STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS... What about that 2/3 funding?

Most people, even school people get confused by the 2/3 state funding and think that means the State of Wisconsin funds 2/3 of the budget for every school in the state. That is incorrect. The 2/3 funding is an average for the entire state. I found the following on the Madison School District site and while it pertains specifically to Madison, much of the explanation applies to Oshkosh as well (I will insert Oshkosh data when it differs from Madison)

From the Madison School District Web Site:

"The major issue facing schools currently is the revenue cap that limits the amount of money that a Wisconsin school district can spend -- based on a formula that does not take into account the actual increased costs that occur each year.

The state does currently fund 2/3 of the cost of education across the state. This is an average figure and varies dramatically from district to district. In the case of Madison, the state funds approximately 28% of our costs.[For Oshkosh it is nearly 2/3 I think about 62%] The revenue cap is a property tax measure, not an education measure. The more the state funds K-12 education, the less that property tax payers in a district have to pay.

The service reductions that district's across the state are having to make every year is the result of our inability to fund the same level of service each year. This happens because the amount of money we can use per pupil is not allowed to increase as rapidly as the cost of providing the service increases.

In the case of Madison, the state mandates that our budget can increase by only 2.6% a year,[that figure is about the same for Oshkosh] but our costs to continue providing the same services to our children increase at least 3.8% per year. This is the minimum increase that occurs because of the current state law that allows school districts to avoid arbitration with their teachers union if they offer that 3.8% increase in total salary and benefits. Obviously, that means that unions are never going to settle below 3.8%.

Salary and benefits are 86% of our budget,[about the same for Oshkosh] so the 3.8% creates a floor to our expenses. Our other expenses such as insurance and utilities rise much more than the 3.8% each year. In these areas, we are subject to the same market forces that homeowners and businesses are.

The gap that results from the difference between the 2.6% we can expend and the 3.8% minimum increase in costs (it is usually 4.0 - 4.2%) [again that is the same for Oshkosh] is the reason we and almost every other school district in Wisconsin has to reduce services to their students every year.

To put this in context, if we were doing everything today that we were doing in 1993 -- when the revenue cap law went into effect -- we would have 526 more employees and our budget would be $46 million higher that it is today. [I don't know those figures for Oshkosh but it would certainly be more significantly more than it is today]. I think this number quantifies the difference that the revenue cap has made in services to children."

I find the above to be a very understandable explanation for how 2/3 funding works, and why districts can't "live within their means" as some like to criticize. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe, school districts cannot just increase taxes to provide services, most are limited to a 2.6% increase in their budget and as the above explains, costs increase at a greater amount than revenue is allowed to increase, hence budget cuts are required, pretty much every year. Revenue controls have been good for property taxpayers but not good for school districts. The Revenue Controls have hit Oshkosh Schools especially hard because it has always been a frugal district and the Controls locked school districts in at what they were spending in 1993 and only allowed approximately 2.6% increases each year. It doesn't take an accountant to understand why so many school districts are struggling.

It is too bad more taxpayers don't understand this whole issue. It is not poor management on the part of school districts, it is an unfair funding formula (primarily favoring school districts in the Milwaukee suburbs).

SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH

I think most people would agree the major task facing the school board over the next few months is to hire a new superintendent. A search firm will be hired to assist the board in this process. I imagine at some point the opinions of the community will be sought, I hope more people show up than showed up for a similar meeting regarding the City Manager. Sometimes it seems as if very few want to get involved but many like to complain. Then again sometimes I let the blogs skew my perceptions. If you really stop and count the number of posters on a blog that requires registration (Oshkonversation) you will note that for the most part there are 5-10 different posters on any given thread. Hardly the voice of the community.

At any rate, I'd like to know what readers think should be considered when hiring a new superintendent for the Oshkosh Area School District? Is previous experience as a superintendent necessary? Should board members visit the community where the final candidates work? What qualities are necessary in a new superintendent, what qualities would be nice to have and what qualities are not really important at all?

