YEAR GRADE BANDING MODEL

Please ONLY sign if you are a HenHud District Resident

Summary

• Transportation is going to cost a considerable sum per year and will not alleviate the burden of distance or reduce our carbon footprint.
• Only three other districts, or 10% of districts, in Westchester have our two year transition model: Peekskill, Ossining and Greenburgh.  70% of districts are not grade banded at all. 
• Many studies reveal the vast negative effects of frequent school transitions on learning and behavior.  Little data exists showing the benefits thereof. 
• For ICT students, the classes are larger, teachers and students are segregated, and faculty can no longer move up with the children, which is necessary to ease stressful transitions.
• The benefits cited by the plan’s proponents are not directly tied to the model, and there is no evidence to suggest those benefits must necessarily be jettisoned if we revert to K-5 model.
• It has not been demonstrated that “most” teachers are in favor of the plan. Most have not filled out the survey.
• There is no evidence to suggest Princeton Plan will result in permanently lowered class size caps.
• Downgrading the school district’s quality will have a deleterious effect on property value and our children’s future.
• There is no financial benefit to the plan as purported, which was the primary reason it was implemented. In fact, it is costing more than our original model.
• Those of us seeking to return to the K-5 school model are dedicated to finding a solution that is fair and equitable to all (e.g. maintaining one PTA) 

The board heard from well over 100 parents in December. A month later, and the board has not responded to the needs of its community members. Have you assumed all is well because the noise has died down? Let us assure you, it has not.

Transportation continues to be a very serious issue, and there is no easy, cost-effective solution. Our district is very large and geographically spread out. The bussing calamity is costing the district $800k per annum to address on top of the original $300k+, totaling $1.1million extra per year.  This is to say nothing of how it is going to greatly increase carbon emissions in the district. Families are struggling, some moving out of the district to avoid unfeasible commutes. Depending on where in the district you reside, the drive can be as much as 20 minutes. By bus, that commute more than doubles. We should not be complacent about the inequity created by a plan that necessitates having some kindergarten kids bussed an excruciatingly long 40 minutes, with other commutes topping off at 20 minutes.

When concerns are raised, we hear from proponents of the plan (particularly those who spearheaded a parent led study) that the model works in other high performing school districts in Westchester like Irvington, Byram Hills and Yorktown. What they fail to disclose is that those models are in no way similar to ours. None of these districts have their kids changing schools every two years. Their schools include 4 year grade banding and involve one less transition than our current model. Irvington has two, not three elementary schools, and they are within minutes of each other. The same is true of Byram Hills and Yorktown. For the latter, all elementary, middle and high schools are on the same campus. Those school districts are substantially smaller, and the schools are in much closer proximity to one another than are ours. Our schools are spread out across three different zip codes, they are not centrally located in our community. The districts most similar to ours are the ones that the proponents of Princeton Plan do not like to cite - Peekskill and Ossining – presumably because they are (1) lower rated and (2) have certain advantages that we do not. Both districts boast a robust bilingual program that is highly sought after, that we do not offer. Those regions are also not as large geographically and, consequently, the schools are not as spread out as ours.  The board has heard from parents and grandparents who worked in districts like Ossining and Tarrytown.  They spoke of the detriments of the model and are avidly against it. There has been a lot of misinformation put forth, alleging "grade banding is currently used in over 15 of the 33 school districts in Westchester county."  This is an outright lie. Nearly 70% of school districts in Westchester are not grade banded at all, and only 10%  (Peekskill, Ossining, Greenburgh & Hen Hud) have a two-year grade banding model based on NYSED data. Other districts such as Mamaroneck, East Rockaway and many others have explored adopting a similar model in the past, and after conducting research, rejected it as untenable.  

There are other concerns besides transportation. Per many accounts, the schools feel more like grade factories than a community - impersonal, disorganized, and chaotic. It feels like the NYC public schools many of us experienced growing up and relocated to avoid. Kids who grew up together in our district are now separated, and many students do not have the opportunity to reconnect because their lunch/recess periods do not align. Outside of “fun Fridays,” many of the kids are not connecting in any meaningful way with the majority of their peers, a benefit that was once heralded as an advantage to grade banding. Furthermore, they are isolated from the older kids with whom they used to integrate.  

