I was reading the Oshkosh Northwestern Candidate Site and the answer to a question about SAGE that was posted by Mrs. Monte. I truly don't understand how she could have been following the whole SAGE discussion as well as the facilities discussions and come up with what she did for an answer:
Mrs. Monte's post from the Northwestern site is here:
Here is my response:
I would like to correct a few mistakes in Mrs. Monte's post ...
First of all there is NO requirement by the state that a school has a certain percentage of students on free/reduced lunch. That was only required during the first two years.
Second; the "pivot point" Mrs. Vickman was referring to was the point at which SAGE pays for the additonal teachers and professional development without the district needing to supplement, that point is between 40%-45%. We would NOT lose SAGE if a school dropped below that point the district just might have to supplement the SAGE funding. It appears that under Scenario 7 SAGE funding would cover the cost of the additional teachers.
Third: There is no current SAGE school in our district that has just ONE student in a classroom that qualifies for free/reduced lunch. That would be a ridiculous way to assign students. If a school has 40% of its students qualify for free/reduced lunch approximatley 40% of students in a classroom will also qualify. SAGE no longer pays for classroom building.
Finally, the last paragraph is just not accurate. The district cannot afford to keep most of our elementary schools and "spread the students over all of the schools and have smaller class sizes" --- without the SAGE funds from the state where would the district get the millions it would cost to reduce class sizes and pay for all the additional teachers? There are no "educational savings" by spreading kids out. SAGE does not cause "liabilities to a district" and how would transportation costs be reduced from what they are today by reducing class sizes?
End of Post on Northwestern site
I believe a board candidate should have at least a passing understanding of SAGE and its funding and what exactly staffing efficiencies are...I am truly astonished by the comments made -- that somehow spreading our students out among 15 school buildings will create "educational savings" whatever that means. All it does is assure that you will have class sizes of 8 or 9 in some places... in larger schools you will have more classes of the same grade and thus more likely to have each room filled close to the 15 student limit (which can go to a maximum of 17 though 15 is optimal). The more schools you have the less efficient your staffing becomes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Thank you for pointing out the facts. It's nice to see a candidate who understands what's going on instead of just pretending to.
Teresa,
I have never said keep 15 buildings. I have never given any number. I suggest you listen and read what is said and not what you want there to have been said.
Your readers here should also consider my response to your accusations and compare our posts side-by-side, there is information you did not comment on, so, apparently you agree with the fact that SAGE is not currently solvent and will cost us in the future if we proceed down this road of trying to solve the proverty problem by closing buildings and shuffling kids. The SAGE report is irrefutable. There is not enough funding to cover even the teachers much less the buildings and supplies now. Making it bigger will not guarantee it will magically become solvent because you say it will. Vickman's data is a calculated estimate, not a guarantee.
Remember, we are a low spending district under financial constraints, we cannot afford nor do we have access to funding should SAGE funding NOT be enough. It is already putting other districts in a bad financial position of choosing between paying their teachers reasonable wages and keeping up their buildings or keeping SAGE. There is also the required paperwork involved that takes teachers away from other duties.
Your more classrooms in bigger buildings just means more transportation to get more kids there. If and when SAGE proves too expensive, you will have to close more buildings to fill those classrooms meant for 15 kids to 25-30 to make up for the lost funding. Neither efficient nor desirable.
As a candidate and former BOE member, it is a shame that you cannot look at this issue in any other way then your own perspective. There are a myriad of other factors that many choose to ignore. I have never said I am 100% accurate about anything, at least I try to understand all sides. The positive is that I AM learning while others are stuck in their narrow perspective of how the world according to them should be.
This is NOT an all or nothing proposition and scenario 7 can be better. If the committees had been allowed to work on it since it was presented, it would already be on its way to becoming something the community can support. If continued work progressed as well as it did before when our attention was on 5 scenarios, this one could be near completion by the end of the school year.
The point the community is making is that it needs to be better BEFORE committing to it with a vote. My point is that we need to find an equitable compromise between this pie-in-the-sky scenario and what the community wants and can reasonably pay for.
