At the September 24 Oshkosh School Board Meeting the referendum questions were discussed. The VERY short story is the interim superintendent recommended a 3 question referendum with the questions looking something like the following -- dollar amounts are NOT set in stone, just a place to start discussions:
Question 1: New Oaklawn/Sunset probably on Ryf Road $15,000,000 (approx. amount based on Feb. 2008 figures)
Question 2: Exceed Revenue Caps by $1,300,000 per year for 5 years for deferred maintenance projects
Question 3: Exceed Revenue Caps by $500,000 per year for Capital Action plans (one example of this might be secured entrances at all schools)
Here is a link to the entire board packet, the referendum information starts on page 38
Here are the deferred maintenance projects:
Projects Prioritized from Deferred Maintenance History
2009
All Schools
Electrical/Lighting Improvements, Upgrading fixtures, emergency & gym lighting $653,400
P.Tipler:
HVAC
A/C $ 275,000
Roof $ 225,640
All Other
North Cylinder repair of elevator $ 80,000
Total $1,234,040
2010
E. Cook Media Center
Roof $75,000
Roosevelt
Boiler $975,000
West (1 of 2)
Bleachers $195,000
W. Stanley (1 of 3)
Windows $55,000
Total $1,300,000
2011
S. Park
Boiler & DDC controls $1,350,000
Total $1,350,000
2012
District Wide
Roof repair/replace $750,000
W. Stanley (2 of 3)
Windows $55,000
West (2 of 2)
Bleachers $195,000
Merrill (1 of 2)
HVAC upgrade $315,000
Total $1,315,000
2013
District Wide
Roofs $750,000
J. Shapiro
HVAC $150,000
W. Stanley (3 of 3)
Windows $55,000
Merrill (2 of 2)
HVAC upgrade $400,000
Total $1,355,000
One thing really jumped out at me... the cost of a new boiler at South Park $1.3 MILLION ... Should the deferred maintenance question fail, I shudder to think what the cuts would look like if the $1.3 Million cost of a new boiler was taken out of operating funds.
A few people have posted on various blogs that the district should fund all its maintenance and capital improvements out of its operating funds. I wonder how many homeowners have enough money in their "operating" budgets to replace their furnace should it go out? I would imagine most would either take out a loan or take the money from a savings account.
So what do you think? Do you like 3 questions vs. just one or two? Would you support any or all of the questions? Why or why not?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
What is the Role and Responsibility of Elected Officials?
When I served on the school board I attended a conference where the speaker was a Philip Boyle (at the time a professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and now a private consultant) he was an excellent speaker who really understood the role of elected officials. That conference clarified for me, my role as a school board member and helped in some ways to explain why the BOE had (and still has) such difficulties making decisions at times. This article explains very clearly what the role of elected officials should be.
Here are some excerpts from the above article:
We call them public values, because they come into play when we act or are affected as citizens. We can group them into four core values (Note: for more detailed discussions of these values and how they shape public policy and political theory, see O'Toole, Stone, Okun, and Brinkley et al.):
Liberty, which includes freedom, choice, access, autonomy, mobility, openness, transparency, individual rights, voluntary, opportunity, individuality, exemptions, privacy, due process, independence, personal responsibility, self-determination, and self-sufficiency.
Prosperity, which includes economy, efficiency, growth, productivity, profit, cost reduction, development, incentives, competition, consolidation, centralization, privatization, standardization, specialization, performance measurement, benchmarking, return on investment, using market rules to make decisions, and quantity of life.
Equality, which includes fairness, justice, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, equity, inclusion, representation, equal rights, equal opportunity, equal treatment, equal results, grandfathering, and a level playing field.
Community, which includes safety, security, a sense of connection and belonging to the people and places where we live and work, a sense of place and identity, health, aesthetics, preservation, restoration, conservation, tradition, customs, the sacred, uniformity, social and moral order, and quality of life.
As shown below, each of these public values represents a competing vision for public education:
Public Education and Liberty
Let parents choose schools, control how education dollars are spent
Charter, magnet, cyber schools
Private schools, home schooling
Open enrollment and transfers
Academic freedom, freedom of speech
Local control and governance
Open meetings, transparency, public input
Public Education and Prosperity
Meet global standards
Further economic progress
Compete in 21st century workplace
Career preparation, real-world learning
Apply market principles to education and schools
Treat parents as consumers
Continuous school improvement
Measurement and certification
Commercialization
Operate schools like a business
Public Education and Equality
Equitable funding
Equal opportunity
Eliminate race, gender, class, ethnic, and cultural biases
Teach all history and cultures
All courses and sports available to all students
Alternative, special, bi-lingual education
Free and reduced breakfast/lunch programs
Non-discriminatory policies governing public use of school facilities
Close achievement gaps
Title IX
Public Education and Community
Meet social and emotional needs
All children learn together
Avoid competition, ranking, social sorting
Strengthen families and communities
Smaller classes, neighborhood schools
Art, music, civics, character education, service learning
Health, exercise, diet, nutrition, physical education
Drug testing, dress codes, zero tolerance
Safe, clean, secure, comfortable, welcoming schools
Raise children, don't just teach children
Save recess!
While there are statements I agree with in all 4 values, my values run much more to the Community/ Equality set than the other 2 (though there are one or two statments in the community set that I do not agree with) as I think anyone can see there are others who were or are on the board whose values run much more to Prosperity and somewhat to Liberty. As the article indicates, no one value is better than any other, the key for elected officials is to balance all the values and leave everyone better off than before they started. It is a tall order and since many officials are not even aware of the struggle with these values, this is rarely the approach taken.
An educational system isn't worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn't teach them how to make a life. -- Unknown
Private organizations and institutions can promote one value over the others, but government cannot. We expect the American Civil Liberties Union to promote liberty, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to promote equality, the YMCA and Sierra Club to promote community, and the chamber of commerce to promote prosperity. But only one institution -- government -- is responsible for protecting and promoting all four public values. We prevent anarchy and tyranny, as the Founders intended, by making room for each public value in the public sphere.
And we ask our public officials -- both elected and appointed -- to make good public choices by balancing these values. In this context, public school leadership is not about power, authority, or public opinion. As James Madison might have put it, school boards and administrators are charged with refining and enlarging the public views so that they may best discern the true public interest.
So what do you think? Does this make sense? Does it explain to some degree why the BOE gets stymied? Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC... I will delete ALL posts that stray from this topic.
Here are some excerpts from the above article:
We call them public values, because they come into play when we act or are affected as citizens. We can group them into four core values (Note: for more detailed discussions of these values and how they shape public policy and political theory, see O'Toole, Stone, Okun, and Brinkley et al.):
Liberty, which includes freedom, choice, access, autonomy, mobility, openness, transparency, individual rights, voluntary, opportunity, individuality, exemptions, privacy, due process, independence, personal responsibility, self-determination, and self-sufficiency.
Prosperity, which includes economy, efficiency, growth, productivity, profit, cost reduction, development, incentives, competition, consolidation, centralization, privatization, standardization, specialization, performance measurement, benchmarking, return on investment, using market rules to make decisions, and quantity of life.
Equality, which includes fairness, justice, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, equity, inclusion, representation, equal rights, equal opportunity, equal treatment, equal results, grandfathering, and a level playing field.
Community, which includes safety, security, a sense of connection and belonging to the people and places where we live and work, a sense of place and identity, health, aesthetics, preservation, restoration, conservation, tradition, customs, the sacred, uniformity, social and moral order, and quality of life.
As shown below, each of these public values represents a competing vision for public education:
Public Education and Liberty
Let parents choose schools, control how education dollars are spent
Charter, magnet, cyber schools
Private schools, home schooling
Open enrollment and transfers
Academic freedom, freedom of speech
Local control and governance
Open meetings, transparency, public input
Public Education and Prosperity
Meet global standards
Further economic progress
Compete in 21st century workplace
Career preparation, real-world learning
Apply market principles to education and schools
Treat parents as consumers
Continuous school improvement
Measurement and certification
Commercialization
Operate schools like a business
Public Education and Equality
Equitable funding
Equal opportunity
Eliminate race, gender, class, ethnic, and cultural biases
Teach all history and cultures
All courses and sports available to all students
Alternative, special, bi-lingual education
Free and reduced breakfast/lunch programs
Non-discriminatory policies governing public use of school facilities
Close achievement gaps
Title IX
Public Education and Community
Meet social and emotional needs
All children learn together
Avoid competition, ranking, social sorting
Strengthen families and communities
Smaller classes, neighborhood schools
Art, music, civics, character education, service learning
Health, exercise, diet, nutrition, physical education
Drug testing, dress codes, zero tolerance
Safe, clean, secure, comfortable, welcoming schools
Raise children, don't just teach children
Save recess!
While there are statements I agree with in all 4 values, my values run much more to the Community/ Equality set than the other 2 (though there are one or two statments in the community set that I do not agree with) as I think anyone can see there are others who were or are on the board whose values run much more to Prosperity and somewhat to Liberty. As the article indicates, no one value is better than any other, the key for elected officials is to balance all the values and leave everyone better off than before they started. It is a tall order and since many officials are not even aware of the struggle with these values, this is rarely the approach taken.
An educational system isn't worth a great deal if it teaches young people how to make a living but doesn't teach them how to make a life. -- Unknown
Private organizations and institutions can promote one value over the others, but government cannot. We expect the American Civil Liberties Union to promote liberty, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to promote equality, the YMCA and Sierra Club to promote community, and the chamber of commerce to promote prosperity. But only one institution -- government -- is responsible for protecting and promoting all four public values. We prevent anarchy and tyranny, as the Founders intended, by making room for each public value in the public sphere.
And we ask our public officials -- both elected and appointed -- to make good public choices by balancing these values. In this context, public school leadership is not about power, authority, or public opinion. As James Madison might have put it, school boards and administrators are charged with refining and enlarging the public views so that they may best discern the true public interest.
