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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Neighborhood schools, in my opinion, are schools that kids can walk to to get to school. Particularly elementary schools.
Neighborhood schools can/should also help define a neighborhood. What says more: 1. "I live in the 10th Ward" or 2. "I live in the Merrill Neighborhood".
I am opposed to spending millions of dollars to close schools when that same money could be used to fix them up.
I am voting for John Lemberger for School Board because he has made it clear to me that he would oppose closing ANY school, among other reasons.
So Mr. Hardy, under your definition, Oakwood, Green Meadow, Lakeside and for some, Traeger and Oaklawn are NOT neighborhood schools because those children are bussed to school?
I'm sure their parents would disagree.
Which school is "in my neighborhood"? I live 1 block from Jefferson and 6 blocks from Smith. What if I lived on 15th... that is 3 blocks from Jefferson and 3 blocks from Smith... which one is the neighborhood school?
Do you really think it is cost effective to spend money keeping a school of 100 students open when they could go to a school within 2 miles of their current school?
Teresa,
You point out pretty clearly that there is no clear answer to your question.
My daughter's school, Merrill Elementary, has students that are bussed to it. Is it a neighborhood school - yes it is. We walk four blocks to her school. With the proposed K-3, 4-8 plan, which I am not entirely opposed to, she would move to E. Cook Elementary, 12 blocks away and not in our neighborhood. If Merrill Elementary were closed, but Oakwood kept open, we could consider Oakwood a neighborhood school although it would be a longer walk (5 blocks) and cross Murdoch.
I am not as knowledgeable as you of all the nuances of the school board proposals and plans being proposed, this I admit. But, like racism, I know a neighborhood school when I see it, and Merrill is a neighborhood school.
Oakwood, Green Meadow, Lakeside, Traeger, and Oaklawn - all I am sure are neighborhood schools as well. I would wish that all current schools stay open.
You ask me: "Do you really think it is cost effective to spend money keeping a school of 100 students open when they could go to a school within 2 miles of their current school?"
I would answer that if the option to bus or drive my student 2 miles away to school will cost 40 million dollars to upgrade these new schools, versus 40 million to fix up and maintain the schools that are close to home with only 100 students, I'd take the smaller nearby schools.
Like I said, I publicly confess that I am not an expert on the issues at hand. But if the costs to maintain existing schools is the same or less than the cost to close schools and consolidate students then I am going to favor keeping the existing schools open.
I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Someone mentioned to me that the schools being proposed for closure are schools that are in some of the poorest parts of town. Is this true or not - if it is true it seems that this isn't the best avenue toward providing the best resources to lift our children out of poverty.
Like I said I am ignorant and looking for enlightenment. I am definitely not trying to pick a fight!
Ron (a parent of a Merrill Elementary student)
There is a very big difference between 10 blocks away and 2 miles away when discussing elementary schools.
You must take into consideration traffic patterns and actual travel time to the schools. If I live on Main Street and am being bussed, it would take much longer to go 2 miles to school on slower city streets than if I live out on 45 and travel 55mph for 2 miles (notice the application of everyday math!)
Obviously walking 6 blocks or walking 10 blocks could be moot or it could be a huge difference. If the children must walk past one operating elementary school to get to the other, that would be ridiculous. If they are in 2 different directions of your home, the neighborhood school could be created in either direction and the neighborhood feel could be maintained.
I agree that bussed schools are neighborhood schools. I also agree that is is quite silly to move children who live across the street from a school to a different school 2 miles away simply because they are already eligible for bussing.
Being richer, being poorer doesn't matter when it comes to time spent on the bus.
It is silly not to close some schools if they are leeching money. This is why Lemberger is NOT getting my vote.
Mr. Hardy,
I apologize if my first response to your post was too harsh. I am just not used to individuals who are actually interested in learning more, thinking about the new information and then making a decision.
As a mother who lived a block away from my children's elementary school and walked them to and from school for years, I do understand everyone wanting to keep their child's school open. However, as a mother who now has one child in high school and another starting next year, I worry about what programs will be cut so money can be spent on failing buildings and inefficient staffing of schools with 100 students in them. Will it be a music program? an art program? an extracurricular? or will they just increase class sizes to over 30 students?
