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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
209 comments:
1 – 200 of 209 Newer› Newest»Ms. Theil,
It really doesn't matter which shade of lipstick you choose, the pig simply will not look better.
None of the options will pass.
The economy and current conditions will be too fresh in the minds of voters who are not just trying to keep their families together and have no extra income to place with any of these costly options.
Hold off on this referendum or face dramtic failure.
We use Titan Stadium to the tune of $58,000 per year so why do bleachers that are seldom used need to be replaced.
West (2 of 2)
Bleachers $195,000x 2
Those are the bleachers in the West GYM that were put in, in 1961... I don't know I think 47 years is a long time for bleachers and if you've ever climbed them you would be happy they are finally being replaced!
That's right. Those bleachers are waaaayyyyy overdue to be replaced. Nice to see it's finally going to be done.
It is unlikely the bleachers will be replaced if the referendum fails.
Anonymous 7:16am wrote: "The economy and current conditions will be too fresh in the minds of voters who are not just trying to keep their families together and have no extra income to place with any of these costly options."
Until I hear about droves of people cancelling their $50 - $100 per month cable bills, selling off their boats, and Packers tickets and bars and restaurants suddenly empty each night, I find it hard to believe the majority in this community are without extra income.
You might be stretching it a bit. It is unrealistic to expect families not to have a $100 cable bill. I'm frugal but mine is $100.. It includes my internet, telephone and basic cable b/c otherwise I get no reception at all.
In addition, we cannot expect people to stop enjoying their lives in order to fund schools to a level which is above and beyond what is necessary. When I see the district making some choices to cut down on expenditures like maintaining dinosaur schools I'll consider giving more money to be (hopefully) well managed.
No reception? Put up an antenna and get a converter box. But, just as we shouldn't expect people to stop enjoying the fruits of their labor, they also should not exepct not to do their duty as taxpayers to help fund those things taxpayers are supposed to.
Anon. 10:35 am I am not saying that people should cancel their cable or not enjoy life... I was just responding to the poster who wrote "voters who are not just trying to keep their families together and have no extra income" I don't believe that is the case with the majority of voters, if that were the case, they would not have $100 for cable. I know the first thing I cut out of my budget when finances were tight was the $52 cable bill (ours is $11.50 for channels 2-13 and channel 99) and if things get tighter, maybe I'll cancel my home phone and just have a cell phone, we won't go out to eat but once a month etc.
Even though my parents sent all their children to Catholic school my father still believed in his duty to pay for Public Education and never complained about his school taxes. The Wisconsin Constitution provides for a public education for all... who do you think is going to pay for it? Taxpayers! That is why I think the comment that the school board is "tax and spend" is rather silly, well of course they are... that is what EVERY governmental entity does, they tax the people and then they spend the revenues on the programs the entity provides.
I find it especially interesting that so many bloggers are saying they will not support the referendum and they don't even know what their individual cost will be.
I do agree with you on one thing 10:35am We need to close some schools and I am continually frustrated that since I have lived in Oshkosh (17 yrs.) there has never been a board majority that supports closing Green Meadow (which should have been closed some say 20 years ago, but certainly 10) and now Lakeside and Smith have a much smaller enrollment than they did 10 years ago and both buildings were ranked low by the architect who evaluated our buildings. Given all the excess space on the South side (Shapiro, Jefferson, Tipler, South Park,) it should be possible to close at least one if not 2 schools without additional building.
However, as frustrated as I am, I will not vote down the referendum to catch up on some of the deferred maintenance projects.
I like the idea of 3 questions but I also want to say I was at first not sure how I would vote on any referendum. As time went on I saw how some people complained no matter what the district offered to do while others on the board and board hopefuls found reasons to be critical just for the sake of being critical. The board has tried too hard to please people and these referendum questions make sense. I will support something for the greater good of my children and others than I will those who expect it to be their way or the highway. They are the ones with the real agenda--and its not our kids.
I too will support this referendum. This board has been responsible with our tax dollars and are being lead by a strong leader in Amy Weinsheim. This board has worked together nicely and has put together a responsible referendum. We need to do this for the children!
The district will put out a list of priorities for deferred maintenance. Oaklawn cannot be on that list if they're asking a separate question about building a replacement for Oaklawn otherwise they'll be 'double-dipping'.
I worry that the new building question will not pass and the deferred maintenance will pass. Oaklawn kids will be in the same sinking boat (pun intended) while schools around them are upgraded.
I'm pretty sure the referendum question itself will not detail the exact projects to be undertaken, just that all the money will go for deferred maintenance. The district does have a list of priorities but those priorities can change with changing circumstances... for example... if the boiler at South Park went out in 2011 the district would use the referendum dollars to replace it and NOT wait till the year it was scheduled to be replaced.
As for Oaklawn, if that question should fail I still don't think pouring money into that building makes any sense, so I would suggest that the district would have to start looking at massive boundary shifts to accomodate those students elsewhere.
Regarding Oaklawn I believe you are correct...that population should be absorbed into other schools with space. Big difficulty remains: get the administration to agree! I'll bet an imaginary quarter that if the referendum doesn't pass Oaklawn will be open for business again next year.
No way will this ever pass.
What part won't pass? At least one of the parts will.
Could this happen in Oshkosh?
(CNN) — The Dallas, Texas, school district laid off hundreds of teachers Thursday to avoid a projected $84 million deficit.
“Today is a day of tremendous sadness throughout the district,” Dallas Independent School District Superintendent Michael Hinojosa said in a written statement.
“These teachers and counselors are people who devoted themselves to helping Dallas students and we will do everything within our power to help them find new jobs.”
Some 375 teachers and 40 counselors and assistant principals were laid off Thursday, the district said in a news release, and 460 teachers were transferred other schools within the district.
This news report from a Texas news outlet says the layoffs were delayed and also explains more information about teachers taking contract buyouts, etc. If you're going to tell a story, tell the whole story anonymous 11:20...
Dallas school district delays layoffs
By: Associated Press - Texarkana Gazette - Published: 10/16/2008
DALLAS—Hundreds of teachers in Dallas were scheduled to be laid off Thursday, a process that was delayed because the cash-strapped school district needed another day to review exactly how those teachers would be selected.
After meeting with principals who questioned the details of the layoff procedures, Dallas Independent School District Superintendent Michael Hinojosa said in a statement e-mailed late Tuesday evening that the district needs another day to review its plan.
“I want to make certain that we give ourselves time to resolve the issues that (principals) have raised,” the statement said. “We are committed to paying close attention to our standards of service at each campus.”
DISD struggles with an estimated $84 million budget deficit. Years of accounting, budgeting and hiring errors at the district led to a deficit that’s increasing by about a $1 million each week, the district said last month.
A draft list of the planned layoffs obtained by The Dallas Morning News was time stamped for Tuesday morning, before principles questioned it. Most positions listed were uncertified elementary school teachers, almost all of whom were hired within the last three years. Several dozen high school-level English and history teachers and 21 counselors at various schools were also listed.
About 460 teachers were expected to be laid off Thursday, about 100 fewer than previously discussed. The number of layoffs appears lower because about 215 teachers left the district last week under an employee buyout program that let workers volunteer for the layoff.
Dallas schools have let go 213 non-contract workers since Sept. 29 and eliminated another 197 vacant positions.
School officials have said they expect 1,100 total cuts, including layoffs and eliminations of vacant positions.
State Rep. Tony Goolsby has asked Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott to oversee the district’s budgeting and audit process.
“We’ve had major problems with DISD for a long time, and it just doesn’t seem to be getting any better,” Goolsby said. “It’s time to start flexing some muscle.”
Interesting that despite deficits, voters are smart enough and care about schools and students enough to pass increased spending when it needs to be spent. So for those naysayers predicting doom and gloom about the upcoming referendum in Oshkosh, I suggest that this ALSO could happen in Oshkosh.
"Dallas ISD trustees approve $1. 35 billion bond program
Program to build 15 new schools, 12 additions and provide renovations
Dallas voters on May 10 approved a $1.35 billion bond program.
The 2008 bond program will pay for the construction of 15 new schools, including eight elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high schools. Twelve existing schools will receive additions to provide 177 new classrooms.
In addition, the bond program will earmark about $521 million to renovate more than 200 schools. Nineteen new science labs will be built at six existing secondary schools while $20 million would be set aside for kitchen renovations at 16 schools and expansion of lunchrooms at 22 campuses.
Plans for the 2008 bond program also include $96 million for updated classroom and lab computers, campus supporting infrastructure and interactive student technology as well as classroom presentation devices. Fourteen million dollars will be used to refurbish the district’s regional sports complexes.
Information on how funds from the 2002 Dallas ISD bond program were spent can be found at www.dallasisd.org/bond"
Those laid off account for only 3% of the district's 11,000+ teachers. You're comparing watermelons to grapes by putting this story out here as some kind of scare tactic 11:20
Tremendous sadness they laid off staff--but they did it anyway. Kind of like when Wayne Traska says he is "concerned" but votes for everything anyway.
How about they lay off the Super and "top" administrators and let the real workers do their jobs. The teachers!
