Well as those affected by Option E put on the pressure, will the school board cave to the pressure and find yet another area to move, one this time that doesn't have such active parents? I sure hope not, but I certainly can't predict which way it will go.
I'm so tired of hearing about "driving clear across town". Let's look at what Mapquest has to say:
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Oakwood it is .35 miles and est. 1 min
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Roosevelt it is 2.02 miles and est. 7 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Traeger Middle it is 3.12 miles and est. 9 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Merrill Middle it is 3.10 miles and est 10 min .02 miles closer than Traeger and a whopping MINUTE longer to drive to Merrill vs. Traeger
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to West High it is 2.27 miles and an est. 7 min. drive
from 1220 Sheboygan St. to North High it is 3.05 miles and 10 min.
Yes, Oakwood is closer than Roosevelt BUT, Roosevelt is closer than Traeger and Merrill is closer than Traeger too (though by a mere .02 mi.). The difference in the distance to the high schools is less than a mile.
Are you still going to argue that North is "clear across town and West is right in our neighborhood? Less than a mile difference and THREE minutes difference in drive times, sorry the facts just don't bear out the rhetoric.
With the K-3 configuration many families will live farther than 1/3 of a mile (as many do already). This is NOT sending kids clear across town.
Then there is the whole "friend" issue. First of all what does being in a school with your friend have to do with educational quality? In my childrens schools often the teachers have to decide that "friends" can't be in the same class together because it is too disruptive for others. Are these same people going to make sure their children go to college with their "friends" too, we wouldn't want them to be damaged by being separated from their friends.
I can't even believe people live so far under rocks they "had NO idea this was going on". Please we are going on 2 years since PMP was hired, and for 10 years the district has been looking at balancing enrollments. School newsletters discussed it, it is on the HOME page of the website, right in the middle of the page, the Northwestern, WOSH, Eye on Oshkosh, the Oshkosh Common Council have ALL discussed the facilities issues. If people choose not to pay attention that is their choice but don't turn around and say it was under the radar, being sneaked through in the summer or not communicated to people. What do you want? A door to door campaign? It is NOT that people didn't know facilities were being discussed, they just didn't pay attention, didn't really care what was being discussed because they were not being affected. Once they are involved everyone is all interested and NOW the process is moving too fast. I've been paying attention all along because I'm interested in what happens. Then there are the "perfect plans" put forth that have no numbers, no bussing costs, no construction costs just a lot of "I'm sure" it will cost less than Scenario 7. It all hinges on a NEW K-8 for Oakwood (apparently refurbishing isn't good enough for that school) and sending half that school to North (which of course would require an addition to North) and then build a new school for Green Meadow (I'm sure the costs will be low to build a school for 500+ on a septic system) and then just leave all the rest of the schools in the disrepair they are in. Just LOVE that idea. I guess if you are wealthy enough to build a new house your kids need to go to a brand new school, if you can't afford to, or choose not to live in a "new" house well then, your children don't deserve their school refurbished. You think I'm making this up... Check out OshKonversation
I really see no point in trying to educate people on the blogs about why the choices being made are necessary. Most posting don't "listen" to what is said... as they so quickly criticize others of not listening... yet I know and can repeat for you the "arguments" they give. I just happen to know that many posters miss the whole point of efficiencies of staffing and why some schools must close.
Back to my original question. I think this is the closest we have come to a board with a majority that understands action must be taken. Whether there is a majority to do so or not, we will have to wait and see. Clearly it has become impossible to continue to have all the schools we have and one of the lowest tax rates and per pupil spending amount of the 25 largest school districts in the state. In the end what will the tradeoffs be?
I really wish those who WANT the board to take action and those who do support the plan would come out and speak in favor of it but I understand the audience is rather hostile and it is an effort to come and speak. I just don't want to hear anyone tell me (as they have in the past) "the board needs to; close Green Meadow, get rid of all those little schools, stop putting this off etc... If the board caves once again, those who chose not to speak in favor will be partly to blame.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
You talk, again, about efficiencies but when asked to explain, you didn't answer the question. Did you miss the question or don't you know the answer?
Maybe the real reason no one has come to speak in favor of this is because the only ones who are are either friends of certain BOE members or former BOE members who are also friends of certain BOE members.