My fear is that people like you who have drowned themselves in the information on this scenario, are not open-minded enough to see or even want a compromise. The fact is that no single person knows what is best for our community Educationally. Educational theory changes every day and what we commit to today may end up being the wrong decion seven years from now because a newer and better research idea has come forward. We do not know if this plan is flexible enough to adjust to that. We do know that there is no research to support it. We don't have a lot of money to be experimenting with what is not proven or has not at the very least been studied.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Let's see, a candidate who doesn't understand SAGE can learn about SAGE. A candidate who cannot vote, cannot vote.
Did anyone else catch Michelle Monte's refusal to answer the question on Eye on Oshkosh that if she got elected and missed a meeting for any reason she'd resign from the board for not being able to do 100% of the job? Instead of answering the question she quickly tried to say she didn't say that was a reason not to elect Mrs. Thiel to the board. Why make it an issue then Mrs. Monte? Why even mention it?
I've never seen a two-faced person who's also bald-faced (a bld-faced liar that is). Until now.
Apparently you haven't been to BOE meetings and seen Thiel and Bowen.
Missing a meeting for illness is a possibility that is expected. Like calling in to work, you hope it doesn't happen, but it could. Hiring someone KNOWING they cannot do part of the job ON TOP OF the risk of illness or "missing work" is completely different and irresponsible of the employer.
I watched all the forums. Monte did not say it isn't a reason NOT to vote for Thiel in any one of them. She DID say she can do 100% of the job and asked if the voters want someone who cannot. She left it a question for the voters. What was Hentz asking that for anyway. If that is the case, we wouldn't have a school board. If it isn't a problem with you, vote for Thiel and guarantee a "no" vote come budget time, as Hentz put it in her interview with Becker and Bowen.
BTW even Dan Rylance, Hentz's co-host called for Thiel's resignation for being an ineffective board member back in her day.
And as for the interview, I never saw such a fidgety disrespectful person as Thiel in my entire life. While Thiel spoke, Monte sat still and appeared to listen respectfully. When Monte spoke, Thiel looked like she was having facial siezures and palsy fits; completely disrespctful and distracting much like Daggett at the LWV forum.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between GOING INTO a position not being able to do the job and knowing it and not making a meeting because a family emergency.
Theil is running for office KNOWING that she will have a conflict of interest in some cases (the budget being a pretty big one).
Monte knows that the possiblility exists that one of her kids could get sick. Doubtful that it would happen during a budget meeting.
As for the SAGE program, unless the ENTIRE DISTRICT has a 40% ratio of free and reduced lunches, the closing and reorganizing will significantly reduce that ratio in the SAGE schools. Moving children from higher incomes into the lower income schools will change the entire aspect of this plan.
Let work smart for a change...
Why does Mrs. Monte make an issue of it if it should not be a reason not to have someone serve? You sound as bad as Monte spinning things to suit the situation. It sounded to me like the question was asked of Monte for the very reason you just indicated. That Monte brought it up. And as you pointed out, the "present" vote is a "no" vote so that should be a good thing whenit comes to the budget that people like Monte, Schneider, and Becker don't approve of. By the way, what's the difference if you have a no vote by default because you can't vote or you have the promise of a man like Becker who says he'll vote "no"? Answer: Absolutely nothing, other than one has an open mind and the other is closed.
Anonymous
The fact is, I can vote on the budget as long as the teacher's contract is settled and I did vote on the budget when I was on the board in the past so no one knows for sure if I will vote on the budget or not.
Michelle:
I fully support SAGE it has NOTHING to do with being closed minded it has to do with thorough research, a belief that the most effective (the best bang for your buck as it were) place to spend money is on our youngest students, it has decreased special education referrals (a huge cost savings) and other problems down the road. I base my support of SAGE on the 7 years I spent volunteering at Jefferson Elementary... the first 3 years with out SAGE and the last 4 with it. I think that is a fair and reasonable and OPEN-MINDED basis for a decision.
You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is "close minded". You do not understand what SAGE is, what is has done and what it can do, you just think it isn't worth the money, you are entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make you open minded.