So what do you think? Does this make sense? Does it explain to some degree why the BOE gets stymied? Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC... I will delete ALL posts that stray from this topic.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
A Little GOP Hypocrisy
I moved the link here from a different post... thanks anonymous...
I found this to be quite amusing, especially O'Reilly's comments on teen pregnancy...
I found this to be quite amusing, especially O'Reilly's comments on teen pregnancy...
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Vocational Education or College Education?
I found this article from the Washington Post very interesting please read the article (note the civility of the disagreement) and then join the discussion.
For those of you who don't want to read the article but want to participate in the discussion... basically the article was a discussion based on Chris Peters plan that would give both college-oriented and job-oriented students an equal chance. His 3 step plan is as follows:
Step 1:
Condense all universal high school requirements down to those which can be completed within two years and which consist of standards that are essential for the development of an informed citizenry and ensure that the student has the basic skills and knowledge base necessary for life-long learning. Then require all students to master these super-standards before starting either upper-level, college preparatory courses (AP/IB, intermediate algebra, chemistry, etc) or voc ed. course
Step 2:
When high school students reach the end of their sophomore year, present them with four choices:
(1) Continue on a college preparatory path leading to a four-year university or a four-year college transfer track at a community college. This choice would be contingent upon their having passed a standardized exit exam in English composition and literature, health and environmental science, elementary algebra and geometry, U.S. history and government and economics; or
(2) Enter a community college vocational program of their choice , with close supervision and support by their high school and continued access to the high school's extra-curricular activities. This would be contingent on their passing the same battery of exams the Choice 1 students take. Using existing and underutilized community college vocational programs means high schools would not have to reinvent the vocational wheel at their own sites, or:
(3) Receive intensive tutoring in high school, if unable so far to pass all or some of the exams, until they do so. They would have up to two year to climb over those barriers, and then an extra two years of free schooling to take AP and other prep classes on the college track if they so desire. This choice is just for those who want college prep their last two years of high school, including any who started the vocational track, choice 2, but changed their minds, or:
(4) Quit school and choose some other path.
Step 3:
Create a simple report card to evaluate the instructional effectiveness of individual high schools that everyone could understand. It would consist of five simple and largely unfudgeable - measures of the school's success: its pass rate on the two-year exit exams; its rate of graduate enrollment in four-year colleges (either right out of high school or as community college transfer); its AP/IB test-taking rate; its rate of students earning vocational certifications within four years of completing the exit exams; and its rate of graduates earning bachelor's degrees within six years of completing the college preparatory program.
The three steps would eliminate the high school diploma (an utterly meaningless document) and all standardized tests at the high school level except the eight subject-specific exit exams.
I think this is a discussion our school district should have... I don't agree with eliminating the high school diploma but I do think there is merit in much of Mr. Peter's plan. I also share some of the concerns of Mr. Mathews that there is a danger in sending students on one track or the other at the age of 16 (though many European countries do so at a much younger age and I don't believe it is the student's choice, the system decides).
So what do you think?
For those of you who don't want to read the article but want to participate in the discussion... basically the article was a discussion based on Chris Peters plan that would give both college-oriented and job-oriented students an equal chance. His 3 step plan is as follows:
Step 1:
Condense all universal high school requirements down to those which can be completed within two years and which consist of standards that are essential for the development of an informed citizenry and ensure that the student has the basic skills and knowledge base necessary for life-long learning. Then require all students to master these super-standards before starting either upper-level, college preparatory courses (AP/IB, intermediate algebra, chemistry, etc) or voc ed. course
Step 2:
When high school students reach the end of their sophomore year, present them with four choices:
(1) Continue on a college preparatory path leading to a four-year university or a four-year college transfer track at a community college. This choice would be contingent upon their having passed a standardized exit exam in English composition and literature, health and environmental science, elementary algebra and geometry, U.S. history and government and economics; or
(2) Enter a community college vocational program of their choice , with close supervision and support by their high school and continued access to the high school's extra-curricular activities. This would be contingent on their passing the same battery of exams the Choice 1 students take. Using existing and underutilized community college vocational programs means high schools would not have to reinvent the vocational wheel at their own sites, or:
(3) Receive intensive tutoring in high school, if unable so far to pass all or some of the exams, until they do so. They would have up to two year to climb over those barriers, and then an extra two years of free schooling to take AP and other prep classes on the college track if they so desire. This choice is just for those who want college prep their last two years of high school, including any who started the vocational track, choice 2, but changed their minds, or:
(4) Quit school and choose some other path.
Step 3:
Create a simple report card to evaluate the instructional effectiveness of individual high schools that everyone could understand. It would consist of five simple and largely unfudgeable - measures of the school's success: its pass rate on the two-year exit exams; its rate of graduate enrollment in four-year colleges (either right out of high school or as community college transfer); its AP/IB test-taking rate; its rate of students earning vocational certifications within four years of completing the exit exams; and its rate of graduates earning bachelor's degrees within six years of completing the college preparatory program.
The three steps would eliminate the high school diploma (an utterly meaningless document) and all standardized tests at the high school level except the eight subject-specific exit exams.
I think this is a discussion our school district should have... I don't agree with eliminating the high school diploma but I do think there is merit in much of Mr. Peter's plan. I also share some of the concerns of Mr. Mathews that there is a danger in sending students on one track or the other at the age of 16 (though many European countries do so at a much younger age and I don't believe it is the student's choice, the system decides).
So what do you think?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Mr. Gotcha at it again but I think it backfired
At the school board meeting tonight, Mr. Becker pulled a number of executive session minutes stating that they were either incomplete, not accurate or violated the open meetings law. He further stated that the meetings were supposed to be started in open session with a reading of the statute that takes them to closed session. Mr. McDermott and Mrs. Bowen said that did in fact occur.
The fact is, if things happened as Mr. Becker explained he had a duty AT THE TIME to question why they were not starting in open session and reading the appropriate statutes, not participate in what HE is calling an illegal meeting and then waiting a few weeks to complain about it. If what he says is true he is JUST as "guilty" as the rest of the board for participating in what he knew was an illegal meeting.
This seems to me as Mr. Becker once again grandstanding, trying to cause problems and get a little attention. He wanted to play "gotcha" but he can't really do that successfully since he is right in the middle of it by staying for the meeting and saying nothing. His objection should have been made at the beginning of the meeting and he is the only one who stated that he knowingly attended such a meeting, since no one else recalled the meeting not being started in open session.
If his recollection is correct (and I doubt it since not a single board member agreed with him) he really shouldn't try and play gotcha -- he should state at the time there is a procedural problem and ask that the meeting be started in open session and the appropriate statue be read, not just go along with what he knows is wrong so he can try and play the hero later. He just ends up with egg on his face by acknowledging that he knowingly broke the law. Not good.
The fact is, if things happened as Mr. Becker explained he had a duty AT THE TIME to question why they were not starting in open session and reading the appropriate statutes, not participate in what HE is calling an illegal meeting and then waiting a few weeks to complain about it. If what he says is true he is JUST as "guilty" as the rest of the board for participating in what he knew was an illegal meeting.
This seems to me as Mr. Becker once again grandstanding, trying to cause problems and get a little attention. He wanted to play "gotcha" but he can't really do that successfully since he is right in the middle of it by staying for the meeting and saying nothing. His objection should have been made at the beginning of the meeting and he is the only one who stated that he knowingly attended such a meeting, since no one else recalled the meeting not being started in open session.
If his recollection is correct (and I doubt it since not a single board member agreed with him) he really shouldn't try and play gotcha -- he should state at the time there is a procedural problem and ask that the meeting be started in open session and the appropriate statue be read, not just go along with what he knows is wrong so he can try and play the hero later. He just ends up with egg on his face by acknowledging that he knowingly broke the law. Not good.
Monday, August 11, 2008
It is time the Silent Majority drown out the Vocal Minority
I've been thinking about what have unfolded the last week regarding the Oshkosh Superintendent situation read this posting on Eye on Oshkosh, it explains things perfectly.
I wanted to look at things from a different perspective, while the majority of the blame for people being "run out of town" goes to the naysayers those who disagree but say nothing are guilty as well. My father taught me that if you stand by and say nothing when someone tells a racist joke (for example) by your silence, you are in essence agreeing with what is said, or at least that is what others will assume.
I really think it is time for those in our community who do believe in our district, who can see the many positive things happening (even while wanting some things to change) need to speak out now and sing the praises of the district! I am by nature a pessimist (expect the worst and you won't be disappointed) and sometimes I focus on all the things that are wrong or need to change, however, I realize there are many positives in our district.
If we hope to attract a quality candidate for Supt. I believe the community needs to present a positive image of our district and the many things it has to offer. Those in the Silent Majority need to speak out and drown out those who spew so much negativity. In the last election for school board, clearly the voters chose to eliminate the negative, now it is time to accentuate the positive.
There will be plenty of time to work on needed changes. Right now I think we need to come together as people who care about the education of the children of the Oshkosh Area School District and support those who are working so hard to find a leader for our district. Yes I am talking about the 6 Board Members who have spent countless hours meeting to interview candidates, discuss the candidates qualifications and select someone they believed, in good faith, would be best to lead our district. There are plenty of things I disagree with a number of members about, but from all I have read, those 6 have been dedicated to finding the best Supt. for Oshkosh. It must be incredibly frustrating to have one of your own colleagues undermine what you have worked so hard on. How Mr. Becker could possibly have the respect of his colleagues is beyond me. His grandstanding and ego stroking is NOT what we need in this district. I can only hope the voters agree.
I really don't want people to spend too much time focusing on the negativity the radiates from Mr. Becker, rather I want people to focus on the positives of Oshkosh and the Oshkosh Area School District. I would like posters to focus on why someone would want to be Oshkosh's next Superintendent... What are the district's assets, strengths, uniqueness? I will delete those posts I deem negative.