Maybe if someone brings mroe cookies, the BOE will have the fortitude to stand up to the big, bad community.
Teresa,
Do you know why they decided to keep Roosevelt open after PMI recommended it be closed? I agree with much of what you stated in your most recent post. It is time to make some decisions. This has gone on long enough.
Oops, I meant PMP not PMI.
Anonymous 8:17,
I'm not sure exactly why it was decided that Roosevelt was kept open but at the board meeting when Mrs. Bowen asked about what kind of work was needed at Roosevelt Dr. Heilmann said something about it needed major work and something about the "shell" of the building, so I'm thinking maybe the final plan will have a "Read Elementary" type remodeling where the outer facade is left in place but the interior is basically redone. I don't think that has actually been decided yet, that is something team 6 will tackle. It was also stated at the last board meeting that when Scenario 7 was discussed with various community groups the common theme they heard is that the proposal closed too many schools. So I think that is another reason Roosevelt might be kept open.
I have explained the efficiencies question in several different forums anonymous 7:22 and I doubt you really care what the answer is but I'll briefly explain it one more time.
The more sections you have of a grade level, the more efficient you can be with your staffing. For example, Oakwood and Traeger Elementary Schools both usually have 4 sections of every grade level (every now and then they only have 3 sections at a particular grade) so they are able to balance out their classes with 22-24 students per class. You will NOT see a regular education classroom at either school with only 9, 10, 11 or 12 students in it, as has happened at schools like Lincoln, Sunset and Green Meadow where there is only one section per grade. The inefficiencies also happen at schools where there are only 2 sections of each grade level, though less often since they have a little better ability to have "split classes" which is something the district is trying to move away from as it is something parents do not like and something that is not best practice, educationally, but rather a necessity due to budget constraints (the other option would be 30-35 students in a class instead of a split).
When Sunset was moved into Read the district was able to save at least 2 teaching positions which saves you the salary and benefits costs (I don't know off hand what that exact cost is but it is between $40,000 and $50,000 per position). The same type of savings is being realized by reconfiguring Lakeside and Green Meadow (I no longer recall the exact number of FTE saved but even one position saves dollars and therefore makes you more efficient).
AS for SAGE, it is fewer students per class so isn't less efficient? Actually, if all SAGE classrooms had the maximum 15 students per class it would not be inefficient but like other schools, SAGE schools with only one or two classes per grade level become inefficient. You must remember that the state pays the district $2,000 for every students who qualifies for free or reduced lunch, these dollars in most cases pay the cost of the additional teachers needed as well as the staff development and family activities required by the SAGE contract. The new configuration to K-3, 4-8 will make SAGE schools more efficient as well because there will be more than one or two sections per grade.
That is what is meant by efficiencies in staffing.
I have a real problem with making major decisions based on what a few community groups prefer. I would prefer to go with the opinions of the professionals like PMP and our administration along with elected officials. Roosevelt should be closed.
Just had to check out the Michelle Monte plan to save our district from all the problems its own scenarios garner. At first blush, it sounds like there may be some merit to at least some aspects of it. But in true Monte fashion, she responded to one commenter by saying the following about what the district might say about it:
"However, I imagine there would be a lot of discussion on how impossible it is, how it can't work, and how no one would support it. Of course that would be without really considering the plan since it is contrary to what has already been presented by the official committees."
That totally contradicts Mrs. Monte's signature line over on OshKonversation, which really speaks to the theory of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Clearly she has a negative attitude about things in life no matter what face she hopes to portray to the public. Her negativity shines through in this comment. She may as well remove her signature line from ONW posts because she sure as hell doesn't live by it. This is just more contradiction from her.
Can you blame her? She is watching with the rest of us while the school board nukes this district with their "pie in the sky" plan. And of course Teresa Theil is right there in true support.
I have to ask myself if she really believes the crap she is saying? How in the world can her proposal be "efficient"? There isn't a possibility of that even coming close.
Teresa, how many kids in this district qualify for free or reduced lunch? How many are at the schools that will have SAGE? How many will be getting that 2 grand you keep talking about? If you think that SAGE will pay for itself, you are living in fantasy land.