A large portion of our community is Hispanic, and of a culture characterized by strong familial bonds and community connection. Many in that community have expressed that their families have been torn apart by this new model.  Siblings cannot attend sponsored dances at separate schools, they do not see their siblings during the school day, and they cannot establish a strong sense of community in their ever-changing schools.

It’s difficult for community members with multiple children of different ages to take advantage of the afterschool Enrichment programs and participate in their children’s school events.  For example, what used to be one K-5 Halloween parade for any given family is now potentially 3 parades.  Although the scheduling thereof is staggered in order to accommodate all, it is difficult to get the time off work to attend one, let alone multiple events for the same occasion. Family and community connection is essential to healthy development of children. This model separates families and frequent transitions do not foster strong community bonds. Faculty and staff lack familiarity with us and our children, and we feel like numbers. Strangers. Yes, it’s only been 5 months of the plan. Sure, people will know our names after two years, but then we will move to a new school and start all over.

Parents have disclosed that their children, once gregarious, have become loners this year. Other parents cite stress induced neurological consequences in their otherwise healthy and high functioning children. Some studies on student mobility have shown that changing schools frequently can negatively impact students' engagement, self- perception and grades. Others have shown a direct correlation between high school drop out rates and frequent school transitions. A cursory search on the internet produces study after study after study on the negative effects of excessive student mobility. Research was just commissioned by Hewlett-Woodmere school district in Long Island and, ironically, Hendrick Hudson was among the models studied.  The study suggested that “very few schools adapted a configuration where students attended a building for two years,” and “revealed the biggest motivator is budgetary.”  It is worth reading this report, as it details how and why “the number of transitions between schools negatively impacts student learning.”

In terms of ICT, classes were always accessible at every grade level.  However, with the two- year Princeton Plan Model, the classes are larger and Special Ed students are segregated from their peers, something the 12-1-2 program was supposed to prevent.  ICT, 12-1-2 and ABC instructors are separated as well, resulting in a reduced capacity for necessary collaboration.   Furthermore, the ICT teachers are no longer able to move up with their students, which assisted in easing transition. Considering the plethora of data correlating frequent student mobility and poor academic performance, one can only infer that such effects will only be exacerbated in those with learning challenges.  Any transition is difficult for students, but those most sensitive to it are ICT students, as they struggle most with even minor degrees of transition.  For these students, the two year model would seem untenable.  Do we want to wait a couple of years to gather the data?  Or do we act now before it’s too for the guinea pigs? 

We have asked the district for their assessment of the socio-emotional and educational impact of changing schools every two years, and we are still awaiting  that data.  We asked for the algorithm used to constitute classes in a manner that fostered maximum diversity, we do not have that either.  In terms of measurable academic advantages to grade banding, once again, we are left empty handed. Instead, we are advised of a myriad of new benefits reaped by the district this year that are wholly unrelated and ancillary to grade banding, like STEM, UPK and ICT in every school. The advocates for Princeton Plan avidly brandish these acronyms, however they have not clearly explained how such benefits specifically necessitate the Princeton Plan model. Lakeland and Croton-Harmon, for example, have UPK. Nor can the board demonstrate that we cannot find it in the budget to retain these offerings in a K-5 community school setting.

We are told that “most” of the teachers are “loving” this model and see academic progress that is directly tied to its implementation. However, when pressed for evidence, we are handed an “anonymous” but traceable via IP survey in which teachers are basically being asked to rate their own performance (asking how their students are adjusting to the change is exactly that).  Considering it was at best only a third of the faculty that even felt comfortable enough to fill it out, it does not instill confidence in the restructuring of the district. Having a union leader be the one to conduct the survey may be intimidating and result in less than genuine responses, and two-thirds of the faculty declining to respond is suspect. That would seem to require further investigation.

In terms of class sizes being smaller, and caps being lowered, that is not something Princeton Plan will reliably be able to provide in perpetuity. On the contrary, down the line, Princeton Plan may exacerbate the very issues it was intended to solve. Demographics shift, and grade banding will not provide immunity from overcrowding and overflow issues. For example, say there is a disproportionate amount of 4th graders one year, and a simultaneous under-enrollment of kindergarteners. What if the infrastructure cannot accommodate the influx without raising the cap because there aren’t enough classrooms? With the previous model, we can redraw district line boundaries to equalize class sizes and school population. With Princeton Plan, we cannot do that. You certainly cannot move 4th graders to the K-1 school. What do we do then?