I wanted to look at things from a different perspective, while the majority of the blame for people being "run out of town" goes to the naysayers those who disagree but say nothing are guilty as well. My father taught me that if you stand by and say nothing when someone tells a racist joke (for example) by your silence, you are in essence agreeing with what is said, or at least that is what others will assume.
I really think it is time for those in our community who do believe in our district, who can see the many positive things happening (even while wanting some things to change) need to speak out now and sing the praises of the district! I am by nature a pessimist (expect the worst and you won't be disappointed) and sometimes I focus on all the things that are wrong or need to change, however, I realize there are many positives in our district.
If we hope to attract a quality candidate for Supt. I believe the community needs to present a positive image of our district and the many things it has to offer. Those in the Silent Majority need to speak out and drown out those who spew so much negativity. In the last election for school board, clearly the voters chose to eliminate the negative, now it is time to accentuate the positive.
There will be plenty of time to work on needed changes. Right now I think we need to come together as people who care about the education of the children of the Oshkosh Area School District and support those who are working so hard to find a leader for our district. Yes I am talking about the 6 Board Members who have spent countless hours meeting to interview candidates, discuss the candidates qualifications and select someone they believed, in good faith, would be best to lead our district. There are plenty of things I disagree with a number of members about, but from all I have read, those 6 have been dedicated to finding the best Supt. for Oshkosh. It must be incredibly frustrating to have one of your own colleagues undermine what you have worked so hard on. How Mr. Becker could possibly have the respect of his colleagues is beyond me. His grandstanding and ego stroking is NOT what we need in this district. I can only hope the voters agree.
I really don't want people to spend too much time focusing on the negativity the radiates from Mr. Becker, rather I want people to focus on the positives of Oshkosh and the Oshkosh Area School District. I would like posters to focus on why someone would want to be Oshkosh's next Superintendent... What are the district's assets, strengths, uniqueness? I will delete those posts I deem negative.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Disturbing Quote --- Does it Imply a Violation of the Open Meetings Law?
Dan Becker was quoted in an article in the Waukesha Freeman on June 11th stating:
{Becker said that he and other board members “thought we had Todd Gray all squared away” to replace their outgoing Superintendent Ron Heilmann, ...}
What does that mean? Could that be a violation of the open meetings laws? Who are these other board members?
If Dan Becker didn't discuss making Todd Gray the new superintendent why is he quoted as saying they thought they had it all squared away? Wouldn't it take 3 other board member to "square it away"? I find such comments very troubling, they certainly give the impression board business was being discussed among Mr. Becker and other board members outside of the publicly noticed meetings.
{Becker said that he and other board members “thought we had Todd Gray all squared away” to replace their outgoing Superintendent Ron Heilmann, ...}
What does that mean? Could that be a violation of the open meetings laws? Who are these other board members?
If Dan Becker didn't discuss making Todd Gray the new superintendent why is he quoted as saying they thought they had it all squared away? Wouldn't it take 3 other board member to "square it away"? I find such comments very troubling, they certainly give the impression board business was being discussed among Mr. Becker and other board members outside of the publicly noticed meetings.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
OASD Future
Well, it is official (or almost) according to the Northwestern Todd Gray has accepted the position as superintendent of the Waukesha school district.
While the timing is unfortunate (having to look for a business director before the search for a superintendent has even begun) I wish Mr. Gray well and I do not think the board has made a mistake in deciding to search for a superintendent rather than just pick someone "in house" who happens to have a superintendents license.
I have been following the OASD School Board for nearly 11 years and I have never felt as hopeful about the district's future as I do now. The new board really seems to get along well, they have fun, they disagree without being disagreeable and they really seem to want to focus on moving the district forward rather than engage in petty bickering.
As for the search for a superintendent, it was clear to me at the last board meeting that 6 of the 7 board members are prepared to find and hire the best candidate they can find, whether that person is already working in the district, or is employed by another district, even one outside the state of Wisconsin. I think that is a wise approach.
I think organizations should always strive for the best qualified candidate for any position but especially the top position in the organization. How can you know if an internal candidate is the best candidate if you don't even consider any others? Some say not automatically hiring someone from within the district with the requisite license is a mistake that will make it hard to find a superintendent... that makes little sense to me since obviously all external candidates would hope the district would not "hire from within". This district has "promoted from within" a number of times in the recent past, but always after an interview process... think Lincoln School, Oaklawn School, Webster Stanley Elementary School... each of those principals was a teacher in our district before becoming the principal. To say we don't promote from within simply is not based in fact.
I am willing to wait and see where this hiring process leads us. I think the board should seize the opportunity that has presented itself and find a new superintendent to lead the district forward.
How much or how little do you feel the public should be involved in this decision? Hiring a superintendent (as well as evaluating the superintendent) is the primary job of a school board. It seems few, if any, members of the public are interested in this process. Personally, I think a model similar to that the Common Council used would serve the district well. A chance to observe candidates interacting with the public, is vital. The rest is up to the board.
While the timing is unfortunate (having to look for a business director before the search for a superintendent has even begun) I wish Mr. Gray well and I do not think the board has made a mistake in deciding to search for a superintendent rather than just pick someone "in house" who happens to have a superintendents license.
I have been following the OASD School Board for nearly 11 years and I have never felt as hopeful about the district's future as I do now. The new board really seems to get along well, they have fun, they disagree without being disagreeable and they really seem to want to focus on moving the district forward rather than engage in petty bickering.
As for the search for a superintendent, it was clear to me at the last board meeting that 6 of the 7 board members are prepared to find and hire the best candidate they can find, whether that person is already working in the district, or is employed by another district, even one outside the state of Wisconsin. I think that is a wise approach.
I think organizations should always strive for the best qualified candidate for any position but especially the top position in the organization. How can you know if an internal candidate is the best candidate if you don't even consider any others? Some say not automatically hiring someone from within the district with the requisite license is a mistake that will make it hard to find a superintendent... that makes little sense to me since obviously all external candidates would hope the district would not "hire from within". This district has "promoted from within" a number of times in the recent past, but always after an interview process... think Lincoln School, Oaklawn School, Webster Stanley Elementary School... each of those principals was a teacher in our district before becoming the principal. To say we don't promote from within simply is not based in fact.
I am willing to wait and see where this hiring process leads us. I think the board should seize the opportunity that has presented itself and find a new superintendent to lead the district forward.
How much or how little do you feel the public should be involved in this decision? Hiring a superintendent (as well as evaluating the superintendent) is the primary job of a school board. It seems few, if any, members of the public are interested in this process. Personally, I think a model similar to that the Common Council used would serve the district well. A chance to observe candidates interacting with the public, is vital. The rest is up to the board.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Could Oshkosh be Losing Another Administrator?
As I was surfing the net I came across this story from the Journal Sentinel. The basics:
Waukesha - The School Board has narrowed its search for a new superintendent to two finalists - the superintendent of the Cudahy School District and the deputy superintendent of the Oshkosh School District - and could announce a decision later this week.
I wonder what this will mean for the district. Will it make things that much harder to find a superintendent if the district is also looking for a business director? It hasn't been all that easy to keep a business director in this district. I guess we will see sooner rather than later.
Waukesha - The School Board has narrowed its search for a new superintendent to two finalists - the superintendent of the Cudahy School District and the deputy superintendent of the Oshkosh School District - and could announce a decision later this week.
I wonder what this will mean for the district. Will it make things that much harder to find a superintendent if the district is also looking for a business director? It hasn't been all that easy to keep a business director in this district. I guess we will see sooner rather than later.
Friday, May 16, 2008
STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS... What about that 2/3 funding?
Most people, even school people get confused by the 2/3 state funding and think that means the State of Wisconsin funds 2/3 of the budget for every school in the state. That is incorrect. The 2/3 funding is an average for the entire state. I found the following on the Madison School District site and while it pertains specifically to Madison, much of the explanation applies to Oshkosh as well (I will insert Oshkosh data when it differs from Madison)
From the Madison School District Web Site:
"The major issue facing schools currently is the revenue cap that limits the amount of money that a Wisconsin school district can spend -- based on a formula that does not take into account the actual increased costs that occur each year.
The state does currently fund 2/3 of the cost of education across the state. This is an average figure and varies dramatically from district to district. In the case of Madison, the state funds approximately 28% of our costs.[For Oshkosh it is nearly 2/3 I think about 62%] The revenue cap is a property tax measure, not an education measure. The more the state funds K-12 education, the less that property tax payers in a district have to pay.
The service reductions that district's across the state are having to make every year is the result of our inability to fund the same level of service each year. This happens because the amount of money we can use per pupil is not allowed to increase as rapidly as the cost of providing the service increases.
In the case of Madison, the state mandates that our budget can increase by only 2.6% a year,[that figure is about the same for Oshkosh] but our costs to continue providing the same services to our children increase at least 3.8% per year. This is the minimum increase that occurs because of the current state law that allows school districts to avoid arbitration with their teachers union if they offer that 3.8% increase in total salary and benefits. Obviously, that means that unions are never going to settle below 3.8%.
Salary and benefits are 86% of our budget,[about the same for Oshkosh] so the 3.8% creates a floor to our expenses. Our other expenses such as insurance and utilities rise much more than the 3.8% each year. In these areas, we are subject to the same market forces that homeowners and businesses are.
The gap that results from the difference between the 2.6% we can expend and the 3.8% minimum increase in costs (it is usually 4.0 - 4.2%) [again that is the same for Oshkosh] is the reason we and almost every other school district in Wisconsin has to reduce services to their students every year.
To put this in context, if we were doing everything today that we were doing in 1993 -- when the revenue cap law went into effect -- we would have 526 more employees and our budget would be $46 million higher that it is today. [I don't know those figures for Oshkosh but it would certainly be more significantly more than it is today]. I think this number quantifies the difference that the revenue cap has made in services to children."
