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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
You couldn't resist. You needed to climb up on you soap box and scream how the board majority had to "compromise" and lost the precious K-3 4-8 configuration.
You say that K-3 4-8 would have brought equity to all but 2 of the schools. You said that the reconfiguration would have been the end all be all of this district. You didn't manage to mention what this district would have lost under this configuration that was never proven in a district this size.
What about the Mentor program. That serves a hell of a lot more kids than all of the special needs combined. 3rd graders aren't able to "mentor" a 1st or 2nd grader with reading when they have trouble themselves.
Not to mention that the amount of money involved in changing all of the schools to the K-3 4-8 only to have a minimal operational savings is not justifed. Especially if the configuration doesn't work as planned. Then we are locked into that mess without the money to change it back.
There are few people that would deny that equity is great. But at what expense? We need to remain focused on giving the best education to as many students as possible. I have news for you. If there are parents with special needs students, they are looking at the schools before they move into a neighborhood to ensure that they don't have to go far for education. Using that card to gain support for your plan doesn't hold water. There would only be a few families that live in neighborhoods without the programs that they need. Unless of course the board closes the schools in those neighborhoods??? Oh yeah, now there are more reasons to keep as many schools open as possible.
As for your comparison to the Middle School transition from Junior High. Most if not all of the state transitioned at the same time. That included several districts of our same size. Right now there aren't ANY districts of our size that are even entertaining the idea of K-3 4-8. That leads many to believe that there are a few in the administration that are using this in an attempt to advance their career. If that is true, all I can say is not on my dime.
I will support a referendum in ANY amount as long as the money is going to be spent responsibly and not wasted.
Bravo anonymous 11:16. Very well put!
Anonymous 11:16am:
It is a simple fact, it is the board majority who is compromising. If you see it differently please tell us what compromise the other 3 made?
Exactly what "Mentor" program are you talking about? To my knowledget that is NOT a district program it is something some schools may do and your argument that "3rd graders aren't able to "mentor" a 1st or 2nd grader with reading when they have trouble themselves." would hold true for 4th and 5th graders as well, they are unlikely to be a reading mentor if they have trouble themselves with reading. Do we have data that shows these "mentoring" programs have improved student learning? I've not seen any. I'm not saying they are a bad thing but you can't argue if they didn't exist there would be harm to students unless you have actual data to show it makes a difference.
The cost difference between the K-3and the K-5 plan was not that great, less than 10% and if a South Side school wasn't constructed under the K-3 plan another $3.4M would be saved.
You say:
"I have news for you. If there are parents with special needs students, they are looking at the schools before they move into a neighborhood to ensure that they don't have to go far for education."
Where exactly did you get your news? Certainly not in speaking with the parents of Special Needs children who live on the North East side of Oshkosh whose children are bussed to Traeger for services. I don't think you've listened to the parents who have over time spoken to the board and asked that their children be allowed to follow their peers to middle and high school because they can't do so because the program their child needs is not located at the middle school their child's elementary school feeds into. I would say your "news" is inaccurate and misinformed.
I see a 50-50 chance any referendum goes to the public since I think there is at best only a 50-50 chance the board will have a 6-1 vote for the referendum. I think it is likely we will close a few schools, divide those students among any schools with room, perhaps see if the K-3 4-8 can work without creating new classrooms to achieve some operational savings and forget about equity until there is a school board with all members that have equity as a goal.
There you go distorting the facts again. Why do you use the worst case example of a child on the far NE side of town being bussed to Traeger when you know full well that the proposed K-5/6-8 plan will accomodate children nearer their homes?
The board majority is compromising because their plan is weak and has no chance of passing a referendum. We were sold for months (and you bought it) that K-3/4-8 was going to save us sooo much in operating expenses. Even Shelly Muza admitted that there was no clear evidence that any grade configuration offered educational benefits. We were told that it would help children transition through puberty? And you bought that too?
It has been confirmed. Now we know that the operational savings is minimal! Why didn't the planners verify their claims of efficiency? You and all of us were mislead again! How can the planners have any credibility if they don't substantiate their claims?