It appears that all the districts around us that are looking for, or have hired, a new superintendent have paid that person more than our current superintendent makes (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more), should this matter? Will we have to pay in that range to stay competitive or do we just set a dollar figure and see who is willing to come to Oshkosh for that amount?

How would you go about "including" the community or is this strictly a Board decision?

I guess that is enough to get people started...

DEFINITION TIME - Must post by April 14

Throughout the whole facilities discussions, on blogs and forums and in discussions with people, I keep coming back to something... Supposedly this community values "neighborhood schools" yet I have never seen a definition of what that means:

So, please post your definition of "neighborhood schools" with the assumption that said definition to be used to determine that if a school closed, would there still be a school in the "neighborhood". Please be specific and make sure that is all you post... your definition of "Neighborhood Schools" anything will be deleted. You don't need to "criticize" some one's definition right now I'm just looking for definitions. This thread will be locked on April 15 (assuming I can figure out how to do that) and then I will take 3-5 definitions and (again assuming I can figure out how) post a poll to see how much agreement on a definition there is.

Thanks -- again I request you choose a "name" even just a letter works -- so much easier than time posted... PLEASE ;-)

UPDATE: As Smiley pointed out -- low turnout on this post. Apparently no one has a working definition of "neighborhood schools" or they don't want to share it.

I'll have a post on a new but related topic later this week.

Discussion of School Board Election Results

Rather than just delete the comments on the Facilities Thread relating to what the election results mean... I will be moving them here... so if you want to discuss the results post here... I will delete them from the other thread.

Keep the discussion civil! Thanks

Moving On... Facilities Needs vs. Wants

I am so excited about the election results I can't sleep.

I am hoping we can have a civil discussion about what the "wants" and the "needs" are in the facilities plan. Or what types of things people think are "wants" and what things people think are "needs". If the discussion is not on this topic or gets nasty I will enable comment moderation and delete those things not on point, even if I agree with the statement. I see this election as really changing the tone of the board and I want to shift my tone as well. While I will still correct factual errors, I would like to find areas where people can agree or at least compromise.

I do not have copies of all the architect reports so I can't give you specifics on what exactly was in or out but here are some of the things I think are needs:

a) Updated electrical, HVAC, plumbing etc. on all buildings that will not close
b) Computer lab with at least 30 working computers
c) Media Center large enough to take a class of 25 5th graders
d) When building new or remodeling, schools with at least 3 sections per grade, 4 is preferable
e) Separate Art Room and Separate Music Room

It is late and I am fading -- that is what I can think of right now... please post your thoughts, but remember, describe the things you think are wants in a facilities plan and or the things you think are needs... anything else I will be putting comment moderation back on and deleting the posts...

A FAVOR -- I will ask once again, would you please instead of choosing anonymous could you choose name and make up a name... it is only one more step than choosing anonymous... you just have to type in a name like "cubfan" did... I just find it so much easier to use monikers than posting times. It is also nice to get a feel for how many individuals are posting. I don't get any information if you choose "name" and you can ignore the URL box. Of course you don't have to choose "name", but I really hope you will. Thanks

The Northwestern's Endorsement got it Exactly RIGHT

Two posters on the Oaklawn thread have asked that I start threads on two different topics. The first asks when I will have a new post on the 4-3 vote on the facilities plan. The answer, maybe after the election, maybe never. I must say I am frustrated at the end result of almost 2 years (some would argue 10 years) of discussions but if the board majority changes, this won't be the plan anyway (and there probably won't be a "plan" for another 2 years). So I'm leaving that alone until we know just who is on the board.

The other poster asked for a thread about the School board election, and as you can see from the Title of this thread, I will post on that one.

As the title of this thread implies, The Northwestern's Endorsement captures my feelings exactly.

Schneider is quick to point his finger at the board majority for allowing our buildings to fall into "disrepair". However, he served as Chair of the Facilities and Finance Committee for a number of years and not once did he show any leadership in getting our buildings repaired. He served 6 years on the board and how many resolutions did he bring forth to "fix" our facilities? None... It is so easy to point the finger and vote "no" repeatedly but where was the leadership from the chair pointing out the need to fix our buildings? Instead he preferred to "grandstand" and give taxpayers an approximate $15 tax savings, rather than using the money to fix our buildings. As the Northwestern asked "what does he stand for"?