I find the above to be a very understandable explanation for how 2/3 funding works, and why districts can't "live within their means" as some like to criticize. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe, school districts cannot just increase taxes to provide services, most are limited to a 2.6% increase in their budget and as the above explains, costs increase at a greater amount than revenue is allowed to increase, hence budget cuts are required, pretty much every year. Revenue controls have been good for property taxpayers but not good for school districts. The Revenue Controls have hit Oshkosh Schools especially hard because it has always been a frugal district and the Controls locked school districts in at what they were spending in 1993 and only allowed approximately 2.6% increases each year. It doesn't take an accountant to understand why so many school districts are struggling.
It is too bad more taxpayers don't understand this whole issue. It is not poor management on the part of school districts, it is an unfair funding formula (primarily favoring school districts in the Milwaukee suburbs).
From the Madison School District Web Site:
"The major issue facing schools currently is the revenue cap that limits the amount of money that a Wisconsin school district can spend -- based on a formula that does not take into account the actual increased costs that occur each year.
The state does currently fund 2/3 of the cost of education across the state. This is an average figure and varies dramatically from district to district. In the case of Madison, the state funds approximately 28% of our costs.[For Oshkosh it is nearly 2/3 I think about 62%] The revenue cap is a property tax measure, not an education measure. The more the state funds K-12 education, the less that property tax payers in a district have to pay.
The service reductions that district's across the state are having to make every year is the result of our inability to fund the same level of service each year. This happens because the amount of money we can use per pupil is not allowed to increase as rapidly as the cost of providing the service increases.
In the case of Madison, the state mandates that our budget can increase by only 2.6% a year,[that figure is about the same for Oshkosh] but our costs to continue providing the same services to our children increase at least 3.8% per year. This is the minimum increase that occurs because of the current state law that allows school districts to avoid arbitration with their teachers union if they offer that 3.8% increase in total salary and benefits. Obviously, that means that unions are never going to settle below 3.8%.
Salary and benefits are 86% of our budget,[about the same for Oshkosh] so the 3.8% creates a floor to our expenses. Our other expenses such as insurance and utilities rise much more than the 3.8% each year. In these areas, we are subject to the same market forces that homeowners and businesses are.
The gap that results from the difference between the 2.6% we can expend and the 3.8% minimum increase in costs (it is usually 4.0 - 4.2%) [again that is the same for Oshkosh] is the reason we and almost every other school district in Wisconsin has to reduce services to their students every year.
To put this in context, if we were doing everything today that we were doing in 1993 -- when the revenue cap law went into effect -- we would have 526 more employees and our budget would be $46 million higher that it is today. [I don't know those figures for Oshkosh but it would certainly be more significantly more than it is today]. I think this number quantifies the difference that the revenue cap has made in services to children."
I find the above to be a very understandable explanation for how 2/3 funding works, and why districts can't "live within their means" as some like to criticize. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe, school districts cannot just increase taxes to provide services, most are limited to a 2.6% increase in their budget and as the above explains, costs increase at a greater amount than revenue is allowed to increase, hence budget cuts are required, pretty much every year. Revenue controls have been good for property taxpayers but not good for school districts. The Revenue Controls have hit Oshkosh Schools especially hard because it has always been a frugal district and the Controls locked school districts in at what they were spending in 1993 and only allowed approximately 2.6% increases each year. It doesn't take an accountant to understand why so many school districts are struggling.
It is too bad more taxpayers don't understand this whole issue. It is not poor management on the part of school districts, it is an unfair funding formula (primarily favoring school districts in the Milwaukee suburbs).
Saturday, May 3, 2008
SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH
I think most people would agree the major task facing the school board over the next few months is to hire a new superintendent. A search firm will be hired to assist the board in this process. I imagine at some point the opinions of the community will be sought, I hope more people show up than showed up for a similar meeting regarding the City Manager. Sometimes it seems as if very few want to get involved but many like to complain. Then again sometimes I let the blogs skew my perceptions. If you really stop and count the number of posters on a blog that requires registration (Oshkonversation) you will note that for the most part there are 5-10 different posters on any given thread. Hardly the voice of the community.
At any rate, I'd like to know what readers think should be considered when hiring a new superintendent for the Oshkosh Area School District? Is previous experience as a superintendent necessary? Should board members visit the community where the final candidates work? What qualities are necessary in a new superintendent, what qualities would be nice to have and what qualities are not really important at all?
It appears that all the districts around us that are looking for, or have hired, a new superintendent have paid that person more than our current superintendent makes (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more), should this matter? Will we have to pay in that range to stay competitive or do we just set a dollar figure and see who is willing to come to Oshkosh for that amount?
How would you go about "including" the community or is this strictly a Board decision?
I guess that is enough to get people started...
At any rate, I'd like to know what readers think should be considered when hiring a new superintendent for the Oshkosh Area School District? Is previous experience as a superintendent necessary? Should board members visit the community where the final candidates work? What qualities are necessary in a new superintendent, what qualities would be nice to have and what qualities are not really important at all?
It appears that all the districts around us that are looking for, or have hired, a new superintendent have paid that person more than our current superintendent makes (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more), should this matter? Will we have to pay in that range to stay competitive or do we just set a dollar figure and see who is willing to come to Oshkosh for that amount?
How would you go about "including" the community or is this strictly a Board decision?
I guess that is enough to get people started...
Sunday, April 6, 2008
DEFINITION TIME - Must post by April 14
Throughout the whole facilities discussions, on blogs and forums and in discussions with people, I keep coming back to something... Supposedly this community values "neighborhood schools" yet I have never seen a definition of what that means:
So, please post your definition of "neighborhood schools" with the assumption that said definition to be used to determine that if a school closed, would there still be a school in the "neighborhood". Please be specific and make sure that is all you post... your definition of "Neighborhood Schools" anything will be deleted. You don't need to "criticize" some one's definition right now I'm just looking for definitions. This thread will be locked on April 15 (assuming I can figure out how to do that) and then I will take 3-5 definitions and (again assuming I can figure out how) post a poll to see how much agreement on a definition there is.
Thanks -- again I request you choose a "name" even just a letter works -- so much easier than time posted... PLEASE ;-)
UPDATE: As Smiley pointed out -- low turnout on this post. Apparently no one has a working definition of "neighborhood schools" or they don't want to share it.
I'll have a post on a new but related topic later this week.
So, please post your definition of "neighborhood schools" with the assumption that said definition to be used to determine that if a school closed, would there still be a school in the "neighborhood". Please be specific and make sure that is all you post... your definition of "Neighborhood Schools" anything will be deleted. You don't need to "criticize" some one's definition right now I'm just looking for definitions. This thread will be locked on April 15 (assuming I can figure out how to do that) and then I will take 3-5 definitions and (again assuming I can figure out how) post a poll to see how much agreement on a definition there is.
Thanks -- again I request you choose a "name" even just a letter works -- so much easier than time posted... PLEASE ;-)
UPDATE: As Smiley pointed out -- low turnout on this post. Apparently no one has a working definition of "neighborhood schools" or they don't want to share it.
I'll have a post on a new but related topic later this week.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Discussion of School Board Election Results
Rather than just delete the comments on the Facilities Thread relating to what the election results mean... I will be moving them here... so if you want to discuss the results post here... I will delete them from the other thread.
Keep the discussion civil! Thanks
Keep the discussion civil! Thanks
Moving On... Facilities Needs vs. Wants
I am so excited about the election results I can't sleep.
I am hoping we can have a civil discussion about what the "wants" and the "needs" are in the facilities plan. Or what types of things people think are "wants" and what things people think are "needs". If the discussion is not on this topic or gets nasty I will enable comment moderation and delete those things not on point, even if I agree with the statement. I see this election as really changing the tone of the board and I want to shift my tone as well. While I will still correct factual errors, I would like to find areas where people can agree or at least compromise.
I do not have copies of all the architect reports so I can't give you specifics on what exactly was in or out but here are some of the things I think are needs:
a) Updated electrical, HVAC, plumbing etc. on all buildings that will not close
b) Computer lab with at least 30 working computers
c) Media Center large enough to take a class of 25 5th graders
d) When building new or remodeling, schools with at least 3 sections per grade, 4 is preferable
e) Separate Art Room and Separate Music Room
It is late and I am fading -- that is what I can think of right now... please post your thoughts, but remember, describe the things you think are wants in a facilities plan and or the things you think are needs... anything else I will be putting comment moderation back on and deleting the posts...
A FAVOR -- I will ask once again, would you please instead of choosing anonymous could you choose name and make up a name... it is only one more step than choosing anonymous... you just have to type in a name like "cubfan" did... I just find it so much easier to use monikers than posting times. It is also nice to get a feel for how many individuals are posting. I don't get any information if you choose "name" and you can ignore the URL box. Of course you don't have to choose "name", but I really hope you will. Thanks
I am hoping we can have a civil discussion about what the "wants" and the "needs" are in the facilities plan. Or what types of things people think are "wants" and what things people think are "needs". If the discussion is not on this topic or gets nasty I will enable comment moderation and delete those things not on point, even if I agree with the statement. I see this election as really changing the tone of the board and I want to shift my tone as well. While I will still correct factual errors, I would like to find areas where people can agree or at least compromise.
I do not have copies of all the architect reports so I can't give you specifics on what exactly was in or out but here are some of the things I think are needs:
a) Updated electrical, HVAC, plumbing etc. on all buildings that will not close
b) Computer lab with at least 30 working computers
c) Media Center large enough to take a class of 25 5th graders
d) When building new or remodeling, schools with at least 3 sections per grade, 4 is preferable
e) Separate Art Room and Separate Music Room
It is late and I am fading -- that is what I can think of right now... please post your thoughts, but remember, describe the things you think are wants in a facilities plan and or the things you think are needs... anything else I will be putting comment moderation back on and deleting the posts...