You say SAGE funding does not cover the entire cost of the program, well Special Education funding also does not cover the cost of that program, funds must be transferred from the general fund to cover the costs --- I would NEVER suggest that we not pay for Speical Education out of the general fund (even if it was not required by law, I would still suggest it be fully funded because it is the right thing to do.) Just as I believe SAGE is the right thing to do. As the article regarding the Janesville School District shows, schools who have discontinued SAGE regret it and the loss of SAGE has had a detrimental effect on their students.
Link to Wisconsin State Journal Story
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=116595&ntpid=2
That SAGE paperwork you talk about it what gives SAGE it's accountability.
Educational Theory changes "daily" really... it changes of course, I think daily is quite an overstatement and if I follow your logic we would never commit to anything, if that is what people think is the best way to run a school system, so be it, I don't think that makes any sense at all.
Just because I don't agree with your take on things does not make me close minded... since I started out not liking much of anything about Scenario 7 and as I listened to people I came around to beleiving that this Scenario is in the best interest of the students of our district. How that is close minded is beyond me.
Mrs Theil...
Who ever said that we should get rid of SAGE? It is a good program and should remain intact.
What you fail to realize, and I don't understand why, is that INCREASING the SAGE program will INCREASE THE EXPENSE. This isn't rocket science.
Now, since you are so big on scenario 7 and the building of more classrooms to accomodate a larger SAGE program, what will be the added expense to the district and ultimately the taxpayer?
If you say nothing and that the state will fund it, how? Can you guarantee that the ratio in SAGE classrooms will remain high enough to neutralize the cost?
You tell Mrs. Monte that she doesn't understand SAGE and in the next breath you make a statement that is even more ignorant. By trying to compare SAGE to Special Education is like apples and oranges. Special Education is a requirement BY LAW. You don't have a choice but to fund it. SAGE on the other hand is optional and expensive.
By the way, you mention research, what research is that? Can you give us examples so that we can see how beneficial this program is now that we are expected to pay for it?
Thanks.
Anonymous --- On the one hand you state "SAGE is a a good program and should remain intact" on the other hand you say "Can you give us examples so that we can see how beneficial this program is now that we are expected to pay for it"
What do you mean -- now that we are expected to pay for it. The program itself is not expected to cost the district money. To expand SAGE will require an additional 27 classrooms (and a few of those are so teachers will no longer have to share a classroom). The cost for those additional classrooms is $6 million dollars. I think it is worth is to extend --- what you yourself admit is a "good program" to more students, almost 1,000 more students.
Right now the conservative figures show that the percentage of students that qualify for free/reduced lunch under Scenario 7 will cover the costs of the additional teachers. But, no, I don't have a crystal ball to tell you what that percentage will be --- can you tell me it won't be enough to pay for itself like it does now? I don't subscribe to the "we best not try anything, even if it works because we don't know how long it will be funded.
As for my comparison to Special Education, I KNOW it is required by law that is why I wrote EVEN if it wasn't required by law I would still suggest we fully fund it -- so clearly I know the requirements of the law... the fact is it is also the right thing to do for children, as is SAGE.
The best research on smaller class sizes is from the STAR Program in Tennessee as that was an actual experimental study that randomly assigned students to either smaller or larger classes. Reports on the program can be found here:
http://www.heros-inc.org/star.htm
Wisconsin does not have data like Tennessee that compares the same student over time... our data compares one year's 2nd graders to the previous year's 2nd graders. The state is now launching a long-term study that will finally track individual student.
I know some cannot be convinced but why don't you talk to a few SAGE teachers? I spent 7 years at Jefferson Elementary and during 3 of those years there was no SAGE and class sizes were 24-25 students in Kindergarten the four years I was there with SAGE in place there was a dramatic difference in students learning with SAGE in place.
Sorry to jump into the discussion here, but I received an email earlier this evening asking me to check with Dan Rylance on the comment that Anonymous March 31, 2007 at 12:06 p.m. claims Dan made.
That poster said the following: "BTW even Dan Rylance, Hentz's co-host called for Thiel's resignation for being an ineffective board member back in her day."