Anon. 1:05 wrote: "How about they lay off the Super and "top" administrators and let the real workers do their jobs. The teachers!"
While that may sound like a simple solution, it is really no solution at all. My husband a 20+ year veteran teacher, a few years ago taught at one of the charter schools in the district. At that time the school did not have a full time administrator, in fact it didn't really have any administrator there on a regular basis. I can tell you, it was the worst experience of his career because he could no longer be just a teacher, he had to be an administrator and a dean of students and a counselor as well as a teacher and it definitely detracted from his teaching.
Those kind of statements just show a lack of understanding of the various roles in a school. If there were no administrator, who would prepare, and monitor the school's budget? Who would determine if a student offense required an in-school or out of school suspension? Those are but a few of the things teachers do not have to do because their school has a principal.
For the record, I will continue to delete posts that have nothing to do with the topic, which is the referendum proposal.
If you don't want to write about the referendum, I'm sure you can find other blogs that welcome your nasty comments, said comments do not further the discussion and they are not welcome here.
Who are you to say whether someone will ever hold another elected office in Oshkosh? But since that's the card you want to play, I will say there is also a board wannabe who has tried 3 times to get elected and hasn't been yet. At least Mrs. Thiel has been given the confidence of district voters one time instead of being a 3 time loser.
Anonymous (I deleted your post, it is insulting and adds nothing to any discussion) in answer to your question why? Because it is my blog... you don't like it, well feel free to go elsewhere. I hear there is a blog by a perennial school board candidate that is happy to post teacher bashing comments and anything negative about me. I'm sure you will be much happier there.
A great letter to the editor was published in the Northwestern today.
Tom Donovan speaks for many Oshkosh residents when he opines about the upcoming school referenda question.
He mentions that teachers, students, and parents of students were surveyed to ask for their opinion on the referenda. He also was spot-on with his remark that a very large segment of Oshkosh residents was missed in the survey study.
If you are not employed by the school district or have no children in the school system, apparently the school board and school administration don’t care what you think.
Tom says that this very important segment of the tax base was ignored.
I couldn’t agree more!
Maybe they chose to “forget” to survey this group because they knew what answers they would get.
If you survey teachers and ask if they support a $26,000,000.00 referendum…I’m thinking you’d pretty much know that they would. It serves them well, and certainly leads to higher wages and benefits for them.
If you survey parents and ask if they support a $26,000,000.00 referendum…I’m thinking you’d pretty much know that they would. It serves them well, and may even lead to a new school for their child.
If you survey average citizens who pay property taxes (about 70% which fund schools) and ask if they support a $26,000,000.00 referendum…I’m thinking you’d pretty much know that they would NOT! Why, because there is fat and waste in the system that needs to dealt with first.
The basic maintenance and upkeep funds that were earmarked for schools have be raided to fund wage and benefit enhancements for teachers and school system employees.
Now, because we’ve used that money and deferred maintenance, we need a special referendum to obtain money to fix things.
Taxpayers are not a bottomless pit of money. Oshkosh taxpayers are tapped out.
Some of the best compensated Oshkosh residents are municipal workers and teachers. We can’t keep our wallets open and let these groups take our money.
Tom Donovan realizes this. Now you do to.
Don't be such a numbskull. The survery is a precursor to a referendum and will help them craft their education campaign leading up to the referendum. It does the district no good to get only the answers they want, like that is somehow telling of the success of a referendum. But parents of kids in the district do have more of a vested interest than others. Everyone will have their opportunity to speak on the referendum; it's called voting day. So relax.
Give it a rest. You won't change the minds of anyone who's already voted and those who have yet to vote are at the polls by now. Just goes to show how desperate and dumb you are.
Many school referendums came down to defeat yesterday. A sign of the poor economic times. People have just enough money to support their own families. None left over to give to school districts who have put off maintenance and basic needs as they re-route money earmarked for those things to give teachers and administrators bigger raises and more benefits.
The Oshkosh referendum will fail also.
Your vote does count. Exhibit A -
WOSH reports that RANDY HOPPER WINS!
Yes, Hopper pulled off an upset win by 180 votes.
Your vote does count!
Unions and teachers may be in for a rough ride!
Thanks for supporting HOPPER!
Um even if Hopper did win (the vote is certainly close enough for a recount) he will be in the minority as the Democrats control the State Senate, so it is unlikely he will have any power at all.
A victory by only 180 votes is hardly an "upset" and there may be a recount coming so you probably shouldn't count your chickens until they're hatched. Mrs. Thiel is completely right about not having control. Lastly, I think there were just as many, if not more, school referenda that passed as failed. So don't be such a smug jerk about things. I predict at least one of the referenda questions in Oshkosh will pass.
I know it annoys you Ms. Theil, but yes a conservative did with the position and he will have influence.
How much did the teachers PAC spend to support King?
Maybe a better choice would have been to use those funds to purchase books for the students.
After all...the would have been a good "for the children" move.
Do you find it odd that the board has expressed an interest in putting this ref. on the April ballot yet they voted to cut funding for the referendum itself? ...and isn't it a bit unusual that there is no hoopla occurring to garner support for a referendum?
What's up?
Until the board decides where the Northside Elementary school will be located I don't think they will move forward with referendum planning...
I heard the Appleton system was also proposing a referendum. Part of the money was to go to teachers wages. That's just wrong! How can they get away with that in these poor economic times. I hope that fails!
You are either mistaken or intentionally trying to get a rise out of people. This is from WBAY TV 2...
"First, it asks taxpayers to increase revenue by $6.7 million annually for lower class sizes, new curriculum, and technology. Second, it asks voters to approve a one-time borrowing for additional technology upgrades and building improvements. If both questions were approved by voters, district leaders say the owner of a $150,000 home would pay about $150 more next year, with the amount decreasing in following years."
Where do you get the idea it's going for teacher salaries? It would sure be nice if people would know what they're talking about before posting comments.
From the Appleton PC web page:
They need money for more teachers. People in Appleton don’t like that. They want the public sector to cut back just like the private sector has to. Read the comments!
“Key to cutting class sizes is increasing yearly operating expenses $3.9 million to re-establish an average pupil-teacher ratio of 25-1 for grades 4-6 and 25.5-1 for grades 7-12. That staffing ratio was set after the successful passage of a referendum in 2005, but has been creeping up in the last couple of years.
This year's ratio is 26-1 for grades 4-6 and 27.5 to 1 for grades 7-12.
Returning staffing to 2005-06 levels was the first priority for a 73-member community panel that looked at the district's future needs last spring.
The referendum proposal also calls for a cap of 25 pupils in kindergarten and first grade classrooms, which carries an increased cost of $400,000 in staffing annually.”
jinneenah wrote:
Why does Government get to grow while everything else is shrinking? A private person or a business would be forced to cut back when the economy cools but Government simply taxes more those left able to pay. I don't live in Appleton so this referendum would not affect me directly but it would set a precedent for the valley. Tax payers of Appleton, Vote the tax increase down! Get your city government to cut back on services just like the rest of us have too.
citywatch1 wrote:
If you people in Appleton think AASD is top heavy it could be worse. Keep an eye on the Milwaukee school system and see what is going on there and be happy that Appleton don't follow their example.(or maybe they are) When will the taxpayers stand up for themselves and say to these districts ENOUGH OF THIS BS.
usmc8511 wrote:
You've already tapped out the maximum tax allowed by law so now go looking for blood. 70% of the budget goes to salaries and benefits with a guaranteed 4.5% increase the next three years. Yes I know the bulk of the 4.5% goes to benefit increases not salary. Try this in the private sector; no pay raise, health insurance premiums and deductable increase with payments reduced from 90% to 80% of a "reasonable charge" as determined by the insurance company. Yeah, boo hoo, cry me a river. Now take a cut and take your lumps like the rest of us.
nutzRus wrote:
AASD is top heavy, lay off some assistant to the assistant superintendants and your district would save a lot of bucks. the front line teachers don't need to be laid off, it's the administrator fat cats that should take the cuts. I don't want to pay more taxes PERIOD.
Gekko wrote:
Mr. Allinger:
Its time to see what kind of administrator you are. This is what is going on all over the private sector. You can learn from it.
First, announce you will take a pay cut and announce one across the board for your administration. Then you announce to the union teachers that you will either lay off X number of teachers to save Y dollars, or they can take an across the board cut to match the Y dollar amount. Budget balanced.
Was that so hard?
LexClouseau wrote:
Not sure if it will happen with this impending referendum, but eventually our school and government officials are going to have to understand that the taxpayers out there have had their real incomes reduced. We won't be able to afford the level of services we've been paying for in the past. It's sad to ponder how things might change. I've been in economically depressed cities where the streets aren't repaired, streetlights aren't changed when they go out, school buildings are in a state of disrepair, and "extra" programs are cut at the schools. Governments and schools aren't immune to the changing economy. There may be a delay between what happens to them vs. what has been happening in the private sector for the past 8 to 10 years; but they must still be affected. Trickle down is only fun if you're at the top, doing the trickling.
MasterArchitect wrote:
There is never any discussion that parallels what happens in the private sector--like we are all going to take a 10% pay cut --until things improve. Or, an owner saying "I'm sorry, but you need to share in paying for 50% of your health insurance".