A FAVOR -- I will ask once again, would you please instead of choosing anonymous could you choose name and make up a name... it is only one more step than choosing anonymous... you just have to type in a name like "cubfan" did... I just find it so much easier to use monikers than posting times. It is also nice to get a feel for how many individuals are posting. I don't get any information if you choose "name" and you can ignore the URL box. Of course you don't have to choose "name", but I really hope you will. Thanks
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The Northwestern's Endorsement got it Exactly RIGHT
Two posters on the Oaklawn thread have asked that I start threads on two different topics. The first asks when I will have a new post on the 4-3 vote on the facilities plan. The answer, maybe after the election, maybe never. I must say I am frustrated at the end result of almost 2 years (some would argue 10 years) of discussions but if the board majority changes, this won't be the plan anyway (and there probably won't be a "plan" for another 2 years). So I'm leaving that alone until we know just who is on the board.
The other poster asked for a thread about the School board election, and as you can see from the Title of this thread, I will post on that one.
As the title of this thread implies, The Northwestern's Endorsement captures my feelings exactly.
Schneider is quick to point his finger at the board majority for allowing our buildings to fall into "disrepair". However, he served as Chair of the Facilities and Finance Committee for a number of years and not once did he show any leadership in getting our buildings repaired. He served 6 years on the board and how many resolutions did he bring forth to "fix" our facilities? None... It is so easy to point the finger and vote "no" repeatedly but where was the leadership from the chair pointing out the need to fix our buildings? Instead he preferred to "grandstand" and give taxpayers an approximate $15 tax savings, rather than using the money to fix our buildings. As the Northwestern asked "what does he stand for"?
McDermott in an effort to compromise brought forward a plan he could support... where was Schneider's plan? If he were to be in the majority, who can tell me what his plan will look like? I doubt anyone can since he has never said what he would or would not support. He talks a lot about wants and needs but your need may be my want and vice versa. I especially liked the Northwesterns line: "But ask Schneider how to move forward or what specific things should be tackled, and he invariably withers,". That doesn't sound like leadership to me. Over and over I have heard him say "I defer to the experts" yet he never does. To defer means "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" that is not what Schneider does... he invariably votes "no" on those things he "defers to experts". What it seems to me is he just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about an answer.
As far as Monte, the Northwestern is right in stating that she would be a divisive factor on the board.
Her stand on things seems to waffle as well... her opening statement at every forum talks about "if we meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. So, why does she feel the need to post this "I don't think Special Needs is the number one priority, though certainly in the top ten."
Then here are just some of her "thoughts" on a "Plan":
March 17 (Oshkonversation) -- The plan I had been working on would cost about $30 million to include the deferred maintenance, a renovated or replacement Oaklawn, and a few other things we have put off too long like permanent homes for some of our special needs programs. (How is this so different from McDermott's plan?)
Yet of McDermott's plan she said on March 21st on her blog: "However, there is far more to the plan I do not like. My personal views aside, no one I have spoken to or who has contacted me would be willing to support this plan. I believe that if there is little to no community support, we are barking up the wrong tree." And "While the amendment may have been well intentioned, I have to consider the timing. At any point in the last two years, McDermott or anyone else on the BOE or in the administration could have turned the focus on Oaklawn. Like other schools, it was the three-headed step-child and had to close." Yet 4 days earlier a replacement Oaklawn was part of HER plan...
On March 14 (Oshkonversation) in response to a question from "tireless" about "Where did this "new Northside School' come from?"
Monte responds: "Tireless, If I remember discussions surrounding the idea of a new school on the northside, the architect on the attendance area team wasn't involved. I don't think there were even the six teams yet (teams were formed sometime in 2007) when that was brought into the equation. I know there were comments about making sure the amount of construction on both sides of town was balanced to be more fair. My understanding is that the new school is to replace Oaklawn in a more favorable location."
Then on her blog on March 21st she writes "When there is community opposition to building a new northside school, suddenly (my emphasis) the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn." Well was it before the six teams were formed (at least 6 months ago, probably closer to a year) or was it suddenly?
March 24 --- (Oshkonveration) UWBlade, the best I can do with the information I have is $30 million. That number includes the FCAP, estimating it to be $15 million. The remainder of the money would go to ADA requirements; conservative renovations to add Special Ed rooms; Fixed equipment needs, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades; and permits and fees identified in the architectual reports. I would look at closing Lincoln and Lakeside to start and converting Green Meadow to a larger school for the Lakeside and Green Meadow areas. (oops, what about a renovated or replacement Oaklawn?)
Feb 1st (Oshkonversation): "I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing... moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings...I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. ...I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum (emphasis mine). Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students. ...I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. ...Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. ...I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority." If you close Washington, would you not have to build classrooms somewhere to accomodate them? The north side really doesn't have excess seats. What is the cost of that?
Also on Feb. 1st Oshkonversation: "Libra, One of the problems Oshkosh is facing is a growing population that is crowding/has crowded Oakwood and Traeger. The new plans do not really solve for this as there is little/no room for future growth.
We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger." How does that fit into the $30M? Would the "Oakwood K-8 just not have Science Labs, Industrial Tech Lab, Orchestra and Band rooms?
On Jan. 14th on Oshkonversation "Where I disagree is that there is also the factor of mitigating the debt by selling the properties to be closed or reducing staff when numbers of buildings are reduced. ...
Take a look at the real estate market. We cannot count on the revenue of the sales because there is no way to ensure what will sell or for how much." See Feb. 1st post above...
After reading all this, I don't know what exactly Monte's plan would look like or if the $30M figure is accurate. Just like I don't think anyone really knows what Monte will support or not support, should she be elected.
To sum up, the Northwestern is correct in stating that McDermott is the only "leader" running for the school board.
The other poster asked for a thread about the School board election, and as you can see from the Title of this thread, I will post on that one.
As the title of this thread implies, The Northwestern's Endorsement captures my feelings exactly.
Schneider is quick to point his finger at the board majority for allowing our buildings to fall into "disrepair". However, he served as Chair of the Facilities and Finance Committee for a number of years and not once did he show any leadership in getting our buildings repaired. He served 6 years on the board and how many resolutions did he bring forth to "fix" our facilities? None... It is so easy to point the finger and vote "no" repeatedly but where was the leadership from the chair pointing out the need to fix our buildings? Instead he preferred to "grandstand" and give taxpayers an approximate $15 tax savings, rather than using the money to fix our buildings. As the Northwestern asked "what does he stand for"?
McDermott in an effort to compromise brought forward a plan he could support... where was Schneider's plan? If he were to be in the majority, who can tell me what his plan will look like? I doubt anyone can since he has never said what he would or would not support. He talks a lot about wants and needs but your need may be my want and vice versa. I especially liked the Northwesterns line: "But ask Schneider how to move forward or what specific things should be tackled, and he invariably withers,". That doesn't sound like leadership to me. Over and over I have heard him say "I defer to the experts" yet he never does. To defer means "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" that is not what Schneider does... he invariably votes "no" on those things he "defers to experts". What it seems to me is he just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about an answer.
As far as Monte, the Northwestern is right in stating that she would be a divisive factor on the board.
Her stand on things seems to waffle as well... her opening statement at every forum talks about "if we meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. So, why does she feel the need to post this "I don't think Special Needs is the number one priority, though certainly in the top ten."
Then here are just some of her "thoughts" on a "Plan":
March 17 (Oshkonversation) -- The plan I had been working on would cost about $30 million to include the deferred maintenance, a renovated or replacement Oaklawn, and a few other things we have put off too long like permanent homes for some of our special needs programs. (How is this so different from McDermott's plan?)
Yet of McDermott's plan she said on March 21st on her blog: "However, there is far more to the plan I do not like. My personal views aside, no one I have spoken to or who has contacted me would be willing to support this plan. I believe that if there is little to no community support, we are barking up the wrong tree." And "While the amendment may have been well intentioned, I have to consider the timing. At any point in the last two years, McDermott or anyone else on the BOE or in the administration could have turned the focus on Oaklawn. Like other schools, it was the three-headed step-child and had to close." Yet 4 days earlier a replacement Oaklawn was part of HER plan...
On March 14 (Oshkonversation) in response to a question from "tireless" about "Where did this "new Northside School' come from?"
Monte responds: "Tireless, If I remember discussions surrounding the idea of a new school on the northside, the architect on the attendance area team wasn't involved. I don't think there were even the six teams yet (teams were formed sometime in 2007) when that was brought into the equation. I know there were comments about making sure the amount of construction on both sides of town was balanced to be more fair. My understanding is that the new school is to replace Oaklawn in a more favorable location."
Then on her blog on March 21st she writes "When there is community opposition to building a new northside school, suddenly (my emphasis) the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn." Well was it before the six teams were formed (at least 6 months ago, probably closer to a year) or was it suddenly?
March 24 --- (Oshkonveration) UWBlade, the best I can do with the information I have is $30 million. That number includes the FCAP, estimating it to be $15 million. The remainder of the money would go to ADA requirements; conservative renovations to add Special Ed rooms; Fixed equipment needs, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades; and permits and fees identified in the architectual reports. I would look at closing Lincoln and Lakeside to start and converting Green Meadow to a larger school for the Lakeside and Green Meadow areas. (oops, what about a renovated or replacement Oaklawn?)
Feb 1st (Oshkonversation): "I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing... moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings...I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. ...I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum (emphasis mine). Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students. ...I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. ...Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. ...I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority." If you close Washington, would you not have to build classrooms somewhere to accomodate them? The north side really doesn't have excess seats. What is the cost of that?
Also on Feb. 1st Oshkonversation: "Libra, One of the problems Oshkosh is facing is a growing population that is crowding/has crowded Oakwood and Traeger. The new plans do not really solve for this as there is little/no room for future growth.
We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger." How does that fit into the $30M? Would the "Oakwood K-8 just not have Science Labs, Industrial Tech Lab, Orchestra and Band rooms?
On Jan. 14th on Oshkonversation "Where I disagree is that there is also the factor of mitigating the debt by selling the properties to be closed or reducing staff when numbers of buildings are reduced. ...
