I was talking to someone about the last school board meeting and this person made a comment that really got me thinking. The comment "Why would you want to be on the school board if you are going to deny children an education?" The person was referencing the "no" vote by 2 board members to provide 4K education to Oshkosh children. For almost 10 years the Oshkosh district has had a 4K program for English Language Learners (ELL) students and the state informed Oshkosh that in order to receive state aide for that program the district needed to have a "universal access" 4K program. Meaning that 4K had to be available for all district children, not just targeted to certain groups. If the district did not move to universal access 4K they would not be able to have a 4K ELL program either because there is no money in the budget to fully fund such a program. I hadn't really thought about the fact that voting against 4K was denying children an education but that is what would have happened. Those same board members then voted against providing summer school programs for students because they believe that the pay for summer school teachers is too high, but that is something that is bargained with the union and cannot be changed unilaterally. It does seem strange that school board members would vote against providing programs that are not only needed by students but, in the case of 4K ,wanted by 85% of parents surveyed.
There is a multitude of research by not just educators but also economists that show that 4K is not only beneficial for children (with univeral 4K considered more beneficial for children in need than targeted programs) it has a huge return on investment for governmental units. Yet these board members still voted against 4K basically denying children an education. I just don't see how it can be justified that the best interest of the children were served by those "NO" votes.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Oshkosh School District and the Council
Well I just finished watching the Common Council workshop on the School District's facilities plan. Some thoughts.
Could McHugh be any more rude (well of course he could and has been but nonetheless I don't think that is how you treat people who have come to provide you with information).
As a parent I'm a little insulted to think that people actually believe the only consideration a parent would have about a school is how close it is to my home... really if that were the only consideration shouldn't we have a school located within a mile of every home? What about the condition of the building... you really think people looking to buy homes in our city check out some of these schools and say oh, yeah, I'll buy there because the school is close, mind you the school floods when it rains, they have plastic gutters screwed to the walls to hold books because there is no storage but that is exactly what I'm looking for in a school for my child.
Some of the schools that will be closed are less than a mile from the school students will be sent to. I don't think you can use the "we are losing our neighborhood school" argument when, say, Smith school is a mere .6 of a mile from Jefferson. If you look at all the schools that are slated to be closed, for schools in the city limits, the school that students would be sent to is located no more than 1.9 miles away and as close as .6 miles. People looking to move into our community have no "ties" to a school so are unlikely to care if their child goes to Smith or Jefferson though I would imagine if a prospective family toured each building and made a decision on the building alone, they would choose the newest school.
The fact is, what is referred to as "growth on the West side" it was pointed out tonight is really just a shifting of people from other parts of the city to the West side. Is that in the best interest of our city. Will keeping substandard school buildings in the "central city" really encourage people to buy homes there, or would closing a substandard school and upgrading the school those children would go to be more appealing to prospective home buyers?
Pretty sad that some council members failed to understand the economics of keeping "failing" buildings open so "everyone" is happy. Doing that off the top throws out the $1.5M per year saved in operating costs... it also means spending dollars on buildings that an architect said he wouldn't recommend spending more money on. If you take out completely the $29M in functional issues and just address deferred maintenance you are looking at $10M in a referendum and all you've done is put a bandage on a gaping wound that needs surgery.
Let's go back to the $29M on functional issues, supposedly the community won't spend the money on this, how sad that supposedly the community doesn't believe our children all deserve to have similar experiences in school that it is OK for some to learn with constant distractions from other classes due to an open concept, or that some students never get to do a "clay" unit in Art because there is no kiln in the gym where Art class is held, or students wear coats in class because it is too cold without them, and I could go on about more inequities but I won't.
Everyone wants to know about Plan B --- while there is no specific Plan, I can tell you whatever it might be it will be ugly. Given the declining enrollment and the unlikelihood that the state will change the school funding formula, the cuts will be deep and they will affect students. Keeping all our schools and spending money to maintain them, will mean cutting millions each year. I predict class sizes will rise and the non-core subjects like Art, Music and Phy-Ed will be scaled back and cut in some instances. If things go on long enough, probably even the "sacred cow" athletics will be affected.
I just don't see any "Plan B" being something that will attract a lot of families to Oshkosh... why is it only Oshkosh and Neenah are declining enrollment districts in the Fox Valley? Perhaps in Oshkosh's case simply having an abundance of elementary schools isn't enough to draw families in. Let's face it, they weren't coming to the district in the 5 years prior to discussions of these scenarios. Our enrollment has been declining for a number of years. Could it be because other districts have more to offer people? Maybe it is because those districts don't operate on the "we're getting by" philosophy. Maybe the other Fox Valley school districts believe in providing quality facilities. My daughter played high school basketball this year and I attended games in every high school in our conference and every one of the facilities was superior to West's main gym. I'd be willing to bet none of those schools had bleachers built in 1960.
As time goes by I fear that once again this district will do little to nothing to address the inequities that exist. Sadly, the only place I find solace is in the fact that in 5 years I will no longer have children in the district.
Could McHugh be any more rude (well of course he could and has been but nonetheless I don't think that is how you treat people who have come to provide you with information).