I will use Oaklawn as an example again... I would compare that building to a 1979 Pacer, do you really believe that it would be cost effective to spend $5,000 repairing it (because it was your first car and you can't bear to part with it) or would it make more fiscal sense to use that $5,000 as a downpayment on a new car? That is the state some of our schools are in...professional architects have said, they are not worth putting more money into. To me spending $20M on such schools (as Mr. Lemberger has suggested) is fiscally irresponsible (I don't see that as a reason to not vote for someone, Mr. Lemberger seems to be a reasonable man who cares about education).
If you spend $20M to fix 4 or 5 schools yet you save not a dollar in operating costs, the district will be forced to cut between $1.5M and $2M from somewhere. This is mostly a result of the school funding formula combined with declining enrollments.
Before it "closed" Sunset in Tipler had 84 students (I don't think anyone would argue that Tipler was in the Sunset neighborhood (I doubt Read would be considered in the neighborhood either) would it really make any sense to build a school for 84-100 students in that neighborhood? I certainly don't believe it would be, so what are the choices? You either consolidate with another school (as they did with Read) or you build a school for 350 - 400 students and close other schools so you have the students to fill a new school (as is proposed with at new North side school). Both of these options saves you operating dollars with more efficeint staffing. Mr. Lembergers plan, won't save you a dime in operating costs and as time goes by, your capital improvement costs will increase because the costs of maintaining old inefficient schools will only increase.
The main difference between spending millions to fix up schools or millions to build new classrooms and gyms, is that spending dollars to only fix aged, inefficient (both in terms of energy and staffing) schools leaves you with zero dollars saved in operating costs, more costly repairs down the road which will necessitate budget cuts which will mean either increased class sizes or program cuts, and probably both.
Closing some of our decrepit inefficient schools, consolidating them into schools with more sections per grade will save operating dollars and result in lower capital improvement costs down the line than a plan to keep every school open and spend millions to repair them.
I have not even touched on the fact that keeping 16 elementary schools open will make it much too costly to have most special education programs in every school. What about the special needs child's parents wish that their child attend a "neighborhood" school? Some children live on the North East side of Oshkosh attend Traeger Elementary school because that is where the program they need is located. That to me is wrong, yet the cost of providing 4 or 5 different special needs programs in every elementary school would require millions (maybe tens of millions) of dollars in cuts from elsewhere in the budget. I don't know how you could justify having programs with 2 or 3 children in them with a full time teacher.
These are very complex issues and while it is simple to say "we should not close a single school, we value neighborhood schools" I would say, I value a quality school system that can provide as many opportunities for as many students as possible. I don't believe that is the road we can head down if we insist that we cannot close a single school, or change a single boundary.
Finally, closing any school will definitely result in some children living farther away from their current school, however, it is also true that some students will actually live closer to their "new" school than they do to their current school. Basically anyone who lives at the outer edge of their attendance area, which is closer to the "new" school.
Example: The boundary line for Jefferson/Smith is the middle of 14street. Those who live on the North side go to Jefferson (which is on 11th) those who live on the South side of 14th go to Smith (which is on 18th). So students who live on the South side of 14, live closer to Jefferson than they do Smith.
The cost to the district of inefficient staffing is in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. That money could be used for other purposes and in my opinion keeping students programs is worth having some students go to schools 6 blocks farther from their home than their current school. I know there are plenty who disagree but for those who do, where would you cut the $1.5M (that could be saved by having fewer small elementary school) from the district budget? Every choice has a cost.
Theresa:
I agree with much of your post, but as usual, you use the most extreme cases to help your argument and your bias is evident. Still, I’d like to try and find common ground with you.
First, your comparison of Oaklawn to a 79 pacer is a bit off and I am sure that there are a plenty of parents and students that would agree. I understand that half of the school is relatively decent and half is in need of renovation. Brey and Associated stated that renovated space is about ½ the cost of new space and that makes sense. Therefore, it would seem that renovating Oaklawn would be more cost-effective than building a new north school.