Take a look at the real estate market. We cannot count on the revenue of the sales because there is no way to ensure what will sell or for how much." See Feb. 1st post above...
After reading all this, I don't know what exactly Monte's plan would look like or if the $30M figure is accurate. Just like I don't think anyone really knows what Monte will support or not support, should she be elected.
To sum up, the Northwestern is correct in stating that McDermott is the only "leader" running for the school board.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Oaklawn was never part of the Jefferson referendum
Just when I thought I could relax and enjoy my holiday weekend I read a blog post and feel the need to correct some inaccurate information.
This was posted on Mrs. Monte's blog in referenced to Oaklawn Elementary "One section is an older temporary section that has outlived its life expectancy. It was promised to be replaced with the Jefferson referendum but the district ran out of money and couldn't get another referendum passed."
I don't know what she means by "temporary section" --- it was built in the 50's by the neighbors but it wasn't meant to be temporary.
I worked on the very successful Jefferson referendum (72% of voters approved the Jefferson question and it was ONLY to build a new Jefferson -- NOTHING ELSE).
As far as the second question from the 1998 referendum, NOTHING is mentioned in that question about Oaklawn, only Merrill is mentioned by name. There is some reference to district wide capital improvements but I can assure you it was NOT a rebuild of Oaklawn. It is also incorrect to say "the district ran out of money" the FACT is the some of the work at Merrill came in under budget so Mr. Gray proposed to the board that the unused funds be used to finish up some items further down on the capital improvements list that the district didn't think they would have referendum money for.
Here is the actual text of the 1998 referendum questions (which, by the way received a 7-0 vote of the board ---members at the time Bird, Boss, Bowen, Kavanaugh, McHugh, Stratz and Werblow):
BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,300,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new Jefferson Elementary School, acquisition of land therefor and removing the existing school building.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of technology infrastructure and equipment; renovations and additions to Merrill Middle/Elementary School; and district-wide capital improvement projects.
Originally the Merrill School committee recommended spending $4,600,000 to repair and build onto Merrill, but the school board later cut the amount to $4,000,000. Most of the repairs were at the middle school. The money was to be used for fixing the heating and ventilation system, renovating science labs, painting and replacing floor tiles, and making other needed repairs. The addition was to include new music rooms, renovated science labs, a new cafeteria and new office spaces.
Here is another statement that is so misleading "suddenly the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn".
There is nothing "sudden" about it. Anyone who knew anything about the district and its facilities needs knew that one would never build a new school to only serve the 84 students who were at Sunset (in Tipler) and went to Read. There is no justification for building a new school that would serve less than 100 students.
This is from a Northwestern Article right before the Jefferson referendum "...the school district has several projects on back burners. They include a new north side school, an alternative school, an early learning center..."
This is from a Northwestern Article sometime before October 27, 2007
"Heilmann said there are already enough students in the Oshkosh school district to fill a new north side school. He said if students were taken from Oaklawn Elementary, Sunset Elementary and the far northeast part of the Emmeline Cook attendance area, about 300 students could be placed in a new school. "
"We would be looking to build it for about 400 students or so, so that it could accommodate growth," Heilmann said.
This is from a Feb. 3 2008 story in the Northwestern
"The facilities planning teams responsible for gathering information about schools and determining improvements necessary to existing buildings have not yet made a recommendation about where a new school would be located. However, a north-side school is being considered because Oaklawn, the district's northernmost school, would be closed."
The last two articles clearly show a new north side school would replace Oaklawn.
The blog post also says "I would propose tearing down the temporary section and building either a one-story or two-story addition to the newer section which is still serviceable if the deferred maintenance was addressed."
Well I don't know what expertise she has to state the newer section is still serviceable (the architect PMP hired suggested no more money be put into Oaklawn) but even if that were true, I don't see anywhere she addresses the fact that the school floods when it rains and the only way to alleviate that is to raise the playground so it is above (rather than below) street level. What is the cost of that? What about the fumes from the trucking company that is next door which enters the school whenever window are open? What would rebuilding Oaklawn, if one follows Mrs. Monte suggestion to "Base the size of the addition on expected enrollment." save in operating costs? Nothing since you would not be closing/consolidating any schools and you would not free up room at Read for Lincoln students so where would they go?
I hope to post next week on some interesting information I found while researching at the library. Stay tuned.
This was posted on Mrs. Monte's blog in referenced to Oaklawn Elementary "One section is an older temporary section that has outlived its life expectancy. It was promised to be replaced with the Jefferson referendum but the district ran out of money and couldn't get another referendum passed."
I don't know what she means by "temporary section" --- it was built in the 50's by the neighbors but it wasn't meant to be temporary.
I worked on the very successful Jefferson referendum (72% of voters approved the Jefferson question and it was ONLY to build a new Jefferson -- NOTHING ELSE).
As far as the second question from the 1998 referendum, NOTHING is mentioned in that question about Oaklawn, only Merrill is mentioned by name. There is some reference to district wide capital improvements but I can assure you it was NOT a rebuild of Oaklawn. It is also incorrect to say "the district ran out of money" the FACT is the some of the work at Merrill came in under budget so Mr. Gray proposed to the board that the unused funds be used to finish up some items further down on the capital improvements list that the district didn't think they would have referendum money for.
Here is the actual text of the 1998 referendum questions (which, by the way received a 7-0 vote of the board ---members at the time Bird, Boss, Bowen, Kavanaugh, McHugh, Stratz and Werblow):
BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,300,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new Jefferson Elementary School, acquisition of land therefor and removing the existing school building.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of technology infrastructure and equipment; renovations and additions to Merrill Middle/Elementary School; and district-wide capital improvement projects.
Originally the Merrill School committee recommended spending $4,600,000 to repair and build onto Merrill, but the school board later cut the amount to $4,000,000. Most of the repairs were at the middle school. The money was to be used for fixing the heating and ventilation system, renovating science labs, painting and replacing floor tiles, and making other needed repairs. The addition was to include new music rooms, renovated science labs, a new cafeteria and new office spaces.
Here is another statement that is so misleading "suddenly the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn".
There is nothing "sudden" about it. Anyone who knew anything about the district and its facilities needs knew that one would never build a new school to only serve the 84 students who were at Sunset (in Tipler) and went to Read. There is no justification for building a new school that would serve less than 100 students.
This is from a Northwestern Article right before the Jefferson referendum "...the school district has several projects on back burners. They include a new north side school, an alternative school, an early learning center..."
This is from a Northwestern Article sometime before October 27, 2007
"Heilmann said there are already enough students in the Oshkosh school district to fill a new north side school. He said if students were taken from Oaklawn Elementary, Sunset Elementary and the far northeast part of the Emmeline Cook attendance area, about 300 students could be placed in a new school. "
"We would be looking to build it for about 400 students or so, so that it could accommodate growth," Heilmann said.
This is from a Feb. 3 2008 story in the Northwestern
"The facilities planning teams responsible for gathering information about schools and determining improvements necessary to existing buildings have not yet made a recommendation about where a new school would be located. However, a north-side school is being considered because Oaklawn, the district's northernmost school, would be closed."
The last two articles clearly show a new north side school would replace Oaklawn.
The blog post also says "I would propose tearing down the temporary section and building either a one-story or two-story addition to the newer section which is still serviceable if the deferred maintenance was addressed."
Well I don't know what expertise she has to state the newer section is still serviceable (the architect PMP hired suggested no more money be put into Oaklawn) but even if that were true, I don't see anywhere she addresses the fact that the school floods when it rains and the only way to alleviate that is to raise the playground so it is above (rather than below) street level. What is the cost of that? What about the fumes from the trucking company that is next door which enters the school whenever window are open? What would rebuilding Oaklawn, if one follows Mrs. Monte suggestion to "Base the size of the addition on expected enrollment." save in operating costs? Nothing since you would not be closing/consolidating any schools and you would not free up room at Read for Lincoln students so where would they go?
I hope to post next week on some interesting information I found while researching at the library. Stay tuned.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
School Board Race
Where to begin...I believe this election is crucial to the future of the Oshkosh school district, I really hope the voters who go to the polls are informed on the issues and the implications for the district of a board where Mr. Schneider is in the majority. In my opinion that would be very bad news for the Oshkosh school district. Why people continue to elect someone who says whenever questioned about educational concerns "I defer to the experts" yet when the experts bring forward plans, whether it be for roofs, facilities, educational programs, or other students issues, more often than not he votes against the "experts". Lip service is not what we need. A true commitment to making Oshkosh a quality district where the best interests of students is first and formost is what we need if we are to remain the quality district we are today. Here are some of my thoughts on some of the issues and candidates.
The most interesting piece I've read recently was a link on Eye on Oshkosh to an post by Kay Springstroh which details the candidates answers to questions about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues in our schools. Kay takes Mr. Schneider to task for his "open homophobia", lack of actual answers to the questions as well as his significant errors in grammar (note: Mr. Schneider was criticized for his grammatical errors on OshKonversation -- his response was to basically "take his bat and ball and go home":
Mr. Schneider's response to OshKonversation poster critical of grammar mistakes in his post:
"I am accessable and if a person wishes to reach me, (MY NOTE: according to a friend of mine who contacted Mr. Schneider, he stated that he typically won't respond to someone unless they provide both their first and last name - though he did respond to my friend who had only provided a first name in an e-mail) I am more than happy to respond to your request for information... if you wish to set up a mutually convenient time to sit down and discuss differences. KRC, I would be happy to meet with you and hope you take me up on my offer.
I will focus my efforts in the above methods of communication and hope the future communications will be more civil! I look forward to hearing from you with your questions or concerns but no longer through this blog. Thanks! Ben Schneider II"
I would think that a board member would take some care in grammar, usage, spelling in responses to questions during a campaign but, I found the lack of answers to the questions much more troubling.