If that happened, would they need a referendum? It seems its always about spending more rather than looking at alternatives.
What about revenue generation by leasing facilities to the public--gyms, tracks, fields, classrooms, etc? What about outsourcing certain functions that may not be essential?
How about moving the public library into multiple school district buildings, not building a new one and selling the current library to fund these critical expenditures?
I am sure there are more but just trying to start the dialogue.
What difficult decisions are being side stepped here? I suspect when the temperature starts to rise in the AASD kitchen, the answer is "lets have a referendum".
Applesan wrote:
We had large classes when I was a student so don't know why it's so overwhelming now when it didn't seem to do anything to us years ago. As with all the challenges individuals, businesses, schools and government are now facing, we all need to tighten our belts and be more intelligent with our spending; we need to work harder and work smarter. Although the extracurricular classes are nurturing (music, sports, languages, etc.) they are not necessary and may have to "temporarily" be put on hold. As populations grow it's only going to get worse as there's only so much money and if we continue to be tapped for each and every service there is, we will be depleted. Yes, education is important, but I learned without computers, without calculators, without "technology" and I find my education background far exceeds what I see graduating today.
Class sizes should be reduced and if that means more people need to be hired, so be it. Larger class sizes back in the day was a whole different thing. Times were different as were students. That is no longer the case and we must adjust our class sizes accordingly.
this persons got the right idea.
Why does Government get to grow while everything else is shrinking? A private person or a business would be forced to cut back when the economy cools but Government simply taxes more those left able to pay. I don't live in Appleton so this referendum would not affect me directly but it would set a precedent for the valley. Tax payers of Appleton, Vote the tax increase down! Get your city government to cut back on services just like the rest of us have too.
Class sizes should be reduced and if that means more people need to be hired, so be it. Larger class sizes back in the day was a whole different thing. Times were different as were students. That is no longer the case and we must adjust our class sizes accordingly.
why should class sizes be reduced?
who has data to support the cost vs benefit?
I think this is a scam constructed by WEAC to get more money for teachers.
Everybody wants more, except in this economy its not going to happen.
suck it up and do your jobs like everyone else
what we do need is more male teachers and more discipline. read the real statistical studies, male students do much better with male teachers.
female teachers also mean that more male students will be labeled LD. chekc the numbers.
as if anyone cared. there is NO sttisitical benefit once a class reaches 15 students. and very very very little when it is below that.
check it out.
Wow, so much misinformation, so little time to correct it all.
Given the state of "business" in our country --- please don't tell me our schools should operate like a business... would that be like AGI or any number of financial institutions that need to be bailed out by the GOVERNMENT or would it be one of the 3 US Automakers? Also looking for a GOVERNMENT bailout? And if you look at the practices of these and many other "big business" you will NOT find the CEO taking a pay cut... NO just the opposite... they are getting HUGE bonuses and taking fancy trips with spas, gourmet meals etc.
Spare me the "run it like a business" rheoric!
"Spare me the "run it like a business" rheoric!"
Most-likely spoken by a WEAC flak.
Tighten your belt. Cut back on the most costly part of the process, LABOR.
We can do more with less, even in the shelter public union segment.
More-more-more is how we got into the trouble we find ourselves in.
Rather than raising taxes, cut expenses...labor expenses!
Is a deferred maintenance referendum really any different than a government bailout? It's all taxpayer money, used to come to the aid of entities that mismanaged money.
Maintenance is maintenance, whether it's deferred or not. You people are just ignorant union-bashers, some of whom probably feed at the public trough yourselves.
Heir WEAC,
Maintenance is maintenance as long as it puts more money in teachers pockets...oh no, I forgot, it's for the kids!
Unions are not doing well these days. Much talk on cable news about the UAW and how they don't want any concessions even when asking the public to bail them out with 24 BILLION DOLLARS.
Greedy CEO's and Greedy Unions are wrecking this country!
Union-bashing spinner,
I submit it is the greedy, fatcat CEOs and management more so than the unions watching out for their members. That is their job. If they don't, who will? You, union-hater? Certainly not. It is your attitude and that of others which makes the need for unions that much more clear. Thanks for showing us why they're needed and why they'll always exist no matter how much you despise them and the good they do for their members.
Mrs. Thiel, please delete these moronic comments from the Copy & Paste DUD(e) about unions. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand and everything to do with one angry and resentful person's hatred for unions and union members.
We really don't have the money to support a referendum at this time. Other ways fo belt-tightening should be implemented, up to and including lay-offs. Nothing should be off the table.
I'd hate to think I'd have to choose between supporting schools with more tax money and worry about heating my home this season. I just don't think many of us elderly homeowners here in Oshkosh could stand much more in taxes.
I wonder how many of these bloggers who claim to be elderly really are.
I'm sure some are. I know my parents are in their 80's and even though I try to help them financially, I have 2 kids and a wife. I know my parents struggle. They eat soup at night. They still live in their home on Michigan Street and don't want to leave, or really have the money to leave anyway. I know that $50.00 to them is a lot of money. So I don't want to hear that old "its only a butterburger" argument like Madox used on the council. My Mom and Dad hardly can ever get out for a butterburger. If they do go out, its to Arbys for a 5 for 5 special. You'd be surprised how many elderly people there are in Oshkosh, scrapping by to stay in there houses.
At this time of year, you shouldn't be such a jerk and think just about you and what you want, you should think about the less fortunate and how a minor tax increase to you is a major expense to them.
Happy Thanksgiving,
You're the jerk. There was nothing insulting or selfish about a question which asks how many of the bloggers who claim to be elderly really are. Take your parents for example. You've painted a somewhat dire picture and I doubt someone who can not get out for a Butterburger has the Internet. Even if they do, they're probably not blogging and they surely don't fit the profile of the typical blogger. Get over yourself and before you start berating others, try reading what's written.
In case "Don't be a jerk" hasn't noticed, this may be the holiday season but it's also the time of year all forms of government put together their budgets and our tax bills come out. If you want to change that so the timing is staggered, good luck. Otherwise, refrain from making such ludicrous statements as "think about the less fortunate instead of oneself." Besides, it's not like people are voting to put the money in their own pockets. Gee whiz. Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?
I think it’s awful that some people posting have no compassion for the elderly here in Oshkosh. I find it appalling that they somehow don't believe there is a segment of Oshkosh, a rather large segment, that is elderly and modest if not poor in finances. It seems these people feel that they are not placing any hardship on the elderly and poor when proprty taxes keep increasing. They seem to live a lifestyle that doesn't appreciate how much $40 or $50 is. I think it' truly sad and I pray for these people, because God knows that to be his servant, you should put service above self. To those elderly and disabled, I pray that you find finances to allow you to remain in your homes, no matter if the city or school raises taxes by referendum or other means. It surely means that those that desire the taxes for personal gains must need the money more than those with little to give do.
It's bad enough that some who act intelligent can't write or spell properly. But I think it's even more awful that so many of these same people, like "Don't Be A Jerk" and "A Thanksgiving Wish," can't or won't read properly. Not one person here has said elderly people on fixed incomes do not exist, so get out of your self-righteous, ignorant and blider-laden pulpit and read what has been written. It was said that it's doubtful those elderly people are on the Internet or blogging!!!!!! Do you get it now?????? If not maybe your Thanksgiving or Christmas wish should be a better pair of eyes, new glasses, or a brain even.
9:29 said:
"It's bad enough that some who act intelligent can't write or spell properly."
9:29, seeing as you posted it, exactly what is a "blider-laden pulpit"?
Or is it a fact that you just can't spell properly?
Just wondering?
It's called a typo from typing too fast. As opposed to blatant mistakes and ignorance on the part of some. And the point about the reading impaired still stands, despite your efforts to deflect. Thanks for asking.
Dear Mrs. Theil-
Can you block or at least delete the angry anonymous person? His/her comments are not helpful to anyone and do not promote a good atmosphere for discussion.
I agree. The people who refuse to read what's written and choose instead to lecture someone because they don't believe too many elderly people are blogging do not promote rational discussion.
I just got back from visiting my uncle. My uncle is a life long resident of Oshkosh. For his job he worked at the old "Excelsoir" plant which I'm told was at the corner of what is now Ohio and Witzel. He is an elderly man. My Aunt died some years ago. He continues to live in their home on 5th street. He doesn't have much money and mostly lives on Social Security. He is a proud man and wants to remain in his home for his remaining years. It is difficult for him to pay his bills so I asked him how he felt about more taxes. He said taxing people is just a way to pick their pockets. He said people that can do and people that can't teach. I don't know if I agree with all that, but I do think we should do everything humanly possible before we ask for more taxes with a referendum.
What a pitifully sad opinion of teachers. Shameful is more like it. And taxing people is a way to pay for the services we all enjoy. As for your uncle, did he retire from the plant you mentioned. If so I'm surprised he is living hand to mouth, as you've suggested.
Economy may alter Appleton school plan
School board reconsiders referendum options
With the health of the economy the great unknown, the Appleton Board of Education may consider a scaled-back version of the referendum questions posed in recent weeks.