McDermott in an effort to compromise brought forward a plan he could support... where was Schneider's plan? If he were to be in the majority, who can tell me what his plan will look like? I doubt anyone can since he has never said what he would or would not support. He talks a lot about wants and needs but your need may be my want and vice versa. I especially liked the Northwesterns line: "But ask Schneider how to move forward or what specific things should be tackled, and he invariably withers,". That doesn't sound like leadership to me. Over and over I have heard him say "I defer to the experts" yet he never does. To defer means "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" that is not what Schneider does... he invariably votes "no" on those things he "defers to experts". What it seems to me is he just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about an answer.

As far as Monte, the Northwestern is right in stating that she would be a divisive factor on the board.

Her stand on things seems to waffle as well... her opening statement at every forum talks about "if we meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. So, why does she feel the need to post this "I don't think Special Needs is the number one priority, though certainly in the top ten."

Then here are just some of her "thoughts" on a "Plan":

March 17 (Oshkonversation) -- The plan I had been working on would cost about $30 million to include the deferred maintenance, a renovated or replacement Oaklawn, and a few other things we have put off too long like permanent homes for some of our special needs programs. (How is this so different from McDermott's plan?)

Yet of McDermott's plan she said on March 21st on her blog: "However, there is far more to the plan I do not like. My personal views aside, no one I have spoken to or who has contacted me would be willing to support this plan. I believe that if there is little to no community support, we are barking up the wrong tree." And "While the amendment may have been well intentioned, I have to consider the timing. At any point in the last two years, McDermott or anyone else on the BOE or in the administration could have turned the focus on Oaklawn. Like other schools, it was the three-headed step-child and had to close." Yet 4 days earlier a replacement Oaklawn was part of HER plan...

On March 14 (Oshkonversation) in response to a question from "tireless" about "Where did this "new Northside School' come from?"

Monte responds: "Tireless, If I remember discussions surrounding the idea of a new school on the northside, the architect on the attendance area team wasn't involved. I don't think there were even the six teams yet (teams were formed sometime in 2007) when that was brought into the equation. I know there were comments about making sure the amount of construction on both sides of town was balanced to be more fair. My understanding is that the new school is to replace Oaklawn in a more favorable location."

Then on her blog on March 21st she writes "When there is community opposition to building a new northside school, suddenly (my emphasis) the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn." Well was it before the six teams were formed (at least 6 months ago, probably closer to a year) or was it suddenly?

March 24 --- (Oshkonveration) UWBlade, the best I can do with the information I have is $30 million. That number includes the FCAP, estimating it to be $15 million. The remainder of the money would go to ADA requirements; conservative renovations to add Special Ed rooms; Fixed equipment needs, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades; and permits and fees identified in the architectual reports. I would look at closing Lincoln and Lakeside to start and converting Green Meadow to a larger school for the Lakeside and Green Meadow areas. (oops, what about a renovated or replacement Oaklawn?)

Feb 1st (Oshkonversation): "I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing... moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings...I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. ...I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum (emphasis mine). Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students. ...I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. ...Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. ...I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority." If you close Washington, would you not have to build classrooms somewhere to accomodate them? The north side really doesn't have excess seats. What is the cost of that?

Also on Feb. 1st Oshkonversation: "Libra, One of the problems Oshkosh is facing is a growing population that is crowding/has crowded Oakwood and Traeger. The new plans do not really solve for this as there is little/no room for future growth.
We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger." How does that fit into the $30M? Would the "Oakwood K-8 just not have Science Labs, Industrial Tech Lab, Orchestra and Band rooms?

On Jan. 14th on Oshkonversation "Where I disagree is that there is also the factor of mitigating the debt by selling the properties to be closed or reducing staff when numbers of buildings are reduced. ...

Take a look at the real estate market. We cannot count on the revenue of the sales because there is no way to ensure what will sell or for how much." See Feb. 1st post above...

After reading all this, I don't know what exactly Monte's plan would look like or if the $30M figure is accurate. Just like I don't think anyone really knows what Monte will support or not support, should she be elected.