They can't keep presenting one side of the story and think that we are going to keep believing in them.
And please!..... don't even try to threaten the public with implementing K-3/4-8 without going to referendum!
Mrs. Thiel, don't even waste your time with these simpletons. The comments, especially the first one, sound like something straight from the mouth of Monte. Since she has a special needs student she could be speaking from her own perspective. The thing is she doesn't speak for all. Others have special needs children and see things quite differently than she does.
Judging from that reply, it is obvious that 8:13 is the simpleton.
Explain what makes it so obvious, 11:27. You've offered nothing substantial nor have you shown us where Monte speaks for everyone. All you've offered is more of the same kinds of negative comments we've seen all along from the Monte klan. How predictable. Maybe that's all you're capable of. In which case I understand and you have my sympathy.
Are you simpletons turning this into a thread about Michelle Monte because you can't answer the hard questions?
We were told for months that K-3/4-8 was going to save us sooo much in operating expenses. It has been confirmed and now we know that the operational savings is minimal!
Why didn't the planners verify their claims of efficiency?
The comment was about special needs students. A Monte supporter fired a snotty comment. Now they've shifted gears and attacked over something else. A clear case of attention deficit disorder. So we're back to special needs I guess, eh?
Oh and BTW, your questions have all been answered in one forum or another. You just aren't willing to accept the answers so you keep spinning it as if people have dodged the question. Get some help before funding for your own special needs dries up.
Still no answer then?
Not one you're willing to accept or even admit you've read. It must be horribly depressing going through life always looking for fights and harboring such negativity. Poor sap.
Still no anwer then?
Well if $1,000,000 (and that is a VERY conservative estimate of cost savings, it would likely be much greater) per year is "minimal" you certainly can't have a problem with a VERY minimal $60/year tax increase on a $150,000 home now can you?
What a ridiculous statement saving $1,000,000 each and every year because of staffing efficiencies is "minimal" and don't start with the eqully ridiculous statement that the savings doesn't equal the repairs.
Show me someone who put a new roof on their house and as a result "saved" more than the roof cost. Show me someone who had the electrical updated in their home and "saved" more than enough to pay for it. That is just patently ridiculous. It does't work that way. You do those things to your home as an "investment" not to recoup more than you spent.
Show me the data that proves that the cost of the changes Shopko made to their building was MORE than made up by increased sales ---I don't believe you can show that. So does that make ShopKo (and every other business that does that) a poor business? No, they just believe in investing in their business.
Why people don't want to invest in their schools is something I just don't understand!
WOW! Now tell me what the operational savings of the K-5/6-8 plan are!
SLIGHTLY less than the K-3/4-8 savings!
That is what I am referring to as minimal. That's just what you do. You mis-state the facts to make your argument sound better. Keep it up and let me know how that works out for you in the end.
Why were told over and over that we had to implement K-3/4-8 to realize operational savings when all along there was a K-5/6-8 option that shows very similar operational savings?
Please answer that!
Notice how 9:17 just loves to keep on fighting. No matter what they're told they want to keep fighting. They don't want answers. They just want more dialogue from their opposition so they can keep a fight going. They'd argue with themselves just for the sake of continuing an argue. What a miserable life and one not very full. We'll see how THAT works out for them in the long run.
Still no answer then?
The difference between K-3 and K-5 is that under K-3 almost twice as many students would have been served by SAGE. If you cut that in half, the operational savings for K-3 would be more than for K-5 but you aren't comparing apples to apples
Keep replying. this is great!
I thought that SAGE (staffing) was suposed to pay for itself. Was that another white lie or was it just a half truth like the clear, consistent and powerful evidence thingy?
Some of us simpletons are on to you educational elitist snobs, huh?
No, you're just too much of a simpleton to understand anything other than your own clouded spin. Living in your world must be bleak. Betcha you'd argue with yourself if there wasn't anyone on the blogs to argue with. Pathetic sap.
So, does SAGE pay for itself of not?