I agree, as almost everybody agrees, that we need to close some schools and to do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible. The schools that close should be the ones in declining attendance areas in town that are relatively close to another school. Smith and Lincoln are perfect examples. We should note that just 10 years ago the administration and BOE lobbied for a referendum to add onto Smith and we are still paying off the debt. Past administrations and boards have made mistakes and it is foolish to think that this administration is always right. Yet, there are four BOE members that ALWAYS vote with them.
We could keep all our schools and spend $20 million on maintenance and either up our taxes and the operating budget or cut spending.
Sunset/Tipler and Lakeside/Green Meadow are excellent examples of creating efficiencies while keeping children at schools nearer their homes. We should responsibly reduce operating expenses as best we can.
You make an example of a special-ed student from the far east side attending Traeger. That is wrong and such a bad idea and especially because Traeger is near capacity. But, I think we have to realize that it may not be responsible to have special-ed programs in all schools. Do other districts have special-ed in all their schools? I think not and there is likely good reason for that. It’s too expensive. That does not mean that we should turn our backs on the less fortunate. We should do our best to accommodate students at schools near them, but just not every school. I sure don’t want to be the one standing in front of a room full of liberal administrators and educators and taking that position, but hopefully somebody has the courage to do it.
I don’t think that we need such extensive building upgrades and additions in our district. I don’t think that every school needs a separate lunch room, gymnasium, music and art rooms, etc. I don’t think we should be expanding SAGE. I’d be in favor of eliminating SAGE. I’m against K-3/4-8 because it is unproven and it disrupts every family and student in our district to implement it.
But, I’m willing to compromise for the better of our city and our district. I’d be willing to try K-3/4-8, but I don’t think we should twist and turn our entire district upside down for an experiment. If the administration can clearly identify the specific cost and educational benefits of it, we should try it at a few schools.
I realize that I don’t have all the answers either, but I do know that something has to happen and the status quo just won’t do. I hope we can find middle ground between KEEPING ALL SCHOOLS and 42 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF UTOPIA.
Where do you think you can compromise?
Anon. 12:29 I will grant you my Pacer example was over the top. However, I wouldn't put $4,500 in my 2001 GEO Metro either (half the cost of a new one). I do disagree with you that part of Oaklawn is relatively decent. The old part of that building was built by the neighbors in the 50's and the new part was just slapped together with no input from teachers -- there is no storage in the "new" classrooms, instead of bookcases they have plastic gutters screwed into the wall to "store" books, some think that is "so creative" I find it embarassing. If I were moving to town and toured that school, I can tell you I'd quickly look elsewhere for a school for my children.
Bray and Associates may have said "on average" the cost to remodel vs. build new is 1/2 the cost, but they did NOT say that specifically about Oaklawn because they did not look at that school. It now sits below street level and the building floods in several parts when it rains. I'm pretty sure the cost to raise the building to street level or above would be costly. Look at where the building sits, it is next to a business that has trucks running and spewing exhaust onto the playground and into the school when windows are open. I do not believe that it is fiscally responsible to put more money into that school. Everything has a life expectancy and there comes a time when repair (while cheaper in the short run) is NOT the most economical (in the long run). Have you actually toured Oaklawn? I have a minimum of 3 times. Have you been in their media center? What about the computer lab? I cannot be convinced it makes sense to put more money into that school and at least one architect agrees with me.
As far as Smith goes, I have not yet had time to check on the actual dollar figures but I do know that the 1995 referendum built a gym at Smith and put in an elevator, but not much else was done in that referendum at Smith and I'm not convinced that, that portion of the referendum has not been paid off. Obviously Traeger has not been paid for yet, but I'm willing to bet the work that was done at Smith has long since been paid for... I'll will get that data as soon as I can.
I completely agree with you that every school does NOT need a separate gym and cafeteria.. in fact the district's newest school, Jefferson has a combination gym/cafeteria and it has worked just fine. I do think Art and Music should have dedicated rooms, that they should not be taught in a gym or cafeteria or be carted around from room to room.