It is definately time for the board to take action. They just need a plan that makes sense and not some cherry picking here and there to avoid pissing off the "silver spoons" of the community.
Teresa can believe what she wants. Those of us with common sense know the truth.
All your questions have been answered in this and other forums. All you're doing is looking for a fight.
the fact is the district has changed its plans countless times as can be seen by the various scenarios and proposals it's come up with. And why? Because neighborhoods and groups of parents complain that the district isn't listening. I think the various plans proves the contrary. It has tried accommodating people's needs and it has tried taking all the various issues into account. The reality of the situation is that no matter what this district comes up with, someone somewhere is going to complain and vote-hungry Michelle Monte will be out there leading the pack. Maybe the district should accept Monte's plan hook, line and sinker, and when all hell breaks loose because she's overlooked something or it's not the little slice of heaven she believes it to be, we send everyone with a complaint her way and make she and Kent foot the bill for fixing things. The point being there is no perfect scenario no matter how much like eutopia she wants to make hers seem.
The district has listened to parents and groups. And anyone who claims they ddn't know changes were coming hasn't been concerned enough to pay attention. This conversation has been going on for years and with even greater vigor since the PMP report was released last October (2006).
There will always be parents screaming this, that and the other abotu where their kids are going to go to school. Not everyone will be happy. But that should not stip this district from moving forward with a plan. That being said, it is time to do something. Let's find the best thing for as many children as the plan can accommodate and get moving on it.
Anon 7:44
Where is you data to show that the K-3 4-8 configuration will NOT result in efficiency? As was stated by Mrs. Thiel the district eliminated 2 teaching positions when Sunset was incorporated into Read.
Also, what data do you have that shows SAGE does not pay for itself?
Michelle calls herself genuine. That's a crock. She acts sweet to one's face (note the intentional use of the word "acts"), brings donuts to a recount, expects people to be nicey-nice to her as she acts to them, but then turns into a viper behind their backs and on the blogs. She also is of the misconception that because according to her hundreds of people speak of her passion and such for the district she is only disliked by a few. More dillusions of grandeur. This woman doesn't have a clue after 2 years and from the looks of it, she never will.
How is she a viper? I go to the occassional meeting. I have read her blog. I have even talked to her (have you?). She has never been anything but nice, even about the people she doesn't like. As a matter of fact, she was talking the other day, after a committee meeting how she admires Shelly Muza's passion though she doesn't agree with her. She even complimented Heilmann. Though I expected her to say something about Bowen and Weinsheim, she didn't and not for lack of opportunity as we were with a small group of like minded people.
Sounds like you have an ax to grind and no grinding wheel. If anyone doesn't have a clue it is Thiel and her SAGE theories. Janesville, same size as us, ended SAGE because the extra $2000 did not cover expenses of smaller classes though the program is successful. $2000 is only for the free/reduced lunch students. If you have a class of 15 and only 2 qualify, you aren't even putting a dent in expenses for that room.
As far as Michelle Monte, I voted for her as did over 4000 other people. That tells me more about your opinion and accusations than the words themselves.
Just some data:
Janesville Free/Reduced Lunch 26.2
Oshkosh Free/Reduced Lunch 31.6
While Janesville may have about the same number of students (they actually have 282 more) Oshkosh has a higher percentage of students who qualify for Free/Reduced Lunch.
Second: According to the Wisconsin State Journal Feb. 9, 2007
"Janesville school officials already have scaled back their commitment to SAGE, keeping just two of five schools in the program."
So contrary to what "ann" wrote and what Ms. Monte has written elsewhere Janesville did NOT eliminate SAGE just scaled it back (probably to those schools with over 40% poverty).
Finally "ann" there is NO SAGE school in Oshkosh with only 2 out of 15 that qualify for F/R lunch and I highly doubt that the SAGE planning team would suggest such a school be SAGE in the future.
I find it sad that there are people out there advocating that we eliminate SAGE in the district and at the same time arguing that we build a whole new school for Oakwood because that is where people are building new homes and we don't need to spend money to fix up the schools in town, we need that money for the new Oakwood. Let those poor kids deal with what we have, it is good enough.
I have a question...