The new tiered version would be phased in over three years and deal with the district's growing class sizes, an overriding concern for the staff and community members who have weighed in so far.
The school board will review it with other options Dec. 1.
The board had hoped to decide Monday whether to move forward with a Feb. 17 referendum asking taxpayers' permission to exceed state revenue caps by $6.7 million annually. The goal was to lower class sizes and re-establish six-year cycles for curriculum materials and technology replacement.
An unspecified one-time expenditure for capital projects was also part of the package.
But district administrators and board members had heard reluctance from the public, including several among the more than 100 people who participated in focus groups last week.
As board member Jeff Knezel said at a board work session Monday, significant support is there for a referendum but many people don't think they can afford it.
Supt. Lee Allinger acknowledged conditions have worsened since the referendum was first discussed this fall, fueling concerns about the timing.
"I don't know if any of us has had to go through this before," he said, noting that an economic turnaround is at least 18 months away, according to experts.
"Balancing the needs of kids against the need to be sensitive to a community having economic struggles is really a difficult challenge right now. I think the board has to weigh those pieces," Allinger said.
The board could wait to see what happens or go ahead with the scaled-back plan suggested Monday by administrators.
This tiered plan would increase district operational funds by $3.5 million in 2009-10, followed by an additional $2.5 million in each of the next two years for a total of $8.5 million.
The increase 2009-10 through 2012-13 would cost an average $53 per year for the owner of a $100,000 home, about half the amount of the original referendum package.
It would allow the district to hold class size averages to 24 pupils per teacher for kindergarten through grade six. Ratios in grades 7-12 would stay at the current 27.5-1, however.
"It allows us to maintain the most crucial thing we do K-6 and make sure we can sustain that for three years, and it's not as burdensome upfront" to taxpayers," Allinger said.
The second question on the referendum would ask voters to approve one-time borrowing of $5 million to spend on safety measures and technology infrastructure security.
The levy impact would be an additional 8 cents per $1,000 of valuation, said Don Hietpas, chief financial officer, bringing the total package increase to 53-60 cents on the levy rate rather than the original $1.
The downside is that it would still require the district to make deficit reductions each of those years, although not as great as forecast if there is no referendum. The cuts would come from curriculum, technology, capital projects and non-classroom staff attrition.
Also, in 2011-12, the district would be back contending with rising class sizes.
Board members wanted more time to digest the new plan.
Julie Baker would like to see options that increase class sizes at the secondary level. "If we go out with this we should try to affect class sizes for everybody, not just K-6," she said.
Others were alarmed at the need to continue deficit cutting under this plan.
Dr. John Mielke said he views this difficult economic period as a license to do things differently in delivering instruction. Even if a referendum is passed the district must find ways to reduce costs and improve education, he said.
Other than showing you know the art of copy and pasting and copyright infringement without proper accreditation, your point is?
Well for those handicapped readers that don't "get it" I believe it means that there's a snowballs chance for a school tax increase referendum to pass in this down economy. Have you heard that the economy is in poor shape? If you get your head out of the dark hole it's in, you might learn something.
Yes, Paul Esslinger was johnny-come-lately with his economic pronouncement on the matter. You are as behind the times as he is. But here's a question for you. If people are SO woried about the economy and SO opposed to any new taxes, even for that which is needed, why do many school district referendum questions keep passing? Apparently not everyone, everywhere is as down on schools and teachers as you are.
2:33 said....why do many school district referendum questions keep passing?
So just how many have passed within the last 6-12 months?
Name the cities and districts.
Some have already been pointed out in other discussions and several just passed in early November. You can find them by doing any internet search. Don't expect others to help you just because you're too lazy to do your own research.
FirePlug (aka LazyBoyBoy)
Here you go
2008 data.
There are 426 public school districts in Wisconsin, and each is entitled, through the action of its local Board of Education, to place school district referendum questions before its voters under certain circumstances.
School referendum questions differ from school referendum elections in Wisconsin.
Bond referendums in Wisconsin allow the board of education in a Wisconsin school district to ask voters to approve any debt exceeding $1,000,000 where as a school referendum questions allows the board to ask voters to exceed the districts spending cap.
In 2008, 146 school referenda have (or will be on 11/4/08) been put to the people.
49 of them passed
49 failed
46 have yet to be voted on.
Here's an article that spells out several which have failed and several which have passed. I think those who predict no referendum will pass (like 12:11) will find this quite interesting. And this is right here in Wisconsin, oh my!
http://www.wdtimes.com/articles/2007/11/24/in_times_square/times01.txt
NOT ALL REFERENDUMS FAIL
Friday, November 23, 2007 9:27 PM CST
Earlier this year a referendum in the Watertown Unified School District to build a new elementary school on the city's west side and remodel and expand Schurz and Webster schools failed by a wide margin. It was the school board's second attempt to get a similar referendum passed that would alleviate the overcrowding in our elementary schools.
The referendum was not an inexpensive one. The cost for the remodeling and the new school was $28.9 million. In addition, there was a secondary referendum asking that the voters allow the tax levy to increase beyond the state limits in order to fund the additional teaching and support positions needed to bring the class sizes down and to maintain the new, larger facilities.
But, the fact remains that additional elementary space is badly needed in Watertown and the situation is only going to worsen in the coming years if nothing is done. It's a two-pronged problem. Construction costs are going up faster than inflation, and Watertown will simply continue to grow, given its high quality of life and its strategic location midway between Milwaukee and Madison.
The school board is planning another referendum in November of 2008 and it's a virtual lock that whatever is proposed will be more costly than the $28.5 million proposal of this April, and the additional operational costs needed will most surely be higher as well.
The school board will obviously have to re-evaluate what it is proposing, but we hope the conclusion will remain the same - the primary issue to be resolved is at the elementary level. Additional classroom space is badly needed and the existing schools are in dire need of upgrading and expanding. Other options can be proposed but won't directly address the primary concern - too many elementary students for the existing space.
But, is Watertown all that different than other communities in this regard? Well, we checked out the success rate for school referendum questions in Wisconsin since April of this year and it's kind of a mixed bag. Referendum questions come in all shapes and sizes, and up to the present time, 23 referendum questions for school construction projects passed and 24 of them lost. There was no common thread in the winners and losers. Some that won were for huge amounts of money but at the same time, some that lost were also for huge amounts. Conversely, some smaller ones passed and some smaller ones died.
We won't go into detail, but from April 1 of this year through the present, here's the list of referendum questions that lost and the amount of money involved. Some referendum questions were posed twice this year, which accounts for some multiple dollar amounts for the same districts, and in some instances there were multiple questions.
As you read these, think about the size of the district or community as compared to the referendum size. Obviously the larger communities can more easily handle larger debt loads.
So, first, here's a listing of school building referendum questions that failed:
West Bend - $119,300,000.
Elmbrook - $99,300,000.
Franklin - $76,990,000.
Watertown - $28,900,000.
Hartford - $24,952,000.
Lake Mills - $22,100,000.
New Glarus - $21,660,000.
St. Croix Central - $15,700,000.
Lake Mills - $15,330,000.
Poynette - $14,500,000.
Clintonville - $10,700,000.
Hilbert - $9,500,000.
Elmbrook - $9,500,000.
Wrightstown - $9,200,000.
Denmark - $8,995,000.
St. Croix Central - $8,950,000
Lake Mills - $5,100,000.
Genoa City - $5,085,000.
Oconto Falls - $4,810,000.
Sun Prairie - $3,325,000.
Montello - $3,090,000.
Poynette - $2,475,000.
Freedom area - $465,000.
Thorpe - $450,000.
Now, let's look at the communities where school building referendum questions passed since April of this year:
Sun Prairie - $96,000,000.
New Richmond - $92,850,000.
Spooner - $34,000,000.
Holman - $17,125,000.
Mukwonago - $15,000,000.
Galesville-Ettrick - $14,950,000.
Greendale - $14,665,000.
Abbotsford, $12,000,000.
Mosinee - $9,600,000.
Genoa City - $5,175,000.
Brown Deer - $4,100,000.
Gibraltar, $4,000,000.
Rice Lake - $3,880,000.
Barron - $3,100,000.
Prairie du Chien - $2,800,000.
Sheboygan - $2,700,000
Poynette - $1,580,000.
Sheboygan Falls - $895,000.
Columbus - $700,000.
Elkhorn - $240,000.
Thorpe - $225,000.
Looking at those numbers, it shows referendums totaling $520,377,000 failed this year while referendum questions totaling $335,585,000 passed. Together this represented nearly $1 billion in new school construction proposals - just in the period from April 1 through mid-November of this year.
More than anything, these statistics underscore the fact that Watertown schools are not alone in building needs. Across the state school districts are faced with inadequate, old buildings that need upgrading, expansion and/or replacement.
Many districts, like Watertown, were in a new building mode a half a century ago and many of those schools were built for shorter lifespans - many of which were not constructed of solid brick like those of a generation earlier. They may have been less costly to build in the short run, but ultimately there is a price to be paid in durability, energy efficiency and other factors. And, larger student populations continue to squeeze the available space in many, many districts.
So, from this at least we know, some much larger than Watertown's referendum questions passed but at the same time, others failed.