After spending 7 years volunteering at Jefferson, 2 without SAGE and 5 with, I would NEVER support eliminating SAGE unless the state stopped reimbursing districts for SAGE because I know the district, at least under the current funding formula couldn't afford to keep it. Barring that, I have seen first-hand the difference SAGE can make. If you've never spent a week in a SAGE school, you probably have no idea the kinds of problems some of our students come to school with. Children who can't recognize the first letter of their own name, children who no one has ever read a book to, a class of 12 students, 10 of whom qualify for speech and language services, a class of 15 where only 2 of the children live in a two parent home and 6 of the children's parents are incarcerated. Over the years at Jefferson I saw all those things. I am convinced SAGE makes a difference. I find it very interesting that the same people who want to throw out SAGE because it is "unproven" quickly buy the "if my children don't go to school with their friends and neighbors they will be damaged... really, where is the "proof" of that?
As of yet, I have not seen a recommendation from the facilities planning team, I haven't seen the dollar amount and I have not seen what the board will do with the recommendations. I am reserving my comments on any plan until I have seen all of those things.
I am not stuck on any particular grade configuration but I do support any configuration that can maximize the number of sections per grade... Jefferson will have more efficient staffing as a K-3 school than they would as a K-5 school maybe K-3 and 4/5 schools make more sense than 4/8 I don't know but our current 16 K-5 elementary schools is NOT efficient.
You say Green Meadow/Lakeside is efficient. I would say it is more efficient than it was before K-3 4/5 but it is still not efficient to have only 4 of 6 classrooms being used at Green Meadow (they used to have 1 room for K-5th grade, now they have 2 sections of 4th grade and 2 sections of 5th grade).
As for Sunset in Tipler, again it was more efficient than a stand alone Sunset, but last school year there were only 84 students in the whole school... sending the students to Read, allowed two teaching positions to be cut. Those are the efficiencies we need and keeping even 13 elementary school, I believe is still too many. I have been told Green Meadow can "fit" into Shapiro, so why not do that??
We should close Lakeside and Green Meadow and send students to the nearest open school, changing boundaries to make room if need be (ie if Traeger is the closest school to Green Meadow then shift part of the Traeger attendance area closest to Franklin to Franklin etc. ). Of course that won't happen because to date the board has continually caved in when parents come and complain about their child being moved to another school.
I believe we need to be more efficient, especially with our staffing at the elementary level, I just can't figure out why so many "fiscal conservatives" don't see that same need?
I have never been inside Oaklawn and you may be right that Oaklawn isn’t worth saving, but I want to hear that from the architects and maybe a few fiscal conservatives.
I’m 110% behind improving the mechanical systems and insulation in all of our buildings. Fuel prices are not going down and these types of improvements will eventually pay for themselves.
I’m eager to hear whether or not the Smith referendum has been paid off.
You went from Smith directly to the gym/cafeteria issue and skipped the special education issue. I fully realize that it is a touchy subject. Are you planning to comment?
I understand your feelings on SAGE and believe that it can be beneficial, but I am extremely disappointed in Patti Vickman and her SAGE presentation. She has clearly misrepresented the data available on SAGE in Oshkosh. I can see that she believes in SAGE and is personally very close to the program. That is great, but it is also the reason that she should not be charged with evaluating it. She is biased.
It isn’t fair that some schools and some children benefit from SAGE and some don’t. I understand that SAGE funding assumes that some poorer parents are likely to be less educated and value education less and will therefore give their children less help. I believe that is a safe assumption. But what are we doing for the children in non-sage schools that have dead-beat parents? I think when people make the point that we should dedicate the resources where they are needed, they mean throughout the district and not just at SAGE schools.
Lakeside and green meadow are more efficient. I don’t think we need three sections everywhere to be more efficient. We need to balance the value of neighborhood schools with the value of high-efficiency 3+ section schools.
I thought I had made it clear that I think we should have efficient schools that are large enough so that we can have most special education programs in most of our schools. That is another benefit to schools with 3 or more sections per grade, it allows for special education programs to be distributed across the district. This would not be possible if we keep K-5 schools of 100-225 students (currently Green Meadow, Jefferson, Lakeside, Lincoln, & Smith)
I don't understand how the number of sections a school has determines whether or not that school can have special education programs.