In speaking to Dan about this he said THE COMMENT MADE BY THE ANONYMOUS POSTER IS "TOTALLY INACCURATE!" Dan went on to say that it was just the opposite. He explained that Dennis McHugh was on the board at the same time as Teresa Thiel and Mr. McHugh actually was the one calling for her resignation. There were also comments being made back then about how she should not vote on the budget issues. Dan said he called Teresa on at least two occasions that he can recall to encourage her to stick to her guns, to not be bullied by McHugh (or anyone else) and urged her to vote on the issue and let someone challenge it if they wanted.
Hopefully this clears up the misinformation, but if the anonymous poster still thinks he or she is correct, perhaps they should contact Dan Rylance directly.
Cheryl,
Thank you for the post regarding Mr. Rylance's supposed comments. Makes me wonder what else Mrs. Monte's supporters are wrong (or lying) about.
Actually it is even better that it was a fellow board member and not some liberal journalist...
Even todays Northwestern endorsement shows that the conflict is too much. They won't even endorse Theil because of it.
As for the SAGE program and my comments earlier, I meant the ADDED expense of expansion. 27 classrooms at 6 million is not cheap nor are the teachers to staff them. And if we can't continue to fund this program, what will it cost to make the classrooms bigger to handle more students?
SAGE is good, expansion may be too much to handle. LEAVE IT ALONE!!
If you want to expand, how about data from more than one source? Tennessee study has been repeatedly brought up and the holes are pointed out each time.
Is there any OTHER data?
To 7:27AM -- Yah, a fellow board member who was often confused when he was on the school board and who is in a perpetual state of bewilderment and has been wrong more often than not now that he's on the city council.
Is it wise to tailor a school district around the SAGE program. Close schools, move children, and build new classrooms (kindergarden) all around a program that we have no idea how long or how much our govenment will fund? Remember when we build open concept schools? How did that work out? Is it fair to the children of the 2 proposed non SAGE schools that they will be in larger classes while the other 5 schools have classes of 15 children? I thought we wanted to offer equal opportunities to ALL our children?
Anonymous 3:56pm asks:
Is it wise to tailor a school district around the SAGE program?
No one is tailoring the school district around SAGE, it is just one of the positives that come out of Scenario 7. As for your "equal opportunities" comment, you are confusing equal = everything the same with equitable = characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair
The two school that would not be SAGE, would have the lowest percentage of students that qualify for Free/Reduced lunch and none of the students attending those schools would come from a school that was a SAGE school so they would not be losing SAGE.
As for Open Concept, it worked very well for quite some time. If one were to not take any action or do anything unless there was certainty we would all be stymied into inaction. I think it would be irresponsible to deny the children the benefits of SAGE because some say, with no real evidence, that the program may not be around some time in the future. It has been funded by the State since 1996, with funding increasing quite substantially in 2000. I follow our state legislature pretty closely and see no sign that SAGE is in danger of losing funding... should that happen the district would have to decide what to do at that point. Why make a decision based on a maybe this might happen...
I find it so sad that people are willing to destroy a program they know nothing about. Why don't you ask experienced teachers who have worked with SAGE and without and see what they think. Why don't you ask parents whose children are in a SAGE school what they think it has done for their child? This attack on SAGE certainly has NOTHING to do what is best for children.
BUT...
Could the same things be done without SAGE???
The answer is YES!! Districts all over the country are raising their test scores without spending millions on additional classrooms and teachers that SAGE would require.
SAGE is not the "ultimate learning machine" it is another fad that the administration wants to "try" at the taxpayers expense. Thiel and Bowen have bought into it because they saw ONE study of a district in Tennessee. Whooptydo.
This is Oshkosh Wisconsin. Not Tennessee. Lets live within our means instead of WAY passed it.
You're priceless. You say this isn't Tennessee but you make references to districts all over the country. Dah.
BTW, you should have had more one on one with a teacher. It's "past" not "passed."
SAGE is NOT a fad, it has been around for over 10 years and the REPUBLICAN controlled LEGISLATURE AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR are the ones who expanded it in 2000.
It's not a huge surprise for a teacher to be much happier with 15 students than 22. Who wouldn't be!!!!
Does OASD have a 40% free/reduced lunch population to support SAGE in all the schools. How will the non-SAGE classrooms be "equitable" to the SAGE classrooms if all schools don't end up with SAGE rooms?
Post a Comment