With the K-3 4-8 configuration, do the teachers at the different levels have to get different licenses? There has been extensive talk on sites about efficiencies but if I am not mistaken, aren't the teaching licenses broken up into K-5 6-12? And if that is the case, who is going to teach 4-5 in the middle schools if the teachers that are there don't have a license?
I see a problem. Either there are going to be a ton of layoffs for those who cannot or will not get a different license. Or an added expense to the district to get the current staff the correct license.
Either way. Not really efficient is it.
Anonymous 9:21:
First of all there are a number of different teaching licenses out there:
For regular education teacher licenses there are: Pre K- 9, Pre K- 8, Pre K-3, K-3, K-6, K-8, 1-6, 1-8, 7-12, 9-12 and for some like a reading specialist K-12... those are just the ones I'm aware of there are different special education licenses and there could well be other regular education licenses.
Secondly, most of the current teachers teaching 4th and 5th graders would continue to teach 4th and 5th graders just in the interemediate school. Because you will have the efficiencies described before, you will probably have more teachers than you need though with retirements and people moving it usually ends up that teachers won't lose their job, there are just fewer teachers due to attrition. Also, any current middle school teacher licensed to teach 6th grade is very likely licensed to teach 4 and 5th grade (which is sometimes a problem in the middle schools as those teachers with a 1-6 license can only teach 6th grade) so actually an intermediate school might allow for more shifting of teachers if necessary, though that really has little to do with efficiencies, just makes it easier for the principal to shift teachers if someone leaves etc.
Finally, the district does NOT pay for teachers' licenses, the teachers themselves pay for their license.
Just because "Ann" has had a good experience with Mrs. Monte means nothing. She wears 2 faces: the real one and the mask. Ann doesn't read very well but then again, neither doesn't Mrs. Monte. Who knows, maybe "Ann" is yet another face of Monte's.
As for the 4000 votes she got, it doesn't make her right. It only means she fools a lot of people. It still wasn't enough to get her elected. That's the only thing that matters.
According to her website it is Michelle A (could that be Ann?) Monte.
Could well be. Either that or doing a play on words with Ann for "Ann"onymous. Then again, I'm sure Michelle and her supporters would say she's just trying to be a "new voice" on the school board for the taxpayers and because she's not popular she's got a "target" on her back and that she and her husband are just a couple of innocent "czhead"s. Maybe, if they were just "sitting in the weeds." "Lying" in wait is something else.
You people are really funny. Where is the discussion of issues? Where is the debate of important school matters? Not here. Here we would rather try to identify someone who is asking questions and only getting part of them answered. Maybe that is why Mrs. Thiel got more than 1000 votes LESS than Mrs. Monte, because Thiel only answers what she wants.
Here is something forgotten about teacher licenses. Most teachers in middle schools tend to be either K-8 or 6-12 with the latter outnumbering the former. With a 6-12 license, one cannot teach 4-5, therefore no shifting in those levels.
Another matter, licensing is up to the teacher to pay for but continuing education reimbursement is a benefit of being employed in this district as in many districts. It only costs $100 for a license application process and renewal process. It cost the taxpayers thousands in credit reimbursement.
It is difficult to "discuss issues" when Anon. posters keep throwing out "information" with no data to back it up and inaccurate too often.
I think if you checked it out in Oshkosh you would find that most "middle school" teachers have either a 1-8 certification or a 7-12 certification, which certification is in the "majority" probably depends on the school. I do know there a at least a couple teachers at Traeger Middle who have a 1-6 certification and therefor cannot be shifted to teach either 7th or 8th grade. I don't believe you will find many teachers in our middle schools with a 6-12 certification.
However, none of that really matters because we already have 4th and 5th grade teachers they currently teach in our elementary schools, under the new configuration they would just move to the intermediate school to teach, which would not require a shifting of middle school teacher to 4th or 5th grade, because they are actually needed where they are to teach 6th, 7th and 8th graders.
Do you know what the reimbursement is for college classes and what the actual tution cost is??? And what does that have to do with so-called inefficiencies in teachers licenses?
Is there anyone out there who actually wants to discuss whether the board should once again listen to those who are upset their child will have to go to a different school and therefore, do NOTHING? Since all boundary changes will require a students going to a different school the only option seems to be to keep all our schools open, don't change any boundaries and give Oakwood and Green Meadow a new school. Is that really the wishes of the majority in the community?