As a parent I'm a little insulted to think that people actually believe the only consideration a parent would have about a school is how close it is to my home... really if that were the only consideration shouldn't we have a school located within a mile of every home? What about the condition of the building... you really think people looking to buy homes in our city check out some of these schools and say oh, yeah, I'll buy there because the school is close, mind you the school floods when it rains, they have plastic gutters screwed to the walls to hold books because there is no storage but that is exactly what I'm looking for in a school for my child.
Some of the schools that will be closed are less than a mile from the school students will be sent to. I don't think you can use the "we are losing our neighborhood school" argument when, say, Smith school is a mere .6 of a mile from Jefferson. If you look at all the schools that are slated to be closed, for schools in the city limits, the school that students would be sent to is located no more than 1.9 miles away and as close as .6 miles. People looking to move into our community have no "ties" to a school so are unlikely to care if their child goes to Smith or Jefferson though I would imagine if a prospective family toured each building and made a decision on the building alone, they would choose the newest school.
The fact is, what is referred to as "growth on the West side" it was pointed out tonight is really just a shifting of people from other parts of the city to the West side. Is that in the best interest of our city. Will keeping substandard school buildings in the "central city" really encourage people to buy homes there, or would closing a substandard school and upgrading the school those children would go to be more appealing to prospective home buyers?
Pretty sad that some council members failed to understand the economics of keeping "failing" buildings open so "everyone" is happy. Doing that off the top throws out the $1.5M per year saved in operating costs... it also means spending dollars on buildings that an architect said he wouldn't recommend spending more money on. If you take out completely the $29M in functional issues and just address deferred maintenance you are looking at $10M in a referendum and all you've done is put a bandage on a gaping wound that needs surgery.
Let's go back to the $29M on functional issues, supposedly the community won't spend the money on this, how sad that supposedly the community doesn't believe our children all deserve to have similar experiences in school that it is OK for some to learn with constant distractions from other classes due to an open concept, or that some students never get to do a "clay" unit in Art because there is no kiln in the gym where Art class is held, or students wear coats in class because it is too cold without them, and I could go on about more inequities but I won't.
Everyone wants to know about Plan B --- while there is no specific Plan, I can tell you whatever it might be it will be ugly. Given the declining enrollment and the unlikelihood that the state will change the school funding formula, the cuts will be deep and they will affect students. Keeping all our schools and spending money to maintain them, will mean cutting millions each year. I predict class sizes will rise and the non-core subjects like Art, Music and Phy-Ed will be scaled back and cut in some instances. If things go on long enough, probably even the "sacred cow" athletics will be affected.
I just don't see any "Plan B" being something that will attract a lot of families to Oshkosh... why is it only Oshkosh and Neenah are declining enrollment districts in the Fox Valley? Perhaps in Oshkosh's case simply having an abundance of elementary schools isn't enough to draw families in. Let's face it, they weren't coming to the district in the 5 years prior to discussions of these scenarios. Our enrollment has been declining for a number of years. Could it be because other districts have more to offer people? Maybe it is because those districts don't operate on the "we're getting by" philosophy. Maybe the other Fox Valley school districts believe in providing quality facilities. My daughter played high school basketball this year and I attended games in every high school in our conference and every one of the facilities was superior to West's main gym. I'd be willing to bet none of those schools had bleachers built in 1960.
As time goes by I fear that once again this district will do little to nothing to address the inequities that exist. Sadly, the only place I find solace is in the fact that in 5 years I will no longer have children in the district.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Cost Benefit of Quality Pre-School Programs
As I was doing some research for work I came across this report by an economist. I haven't had time to read the entire report, but a brief summary states:
"Research is increasingly demonstrating that the policy of investing in early child-hood development, particularly high-quality prekindergarten, provides a wide array of significant benefits to children, families, and society as a whole. Empirical research shows that all children, regardless of whether they are from poor, middle-, or upper-income families, benefit from prekindergarten programs. In addition, higher quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs."
And this: {"We can build on what we have," she said. "What's new about this study is that it is based on a sizeable, long-standing program funded and operating effectively in the real world."Lynch based his state-by-state analysis on a 40-year Chicago program helping low-income families with preschool and other services.} From an article in the Arizona Republic.
I'm sure there are some who will dismiss this research and analysis, but it is compelling to me, and some is just common sense -- is anyone really surprised that "higer quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs"?
"Research is increasingly demonstrating that the policy of investing in early child-hood development, particularly high-quality prekindergarten, provides a wide array of significant benefits to children, families, and society as a whole. Empirical research shows that all children, regardless of whether they are from poor, middle-, or upper-income families, benefit from prekindergarten programs. In addition, higher quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs."
And this: {"We can build on what we have," she said. "What's new about this study is that it is based on a sizeable, long-standing program funded and operating effectively in the real world."Lynch based his state-by-state analysis on a 40-year Chicago program helping low-income families with preschool and other services.} From an article in the Arizona Republic.
I'm sure there are some who will dismiss this research and analysis, but it is compelling to me, and some is just common sense -- is anyone really surprised that "higer quality prekindergarten programs provide greater benefits than lower quality prekindergarten programs"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)