As a goal, our entire community strives towards equality, and it's a given that we need to elevate areas of the district that are under-supported. We look to the board to take appropriate measures to allocate funding and student population as needed. What we cannot support is reducing the quality of the rest of the district so everything matches in an equally downgraded way. That is not true equity. There are a number of dangers with this that every stakeholder should consider. Downgrading the school district’s quality will have a deleterious effect on property value. Prospective homebuyers will not want to move to a district in which they have to switch schools every two years. That is a deterrent. It’s enough that our schools ratings on greatschools.com have dropped precipitously since 2014. If property values decline and people start grieving their taxes, as they are prone to do, it will have a negative impact on the levy. People will be less inclined to vote for new spending measures. Less taxpayer money means a further decline in school quality. How will that affect the families most impacted by inequity?

We empathize with those who attended an underperforming, overcrowded K-5 school prior to the Princeton Plan, but there were solutions to this that the administration refused to explore. The question is, why weren’t these concerns addressed years ago? Why didn’t the underperforming elementary school get more programming with Title 1 funds? There are clearly administrative failures at hand here, and there should be some accountability for that. Now that these issues are unearthed, we realize they require rectification. The community should be clear that NO ONE wants any school in this district to fall behind. It affects us all. If our districts need to be redrawn or budgets have to be reallocated to improve things - whether it’s in terms of infrastructure, additional faculty, curriculum and extracurricular offerings, etc. – we know it can be done. Heck, we are apparently finding exorbitant amounts of money to spend on super-polluting buses. In terms of a joint PTA, enrichment offerings, etc. - we are all for combining resources and keeping that. What a great way of having our kids integrate while maintaining a K-5 model!

The bottom line is this: the grade banding model is impractical and disadvantageous for a large portion of the community. If we can achieve the benefits (equalized class sizes, STEM, etc) that the proponents of the plan are seeking without the Princeton Plan in place, then at this point the board owes it to the community to eliminate Princeton Plan. We definitely cannot appease the entire community with the model we currently have, that much is clear. It is time to be serious and not sanguine about the havoc this plan has wreaked on the community.

Those who are most enthusiastic about it have little at stake, as they either have no elementary aged kids in the district, or they were never zoned to their nearest school anyway, do not feel the impact of this massive restructuring of our community and are seemingly content to equalize the imposition across the entire district (without making their own situation any better).

Geographically and structurally, the district is not designed for this, and the majority of the community is going to suffer as a result. It doesn’t work because changing schools every two years has been shown by multiple studies to be academically disadvantageous. It doesn’t work because it’s more expensive than the K-5 model, at a time when cost savings are the goal. In fact, the plan’s purported financial benefit was the Trojan horse that ushered it in to start with. This turned out to be a big lie. So why are we pursuing this plan further? Let us not suffer the sunk cost fallacy, believing that since we invested in what amounted to a disappointing failure, we owe it to ourselves to keep digging until we hit gold. We need to cut our losses and move on productively.

Our hope is for the board to do what they failed to do two years ago - to analyze the Princeton Plan holistically and carefully weigh it against other options, including options to address equity issues in our former school model. From there, honest consideration must be given as to whether or not this should continue. The public discussion surrounding Princeton Plan in 2021 was primarily about finances. This was about Indian Point closing and lost funding. It was based on a budget analysis that was flawed. This community is not looking to assign blame, point fingers and throw daggers. Honest mistakes were made with the best intentions. We are seeking restitution, not retribution.  We are seeking to rectify recognized inequities. We are seeking the ability to adopt a model that doesn’t inhibit our ability to work, create tensions within families, and drive others out of the district. We are seeking to return to our local community schools wiser, and cognizant of the disparities that require redress. We look to the board to come up with other solutions to alleviate the concerns of the majority of the district. The transition to the plan was made hastily and without true consideration of community input. Trust was lost and it has ripped our community apart. There is an opportunity now to mend the divide, to regain our trust and to move forward united. We do not want to look back, but instead urge this board to lead this district in service to its stakeholders.