No doubt much of the success or failure of the referendum questions comes down to the education process. People have to be well educated on the need, and they have to be made aware of the tremendous benefits adequate and up-to-date educational facilities can mean to a community and its most precious resource - its children.
Let's hope the next trip to the referendum door will be a successful one in Watertown. Everyone has a stake in the quality of our schools. Yes, they are expensive, but they are a key part of the fabric that makes a community special.
TLS
Here's something else which shows not all questions fail...
Historical data, Wisconsin school bond referendums
The following demonstrates historical data of the number of referendum elections proposed in the state of Wisconsin, the number of referendum elections passed per election cycle and the total amount of dollars that the board of education is seeking to grow above the revenue limits for individual Wisconsin school district.
2008
Woodruff school referendum (2008) $880,000 Failed
Chetek school referendum (2008) $1,200,000 Passed
Durand school referendum (2008) $1,200,000
Hartford school referendum (2008 $593,000 Failed
Manawa school referendum (2008) $195,000
Pecatonica area school referendum (2008) $350,000 Cancelled
Plum City area school referendum (2008) $1,050,000 Failed
Washburn school referendum (2008) $900,000
Weston school referendum (2008) $644,000 Failed
Gilmanton school referendum (2008) $125,000 Passed
Salem school referendum (2008) $1,595,000 Election
Lafarge school referendum (2008) $250,000 Cancelled
Seneca school referendum (2008) $800,000 Passed
And still more is here...
The Minneapolis Public Schools 2008 Strong Schools Strong City referendum was overwhelmingly approved by Minneapolis voters on Election Day.
And this...
http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/sklsm.html
And this...
http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2008/11/madison_school_104.php
And how about this...
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
4:05 PM: Elmbrook passes state's largest school referendum
The largest school district referendum on the ballot was approved but most other large school spending measures failed when submitted to voters in the spring election.
A total of 30 referendums totaling more than $165 million were approved Tuesday. Thirty-one failed, representing nearly $285 million.
The Elmbrook school district gained $62.2 million to renovate and expand Brookfield Central and East high schools. A referendum last year for $108.8 million failed in the suburban Milwaukee district.
Of the 12 districts with referendums exceeding $10 million, only measures in Racine and La Crosse passed. Racine passed a $16.5 million referendum, while La Crosse passed a $20.9 million referendum. Voters in La Crosse also rejected a second referendum for $35 million to construct a new elementary school.
The remaining districts asking for more than $10 million were shot down by voters, including ballot measures in Germantown, Hartford (two referendums), Jefferson, Luxemburg-Casco, Poynette, Rhinelander (four referendums), Rice Lake Area, Somerset and Waupun.
Search for April 1 referenda at the Dept. of Public Instruction Web site:
https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr/all_referenda.asp
So, as you can see, smarty pants, while some questions fail, there are plenty of others that pass. And in today's economy, no less. Proof positive for you that taxpayers in some districts believe more strongly in the value of preserving decent education and an environment to learn in than others.
And that's just for starters. So many more others out there from around the country. But of course, the naysayers will have some argumentative spin to make. But the fact of the matter is the economy is in the tank all over the country, yet we see districts approving referendums. The key is educating the people on the need for their passage. Can this district do it? Time will tell. But to make a blanket statement like 12:11 did when they said " there's a snowballs chance for a school tax increase referendum to pass in this down economy. Have you heard that the economy is in poor shape? If you get your head out of the dark hole it's in, you might learn something" is just plain ridiculous because clearly they haven't a clue what they're talking about. Nothing more needs to be said.
LazyBoyBoy,
Remember where you live. This is Oshkosh, where the primary entertainment is fish frys, beer, NASCAR and the Packers. A true blue collar city.
If the voters have any say in this, the referendum will go down to defeat in a heartbeat. Most voters would rather spend the little money they have on another 12 pack rather than teachers wages.
I'm not sure how loudly I can shout this mantra...still no one hears.
I will vote yes for a referendum...as soon as the district makes hardline decisions to close underutilized schools and consolidate to save money. We need to have full classrooms to make our teachers' wages in line with our district budget. We need to prove SAGE works or tank it. We need to have a board that makes decisions!!! Save some money then build.
Anonymous said...
"LazyBoyBoy,
Remember where you live. This is Oshkosh, where the primary entertainment is fish frys, beer, NASCAR and the Packers. A true blue collar city.
If the voters have any say in this, the referendum will go down to defeat in a heartbeat. Most voters would rather spend the little money they have on another 12 pack rather than teachers wages."
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:17:00 AM CST
You know Anon. 7:17 I used to think that too... mostly due to my misguided thinking that blog posters accurately represent Oshkosh. I discovered after the last school board election, they do not!
Look at the voting results in the last few elections... the city has supported, Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Gore. The city elected Gordon Hintz and supported Jessica King (unfortunately FDL and Dodge Counties supported Hooper to a greater degree).
I think the city is changing and there are more and more citizens who want real change and elected officials who stand FOR something rather than only be against everything --- Remember Mr. Beckers's mantra "vote yes for me so I can vote no for you".
I think the success or failure of the referendum will depend on the quality of the education plan presentated to the public.
So by their statement, anonymous 7:17 thinks we're the only ones who are blue collar and all the other places that actually passed referendums are white collar? What idiotic thinking. People like that shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
Ms Thiel,
I think you agree with LazyBoyBoy.
As I read the comment, my take-away is that people who have limited money would rather spend it on things THEY enjoy, rather than pay higher taxes to give OTHERS THEIR money.
This is mostly do to Oshkosh residents modest earnings and lifestyle.
You indicate that the general public is pivoting to a libral democratic position. I think that might be true, and it fits in with the comments LazyBoyBoy made. Democrats and people of modest means often do choose a democrat, as they tend to be of socialistic mindset...they want handouts.
The key difference here is that a referendum would require these families of humble means to PAY not RECEIVE money.
I to believe the referendum will fail.
I believe tomorrow is the deadline for the district to decide on a ref. or not for the next ballot. Do you know what's up?
Bob Burnell (WOSH AM radio morning announcer) commented that our Temporary School Superintendent is being compensated $800.00 per day!
Is that accurate?!
How in the HE_L can that be.
Gawd damn who is got their hand on the throttle on our Board of Education!
They should all be removed for fiscal negligence and dereliction of duty!
Who do you suppose is paying that bill?
Do any of them know we are in a economic crisis and yet they see fit to hire a temporary person for $800.00 a day.
actually $800 a day is chep for someone who can provide leadership in the district. why without good leadership we would probably have kids sitting on stability balls, we would probably be cutting deferred maintenance funds in the the budget, we would probably be building a school (with enrollment declining) in an area that has no growth while another area continues to grow.
If you base it on 180 days in the school year it comes out to a little over $100,000. Not that different from what we were paying other supts or what we'll have to pay a new one coming in.
I bet if it was Todd Gray, these naysayers would talk differently. They're so freaking transparent.
Special Interests pure and simple. The BOE gives away the bank to a friendly face as not to cast the crooked finger of shame on this do-nothing Board. $800.00 a day is a crime
Teresa:
I do not understand how you can be in favor of a new northside elementary school in a declining attendance area.
You were so strongly in favor of closing schools and consolidating the closed schools with existing schools with additions as necessary. You believed that all our schools hould strive to be 4-section per grade schools. You convinced me and others of the efficiencies and the potential operating savings.
What has changed?
I would like to support questions 2and 3 because they would be a direct investment into the infastructure of our school district. The money would go to concrete and mortar rather than additional staff and wages. I have a difficult time though, because I would really like to see a better 10-year plan. One that included greater efficiencies and budgetting for future maintenance.
We really do have a problem when 86% of our budget goes towards salary and benefits and salary and benefits are increased at about 4% every single year.
All that we can do is chase state and federal money (4K Kindergaten and SAGE) or create greater efficiencies.
First,
$800/day is not cheap, it's not a bargain, but it is absolutely appropriate for her position given her education and years of experience. There's no question.
Second,
Let's see all the ducks in a row before we form opinions about any part of a potential referendum.
Bowen, Weinsheim, Kavanaugh, Traska, Lemberger and McDermott would not get my vote.
I think they've done a dis-service in their creation of this referenda conflict.
I prefer a more conservative approach and therefore align more with the likes of Patrick K. and Ben S.
I also think the teachers union had a major push to elect those currently on the board, they of course are out to elect the slate of candidates that tend to favor their position of advancing wages and benefits.
I hope that more common folks vote this time and we can balance the BOE with a conservative group that wants to implement a plan that is good for the students, taxpayers and also acknowledges teachers are the employees, not the owners of the process.
Wages and benefits will advance per the QEO with or without a slate of candidates sympathetic to the teachers' "plight." So you can stop with the "it's only because of the trachers union that we have the board members we do" rhetoric. It doesn't hold water and if you believe it does, provide us with verifiable statiscal data to back it up. And unless you've spoken with every voter at every polling place in the district and interviewed all those who voted absentee, you can't do that. So stop sounding like an idiot with your baseless commentary everytime the board majority does something you don't like. It won't further your cause or that of the naysayer candidates you support. Probably why they get voted out or shut out at election time.
