I was able to speak to Mrs. Vickman after the School Board meeting tonight to find out what DPI's requirements were for the Charter Grant to be pursued. She told me DPI required that the charter school contain grades 4K through 5th grade because that is the current configuration of elementary schools in Oshkosh.
So to "create" a school that serves 4K - 5th grade, even if you only had one class per grade would cost $392,000 in staffing alone ($56,000 per teacher x 7 classes) the grant was for $150,000. NONE of the $150,000 could be used for staffing and presumably the 4K students would be "new" students for school funding purposes so the student count for the 4K students would cover one teacher which leaves the district to find $336000 to staff the other positions. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that the district would lose a lot of dollars with this scenario. Not to mention how is a school that serves grades 4K - 5th grade a 4K charter anymore, which is what the board had approved. Why the board needs a workshop to understand this is beyond me.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
4K Charter School -- The Real Story
The following is a post that was posted on another thread, the author asked me to start a new thread on this subject so here it is, I will comment on this post at the end of the post...
Note: I did some minor editing of statements I felt were not relevant to the subject.
Anonymous said...
Teresa, would you please start a thread on the Ready 4 Learning Charter School grant money not being pursued by OASD? I understand M. Monte has posted Dr. Heilmann's letter to the charter school grant consultant for DPI on her blog, followed by a bunch of questions that she says she hopes will be answered by him in a future report. Unfortunately, this is more typical Monte hypocrisy. Throw out a fact or two, followed by questions designed to stir the pot of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and speculation. Why is this hypocritical of her? Because she always tells others to go directly to the source, but refuses to do so herself AS LONG AS SHE CAN GET PEOPLE RILED UP BY NOT DOING SO. I AM SO SICKENED BY PEOPLE LIKE HER ALWAYS VIEWING THINGS AS IF THERE'S SOME CLOAK AND DAGGER MYSTERY GOING ON. EVERYTHING IN THEIR MINDS IS CLOUDED IN SUSPICION, AND YET M. MONTEHAS TALKED ABOUT BEING A POSITIVE PERSON ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. I hope we hear answers from Dr. Heilmann too because they'll put this hypocrite in her place. He's done it to her before and I'm sure will do it again. Between now and then, might you be able to get some real answers on this from administration? If Monte knew how to work with people she could, but that isn't possible, given her reputation. Thank you for your help. You can transfer my comment to the new thread.
Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM CST
Teresa's Post:
First I will explain what I know in general about the Charter School Grants process this time around, then I will address specifically what I know about the Oshkosh 4K grant. Most of the information I have comes as a result of working for the CESA 6 Grant Office, our office writes grants for school districts, including some of the grants Oshkosh has submitted in the past.
Sometime in April the US. Dept. of Education notified DPI about issues they had with WI Charter School Grant funding namely; schools needed to encompass more than one grade, schools with-in a school were problematic, there needed to be much more autonomy in governance of the charter school from the school district (there were other issues I can't recall at the moment but these were the main issues).
During this year's DPI review of the Charter School Applications DPI funded only ONE Charter Planning Application and TEN Charter Implementation Applications (last year DPI funded around 35 planning grants and 13 Initial Implementation grants). In the past, if schools were successful in their planning year they were almost always funded for the Initial Implementation so we should have seen at least 30 Initial Implementation grants NOT 10.
This year DPI's review of the charter grants came back with the following: Fund, pending revisions, do not fund.
It is my understanding that the Franklin, Shapiro and Merrill applications were all "pending revisions" and the 4K was "do not fund" --- though they did have the option of resubmitting the proposal by Oct. 15 with the required revisions and a CHANCE for funding --- the resubmit was NOT a guarantee of funding. The main reason the 4K charter was not funded was the 4K was a single grade charter --- which was fine when the planning grant was funded but then the Fed's said -- NO more single grade charters so the 4K Charter as described in the planning grant was not fundable. My understanding is to be funded the school would have to encompass more than just 4K -- just how many more grades, no one seems to know. From everyone I've spoken to this is a case of the Feds. changing the rules in the middle of the game with nothing for the district to do but adapt where possible.
Now, I will address those questions from M. Monte's blog (her questions are in italics) that I have answers for (my answers are in blue) :
From M. Monte's blog:
Does anyone remember just a couple of years ago when Brad Caufmann sat before the BOE touting the revenue we could be expecting from four-year-old kindergarten?
