By Khalida Sarwari
Oct. 8, she indicated that might cost the district upwards of $7,000.
“Once we have as much input as we have, there might be compelling reasons to reopen negotiations,” Gipe said. “We shouldn’t arbitrarily just say we’re not going to make any changes this year.”
Board members Paige Berardo and Arati Nagaraj were opposed to raising the schedule change issue again until next year. “I kind of feel that there’s an element of uncertainty around that idea,” Berardo said.
Unlike the previous meetings, which drew standing-room-only crowds, only about a dozen folks were present at the Oct. 8 meeting, with just a handful opting to address the board. Some expressed their disagreement with the cost of the survey. Most appeared disappointed in the board’s decision and concerned that the schedule would continue to be implemented next year.
The new schedule, which went into effect at the beginning of the school year in August after the decision was made by the district administration and approved by the school board in June, releases students at Redwood Middle School at 12:45 p.m. and those in the elementary schools at 12:30 p.m. each Wednesday.
According to the district, the schedule was put in place to allow staff and faculty time for professional development training during the school year and for teachers to collaborate as well as prepare for and implement practices such as the common core state standards and new assessment tests in the classroom.
Shamik Mehta, the parent of a seventh-grade student at Redwood, said he has been educating himself on common core, but continues to have reservations about the initiative.
“I can’t help but feel that adopting the standard is not right for us,” Mehta said. “I just want someone to reassure me that common core is good. I don’t feel that reassurance right now.”
Since the schedule went into effect, many parents have been asking why the teachers’ development time was created at the expense of their children’s instructional time. They’ve expressed concern also about the board implementing the schedule without their input.
Some claim the new schedule will cause them financial hardship, since they would need to hire a babysitter or nanny to pick up their children earlier from school. Others say the schedule is disruptive, that instead of being in the classroom learning, their kids would now be wasting the hours on nonacademic activities. They bemoaned the 33-minute class sessions on Wednesdays, arguing that it signifies a drastic reduction in instructional time. There is no time for science labs, physical education activities, art projects and exams, opponents argue.
Proponents, meanwhile, say they appreciate the consistency of the new schedule and prefer it to last year’s, when minimum days took place on the first Thursday of every month.
Although the revised schedule will be used for now, it appears the district is still attempting to appease those who aren’t happy with it. One method, discussed briefly by superintendent Lane Weiss on Oct. 8, is to offer classes on Wednesday afternoons in partnership with the Saratoga Recreation Department.
Zhang, who had previously proposed creating a task force comprised of parents, teachers and community members to look into the schedule change as well as improving communication with the parent community, asked his colleagues if they would instead be open to the possibility of holding weekly office hours on a rotating basis.
“If we set up regular office hours with the board members, people can drop by to give input on any issue that we should discuss as a whole board,” Zhang said. “We just make ourselves available.”
Buchanan suggested that the board reflect on the idea and discuss it further at the next meeting.