So right. You also won't find teachers who claim to be experienced educators but who in reality only have a few months or less of classroom experience as Mrs. Monte has time and time again.
More innacurracies frum the Theil Camp, huh. I guess all da knowin folks is here an da res ub us is too dumb.
Looks like anons here are just as misleading as they claim Monte is.
Exactly where are the inacuracies? Ms. Monte did claim on OshKonversation that she was an "experienced" educator and she further explained that she taught for less than one school year and was laid off.
If you don't want to discuss the issues because you either don't understand the facts or just plain don't have any there are plenty of other blogs you can go to, to cheerlead for Mrs. Monte.
There are really only 2: her's and her husband's. Readers on the other blogs don't seem to like her much either.
Now we know the real Teresa Thiel and the limited intellect of her lone supporter.
I suspect that if it weren't for those who come to this blog to set the record straight, only Teresa and Cheryl would be posting here.
Let's see if I have this right; Mrs. Thiel only has 1 supporter despite voting records to the contrary. But when Michelle Monte is criticized suddenly it's got to be either Teresa or Cheryl because Monte has so many supporters in all those who voted for her?? What twisted logic. You're a few bricks short of a load.
Further proving how twisted your logic is let's look at your own statement. Judging by what you wrote one can assume you are not Teresa or Cheryl, but you've offered nothing to explain where the record is wrong or to set anything straight. You just disproved your own comment.
Forget about bringing flowers to lift the mood; your failed attempts at being a logician have done far more than any bouquet could ever do.
You go right on believing your own circular logic. While you are at it, keep believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy and fairies in general. They are about the only ones who care anymore. Enjoy irrelevancy, Teresa.
You must care, 8:15AM. You keep on coming and you keep on posting.
Sorry, I meant 8:51 not 8:15.
This was written by Old Abe and posted on Oshkonversation. But it is so outstanding it needs to be posted here and board members need to take it to heart and do what they believe is right for all the kids in the district, not just some. They'll never please everyone and no matter what they come up with some one will always be unhappy. Here's Old Abe's thoughts. Go get 'em tiger.
"Having recently retired from the Oshkosh Area School District I'd like to share some thoughts as an "insider" which hopefully will provoke thoughts in others.
One of the misguided goals of the school board/administration is attempting to please everyone. With the increasing diversity the community and ultimately the school system experiences, the more opinions are formed and the goal of consensus becomes unrealistic. Imagine gathering representatives of all the different religious groups of Oshkosh and instructing them to develop a philosophy which every one present subscribes to.
The operation of the school system has gradually evolved in my 30+ years in the district from encouraging parent INVOLVEMENT to one of parent CONTROL. The result is treating parents as customers/consumers of district services and seeking any interaction with a parent hoping they leave pleased and satisfied. What is pleasing to a parent sometimes is not in the best interest educationally for their son/daughter.
The current climate fostered by the school board/administration is one where we don't stand for something and end up falling for any thing.
Since decisions are not being made improvement does not occur and the whole system becomes dysfunctional.
Many years ago the school system tore down Longfellow School and sent the children elsewhere, sold Boyd School to Oshkosh Truck, sold Dale School to a developer who made it into an apartment complex, and closed Grange School which is currently the Town of Algoma town hall.
I bring these examples to light recalling how these actions were accepted by the community with only minimal frustration from the parties involved. Attempting to please everyone was not a goal of those previous school boards/administration and action on situations took place.
Another anxiety I believe the current school administration possesses is the prospect that some dissatisified parents may opt to send their children to parochial schools, home school them, leave the district and seek open enrollment in a neighboring community which will result in less state aid and worse budgeting outcomes.
The best course of proceeding from the current stalement to a workable solution, in my opinion, is one that parallels the strategy used by the school board/administration ( although the makeup is now different) in seeing that the last school referendum held by the district passed.
Administrators and school board members made visits in the evenings to all schools explaining the pluses and minuses of each scenario to parents and other members of the respective school communities. The planned option agreed upon by the school board was tweaked along the route of school visits/listening sessions if parent suggestions were judged to be in the best interest of the entire district. The modified plan left standing at the end was then adopted. I believe this example of personalized communication is vital to the adoption of a facilities plan boundary change, etc.