See, these are the kind of comments that frustrate anonymous (Nov. 17) and me. The fact is Mr. Cauffman wasn't "touting" the revenue he was simply explaining that after conferences with DPI and the design of the 4K plan (mind you this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter School) namely it being community based with parent involvement as a component, the district could count the 4K students as .6 instead of the usual .4 which would result in a small (I don't recall the figure now) positive balance in the budget, rather than the initial reports of a cost to the district (again I'm not sure of the exact figure but I believe it was in the $30,000 range). See, first when 4K was proposed those opposed to it (or just opposed to the district?) said 4K was nice but the district just couldn't afford it. Then, when it is discovered that in fact, with the additional .2, 4K wouldn't cost the district anything and would bring in a small amount the first year -- suddenly those same naysayers we saying the district was making 4 year olds go to school just to raise money. Such a distortion of the facts, but they keep on saying it hoping people will believe them.
How about the argument that we have no choice but to go to universal 4K to get state funding or lose the 4K ESL program. Anyone remember when I questioned such a claim or other parents asking when children will be allowed to be children?
The first part of the question is still true, DPI told the district that if they didn't implement a universal 4K program, they would no longer get ANY funding for the 4K ESL program. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter as that was NOT universal 4K that was a Charter School with a special focus for 4K students in the charter. The district has already begun implementing 4K and is expanding the available sites as they can. As to the second part of the question: NO ONE I repeat NO ONE is required to send their child to 4K (or 5K for that matter) compulsory education in WI starts at age SIX!
Were the conditions DPI placed on the grant so difficult that we would throw away money for a program we have already implemented?
Right now I don't know specifically what conditions DPI placed on the 4K grant (but I will get that information) but I do know that ALL charters were told they cannot have a charter with only ONE grade so one of the conditions would have been to expand the 4K charter to more grades --- which as Dr. Heilmann wrote in his letter, would expand the charter beyond its original intent --- I also wonder just how loud M. Monte would be screaming if the district decided to do this JUST to get the money???? Not to mention, resubmitting the application was NOT a guarantee of funding.
How are we going to pay for 4K for this year and in years to come? Are we going to cut the program? What about all the children desperate for the leg up before regular kindergarten?
Um, I thought M. Monte said 4 K was implemented for the money ---so if she is right about that, what is the problem? Sorry, I guess I need to repeat, the Charter School was a separate program from the district's universal 4K, it was a CHARTER SCHOOL --- it will have no affect on the universal 4K program and the district's ability to fund that. The only affect it will have on those who were to attend the charter school, but I'm guessing the school is operating this year anyway so it will just be a matter of running the program without the added dollars, since Charter School funding NEVER covers teachers' salaries, the staff is still there, it is things like bringing in experts for intensive staff development (and subs for staff to attend such workshops), furniture, supplies etc. that either will not be funded or the funding will come from elsewhere (knowing Patti Vickman this is probably already in the works ---but that is JUST ME speculating) the lack of charter funding may result in the charter school not existing next year --- that is something else I will check on and report back on.
Can we now let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be?
Again, a repeat but I guess it bears repeating--- NO CHILD in The OASD has EVER been required to attend 4K, that is a parent's choice. (Remember in WI you don't have to start school till you are SIX!!). (SIDE NOTE: when parents of 3 year olds were surveyed before 4K was implemented the VAST MAJORITY were in favor of the district instituting 4K). So if you believe keeping your 4 year old home to "let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be" you have EVERY right to do so, where M. Monte got the idea you couldn't is beyond me.
What about 4-year-old ESL?
What about it? The district has implemented UNIVERSAL 4K therefore they are in compliance with DPI requirements and can continue the 4K ESL program with funding (in terms of fte) from the state.
Anonymous (Nov. 17) and anyone else who cares about what the facts are, I hope this helps... as Anonymous (Nov. 17) wrote, a simple phone call or e-mail to either Mrs. Vickman or Dr. Heilmann would have given M. Monte all the answers she needed. And those of you who are going to post about me attacking M. Monte don't bother --- I am NOT attacking her, I'm simply pointing out where her facts or her understanding or BOTH are in error.
Note: I did some minor editing of statements I felt were not relevant to the subject.
Anonymous said...