It is no secret that I do not support Mr. Schneider's candidacy, I do not believe his stand on the issues is good for the students of Oshkosh. In fact what has he accomplished in 6 years? If by some cruel twist of fate Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Monte get elected, it is likely that Mr. Schneider will be board president and anyone who cares about the students of Oshkosh should be concerned by that. I have not seen any actions by Mr. Schneider that show he is concerned with students' learning. He pays some lip service to the topic but if you have ever watched him when Administration is presenting information on WKCE scores, or Charter School results, he does not pay attention to the presenters and tries to shut down discussion, apparently because he isn't interested in discussing student learning.
I just finished watching a portion of the "round table" discussion and found it very interesting that ONLY Mr. McDermott was willing to commit to what schools needed to be closed. Mr. Lemberger stated he would not close any schools, Mr. Schneider said something to the effect of it would not be fair to name schools to close without knowing where the students would go, and Mrs. Monte said it was too complex a question to answer in a minute but she didn't want to keep all schools open. Mr. McDermott said Oaklawn needed attention first and he would rebuild it on an alternate site, building large enough so that both Oaklawn and Lincoln could be closed (though instead of Lincoln students going to the New North Side school, Sunset students would, leaving room in Read for Lincoln students).
For those who are interested in some facts, I suggest you read the letter on the Northwestern website under Opinions, with the headline "Letter: Data shows Oshkosh superintendent excels". It provides facts that are in direct opposition to some of the misinformation certain candidates continually put out there.
I truly hope those who really care about education and the students in Oshkosh, inform themselves about where the school board candidates stand on the issues the district faces. Voters, especially those most concerned with our students should think about the consequences of voting for either Monte or Schneider. The school board needs people who understand the issues the district faces, who actually care about education and put the interests of all students above pandering for votes. This is a crucial time for the district, budget cuts will continue to be required. Please think about who is best suited to make those decisions. Why anyone would want someone like Mr. Schneider to run our board is beyond me. He has never made the tough decisions to vote on cuts needed to balance the budget but, instead just voted "No" on every budget . How can someone who just says "No" to a budget, actually lead a board --- are we really interested in being the district who can't pass a budget because the majority of the board just votes "No". I believe this community wants and expects more than that. We shall see soon enough.
The most interesting piece I've read recently was a link on Eye on Oshkosh to an post by Kay Springstroh which details the candidates answers to questions about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues in our schools. Kay takes Mr. Schneider to task for his "open homophobia", lack of actual answers to the questions as well as his significant errors in grammar (note: Mr. Schneider was criticized for his grammatical errors on OshKonversation -- his response was to basically "take his bat and ball and go home":
Mr. Schneider's response to OshKonversation poster critical of grammar mistakes in his post:
"I am accessable and if a person wishes to reach me, (MY NOTE: according to a friend of mine who contacted Mr. Schneider, he stated that he typically won't respond to someone unless they provide both their first and last name - though he did respond to my friend who had only provided a first name in an e-mail) I am more than happy to respond to your request for information... if you wish to set up a mutually convenient time to sit down and discuss differences. KRC, I would be happy to meet with you and hope you take me up on my offer.
I will focus my efforts in the above methods of communication and hope the future communications will be more civil! I look forward to hearing from you with your questions or concerns but no longer through this blog. Thanks! Ben Schneider II"
I would think that a board member would take some care in grammar, usage, spelling in responses to questions during a campaign but, I found the lack of answers to the questions much more troubling.
It is no secret that I do not support Mr. Schneider's candidacy, I do not believe his stand on the issues is good for the students of Oshkosh. In fact what has he accomplished in 6 years? If by some cruel twist of fate Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Monte get elected, it is likely that Mr. Schneider will be board president and anyone who cares about the students of Oshkosh should be concerned by that. I have not seen any actions by Mr. Schneider that show he is concerned with students' learning. He pays some lip service to the topic but if you have ever watched him when Administration is presenting information on WKCE scores, or Charter School results, he does not pay attention to the presenters and tries to shut down discussion, apparently because he isn't interested in discussing student learning.
I just finished watching a portion of the "round table" discussion and found it very interesting that ONLY Mr. McDermott was willing to commit to what schools needed to be closed. Mr. Lemberger stated he would not close any schools, Mr. Schneider said something to the effect of it would not be fair to name schools to close without knowing where the students would go, and Mrs. Monte said it was too complex a question to answer in a minute but she didn't want to keep all schools open. Mr. McDermott said Oaklawn needed attention first and he would rebuild it on an alternate site, building large enough so that both Oaklawn and Lincoln could be closed (though instead of Lincoln students going to the New North Side school, Sunset students would, leaving room in Read for Lincoln students).
For those who are interested in some facts, I suggest you read the letter on the Northwestern website under Opinions, with the headline "Letter: Data shows Oshkosh superintendent excels". It provides facts that are in direct opposition to some of the misinformation certain candidates continually put out there.
I truly hope those who really care about education and the students in Oshkosh, inform themselves about where the school board candidates stand on the issues the district faces. Voters, especially those most concerned with our students should think about the consequences of voting for either Monte or Schneider. The school board needs people who understand the issues the district faces, who actually care about education and put the interests of all students above pandering for votes. This is a crucial time for the district, budget cuts will continue to be required. Please think about who is best suited to make those decisions. Why anyone would want someone like Mr. Schneider to run our board is beyond me. He has never made the tough decisions to vote on cuts needed to balance the budget but, instead just voted "No" on every budget . How can someone who just says "No" to a budget, actually lead a board --- are we really interested in being the district who can't pass a budget because the majority of the board just votes "No". I believe this community wants and expects more than that. We shall see soon enough.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Thoughts on School Facilities Direction
I was disappointed that Team 6 did not bring a recommendation to the board but rather a choice of two, but given the dynamics of the board I can see why they didn't bother.
Once again the board majority had to compromise to move things forward --- I just hope they don't, once again, end up compromising with themselves because those they compromised for end up not supporting the plan because it isn't EXACTLY what they wanted.
While the board majority clearly supported the K-3, 4-8 configuration (and contrary to what a NW poster thinks - no one "admitted" they were wrong in supporting K-3, 4-8) but also realized that to get the 6-1 vote administration was asking for, they would need to abandon the K-3 configuration because that was the only way to garner Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker's support.
It was clear that Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker would not support a plan that was K-3 so the majority of the board, who actually preferred K-3 (because of the educational benefits for children) were willing to stay with the K-5 in order to get a 6-1 vote of the board for a referendum (of course it still remains to be seen if Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker will actually support any referendum and it appears the board is writing off getting Mr. Schneider's vote, since he said nothing at the meeting about what he would support and no one asked where he stood).
Some are already putting their "conspiracy theory" out there as to how it was $40M then $60M then $75M then back to $40M so that $40M looks like a bargain. Well the reason the referendum figure is now slated for under $40 M is that, that is the dollar figure Mr. Becker said it had to stay below for him to support a referendum. It seems that to reach that figure, much of the equity will be eliminated or the board will try in 3 or so years to attempt another referendum, much like the Traeger and Jefferson referendums which were several years apart.
I feel that staying with K-5 has already drastically reduced the equity for special needs students, while the K-5 plan is better than what we have currently the K-3 plan actually allowed nearly every school to have every special needs programs in their school.
I spoke with Karen Lieuallen, Director of Special Education Services and At-Risk for the district and she explained that she has 10 programs that would need to go into Webster Middle school but only 4 rooms available (and that isn't even counting space for Speech/Language teachers, OT or PT rooms). There is not enough space in Merrill Middle for all the needed programs either so once again, it is OK to bus special needs students across town so they can receive needed services. This plan will also, from a special needs perspective, require some schools to house large populations of special needs students, while others have few or no special needs programs/students. I see this as a far cry from meeting the needs of all our students in an equitable manner. Some will say, well just make this work like K-3 but it is not possible due to the fact that under K-5 the number of special needs students will be too low in many of their "home schools" to efficiently and effectively provide those services there (unlike K-3 where only 2 schools would not have every special needs program) not to mention that under K-5 even when the student numbers warrant it, in the North side middle schools, there simply aren't enough classrooms to provide all needed services.
It is too bad that a "belief" that K-3 is bad (based on nothing more than that is not the typical grade configuration) will have a negative affect on our special needs population. You know, we wouldn't have Middle Schools (6-8) and high schools (9-12) if the above so-called logic had been followed. Before the Middle School movement, the most common grade configuration in the country (at least for public schools) was Junior High (7-9) and Senior High (10-12) but somehow we were able to change that.
In the end it will be interesting to see if in fact there are 6 votes for this plan (I predict no more than 5). I think that if, in the end, there are only 4 votes for any plan, the whole thing should be scrapped, go to referendum for the $14M in deferred maintenance and reconfigure schools however you need to, and close as many schools as possible to get the greatest savings in operational costs and give up on the idea of equity or reconstruction of schools like Oakwood and Shapiro.
I guess we'll know in a couple weeks.
Once again the board majority had to compromise to move things forward --- I just hope they don't, once again, end up compromising with themselves because those they compromised for end up not supporting the plan because it isn't EXACTLY what they wanted.
While the board majority clearly supported the K-3, 4-8 configuration (and contrary to what a NW poster thinks - no one "admitted" they were wrong in supporting K-3, 4-8) but also realized that to get the 6-1 vote administration was asking for, they would need to abandon the K-3 configuration because that was the only way to garner Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker's support.
It was clear that Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker would not support a plan that was K-3 so the majority of the board, who actually preferred K-3 (because of the educational benefits for children) were willing to stay with the K-5 in order to get a 6-1 vote of the board for a referendum (of course it still remains to be seen if Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker will actually support any referendum and it appears the board is writing off getting Mr. Schneider's vote, since he said nothing at the meeting about what he would support and no one asked where he stood).
Some are already putting their "conspiracy theory" out there as to how it was $40M then $60M then $75M then back to $40M so that $40M looks like a bargain. Well the reason the referendum figure is now slated for under $40 M is that, that is the dollar figure Mr. Becker said it had to stay below for him to support a referendum. It seems that to reach that figure, much of the equity will be eliminated or the board will try in 3 or so years to attempt another referendum, much like the Traeger and Jefferson referendums which were several years apart.
