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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
The following was posted on a different thread -- I deleted it from there and moved it here:
Kent Monte said...
Mrs. Thiel,
Funny how you just wrote a whole book on how you didn't want anymore negativity regarding us but continue to allow it.
You knew about this letter several days ago yet you posted nothing on it. Please give us some insight to this administration and thier thought process on turning this money down.
Thanks.
Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:37:00 AM CST
First I will respond to Mr. Monte's comments then I will post another response that addresses the initial post on this thread.
Mr. Monte, I wrote a post saying I didn't want the discussion to focus on you and your wife and people's negative feelings about you. Other than the two sentences I deleted from Anon. Nov. 17th comments, I find the post to be perfectly acceptable. I share some of the frustration expressed by Anon. Nov. 17th as I'll explain in my next post.
As for your comment "You knew about this letter several days ago yet you posted nothing on it." How could you possibly know when or IF I knew about this letter?
Fact is I saw (but did not READ) this letter at Mr. Becker's listening session on Sat. If that is who you got your information from, I NEVER said I saw the letter, I just nodded when Mrs. Weinsheim said she knew about it, because I knew back in late Sept./early Oct. that the district was not pursuing the Implementation Grant for the 4K Charter School due to the Fed. Dept. of ED's new regulations imposed on Charter Funds.
Sun. at 3pm is the first I read any of these posts.
See next post for an answer/comments to some of the statements on Mrs. Monte's blog on this subject.
Kent Monte is confused as usual. The only negativity has been what he and his wife post. Pointing it out isn't the same thing. He knows that though. He's just deflecting ike always.
Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:10:00 PM
Kent Monte has missed his calling in life. Public defender. They're always running around defending (fill in the blank yourself), too.
As for the letter and why Mrs. Thiel didn't ask any questions about it, maybe she understands the administration's reasoning and doesn't need to ask questions. Or maybe she doesn't feel the need to approach every single decision it makes with doubt and suspicion.
On the other hand, the Montes have a track record for throwing gas on a small fire (which they've more than likely started) and then walking away only to return later wondering how the fire got so out of control and why the fire department didn't act sooner or do more to get it under control. Or better yet, to prevent it in the first place.
Take a cue from Smokey Bear, Montes, and remember that only YOU can prevent forest fires.
Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:15:00 PM
OK, you didn't know what the letter said, but you knew of the contents and lack of funding MONTHS ago?!?
I have to ask, where is the money going to come from to replace the lost funding from the grant?
Please don't try to hide it in all of the smoke and mirrors that you did in your original posting. This money was counted on and now we don't have it. To me, that seems to be a problem.
Kent Monte either has difficulty reading and/or understanding, or he's just being his usual crap-apple self, flaming about things and people he doesn't like.
Mrs. Thiel's earlier posting very clearly explained "the district was not pursuing the Implementation Grant for the 4K Charter School due to the Fed. Dept. of ED's new regulations imposed on Charter Funds." Being that the Montes are such self-proclaimed experts on everything, they ought to be aware of those changes and understand them.
But, as usual, the Montes are looking not for answers, but for a fight. Their tactic is so obvious. Ask questions and when they get answers, spin them another way so as to continue the fight, making themselves look and sound intelligent even though they're pretty clueless about what's going on.
They're expert at nothing but their own smoke & mirrors, lack of knowledge, half-truths, and flatout lies. They are their own worst enemy and if they didn't feed at the information trough of Paul Esslinger, Dan Becker, and Ben Schneider, they'd be totally in the dark.
Thank you Anon (Nov. 18 10:59) it is nice to know others DO understand what I have posted.
Mr. Monte... you and your wife constantly decry the negativity directed at you yet why don't you go and re-read your post:
I spent a significant amount of time writing the answers to all the questions from your wife's blog and either because you didn't read it, didn't understand it or just wanted to be nasty --- called it "smoke and mirrors" and you wonder why people don't always have nice things to say about you!