Teresa, would you please start a thread on the Ready 4 Learning Charter School grant money not being pursued by OASD? I understand M. Monte has posted Dr. Heilmann's letter to the charter school grant consultant for DPI on her blog, followed by a bunch of questions that she says she hopes will be answered by him in a future report. Unfortunately, this is more typical Monte hypocrisy. Throw out a fact or two, followed by questions designed to stir the pot of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and speculation. Why is this hypocritical of her? Because she always tells others to go directly to the source, but refuses to do so herself AS LONG AS SHE CAN GET PEOPLE RILED UP BY NOT DOING SO. I AM SO SICKENED BY PEOPLE LIKE HER ALWAYS VIEWING THINGS AS IF THERE'S SOME CLOAK AND DAGGER MYSTERY GOING ON. EVERYTHING IN THEIR MINDS IS CLOUDED IN SUSPICION, AND YET M. MONTEHAS TALKED ABOUT BEING A POSITIVE PERSON ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. I hope we hear answers from Dr. Heilmann too because they'll put this hypocrite in her place. He's done it to her before and I'm sure will do it again. Between now and then, might you be able to get some real answers on this from administration? If Monte knew how to work with people she could, but that isn't possible, given her reputation. Thank you for your help. You can transfer my comment to the new thread.
Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM CST
Teresa's Post:
First I will explain what I know in general about the Charter School Grants process this time around, then I will address specifically what I know about the Oshkosh 4K grant. Most of the information I have comes as a result of working for the CESA 6 Grant Office, our office writes grants for school districts, including some of the grants Oshkosh has submitted in the past.
Sometime in April the US. Dept. of Education notified DPI about issues they had with WI Charter School Grant funding namely; schools needed to encompass more than one grade, schools with-in a school were problematic, there needed to be much more autonomy in governance of the charter school from the school district (there were other issues I can't recall at the moment but these were the main issues).
During this year's DPI review of the Charter School Applications DPI funded only ONE Charter Planning Application and TEN Charter Implementation Applications (last year DPI funded around 35 planning grants and 13 Initial Implementation grants). In the past, if schools were successful in their planning year they were almost always funded for the Initial Implementation so we should have seen at least 30 Initial Implementation grants NOT 10.
This year DPI's review of the charter grants came back with the following: Fund, pending revisions, do not fund.
It is my understanding that the Franklin, Shapiro and Merrill applications were all "pending revisions" and the 4K was "do not fund" --- though they did have the option of resubmitting the proposal by Oct. 15 with the required revisions and a CHANCE for funding --- the resubmit was NOT a guarantee of funding. The main reason the 4K charter was not funded was the 4K was a single grade charter --- which was fine when the planning grant was funded but then the Fed's said -- NO more single grade charters so the 4K Charter as described in the planning grant was not fundable. My understanding is to be funded the school would have to encompass more than just 4K -- just how many more grades, no one seems to know. From everyone I've spoken to this is a case of the Feds. changing the rules in the middle of the game with nothing for the district to do but adapt where possible.
Now, I will address those questions from M. Monte's blog (her questions are in italics) that I have answers for (my answers are in blue) :
From M. Monte's blog:
Does anyone remember just a couple of years ago when Brad Caufmann sat before the BOE touting the revenue we could be expecting from four-year-old kindergarten?
See, these are the kind of comments that frustrate anonymous (Nov. 17) and me. The fact is Mr. Cauffman wasn't "touting" the revenue he was simply explaining that after conferences with DPI and the design of the 4K plan (mind you this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter School) namely it being community based with parent involvement as a component, the district could count the 4K students as .6 instead of the usual .4 which would result in a small (I don't recall the figure now) positive balance in the budget, rather than the initial reports of a cost to the district (again I'm not sure of the exact figure but I believe it was in the $30,000 range). See, first when 4K was proposed those opposed to it (or just opposed to the district?) said 4K was nice but the district just couldn't afford it. Then, when it is discovered that in fact, with the additional .2, 4K wouldn't cost the district anything and would bring in a small amount the first year -- suddenly those same naysayers we saying the district was making 4 year olds go to school just to raise money. Such a distortion of the facts, but they keep on saying it hoping people will believe them.
How about the argument that we have no choice but to go to universal 4K to get state funding or lose the 4K ESL program. Anyone remember when I questioned such a claim or other parents asking when children will be allowed to be children?
The first part of the question is still true, DPI told the district that if they didn't implement a universal 4K program, they would no longer get ANY funding for the 4K ESL program. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter as that was NOT universal 4K that was a Charter School with a special focus for 4K students in the charter. The district has already begun implementing 4K and is expanding the available sites as they can. As to the second part of the question: NO ONE I repeat NO ONE is required to send their child to 4K (or 5K for that matter) compulsory education in WI starts at age SIX!