I feel that staying with K-5 has already drastically reduced the equity for special needs students, while the K-5 plan is better than what we have currently the K-3 plan actually allowed nearly every school to have every special needs programs in their school.
I spoke with Karen Lieuallen, Director of Special Education Services and At-Risk for the district and she explained that she has 10 programs that would need to go into Webster Middle school but only 4 rooms available (and that isn't even counting space for Speech/Language teachers, OT or PT rooms). There is not enough space in Merrill Middle for all the needed programs either so once again, it is OK to bus special needs students across town so they can receive needed services. This plan will also, from a special needs perspective, require some schools to house large populations of special needs students, while others have few or no special needs programs/students. I see this as a far cry from meeting the needs of all our students in an equitable manner. Some will say, well just make this work like K-3 but it is not possible due to the fact that under K-5 the number of special needs students will be too low in many of their "home schools" to efficiently and effectively provide those services there (unlike K-3 where only 2 schools would not have every special needs program) not to mention that under K-5 even when the student numbers warrant it, in the North side middle schools, there simply aren't enough classrooms to provide all needed services.
It is too bad that a "belief" that K-3 is bad (based on nothing more than that is not the typical grade configuration) will have a negative affect on our special needs population. You know, we wouldn't have Middle Schools (6-8) and high schools (9-12) if the above so-called logic had been followed. Before the Middle School movement, the most common grade configuration in the country (at least for public schools) was Junior High (7-9) and Senior High (10-12) but somehow we were able to change that.
In the end it will be interesting to see if in fact there are 6 votes for this plan (I predict no more than 5). I think that if, in the end, there are only 4 votes for any plan, the whole thing should be scrapped, go to referendum for the $14M in deferred maintenance and reconfigure schools however you need to, and close as many schools as possible to get the greatest savings in operational costs and give up on the idea of equity or reconstruction of schools like Oakwood and Shapiro.
I guess we'll know in a couple weeks.
Friday, February 15, 2008
WHAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL?
Please read this next sentence carefully... I am looking for people's definition of a neighborhood school, that is ALL. If you can't post your definition of "neighborhood school" then don't post on this thread. I'm just curious since that term is thrown out there a lot. I'm pretty sure there will be as many definitions as there are posters but I have only heard one "definition" that seems to fit with what happens when proposed boundary changes occur.
So please give us your definition of a "neighborhood school" -- anything off topic will be deleted.
So please give us your definition of a "neighborhood school" -- anything off topic will be deleted.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
IMPORTANT INFORMATION RE: SO-CALLED CALCULATOR TO PREDICT DROP IN PROPERTY VALUES
Well it didn't take long but I didn't figure it would. A local blogger has jumped on a presentation from the board meeting last night and posted a link to a website that will supposedly calculate the value of your house based on its proximity to schools. I say supposedly because the blogger failed to include the disclaimer from said website. The disclaimer reads:
Data is provided for informational purposes only. Actual sales value of a home will depend on many factors, of which proximity to schools is one. Estimates are based off of a study of 1075 residential properties sold in the Oshkosh area over the past year as recorded by the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and City of Oshkosh Assessor's data. Beta Biostatistics makes ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY on the suitability of these estimates for any purpose.
Well the way I read the last sentence, these estimates are basically USELESS since the "site" gives ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY that the estimates are suitable for ANY purpose. The site itself says they won't say the estimates can be used for any purpose yet the blogger puts it out there as if it is a fact that your property WILL decrease as the site indicates.
The blog owner also doesn't understand how, even if these figures were accurate, this would work. Contrary to what is posted, property taxes are based on ASSESSED values, not speculative sales price and if the property values did actually drop, the city is still not allowed to increase taxes to "make up the difference", the state holds the city to pretty tight revenue controls and even if property values dropped (and remember there is NO WARRANTY that any of these figures can be used for ANY purpose) the city would have to cut the budget NOT raise taxes.
Data is provided for informational purposes only. Actual sales value of a home will depend on many factors, of which proximity to schools is one. Estimates are based off of a study of 1075 residential properties sold in the Oshkosh area over the past year as recorded by the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and City of Oshkosh Assessor's data. Beta Biostatistics makes ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY on the suitability of these estimates for any purpose.
Well the way I read the last sentence, these estimates are basically USELESS since the "site" gives ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY that the estimates are suitable for ANY purpose. The site itself says they won't say the estimates can be used for any purpose yet the blogger puts it out there as if it is a fact that your property WILL decrease as the site indicates.
The blog owner also doesn't understand how, even if these figures were accurate, this would work. Contrary to what is posted, property taxes are based on ASSESSED values, not speculative sales price and if the property values did actually drop, the city is still not allowed to increase taxes to "make up the difference", the state holds the city to pretty tight revenue controls and even if property values dropped (and remember there is NO WARRANTY that any of these figures can be used for ANY purpose) the city would have to cut the budget NOT raise taxes.
So don't be fooled by a website that won't vouch for itself. There is no way to verify any of this so called data or the calculations presented.
For those of you who still insist on believing this nonsense, then what you are saying is the district can never change a boundary line that would require a student to go even 6 blocks further to school as it would have a negative impact on property values. Of course once again if you insist on believing in this flawed data, those students who live on the South side of 14th and all of 15th between Oregon and Minnesota have to be happy, under the current plan, their property values would actually increase because Jefferson is closer to their house than Smith is! I'm sure there are many other locations that would find similar results but I'm not about to waste my time on this flawed non-verifiable, non warranted website.
Friday, January 4, 2008
School Board Election
Well, it is that time of year again... local elections. I must say I was surprised that no one is challenging the incumbents for City Council. The only benefit to that is for once the school board election will not take second place to the Council.
So readers, what are the qualities you are looking for in a School Board Member? What criteria will you use to determine who to vote for in this election or do you think it is already a "done deal" with the incumbents getting re-elected?
I think there are a couple of interesting candidates to investigate this time around. I am looking for someone who is most concerned with providing a quality education (not doing things as cheaply as possible). I want a person who is willing to make the tough choices, to have the courage to do what is right, not someone who plays politics and is swayed by every small but loud group. I will not be voting for someone who believes we need to continue to have 16 elementary schools as I believe that is fiscally irresponsible. I want someone who has a command of the issues facing the district and who can accurately communicate those issues to the public. I want someone who is straightforward and doesn't put a biased "spin" on what they observe, changing the facts to put the district or administration in a bad light. I want someone who will give clear and specific answers to questions like: How many and which schools do you think should be closed? I will not accept an answer of "I will have to study the issue" because after 10 years of study it is time to act and if you are running for the board, you should have a handle on such issues by now --- this issue has been front and center for the last year.
Accuracy is very important to me, I don't think a candidate should make statements that are inaccurate in an effort to try and "set themselves apart" from the rest of the candidates. Case in point this is an excerpt from one candidate's blog (the inaccurate statement is in bold):
Michelle Monte For School Board
We must protect our neighborhoods and not bus kids to mega schools.We must have complete, open, and honest communication.We must meet the needs of our most challenged students to meet the needs of all our students.I am the only candidate with personal and current experience with special education, the fastest growing group in our schools.We need reasonable changes that raise achievement without bankrupting citizens.
The FACT is candidate Kevin Janke has a child in a special education program in one of our district schools so I would call him a "candidate with personal and current experience with special education". In the Northwestern article Mr. Janke referenced his interest in special education, I would think a candidate concerned with accuracy would have changed the inaccurate message, maybe the change is yet to come, time will tell.
Please share with readers (according to the reports I receive, I had over 50 visits to my site this week, even though I haven't had a new post in a month) what you are looking for in a candidate, or the types of questions you would like to see the candidates answer. What are the "burning issues" for you in this race?
So readers, what are the qualities you are looking for in a School Board Member? What criteria will you use to determine who to vote for in this election or do you think it is already a "done deal" with the incumbents getting re-elected?
I think there are a couple of interesting candidates to investigate this time around. I am looking for someone who is most concerned with providing a quality education (not doing things as cheaply as possible). I want a person who is willing to make the tough choices, to have the courage to do what is right, not someone who plays politics and is swayed by every small but loud group. I will not be voting for someone who believes we need to continue to have 16 elementary schools as I believe that is fiscally irresponsible. I want someone who has a command of the issues facing the district and who can accurately communicate those issues to the public. I want someone who is straightforward and doesn't put a biased "spin" on what they observe, changing the facts to put the district or administration in a bad light. I want someone who will give clear and specific answers to questions like: How many and which schools do you think should be closed? I will not accept an answer of "I will have to study the issue" because after 10 years of study it is time to act and if you are running for the board, you should have a handle on such issues by now --- this issue has been front and center for the last year.
Accuracy is very important to me, I don't think a candidate should make statements that are inaccurate in an effort to try and "set themselves apart" from the rest of the candidates. Case in point this is an excerpt from one candidate's blog (the inaccurate statement is in bold):
Michelle Monte For School Board
We must protect our neighborhoods and not bus kids to mega schools.We must have complete, open, and honest communication.We must meet the needs of our most challenged students to meet the needs of all our students.I am the only candidate with personal and current experience with special education, the fastest growing group in our schools.We need reasonable changes that raise achievement without bankrupting citizens.
The FACT is candidate Kevin Janke has a child in a special education program in one of our district schools so I would call him a "candidate with personal and current experience with special education". In the Northwestern article Mr. Janke referenced his interest in special education, I would think a candidate concerned with accuracy would have changed the inaccurate message, maybe the change is yet to come, time will tell.
Please share with readers (according to the reports I receive, I had over 50 visits to my site this week, even though I haven't had a new post in a month) what you are looking for in a candidate, or the types of questions you would like to see the candidates answer. What are the "burning issues" for you in this race?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)