Anonymous 12:29pm
I have been in favor of a Northside Elementary school so that Oaklawn can be closed since the 2001 referendum, so nothing has changed in that regard. The fact is, if you were to close ANY northside elementary school (even Lincoln) there are not enough seats in the remaining schools to absorb the students. That is certainly true if Oaklawn were to close. While you could add on to a school like E. Cook, to acommodate Oaklawn students, it would not leave any room for growth should the "Grundy" property take off.
The south side of Oshkosh is an entirely different story. There are enough excess seats to close both Green Meadow and Lakeside and absorb the students into existing schools. I believe this should be done now, so the district can go into a referendum already having savings due to some school consolidations. However, I'm sure this will not ocurr, regardless of who is on the school board.
I'm sad to hear that you think the board cannot come together to consolidate some schools to save $ prior to asking for more.
It's incredidibly irresponsible to continue to use money wastefully.
I do not believe that other schools could not handle the excess students (with additions)if Oaklawn and Lincoln were closed.
I do not believe that the "Grundy Growth" will exceed the declining numbers in the rest of the north attendance area.
Where are the attendance numbers and the projections? Haven't you studied those?
WOW- you dont think the teachers support bowen, weinsheim et al? you want proof.
who did the teacher's union support? how much did they spend in dollars and time and phne calls?
you cannot argue they did not make teh difference in teh last - small turnout election. the primary had the bigger turnout and was a completely different result.
the interesting thing however, will be that the vast majority of teachers will support bowen, weinsheim, et al to get on the board. The percentage will not be the same when they are spending their own money on a referendum question.
The results could have been different for any number of reasons. Historically more people vote in general elections than primaries, so that might be the more common sense reason than your contunal belief that it is the teacher's union getting out the vote en force. Even if your argument was true, I guess that means you just can't rally enough support for people like Ben Schneider and Michelle Monte. I happen to also subscribe to this belief someone else posted: "Wages and benefits will advance per the QEO with or without a slate of candidates sympathetic to the teachers' "plight." So you can stop with the "it's only because of the teachers union that we have the board members we do" rhetoric. It doesn't hold water and if you believe it does, provide us with verifiable statiscal data to back it up. And unless you've spoken with every voter at every polling place in the district and interviewed all those who voted absentee, you can't do that. So stop sounding like an idiot with your baseless commentary everytime the board majority does something you don't like. It won't further your cause or that of the naysayer candidates you support. Probably why they get voted out or shut out at election time."
Anon. 8:33 There are not that many schools on the North side that have room for classroom additions. Webster and Merrill do not have space for significantly more students, their playgrounds are already rather small or non-existant. The last time an addition to Washington was suggested they were opposed to any additions to their building. Oaklawn and Lincoln would be closed under a consolidation plan. That only leaves Read and E. Cook. E. Cook definitely has the space but do we really want to double the size of that school? Closing Lincoln and Oaklawn would result in the need for over 300 seats. I think a new school is a better than doubling the size of E. Cook. That's just my opinion.
Anon. 7:18 I agree it is sad but from my following of the board for the last 12 years I see only 2 board member who would likely support closing Green Meadow and Lakeside (or Green Meadow and Smith) and sending the students to other schools.
If you listen to those who most often criticize the board spending it is interesting that NONE of them see Green Meadow, Lakeside or Smith as a "drain" on our budget. Not; Becker, Monte, Schneider, or Kogut. Not one of them has advocated for closing Green Meadow, Lakeside or Smith... then they do some twisted logic and try to tell you that these schools are actually very efficient.
Teresa:
Thanks for the reply, but I am not sure that Merrill or Webster could not absorb a few more students and I don't think that the statement that Washington didn't "want" an addition really holds water. It seems to me that 300 students could be easily absorbed in five different buildings if it were the BOE's will to improve efficiency.
Assuming, for a second, that the five schools (with additions) could not absorb 300 students..... Wouldn't it still be more efficient to raze the older, most dilaptated portions of Oaklawn and add onto the newer portion. I drove by Oaklawn, and the school is definately not below street level and the newer portion appears to be even higher. I spoke with others that are familiar with the school and it does not flood when it rains. There is valuable land and infastructure that could be utilized at Oaklawn.
A new school would not create efficiencies and it would futher delute efficiencies and, inf fact, reduce them at Read. The ONLY reason to build a new school would be the belief that a new school would draw students to new developments near the Ryf Road area and therefore draw new students to the North attendance area. That would be great, but I truly don't think it would happen and I really don't think it is worth betting a $15 million dollar school on.
you just dont get it do you.
when more people voted your candidates came in last. when fewer voted, your candidates won.
it is funny you ask for statitical data (when it is impossible to gather) but compeletly ignore it when it comes to all day kindergarten , 4 year old, everyday math, and your favorite SAGE.
watch the results of the next referendum vote.
It is you who doesn't get it. The people voting in the election that mattered kept your candidates off the board. That's all that matters. Stop being a sore loser and move on.
Neither 8:45 or 9:53 get it. Quit bickering about what happened and why it may have happened and focus on making the plan better for our community.
1. Don't raise taxes
2. Cut costs and create efficiencies
3. Budget for future maintenence
3:36 is right. Even if Monte AND Schneider were elected last spring, they would still be the MINORITY!
Let's move on and focus on what we have ahead of us rather than dwell on the past.
And voters will keep it that way. The likes of these people cause enough unnecessary, petty problems for the district without putting them in a position of authority over it.
Anonymous said...
Teresa:
Thanks for the reply, but I am not sure that Merrill or Webster could not absorb a few more students and I don't think that the statement that Washington didn't "want" an addition really holds water. It seems to me that 300 students could be easily absorbed in five different buildings if it were the BOE's will to improve efficiency.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 7:52:00 PM CST
Anonymous said...
Assuming, for a second, that the five schools (with additions) could not absorb 300 students..... Wouldn't it still be more efficient to raze the older, most dilaptated portions of Oaklawn and add onto the newer portion. I drove by Oaklawn, and the school is definately not below street level and the newer portion appears to be even higher. I spoke with others that are familiar with the school and it does not flood when it rains. There is valuable land and infastructure that could be utilized at Oaklawn.
A new school would not create efficiencies and it would futher delute efficiencies and, inf fact, reduce them at Read. The ONLY reason to build a new school would be the belief that a new school would draw students to new developments near the Ryf Road area and therefore draw new students to the North attendance area. That would be great, but I truly don't think it would happen and I really don't think it is worth betting a $15 million dollar school on.
Thursday, December 4, 2008 8:03:00 PM CST
7:08,
The one thing those cherry-picked examples don''t tell us is years of service. I suspect from the salaries, most are in the 20+ year range, nearing retirement. Don't most folks expect to make more after 20 years of faithful service to an employer?
Another thing to look at is what people in private industry with the same education and experience make. The benefits are seldom as good in private industry, but that is to make up for the fact that salaries are twice as high in the private sector.
I'm sure that teachers' salaries seem fabulous to a high school dropout drifting from one minimum wage manure-shoveling job to another and living in mom and dad's basement, but for people with a college education, those are definitely sub-par wages.
The benefits are the only way to get ANYONE to take the job. Cut those without doubling salaries, and NO ONE will go into teaching.
December 5, 2008 6:05 AM
Screed said...
Let's compare apples to apples and get some BIG data, not cherry picked apples and oranges cases.
Look here:
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-college+graduate
Now look here:
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-teacher
THIS is why teachers get such good benefits. Because it is the only way to get anyone to work for those lousy wages. Because any one of those teachers could work in other fields for a lot more dough.
Yes, I know YOU don't earn much. That's because you screwed away all your opportunities in life having a good time. Your teachers were on your case constantly telling you that you needed a good education to get a good job but you wouldn't listen, so now you hate teachers because they were RIGHT. Common, Mr. Big Shot! TELL me I'm wrong! You KNOW it's TRUE! It's written all over your every post!!
I don't know what the cost would be to add on to several schools to accommodate the students from Oaklawn and Lincoln but it certainly won't be free. I'm not convinced it makes the most sense to add classrooms here there and everywhere and good luck when it comes time to redistrict everyone... we've already heard the horrible harm it will cause if you only move 6 children in a grade to a new school, can't do that, we won't have room to move entire classess to new additions. This community has managed, for at least 15 years, to stop every board of education from major boundary changes, I just don't see that changing.
As for rebuilding on the Oaklawn site, I am completely against it. During the 2001 referendum was stated that the building sits below street level and pictures were shown of flooding in parts of the building every time it rains. I also think having young children spend the better part of their days next to a business that has diesel engines running is not the healthiest of environments.
1. If the BOE is not willing to look at combining schools and increasing efficiencies on the North side, they will be creating a precedent for the Southside. They should remember that. Also, I really don't think that your comparison is apples to apples. The six children you speak of were being sent to a different elementary, middle and high school from their peers. They were being sent across town and to schools much further away from their homes than the schools they were already attending. In my proposed case, the students/neighborhoods could stay together and attend the schools closest to them. The elementary children could most likely meet up at middle school and for certain at highschool and they could stay on their side of town. I really doubt that there would be the same uproar and an uproar certainly would not be justified.