To sum up, the Northwestern is correct in stating that McDermott is the only "leader" running for the school board.

Oaklawn was never part of the Jefferson referendum

Just when I thought I could relax and enjoy my holiday weekend I read a blog post and feel the need to correct some inaccurate information.

This was posted on Mrs. Monte's blog in referenced to Oaklawn Elementary "One section is an older temporary section that has outlived its life expectancy. It was promised to be replaced with the Jefferson referendum but the district ran out of money and couldn't get another referendum passed."

I don't know what she means by "temporary section" --- it was built in the 50's by the neighbors but it wasn't meant to be temporary.

I worked on the very successful Jefferson referendum (72% of voters approved the Jefferson question and it was ONLY to build a new Jefferson -- NOTHING ELSE).

As far as the second question from the 1998 referendum, NOTHING is mentioned in that question about Oaklawn, only Merrill is mentioned by name. There is some reference to district wide capital improvements but I can assure you it was NOT a rebuild of Oaklawn. It is also incorrect to say "the district ran out of money" the FACT is the some of the work at Merrill came in under budget so Mr. Gray proposed to the board that the unused funds be used to finish up some items further down on the capital improvements list that the district didn't think they would have referendum money for.

Here is the actual text of the 1998 referendum questions (which, by the way received a 7-0 vote of the board ---members at the time Bird, Boss, Bowen, Kavanaugh, McHugh, Stratz and Werblow):

BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,300,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new Jefferson Elementary School, acquisition of land therefor and removing the existing school building.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of technology infrastructure and equipment; renovations and additions to Merrill Middle/Elementary School; and district-wide capital improvement projects.

Originally the Merrill School committee recommended spending $4,600,000 to repair and build onto Merrill, but the school board later cut the amount to $4,000,000. Most of the repairs were at the middle school. The money was to be used for fixing the heating and ventilation system, renovating science labs, painting and replacing floor tiles, and making other needed repairs. The addition was to include new music rooms, renovated science labs, a new cafeteria and new office spaces.


Here is another statement that is so misleading "suddenly the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn".

There is nothing "sudden" about it. Anyone who knew anything about the district and its facilities needs knew that one would never build a new school to only serve the 84 students who were at Sunset (in Tipler) and went to Read. There is no justification for building a new school that would serve less than 100 students.

This is from a Northwestern Article right before the Jefferson referendum "...the school district has several projects on back burners. They include a new north side school, an alternative school, an early learning center..."


This is from a Northwestern Article sometime before October 27, 2007

"Heilmann said there are already enough students in the Oshkosh school district to fill a new north side school. He said if students were taken from Oaklawn Elementary, Sunset Elementary and the far northeast part of the Emmeline Cook attendance area, about 300 students could be placed in a new school. "

"We would be looking to build it for about 400 students or so, so that it could accommodate growth," Heilmann said.


This is from a Feb. 3 2008 story in the Northwestern

"The facilities planning teams responsible for gathering information about schools and determining improvements necessary to existing buildings have not yet made a recommendation about where a new school would be located. However, a north-side school is being considered because Oaklawn, the district's northernmost school, would be closed."

The last two articles clearly show a new north side school would replace Oaklawn.

The blog post also says "I would propose tearing down the temporary section and building either a one-story or two-story addition to the newer section which is still serviceable if the deferred maintenance was addressed."

Well I don't know what expertise she has to state the newer section is still serviceable (the architect PMP hired suggested no more money be put into Oaklawn) but even if that were true, I don't see anywhere she addresses the fact that the school floods when it rains and the only way to alleviate that is to raise the playground so it is above (rather than below) street level. What is the cost of that? What about the fumes from the trucking company that is next door which enters the school whenever window are open? What would rebuilding Oaklawn, if one follows Mrs. Monte suggestion to "Base the size of the addition on expected enrollment." save in operating costs? Nothing since you would not be closing/consolidating any schools and you would not free up room at Read for Lincoln students so where would they go?

I hope to post next week on some interesting information I found while researching at the library. Stay tuned.