Build a North Elementary School

What if the New Richmond School District could build an elementary school that would…

• Require no additional land


• Be 25 percent cheaper to build


• be ready for team teaching that doubles student performance


• allow for year-round scheduling if desired

This type of school is operating now in Woodbury Minnesota and was toured in April to learn just how they accomplished year-round scheduling and managed their team teaching.

The school is Valley Crossing Community School. This school was designed for 900, K-6 students in three neighborhoods,” A, B, and C. The building had three wings with folding walls to enlarge a single classroom for team teaching. Neighborhood B was scheduled for year-round and the others for traditional summer vacation. Let’s see how a smaller version might fit into the East Elementary property. See figure at top of story.

Note that the new school is situated north of the East Elementary building so we’ll call it North Elementary School for want of a better name.

Another school on East property was never considered by the Long Range Planning Committee partly because the mind set was to evaluate each building as a stand alone unit. Once it was determined that the elementary grades were overcrowded (forget the future years) it was concluded that a new neighborhood school was needed.

The committee did not define neighborhood, but it appears that most members of the committee assumed it to mean a school in some nebulous educational campus along with a high school and middle school or in one of the outlying areas, preferably north or south of New Richmond.

Since we know a large elementary such as Valley Crossing is feasible if approached in the right way, it seemed natural to research a similar, smaller building on East Elementary property. The advantage, of course, is no additional land need be purchased. Some may object to the reduction of so-called “green space.” The answer is that land for the new school would be situated in an area of scrub trees and rocks.

The new school would be designed for 600 students. To handle the additional traffic, the entrance and parking areas will have to be expanded. The cost should be no different than site preparation on new land. Note the connection to the City’s East 8th street. Traffic flow in and out of the property will have to be evaluated by the City zoning commission.

It can not be emphasized enough what an opportunity a new elementary school offers the School District. The secret to 80 percent honor roll performance at Valley Crossing is team teaching. Compare this to the 40 percent average for the state of Minnesota. This means class rooms must be expanded via folding or bellows type walls. These walls do not contribute to structural strength of exterior walls and roof. Therein lies the necessity of going to steel construction and its attendant cost saving, some estimate, to be as high as 25 percent.

Think of the advantages of team teaching: 1) A new or less efficient teacher can be mentored by more experienced teachers in a dynamic situation. 2) Student learning problems can be observed by more than one teacher to bring about a team solution. 3) A substitute teacher can be guided by the other two leading to more productive days when one teacher is absent and 4) Team teaching and learning will be observed by students so they can more easily adapt to future work requirements in employment.

The cost: $12.5 million plus land preparation.

This school should be built now to alleviate current crowded conditions. It should not be held hostage to a $72.6 million building program recommended by the Long Range Planning Committee. It may fail. Lets take the New Richmond School building program one step at a time.


060529

Valley Crossing community school

TO:  Mike Williams

FROM:  Bob Ziller

SUBJECT:    Trip Report, 18 April 2006

     Contact: Mr. Bill Bjorum, Principal
              Valley Crossing Community School
               9900 Park Crossing, Woodbury MN 55125
              Phone: 651-702-5773

     Attended by:  Brian Johnston, Debra Heyerdahl, and Mike Williams

Background   The purpose of this trip was to obtain information on year-round scheduling.  Valley Crossing Community School has a single track year-round schedule in one of its three “neighborhood” schools.   Mr. Bjorum gave us a tour of this school and we found more of interest than year-round scheduling.  The school is a relatively new 10-year old facility.  It is unique in that it is in its own school district.  It draws students from four school districts.

It was started by an entrepreneurial Stillwater superintendent who wished to try year-round scheduling and team teaching.  He promoted this school in a new school district funded by three surrounding districts.  This was unheard of and required state legislation and cooperation from the other districts.  Mr. Bjorum labeled the superintendent a risk taker and needless to say required risks by the surrounding school boards.  New Richmond School Board take heed.

After state and district approvals, district #916 was established and a 900 student school was built.  It was designed into three so-called “neighborhoods A, B, and C, teaching K-6 grades.  The B neighborhood had a single-track year-round schedule while the other two were traditional.  Thus, each neighborhood handles 300 students.  The rooms were built with bellows type folding walls allowing expansion for team teaching with three teachers per team.  There are three lead teachers; one in each neighborhood reporting to the principal.  

Mr. Bjorum emphasized that year-round scheduling should not be tried in an existing building with traditional scheduling.  There are too many problems to overcome—it should be left an option.  As to acceptance the over-subscription by parents of year-round speaks for itself.  Year-round scheduling does not impact student achievement; it neither improves nor hinders it according to Bjorum.  

Mr. Bjorum was proud of the team teaching and performance showed it.  Honor roll students were 80 percent as compared to state average of 40 percent with single teacher classrooms.  If these statistics are valid, then New Richmond should investigate this method of teaching.

Discussion

As a non-educator, I see four advantages to team teaching:  1) A new or problem teacher can be mentored by the others to bring him/her up to speed, 2) Problem areas can be observed by more than one teacher in a dynamic situation, discussed and corrected, 3) a substitute teacher can be guided by the other two leading to less disruption, and 4) team teaching will be observed by students who will see the benefits of it for use in employment when required.  

How about team teaching acceptance by teachers?  Bjorum pointed to the open folding walls and noted that they could have been closed by the teachers had they not wanted this method of teaching.  If this method is to be tried in New Richmond, it should be a management decision.

Single-track scheduling would not be necessary with a new 600 student school, but trying it would give experience as to acceptance by parents and teachers and expose any problems for correction.

Recommendations

Build a new 600, K-6 student elementary school on and adjacent to the East Elementary property.  The building should be built with folding walls for team teaching with storage capacity and compatibility for four-track year-round scheduling.

Open the new school with single track year-round schedule

Open the new school with team teaching.

Finance the new school with a referendum for this building only.

Consider a steel building which would be idea with folding walls.  



060423