While I don't have a better option or ideas than are already on the table I do know that some catalyst needs to be injected into the current talks to change the dynamic of "if I don't make a decision I won't upset anyone" to " the community expects us to be strong leaders "when the going gets rough" and it's time move this process along!"
I guess I am wondering why Ms. Theil is so opposed to parents becoming involved in the process. Isn't this local politics? Isn't this the prime level for people to be intimately involved in their governance or would you rather that people just sit back and do nothing?
Who besides you says she's opposed to parents being involved? If anything she has complained about parents not being involved enough at the board meetings and voters not going to the polls to vote.
This sounds like nothing more than another question from the terribly confused, wanting-to-provoke, Michelle Monte. She likes to jab at people - it's her favorite pasttime, as long as she thinks she can look good in the process. And she alway gets her stories twisted (oh yeah, but that's our fault for misunderstanding her). She claims to be an "experienced educator" and an English major but she can't demonstrate proficiency in either area. All she does is talk down about the district administration and board members she doesn't like. With the vile and negativity that flows from her lips is it any wonder her breath stinks like it does?
Anon. 1:31
I don't consider it "parent involvement" in our schools when in these cases the only involvement wanted is to stop a boundary change that affects them.
I think it is very frustrating the number of people who have no interest in what the district is doing are supposedly not even aware the district is discussing boundary changes until it affects them and then they come out complaining the district is "trying to slip something by them", didn't even know this was being considered etc.
I believe parents have every right to advocate for what they want but I don't believe it is responsible, or appropriate for the district to stop or back away from any action just because parents are opposed to it. I think the arguments I have heard against boundary changes are weak. Where is the "mounds" of evidence that a child who goes to a different school than their friend or neighbor or classmate will suffer educationally? I don't buy that argument and I don't buy the "clear across town" argument as Mapquest shows the differences in most cases are less than a mile and less than 5 min. different.
So, I am not opposed to parents being involved but I don't think every argument brought forth is a valid reason to stop a plan that in some ways the district has spent anywhere from 2 to 8 years studying.
Do you honestly think that Option E is the best option? It sounds to me like you just want the board to vote in favor of it so that it can all be done. In light of the arguments presented at the meeting yesterday, do you not have questions about Option E? Aren't you worried about the fact that the projected numbers for Oakwood magically changed in two weeks to show that there would not be overcrowding at Oakwood in the next few years given Option E? I would rather the board make a good decision rather than make a decision for the sake of making one. This Option does not make logical sense given the Sawyer Creek portion. Projections as of 8/8/07 show that Oakwood will still be overcrowded. I think a great deal of people in Oshkosh would be very frustrated to vote for this plan and then have to be back again in 3 years to solve the, what seems to be continual, problem of Oakwood being full. Why not actually address that problem in a plan for once.
Actually after listening to the comments at the board meeting, I like Option E 2 presented by a gentleman whose name I can't recall. It makes more sense to me to NOT take students from Franklin and to take the students out of Oakwood since that school is over crowded... to the point where I have heard that they have a first or second grade classroom with 37 students and two teachers -- that is just wrong and I don't understand why anyone would want their child in such circumstances. There needs to be a boundary shift to move students out of Oakwood so it is not over crowded.
In the end, whatever area is chosen, (assuming anything ever is chosen) people will be upset, they will have lots of arguments why it is bad for kids (so go move those kids over there --- NOT MY KIDS) and eventually this too shall pass and there will be something else that has people up in arms.
Of course at the pace this is going, they may not be any boundary changes for 5-10 more years. Maybe we should just move to what Mr. Schneider kept mentioning... 25-30 in a class, that will save some dollars and leave schools not as crowded.
And guess what is next on the horizon? budget cuts... I'm sure that will be without controversy.
I also like option E2, as Mrs. Theil refers to it as. I don't remember the gentleman presenter's name either, but he made a valid point the Sawyer Creek subdivision is divided from the area N of 21 by much commercial development and Hwy 21. Taking one neighborhood from N of 21 starting at Hwy 41 and moving west until the correct number of students is reached makes more sense.
Post a Comment