You seem "shocked" I knew a while ago that there was no real point in pursuing the 4K Charter, I did not know DPI was looking for formal confirmation that the district would not be resubmitting but common sense told me there would be no point in trying to turn a 4K Charter into an elementary school, that was never the intent of the charter. As I stated before, when obtaining the planning grant it was perfectly fine that the school would only be for 4 year olds, the reviewers' comments did not indicate that the school would need to expand beyond 4K.
As for "I have to ask, where is the money going to come from to replace the lost funding from the grant?"
Anyone who knows anything about applying for grants knows it is NEVER a sure thing. You cannot count on that money until you receive official word that you have been awarded it. I am confident that every one involved knew there was a chance the school would not be funded. I'm sure there was disappointment but any time you apply for a grant, there is a chance you will not be funded.
I have not had time to contact district personnel to find out what the plans are for the 4K charter school but according to the district website, the school is operating this year, so the district has managed to make things work even without the grant funds.
For those of you so quick to defend the Monte's and who think I allow nasty comments but that they are oh, so INNOCENT, here is a post Mrs. Monte allowed - since comments on her blog are moderated she, or Mr. Monte had to "approve" the comment. I would call the following pretty nasty...
From Michelle Monte's blog
http://monteforschoolboard.blogspot.com/2007/11/dr-heilmann-says-thanks-but-no-thanks.html
Please don't ask Teresa Theil to explain ANYTHING. She's a waste of time. She's irrelevent.
I hope she's stupid enough to run for school boad again. That way she can be reminded of how irrelevent she is.
For those of us actually interested in the issues of the school district, I would ask that you stop this ridiculous feuding with the Montes. You are all losing credibility at record pace.
Typically I enjoy reading both blogs to see what is happening in the district since the oasd website is not filled with useful up-to-date information. I can fully read between the lines and see which comments merit further thought on my behalf and to that extent, which comments require action on my behalf. I do not need you to provide answers to questions posed on her blog or vice-versa, and I especially do not need to read all about some fixation you have with the Montes, or vice-versa. I can understand that you will want to refute this comment and defend yourself but step back, take a look, and consider it. You need to get over this problem you have with Ms. Monte and focus your energy on useful tasks.
Your blog has degenerated into a third grade playground fight. Get over yourself. You're not always right, she's not always right, and you both sound like spoiled brats.
If you think she is wrong about something, be the bigger person and address it with some professionalism, otherwise your blog is nothing more than worthless drivel.
And of course, 12:55, you've posted the same type of message on Michelle Monte's blog, right? Nah!!! That sums up your prejudice pretty well an cost you any credibility you may otherwise have had.
Have a good day.
Anonymous (Nov. 19)
When someone posts statements that are not accurate I will correct the inaccuracies. M. Monte is flat out WRONG that the district turned down grant money, they were never awarded ANY Charter Implementation dollars. Check out the DPI website for the list of Charter Implementation Grants that were awarded in 2007 --- you will NOT see the Oshkosh 4K Charter on the list:
http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpi2007_72.pdf
The district was only offered the opportunity to revise their application to make required changes, which would have changed the whole scope of the Charter School and the district elected not to do so.
If you don't want to read the answers to questions from M. Monte's blog then don't, a poster asked me to address it and I did.
Where exactly am I wrong in my posting? I am happy to clear up any erroneous statments I might have made. M. Monte is clearly wrong in stating "...that we would throw away money" there was no money awarded, therefore no money to throw away!
No one is forcing you to read this blog, it is my blog so I will publish what I feel is helpful to those who are looking for accurate information.
Mrs. Thiel, thank you for posting the DPI's URL so we can see accurate information for ourselves. It has become far too frequent an occurence that Mrs. Monte posts things that just aren't accurate. She thrives on the negative and enjoys getting a rise out of people. Now she's running off at the lips painting a picture of herself as the perfect citizen who always takes the high road. Yeah, right. She must be looking in a fun house mirror where things look dfferently to her than they really are. Fortunately everyone else can see the real thing.