Were the conditions DPI placed on the grant so difficult that we would throw away money for a program we have already implemented?
Right now I don't know specifically what conditions DPI placed on the 4K grant (but I will get that information) but I do know that ALL charters were told they cannot have a charter with only ONE grade so one of the conditions would have been to expand the 4K charter to more grades --- which as Dr. Heilmann wrote in his letter, would expand the charter beyond its original intent --- I also wonder just how loud M. Monte would be screaming if the district decided to do this JUST to get the money???? Not to mention, resubmitting the application was NOT a guarantee of funding.
How are we going to pay for 4K for this year and in years to come? Are we going to cut the program? What about all the children desperate for the leg up before regular kindergarten?
Um, I thought M. Monte said 4 K was implemented for the money ---so if she is right about that, what is the problem? Sorry, I guess I need to repeat, the Charter School was a separate program from the district's universal 4K, it was a CHARTER SCHOOL --- it will have no affect on the universal 4K program and the district's ability to fund that. The only affect it will have on those who were to attend the charter school, but I'm guessing the school is operating this year anyway so it will just be a matter of running the program without the added dollars, since Charter School funding NEVER covers teachers' salaries, the staff is still there, it is things like bringing in experts for intensive staff development (and subs for staff to attend such workshops), furniture, supplies etc. that either will not be funded or the funding will come from elsewhere (knowing Patti Vickman this is probably already in the works ---but that is JUST ME speculating) the lack of charter funding may result in the charter school not existing next year --- that is something else I will check on and report back on.
Can we now let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be?
Again, a repeat but I guess it bears repeating--- NO CHILD in The OASD has EVER been required to attend 4K, that is a parent's choice. (Remember in WI you don't have to start school till you are SIX!!). (SIDE NOTE: when parents of 3 year olds were surveyed before 4K was implemented the VAST MAJORITY were in favor of the district instituting 4K). So if you believe keeping your 4 year old home to "let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be" you have EVERY right to do so, where M. Monte got the idea you couldn't is beyond me.
What about 4-year-old ESL?
What about it? The district has implemented UNIVERSAL 4K therefore they are in compliance with DPI requirements and can continue the 4K ESL program with funding (in terms of fte) from the state.
Anonymous (Nov. 17) and anyone else who cares about what the facts are, I hope this helps... as Anonymous (Nov. 17) wrote, a simple phone call or e-mail to either Mrs. Vickman or Dr. Heilmann would have given M. Monte all the answers she needed. And those of you who are going to post about me attacking M. Monte don't bother --- I am NOT attacking her, I'm simply pointing out where her facts or her understanding or BOTH are in error.
Friday, November 9, 2007
SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISE
Well, after what was it, a workshop and a retreat to try and find compromise that all 7 board members could support, in the end the boundary decision was a 4-3 vote, with not one of the 3 who voted no back in (July?) voting for the latest plan. It is clear Mr. Rylance was correct when he told Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Weinsheim on Eye on Oshkosh that one of the 4 (Bowen, Kavanaugh, McDermott or Weinsheim) would have to compromise as the other 3 were not going to. What is AMAZING to me is that the plan voted on Wed. night was essentially the plan that Schneider and Becker crafted at the retreat. I spoke to district officials who drafted the resolution and they spoke to both those board members telling them what was in the resolution and even working with Mr. Becker to revise the resolution prior to the board meeting(which is why they were referring to Mr. McDermott's amendment as the SECOND amendment to the resolution). Neither member gave district officials any indication they did not support their own plan. Someone on OshKonversation said they didn't support it because it was changed from their original proposal (hence the title of this post --- if I can't have it exactly my way I'm not voting for it --- that is NOT compromise) and I didn't hear either of them actually offer an amendment to be voted on to bring it back to the plan they developed. Schneider did offer a suggestion to just deal with the high school issue (which of course would have unraveled the rest of the plan and was not the plan developed at the "retreat") but never actually verbalized an amendment the board could vote on. So what you were left with is those who voted for Option E back in the summer in the really interesting position of compromising by choosing the Roosevelt Option, thinking it would be a unanimous, or nearly unanimous vote and in the end they were in the very odd position of compromising with themselves.
Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children.
One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else.
Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children.
One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else.
I am glad we are finally moving on to the rest of the facilities plan though I don't expect the 3 to compromise on anything left to come. And does anyone know why Becker and Schneider voted against hiring the architect? That is one of my pet peeves explain your NO vote!
Well I must pick up my children from school --- remember, keep comments on topic or they aren't going to be published.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)