As far as costs, it most certainly would not be free, but LOOK, we have lots of open seats in lots of our schools. We already have offices, libraries, music rooms and cafeterias in these schools as well. So, all we would have to build is a few classrooms. I am 100% certain that that cost would be less than $15,000,000 proposed for a new school. I personally, would be in favor of spending the full $15,000,000 on other needed upgrades to these schools and the investment could be justified by the fact that we have 2-3 less schools and we have created higher efficiencies. I know you see the value and I am very, very disappointed that you and the BOE will not acknowledge it.
In regards to adding onto Oaklawn. You say, someone said, the school floods all the time. Michelle Monte says the beautiful newer addition was only supposed to last 10 years, Bette Lang says that buildings built in the 1950's were only supposed to last 50 years! It's all B.S. loaded with somebody elses motivations.
What diesel engines do you mean? If you are referring to the Kienest property, I would suggest purchasing it for Oaklawn. I'm sure it would be less than land for a new school. The rest of the neighborhood and the DNR would applaud us for cleaning up a mess!
Teresa said, "we won't have room to move entire classess to new additions."
Why not?
To the city council and school board:
"Cut spending, don't raise taxes"
Haven't you heard, we're in a recession.
Sorry, but you cannot stop our operating expenses just because we're in a recession. In what world do you live?
The major difference between the Northside Elementary Schools and the South/West side Elementary schools is that currently there are about 60 some "extra" seats on the Northside, close Lincoln (approx. 100 students) and Oaklawn (approx. 200 students) and you are short 240 or so seats.
For the South/West side there are over 300 excess elementary seats, which means you could close Lakeside/Green Meadow total enrollment as of 2007-2008 school year 253 or you could close Smith 07-08 enrollment 199 Green Meadow probably < 100 (Lakeside and Green Meadow are now combined for state reporting purposes so not possible to state with certainty the enrollment for either attendance area.
Clearly looking at the numbers you could close TWO Southside schools and not need to create a single classroom while to close ANY Northside school would require some amount of construction. That is why I believe the board should close 2 schools on the Southside to achieve efficiencies immediately. It's not going to happen but I believe is should!
I just took a walk through the OASD website to refresh my memory of some numbers....
There are a lot of extra seats...I I just took a walk through the OASD website to refresh my memory of some numbers....
There are 90 extra seats at Webster Stanley. At least 20 at e cook, merrill, read, jefferson. About 40 at Roosevelt.
I'm not sure why you're thinking 60 extra seats is the right number. Maybe you were taking a 'full operating' percentage instead of capacities?
There is PLENTY of space in north side schools.
(I totally agree about closing at least one southside school too!)
Oops...must have hit a f(x) key and repeated the same sentence!
Teresa:
What numbers are correct?
Your last post was pretty much all about the south/west side and did not speak to why a new $15,000,000 school would be prudent. Even if your number are acurate (which I now doubt) the northside would only need 11 new classrooms for 240 students. At $100,000 (guessing at that) per clasroom that is only $1.1 million. What should we do with the other $14,000,000????
Theil said,
"or you could close Smith 07-08 enrollment 199"
didn't we aquire land, demolish homes and add on a multimillion dollar expansion to Smith in the mid 90's?
Why would we want to walk away from that in less than 10 years?
I like Smith and I think that it is both a beautiful building and a shame that the OASD re-invested in it 10 years ago. It has a very close proximity to Jefferson and it's students could be absorbed elsewhere in an effort to consolidate and create efficiencies. I can either be for lots of neighborhood schools or for creating efficiences, and after careful consideration, I am in favor of creating efficiencies with careful consideration. We should be looking to close one or two elementary schools on the south side and the schools considered should be Smith, Lakeside, Green Meadow and Shapiro.
Webster Stanley Elementary Building Capacity 304
Webster Stanley Elementary Enrollment 332 (2006-2007 numbers - which is the year I was using) Using 2007-2008 data enrollment is 281 -- I don't see 90 extra seats at Webster, more like 23.
You don't have to believe my numbers, all the data is available on the district website and the state WINSS site.
The numbers I posted previously were from the 2006-2007 school year, I have not had time to update with 2007-2008 numbers.
The Smith referendum was part of the Traeger referendum in 1996 (12 years ago) I believe they built a gym and created a media center.
9:51 said:
"I like Smith and I think that it is both a beautiful building and a shame that the OASD re-invested in it 10 years ago. It has a very close proximity to Jefferson"
Correct me if I'm wrong (you know I wouldn't need to say that because I'm sure you would) but wasn't the Smith School reconstruction completed BEFORE the new Jefferson school was built?
Can someone help clarify that timeline.
"Your last post was pretty much all about the south/west side and did not speak to why a new $15,000,000 school would be prudent. Even if your number are acurate (which I now doubt) the northside would only need 11 new classrooms for 240 students. At $100,000 (guessing at that) per clasroom that is only $1.1 million. What should we do with the other $14,000,000????"
Teresa:
Are you there? Are you ignoring a conflict in your thinking or will you address my question?
Why should we spend $15,000,000 when we can spend one and at the same time create greater efficiencies?
It's unfortunate that some people can't smply admit when they are wrong.
D.C. public school experiment a test for us all
So it seems there's this new couple coming to town (the husband just got a job with the government). Now they are scouting schools for their children and people are wondering whether they're going to go public or private.
Some observers would like Michelle and Barack Obama to send their daughters to public schools. Doing so, they say, would be a powerful statement of faith in public education.
All that notwithstanding, I expect the Obamas, like many parents of means, will choose private schools.
Can we be honest here? I mean, brutally honest? D.C. public schools are not good enough for the Obama kids. Not because they are D.C. public schools, but because they are urban public schools.
I do not doubt the dedication of public school teachers. And yes, there are exceptional public schools – but the exceptions prove the rule. Public schools, particularly in urban areas, are largely failing our children.
Which brings me to Michelle Rhee. You might not know the name yet, but I'm betting you soon will. She is the Washington, D.C., schools chief who has drawn national attention for an audacious attempt to remake some of the nation's worst schools.
Among the changes she has instituted, or is attempting to institute, is a cash reward for students who meet certain benchmarks of performance and attendance. She also wants to make it easier to fire teachers who do not perform; under her plan, educators would give up tenure protections for a merit plan that would allow the best of them – i.e., those whose students actually learn something – to earn upward of $100,000 a year.
You'd think it would be a no-brainer that people who don't perform get the axe and those who do get raises. Isn't that the way it works in most non-unionized professions? But the teachers union apparently exists in some alternate universe where everyone is rewarded equally regardless of the quality of their work. So it has fought Ms. Rhee with bitter tenacity, seeking to block her at every step.
Meanwhile, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 48 percent of D.C. eighth-graders had attained basic reading skills in 2007, "basic" being a term denoting "partial mastery" of necessary knowledge and skills. Only 12 percent were rated proficient readers. The corresponding numbers in math: 34 and 8. Those statistics, dismal as they are, represent an improvement over previous years.
And D.C. is hardly unique.
All of us, then, have a stake in the success of Ms. Rhee's experiment. All of us should be yelling for the teachers union to get out of the way. We need to know if what she proposes will work. And if it does not, we need to determine what will.
We need, in other words, an urgency we seem to lack.
Too many of us, I think, have made peace with the idea that public schools don't work, have come to regard it as normal that they crank out poorly educated kids, have come to accept that certain children in certain places are ineducable. But I saw the falsity of that with my own eyes while traveling the country for What Works, saw some of the nation's best students in some of its most dire places.
The failure here, then, is not the students', but ours, a failure of will and imagination. We need to reassess the things we take for granted. We need to decide that our children deserve better.
And we need to ask a simple question: if public schools are not good enough for the president's kids, what makes us think they are good enough for ours?
COMMENT:
He seems to find it remarkable that the teachers union does not punish those who don't perform. Isn't that the way all unions function? Ask those running the airline industry and the automobile industry; they are paying dearly right now for old business models which rely on unions that overpay everyone, regardless of work quality.
Copy and paste droan strikes again.
"Copy and paste droan strikes again."
Does the fact that this was a copy and paste take away from the content? This may just be one of the more informative posts I've seen here in awhile.
I sincerely hope that Teresa will answer 8:25 and 11:32.
Anon. 8:25 and 11:32 You can't just "guess" that building all those classrooms would "only cost $1M" Where is your data? First of all, it matters where you build those classrooms, if they are all at E. Cook, you will need expanded, Gym, Cafeteria, Media Center etc. to accomodate doubling the size of the school. If it is a classroom here and a classroom there, maybe the classrooms will suffice (may require additonal bathrooms but I don't know for sure).
I am not willing to just blindly accept the 1M you pulled out of the air.
I will agree that adding only classrooms would cost less than a new school. However, I am not interested in doing the cheapest thing possible. I am interested in doing what is best for the district as a whole. I believe a new school on the Ryf Road site makes the most sense. We already own the property, the area surrounding the district property is primed for development, and it is likely people would would build in Omro, Winneconne, Berlin or Neenah, would find this property more attractive due to the nearness of a school, which in turn could actually increase enrollment, bringing more state dollars.