Don't know but I pay myself like money experts say to build savings. Yippee.
Yes SAGE pays for itself... all you have to do is look at the projected savings for the K-3 plan(which nearly doubled the number of students served by SAGE) vs. the savings for the K-5 plan --- the K-3 plan still saved MORE dollars (though only about $24,000 more). Still that would not be possible without SAGE being ABLE to pay for itself. Do you have data that shows differently? If you can't understand the simple concept that SAGE pays for itself, go find a blog that doesn't bother with facts... there are plenty out there a couple right here in Oshkosh.
Anonymous 9:47 LOVED your post!
You said,"The difference between K-3 and K-5 is that under K-3 almost twice as many students would have been served by SAGE. If you cut that in half, the operational savings for K-3 would be more than for K-5 but you aren't comparing apples to apples."
Do you have your cake and eat it too?
Cake...yummy. A la mode, please.
Anonymous 1:00 is that you anon. 9:47? Keep it coming, I love it and a little levity is much needed -- if there are 2 of you out there, even better
You're still deflecting, but at least you're having fun with it.
"I was disappointed that Team 6 did not bring a recommendation to the board but rather a choice of two..."
I was disappointed that Dr. Heilmann could not provide an opinion as to which plan was superior. If he came out and said, k-3 costs more but it is FAR superior to the k-5 plan, it would have been difficult for the board to ignore that.
And 2:55 PM is still refusing to read anything other than what they want. Sour grapes and negative attitudes make ugly bullies always looking for a fight.
Anon. 3:39 wrote "I was disappointed that Dr. Heilmann could not provide an opinion as to which plan was superior. If he came out and said, k-3 costs more but it is FAR superior to the k-5 plan, it would have been difficult for the board to ignore that."
Well, if you believe that you have never watched a school board meeting, and if you have, you watched it with NO sound!
Mr. Schneider talks a good show about who has the educational expertise but I cannot recall ONE time he actually accepted that expertise, if it was contrary to what he "thought" or wanted.
I would be willing to bet that if Dr. Heilmann had said "I wouldn't even consider the K-5 plan it is a very bad choice for our district the 3 naysayers wouldn't have changed their minds one iota. I don't know what BOE you have been watching but it certainly couldn't have been the Oshkosh BOE.
Thank you for your commentary. It was about as useful as Dr. Heilmann's non-comment.
I suppose I should ask a question. The question is: If Dr. Heilmann is the leader for this district and wants to be viewed as competent, should he not put his monogram on one of these plans?
I'm wondering... When did $5,000,000.00 become a small amount of money?
You say, "The cost difference between the K-3and the K-5 plan was not that great, less than 10%..."
How do we explain to a retired senior on a fixed income that $5MM is really not much money?
I am fully behind a referendum as an investment. It has to make sense and provide quality education for ALL children in the district.
When a plan was brought forward that made sense (way back when), it was listed as such a huge, deal-breaking drawback that it required one additional bus route for $32,000. The fab four was up at arms over that drop in the bucket. Now the fab four says $5MM isn't a big deal? I'm getting dizzy from all the spin.
I guess for the same reason $1,000,000 per year every year in savings is minimal and "nothing". That $32,000 bus route you reference is an EVERY year ocurrence and is part of the opertating budget... $32,000 for a bus means you cut $32,000 from some other part of the budget to pay for it.
I would eliminate the Green Meadow/Lakeside school in the K-3 plan (Mr. Traska has repeatedly stated that school would only have 149 students in it at $3,400,000 that is $22,818/pupil) which would save about $3,400,000. Of course there is talk of adding a Green Meadow/Lakeside to the K-5 plan which would increase the cost of that one by about $3,400,000 and make the cost of the two options about the same.
We also don't know the cost of additonal Special Education staffing since it won't be as efficient under the K-5 plan and the cost of Speech/Language, OT & PT rooms hasn't been factored into the cost of the K-5 Plan.
But, none of that matters anymore, it looks it will either be the K-5 plan with 6 board members supporting it, or a couple members of the board will decide they no longer support this plan and we will have a referendum only to catch up on deferred maintenance. If that fails then the community will only be able to point a finger at itself for letting its facilites deteriorate. As always, time will tell.
