This is a great idea but... how is this ambitious agenda going to be staffed? Where is the funding to support these different programs going to come from? And the cap on students per class is 23? Shouldn't it be lower? Many of these kids really need personalized attention. 23? Of course, smaller class sizes means even more staff.

I also agree that this is a great idea. I noticed that the article mentioned necessary support provided by businesses and local colleges. Is this support solely financial or would local college students and graduates be able to donate their time to help support the faculty in some way? Perhaps the set up of a program like that would help with staffing costs.

If I'm understanding this article correctly, it would take 100 staff at one site and 240 staff at the other to create this "family of five" program. Additionally, it requires 5 counselors at one site and 12 at the other to maintain the 100 student max per counselor. These numbers seem very high and the costs involved with hiring the additional staff would be tremendous.

I am not opposed to the hiring of additional support staff, however to ask school counselors to take on 100 students and provide quality counseling services seems daunting. I also wonder what constitutes a family contact. I.certainly hope not a voice message or a note sent in the child's school bag. Furthermore, in order to maintain the progress ( increased graduation rates) that V. White discusses frequently, RCSD needs to consider hiring the home school assistants back, as well as utilize those with mental health degrees and training. Contracted social workers do not always have the same committment as RCSD employees have when it comes to the well-being of the district as a whole.

Andy, KFay & saralee,

Anyone who really understands education and the depth and breadth of the issues and problems that this proposed design is attempting to address --- also understands that the critically important issues that you raised only represent the tip of the iceberg (so to speak) --- relative to the fundamental shortcomings and flaws contained in the proposal, which really does amount to nothing more or less than (even though I don't like the following rhetoric) moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic. The possibility of such a grandiose plan being fully developed and properly implemented are about as likely as was the last set of brilliant ideas embodied within the school designs, which are currently being so-called phased out. We really do need to stop this nonsense of expending major energy, time, and resources in processes of creating illusions of change and improvement. If all of the mysterious support mechanism proposed in this latest (there have been many others in the past) subterfuge regarding academic improvement really do exist or can be created, which is highly, highly doubtful --- why would we need to shift students around like a giant shuffle-board in order for them to receive support? Again, we need to stop this illusionary foolishness; squash this unrealistic proposal, and start all over again --- with the very first step being demonstration of basic respect of students and families who are most directly affected via a community conversation. Just to be clear about some of the other complexities that are involved, I don't think long-time RCSD educator, Mr. Josh Mack would mind me sharing with the community a set of issues and concerns (below), which he articulated in a recent memo to Rochester Board of Education Commissioner Mary Adams and others:

From:Josh Mack
To: Adams, MaryB
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: New pathway for at-risk city high school students

Mary,

I brought this situation to the attention of the district long before Vargas's arrival. I described this as "ghost students" to the Auditor General and proposed an investigation into this situation.

My research revealed a number of issue regarding this matter. First, the district has been aware of this problem for many years. In the recent past, the state had a minimum attendance policy that allocated financial resources to districts that allowed funding a truancy program aimed at rounding up these students and keeping them engaged in the system.

After the Board of Regents cut funding for this initiative, districts like Rochester stopped implementing procedures to track and round up these students due to claims of lack of funding. It is interesting to note that the RCSD has never reached out to the state for assistance in addressing this problem, according to state officials.

Unfortunately, many of these student will never earn a high school diploma, by state standards, before they age out of school. This last minute act of desperation by the district is reactionary at best.

Many of these students realized long before now that they would not qualify for a high school diploma so they stopped attending school and applied for a drop so that they could enter into Job Corps or a GED program.

Around that same time, the district changed the drop process making it nearly impossible for these students to be granted a drop to enable them to enroll in these other programs. Enrollment in these other programs requires the student to be fully dropped from the district. Many of these students missed enrollment deadlines to these other programs due to this intentional delay.

I would suggest that the district conduct an attendance audit for the students the district is targeting to determine how frequently these students have attended school in the past two years. You will probably find that a large number of these students have already left the area.

I have developed an alternative solution for the remaining students that simply will not meet the requirements for graduation under the current conditions. I would like to present it at the next Excellence in Education Committee meeting.

JMack