Anon. (Nov. 19 3:07) I wish I knew how to post the DPI URL so it was a link not something you have to cut and paste...I know a link is much more convenient but I don't know how to do it in the comment section, just in the "post" section.
As frustrating as M. Monte's posts are --- I don't want to spend my time or space on her nasty comments. Some people will not be convinced even when the proof is staring them in the face, so while I understand where your comments are coming from --- I think, as someone told me in a previous thread... just ignore. I think it is time we try that. Sometimes it is attention of any kind I'd rather not feed into that.
I'd be happy to answer any other questions on the Charter School or if you'd like to discuss other district topics, let me know, I can start a new thread.
I hear what you're saying. Here is the link to the DPI web site you referenced. It might make things a little easier for your readers.
Anon (Nov. 19 4:11) Thank you so much for posting the link to the DPI page someday I'm going to learn how to do that.
If somebody says you could have $1000 if you do something legal and you decide it is too much trouble or would not fit your goals, isn't that throwing money away? You didn't have a guarantee you would get the money but could have potentially gotten $1000. I think that still constitutes throwing money away. No one can say for sure we would NOT have gotten the money had we fulfilled DPI requirements, so how is refusing to do what DPI wanted NOT throwing money away?
Anon (Nov. 19 6:23)
As I stated before, one of the DPI requirements was that the school contain more grades than just 4K --- well if you were to expand even 3 grades (to my knowledge DPI has not stated exactly how many additional grades but one or two grades in a school is not acceptable - most likely it would have to have at least 4K-3rd if the district went to that configuration, 4K-5 if we remained with what we have) for examples sake let's say the school went from 4K to 2nd grade the cost of the teachers alone (for one class of each grade) would be more than the $150,000 you would get from the grant... how would that be helpful? The grant was for a 4K Charter school, NOT an elementary school.
So, to use your analogy, if someone "says you could have $1000 if you do something legal and you decide it is too much trouble or would not fit your goals," and it will cost you $1200 to do it, would you still accept the offer? If not, do you still think that is "throwing money away?" If so, I hope you don't handle the family budget, just seems like a losing proposition to me!
Kent and Michelle Monte: Direct from the chapter entitled "Do as I say, not as I do."
Michelle posts this at the beginnning of her blog: "All I ask is that we try to be respectful to each other and remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion, even when it disagrees with our own." They've both written other such things from time to time. Still, they both do the exact opposite and wouldn't know how to do any differently if their lives depended on it. What hypocrites.
Absolutely correct. As if more proof of this is even needed, here we go again with more "approved" nasty comments from the Michelle Monte blog...
"Glad To Vote Monte said...
Maybe Thiel's suggestion has merrit. Too bad OASD administration has little to no credibility and is only concerned with selling what they want the community to buy and divulging only what they want the community to know.
I think the thing that urks some people is that more people support Monte than Thiel and Monte is not afraid to question OASD administration publically. Sure beats the heck out of skulking around Heilmann's office like a lost dog waiting for scraps she can call "facts."
I'll take questions and conclusions based on some information over accusations, conspiracies, and twisted excuses for "facts" any day.
Sign me:
Not a Monte, but glad to vote for one!
Wed Nov 28, 06:45:00 AM"
Methinks thou doth protest too much, but beyond that, methinks that instead of taking unnecessary and untruthful jabs at Teresa Thiel, the author of this comment ought to spend some time "skulking" around their local high school learning how to either spell words they're going to use or learning how to use a dictionary in order to get them spelled correctly. Dictionary.com could be a big help, too. Maybe the author is just jealous because Thiel has actually served and Monte hasn't or because administration personnel like and respect Thiel and not Monte. Whatever the reason, there are 2 lessons to be learned here: The green-eyed monster is truly an ugly one and people shouldn't use words they either can't spell or don't understand.
Post a Comment