John Lemberger has asked Mrs Monte to explain where she will get the money for her facilities plan over on the Oshkonversation board but all she has done is ignore his questions and attack his plans. Maybe she has no answers. What's that expression about the best offense being a good defense? Mrs Monte is nothing but defensive and voters have always seen that and will again show they don't like it come this April.
That's great that you remove my comment and leave the Monte bash. Real nice!
Monte bash?! Asking her questions and expecting her to defend her positions is bashing her? You are really messed up in the head. If you want to see bashing, check out the Monte blog.
Read Oshkonversation and you can see that virtually the same post was retracted and apologized for there. I merely point that out and my post is removed here. That's my point.
?????????????
The point 3:04 really meant to make was the Monte klan enjoys bitching and whining about anything and anyone they can. Proof of it abounds from sea to shining sea.
Wow, from sea to shining sea. I guess she's campaigning more than I realized.
How crude to use poor language on a message board. Where's the moderator?
Crude? Poor language? At least proof of her exploits exists all over the net. Get over yourselves already and if you can't deal with it, crawl back to the blogs where you're surrounded by those "good" Monte vibrations and a chorus of whining.
C'mon now 5:20. Don't you know the only thing sour grapes are good for is a good whine?
It's unfortunate that the administrator of this blog allows such ridiculous posts to continue, and be perpetuated by ill-mannered posters.
I should hope that our children do not treat each other with such bullying and inappropriate language.
How sad that 12:30 got onto the playground after the bullying started by Monte & Co. They can't bully and intimidate without expecting to have the same done back to them, and their constant exhibition of sour grapes is only more of the same. If you don't subscribe to the expression of turnabout being fair play, go back to the Monte blogs where the world is slanted and dillusional.
How in the world did I bully or intimidate? I simply asked for civil, appropriate language. I'm shocked that Mrs. Theil allows such ridiculous posts.
I was told that this blog was a forum for discussing the issues. I didn't understand that it was a bullying, children on the playground format.
Now that I understand your point of view, I can only hope that the OASD's anti-bullying program will help your children turn out kinder than you.
You need to brush up on your reading skills. The poster didn't say you intimidated or bullied anyone. They referred to Monte & Co., bullying that you have chosen to overlook that has been part of their approach from her first campaign 2 years ago. It is a trend that is synonymous with the name Monte. As was already mentioned by someone, if you don't want to deal in fact, go elsewhere. Politics and political blogs are no place for the faint of heart. Or those who can't stand the heat in their own kitchen.
I'm interested in Mrs. Theil's thoughts on this one...
if I support McDermott, to whom does my second vote go? Dr. Lemberger seems to be struggling just to understand basics of how the district is run, Schneider is conservative and Monte is ....
1. No one says you must vote for two people. If you want to vote for only one, go ahead and do so.
2. Mrs. Monte has demonstrated her lack of some basic understanding of how the district is run too (refer to previous posts on this issue before asking us to point them out AGAIN), and she's been at this for three years now. At least Dr. Lemberger has an open mind and can be reasoned with. He's not interested in saying no just for the sake of saying no, or to be contrarian, or some other nonsensical reason like that.
Don't like Monte, check.
I'm really rather interested in Mrs. Theil's thought.
Dr. Lemberger clearly doesn't have the best interest of the entire commmunity in mind. Dr. Heilmann has told him time and again that keeping status quo regarding number of schools open is NOT a possibility.
Perhaps it really doesn't matter who the other person is...if McDermott, weinsheim, bowen and kavanaugh provide a majority anyhow?
If you're so supportive of what Dr. Heilmann says, and you must be or you wouldn't use it to tear down Lemberger's position, then why bother voting for anyone else? The other two candidates don't go along with Heilmann and the committee's recommendation anyhow. Vote for McDermott and be done with it.
Mrs. Theil?