I see you noted that you wish for MOST special ed programs in MOST of the schools. I thought that the special ed planning team was call in for special ed programs in ALL of our schools.
The more efficient your staffing in a school and the more sections per grade, and therefore the more students in the school, the fewer schools you will need, thereby making it cost effective to have most every special education program in most every elementary school.
I saw no plan by the special education team that would have every special education program in every school --- low numbers in programs like hearing impaired, vision imparied, autism spectrum, severe cognitive disabilities would not allow for these programs in every elementary school but they would be in more than one or two elementary schools so that our special education students would be able to attend schools, if not their neighborhood school, at least one close by, vs. what we have now, students bussed clear across town for a program they need because there is no program nearby.
My understanding is that programs with high numbers like learning disabilities, less severe cognitive disabilities and behavioral disabilities would have programs in most if not all elementary schools under the k-3, 4-8 configuration. If we go back to plans that have schools of 150-250 students I don't believe it would be possible to have more than one special needs program in such small schools --- we haven't in the past.
Way to go Ben II and Michelle Monte! It appears as though the typical Theil bloggers are not representative of our community.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. Mrs Monte is a good actress starring in her own reality TV show. She's fooled a lot of people but come April she'll have no where near the votes she had last night and she could end up losing. Remember how thigns went for Bryan Bain a few years ago? Complete opposite primary night.
Oh yeah and BTW, smugness is an ugly virtue, but one so typical of Monte and her supporters.
Better check your story with Bain. He had a LOW vote count in the primary and high in the general. He went door to door and worked his ass off between the primary and general elections.
This is the polar opposite. Not saying that it will be an easy 5 weeks for any of the candidates but the one who whats it more will get it.
WANTS!! not "whats".
Short circuit of fingers... GRRR
10:36: better bread more carefully. The comment didn't say Bain did well in the primary and poorly in the general. They said the results were very different between the primary and the general.
A more accurate statment 11:49, would be those who voted yesterday are not representative of the typical voter. Lots of those who voted yesterday only did so because of the presidential primary. Some didn't even vote in the local race and many of those who did went for name recognition, as is the case in many elections. She caught a fluke. Many of those who voted yesterday will not vote in April. That will paint the April results on a very different canvass.
Better RED more carefully, not BREAD...lmao. The short circuit problem must be contagious.
Make that READ more carefully. Goodness this is a problem. Must be the severe cold making fingers go ballistic and act on the own.
A better example that Bain might be the Scheurman example... she came in 3rd in the primary but lost in the General election, with Jess King jumping from 4th to 2nd... anything can happen.
I agree that a lot of voters in the primary knew nothing about the school board and probably just voted name recognition. How else do you explain DAGGETT getting over 2,000 votes?
I hope the April voters are better informed.
One thing I think is clear... this election was NOT a referendum on the facilities plan...
Well I guess it could be worse than Daggett getting 2,000 some votes... this from Milwaukee:
Jailed Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee led eight challengers in the primary election to advance to the April 1 general election for the post.
He received 2,916 votes, or 32 percent of those cast Tuesday, to advance along with attorney Milele Coggs, who had 2,064 or 22 percent, in the 6th District race on the city's north side.
It really is dispicable to me how ill informed voters really are.
"programs will be cut so money can be spent on failing buildings and inefficient staffing of schools with 100 students in them."
How many teaching and staff positions will be cut by consolidation? How much money in labor and benefits will be saved?
I don't have the number of positions that would be cut but the operational savings (which are savings every year) for the K-3, 4-8 configuration those savings would be approximately:
Total - $988,000 (this is admin., custodial, paraprofessional, teacher/speicalist and clerical)
The dollar savings under a K-5, 6-8 scenario would be approximately Total - $964,000.
If you don't close ANY schools, then your operational savings would be $0
And how much will all of these "savings" COST the taxpayers of the district???
Please include the interest on the "loan" that the district will need to bond for to achieve this reconfiguration.
Why not pose your questions to a school board candidate or the district's business director instead of someone you seem to just be trying to pick a fight with? It doesn't seem like you want answers, but rather just more "ammunition" for an argument you want to spin in your direction.
Post a Comment