9:03's unwilling to accept a common sense approach to voting. Just looking for another debate with someone. ;)
I am out of town at the West girls basketball tournament and having difficulty posting. I will respond sometime Sun.
Anonymous 6:32pm - 9:03am
Forgive my suspicion if it is unfounded, but why are you so interested in my opinion of who your second vote should be cast for?
I'm thinking Anonymous 12:44pm might be correct and if so I see no point in expressing my opinion since if Anonymous 12:44 is correct you aren't really interested in my thoughts on the matter anyway. If I am mistaken, I apologize and would like to know why you seek out my opinion on this particular vote?
Mrs. Theil,
Thanks for taking a moment to respond. I'm not looking for a debate as suspected. I'm trying to figure out how we as voters can make this board achieve necessary changes. In my mind there is no question that boundaries need to be changed, some schools need to close, and some schools need to updated. We need to pass a referendum and take care of our kids. I think Mr. McDermott would agree with all of these. My quandry is that I don't want to spend another year with the 4-3 split and nothing being done about this issue. Therefore, I'm curious who you endorse besides McDermott. No disrespect or debate-mongering intended.
Anonymous 11:56am
Sorry for my delay in responding (this is my third try today --- computer problems)...
To be honest, I have not decided if I will cast two votes for School Board or not.
I completely disagree with Mr. Lemberger's stand on facilities and I think it shows a need for more study and information on his part. The $12-$14 million referenced in various reports, is for delayed capital improvements/maintenance, it does NOT include any amount to fix a school like Oaklawn, Smith or the other schools slated for closure so right away the dollar figure used would have to go up, and I do not believe it makes sense to invest any more money in an Oaklawn, Smith, Lincoln, Lakeside or Green Meadow at this point in time. That said, I do not see Mr. Lemberger's stand as one of pandering to certain voters, my take is that he truly believes this is the right thing to do. What I'm not sure of is, if with more information, he could come around to the understanding that closing some schools will not destroy our "neighborhood" concept, it will just make it more efficient. It is clear to me that Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Monte are not willing to make decisions based on efficiency rather they will continue to pander to the West side and the Green Meadow parents (a very strong group no doubt). I don't know what else you can call recommending an Oakwood K-8 (as Mrs. Monte has) when we have an excess of middle school seats and the projection for next year is a DECLINE in enrollment at Oakwood. She has also proposed a new school for Lakeside Green Meadow, yet there are NO numbers to justify that. Mr. Schneider has NEVER indicated whether he will close any schools at all (putting him in the same boat as Mr. Lemberger except Mr. Schneider doesn't appear willing to actually take a stand and say he doesn't support closing any schools or if he does support closing schools he won't say that, and name any schools either).
I attended the student forum and I liked Mr. Lemberger's answers on a number of the questions asked. He seems like a reasonable man and one who is willing to work with others. I do not see that same trait in either Mrs. Monte or Mr. Schneider. That is one of the reasons I support Mr. McDermott, while I don't agree with him on all the issues, Mr. McDermott has always been a decent man who tries to find compromises where he can. That is something I see definitely lacking in both Monte and Schneider. Does Mr. Lemberger have it? I'm not sure, hence I'm not sure if I will vote for him or not. I will say that I do hope he is elected over Mr. Schneider or Mrs. Monte. Mrs. Monte can say all she wants that she can "work with others" but if you have read her blog posts over the past few years, I think you would question that. The things she has written about board members (some patently untrue, others just written to be critical and not just of positions but of the person in general) as well as members of the administration makes me question how she would mend all those fences and get people to trust and listen to her. I think we have all seen how little Mr. Schneider cares about working with others and compromising.
I think if either Mrs. Monte or Mr. Schneider get elected we will have the same fractious board we have now. If Mrs. Monte and Mr. Schneider get elected, I firmly believe it will be the beginning of the decline in our school district with a lot of quality people looking elsewhere for work.
So if I felt compelled to vote for two board members it would certainly be McDermott and Lemberger, I just don't know if I will vote for two or not.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for taking the time. I see you're in the same quandry when reasoning this out.
Post a Comment