The district is already bussing all the students in the former Sunset attendance area into the city to Read school and there are a number of Oaklawn students who are bussed to Oaklawn. It is likely that no additional busses will be needed so the bussing costs will not increase. The district pays per bus per route, not per child on a bus.
Building a new school allows the district to stabilize special education classrooms and should result in fewer (hopefully zero)Special Education classrooms be moved to different schools each year.
A new school will result in efficiencies... it will allow 2 schools to close and the new school will only need one principal, secretary, media specialist,etc. There will also be plenty of energy efficiencies with a new building that you won't get by adding a classroom here or there.
I think a new school is warranted and I think the Ryf Road property makes sense, though I would support an alternate site, but I do NOT support building anything on the current Oaklawn site.
Only time will tell what the community supports.
I think you're just plain silly to even consider backing the board for building a new school while they take no action for the overall budget.
We cannot continue to support decisions that are harmful to our district as a whole.
This board needs to make good, common sense decisions regarding closing schools, live with the repercussions and THEN ask for money.
Build it and they will come is a nice thought but there are no guarantees. Let us not gamble our hard earned tax dollars but use them wisely!
1. We have no hard data on the cost to build 11 classrooms because the planners have not gathered it and the BOE has not asked for it. That is irresponsable.
2. I am interested in doing what is best for this district too and I believe that saving money and increasing efficiencies is in the best interest. Additions to several schools will create greater efficiencies than a new school and will cost less. It's really a no brainer, unless you have an alternate agenda.
Save money and increase efficiencies.
3. The district is already bussing students from the country to the city because they have to. It is completely illogical to bus students from the city to the country.
4. One of the existing schools, with additions, could and should be the north side special education center. That school should be a k-8 campus and not an elementary school. Why would you want to create an elementary base and not a middle school base. That makes no sense.
5. If the BOE asked for the data, I am certain that we would find that multiple additions could be built and some serious enegy savings upgrades could be made to all the north side schools for less than the cost of one new $15,000,000 elementary school.
6. You won't support a high quality Oaklawn addition, but you won't state a good reason why. That's encouraging.
Teresa, I am only trying to engage you because i know that you are very close with Karen Bowen, Amy Weinsheim and, I presume, the other more liberal BOE members that support these plans. I am trying to kindly show you some of the faults with your/their plan in hopes that they will respond with a better approach.
Thanks,
anonymous
"I will agree that adding only classrooms would cost less than a new school. However, I am not interested in doing the cheapest thing possible."
Sounds like a friend of Amy "I always commit money without knowing how I'll pay for it later" Wienshiem.
WOW how can anybody support that kind of thinking! That's how the whole country got into this mess.
Now all we have to wait for is the Obama WPA programs and we can build New Schools all over the city!
nothing for days? I have to assume that you are afraid of the argument. I can certainly understand why.
Why would anyone want to build a new school in a declining attendance area (please proove me wrong) that is on the outer edge of the school district and in a location where city kids will actually have to be bussed to the country?
How would anyone even think that a huge multi-million dollar referendum could possibly pass in the poor economic climate we are currently in!?
Lets look a Kaukauna, they are struggling to just keep their ship afloat, much less look to taxpayers for even more money.
I agree with the posters at the end of the article that union concessions and waste cutting measures should be implemented immediately.
Kaukauna cutting school staff
$2.7M shortfall has officials paring down
KAUKAUNA — Kaukauna Area School District officials say they have no choice but to cut staff to cover part of a $2.7 million shortfall the district could face in 2009-10.
Supt. Lloyd McCabe said Thursday after a Board of Education meeting that he and the teachers union are in talks about the layoffs. He presents a cost-saving plan to the board on Jan. 12.
"When 75 percent of your budget is staffing and you reduce everything you can find for three years, the only thing left is to reduce staffing," said McCabe in reference to the serious reductions — one which included closing Nicolet Elementary School in June — he has had to make to balance the past three budgets.
At that meeting, McCabe also plans to show board members a net loss of positions in the district from administrative to maintenance.
How many positions will be eliminated is up for discussion in the next few weeks as he and other administrators hammer out a way to close the gap.
The district is taking a conservative approach, given the state's projected deficit of $5.4 billion by 2011.
The district receives $284 per pupil in state aid, but Kaukauna schools financial officer Bob Schafer is basing the deficit on a possible scenario in which the district only would receive $100 per pupil.
"We have to pick a number that will make it easier to call people back — to call it that — and make the adjustments," Schafer said. "We're better off to be conservative and bring back programs and people."
In a 5-2 vote, board members pledged not to cut nearly $1 million for maintenance.
Board member Todd Arnoldussen, who with Giovanna Feller voted against the commitment, sought to reduce the amount to about $700,000.
Kaukauna has been pushing back scheduled improvement projects to roofs and parking lots to reduce costs.
McCabe said the district no longer can afford to continue the trend.
whoaa wrote:
Let's see some solidarity here. How about a 5% cut by all teachers to save the other positions and a 10% by administrators. I see this as a much better alternative to people losing their entire job and jobs in education are relatively save during a recession. Stop thinking about "me, me, meeeeeee!" Work as a group and you can do this!
highholder127 wrote:
Education should revolve around children but almost always they are the last considered - instead a system revolves around administration. One can tell by looking at the chairs each level has. Generally the board of education - which meets occasionally - has padded chairs, so does the superintendent. The students get hard seats - they sit most of the day. The administration should be out among the workers and students. A trial in a school system in CA showed that they could run effectively without principals. The duties were divided up among the teaching staff -- which is usually the case any way -- delegation. So why not try that for a year and see how it goes? Might become the trend. And in addition - a look at the layers of central administration. Far too often these layers delegate to one who delegates to some who delegate to still more. A lot of money could be saved and then spent on the real purpose of education -- kids learning.
3:25, your spelling is as flawed as your arguments. We had a school out in this area once before. It was less than a mile from the Ryf location. It's time we got a school back out there to serve those families and beyond.
11:26 Picking on spelling is petty and simple, just like your post.
The fact that there was a VERY small school near that area once before is in no way an argument to build a new large elementary school in a declining attendance area that children within walking distance of Oaklawn will have to be bussed to.
Thanks for at least trying, but your argument is hardly even worth responding to. Can you come up with at least a few GOOD reasons to build a school on the Ryf Road site?
They were amplified at the school board meeting. Either watch a replay or request minutes. But oh that's right, you really aren't interested in hearing them. You're just intersted in fighting. Just like a few school board wannabes.
Oh yes and about the spelling remark being petty. You may think it is but I disagree. People form impressions of others by how they present themselves. Some of you have made that quite clear with respect to those you oppose. Well, toots, if the argument works in your favor when you want to go after someone else, you better buck up and be ready to accept the same.
11:34
I have never picked at someone for a mispelled word in a post. You have no idea who I am and with whom I am associated, so please don't try to associate me with any group.
I am not here to fight, but I would like to debate the issues that I feel are totally against the concept of building a new northside elementary school. I am in favor of making wise investments that will most benefit our students and a new $15,000,000 school in a declining attendance area that nearly all students will need to be bussed to is simply not a wise investment.
You are on the wrong side of the issue which is made more obvious by the fact that you refuse to debate. If you are so intelligent and you are right, then why not bring your argument to the table?
1. Is the Sunset/Oaklawn area an area with declining attendance?
2. What percentage of students will be required to be bussed to the new Ryf Road school?
3. Of that percentage bussed, how many of those students are now able to walk to Oaklawn?
4. How much would it cost if we were to simply add classrooms to existing schools to accept the Linclon and Oaklawn populations instead of building a new school?
5. How much would it cost to raze the oldest portion of Oaklwan and build an addition that would be large enough to accept the Lincoln population?
6. Will the school be designed to handle special ed populations? If so, where will the students move to for middle school? How is this solution better than making Merrill the northside special ed school?
If anyone can find the time to answer these few questions, I may be able to come up with a few more.
Why are you not calling the school district for the answers you're looking for? Or do you just want to argue with people who present the answers the school district already has?
I'm sorry, I thought this was a blog with a topic for discussing the referendum proposal. I don't understand why you would be bothered by questions or an attempt to discuss the referendum questions.
Some people are just negative and argumentative, not even remotely interested in actually discussing.
I guess you would have to try discussing something with me before you could say that, now isn't that right?
Somebody tried to answer what questions they could on the Krause blog:
Here are some answers. None of the others have ever been addressed in BOE meetings or on the OASD website.
1. Is the Sunset/Oaklawn area an area with declining attendance? YES
2. What percentage of students will be required to be bussed to the new Ryf Road school? 100% PLUS 100% OF SUNSET AND 100% OF ANYONE ELSE. THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS.
3. Of that percentage bussed, how many of those students are now able to walk to Oaklawn? NEVER ADDRESSED
4. How much would it cost if we were to simply add classrooms to existing schools to accept the Linclon and Oaklawn populations instead of building a new school? FAR LESS THAN $15 MILL AS WE HAVE EMPTY SEATS ON THE NORTH SIDE ALREADY.
5. How much would it cost to raze the oldest portion of Oaklwan and build an addition that would be large enough to accept the Lincoln population? FAR LESS THAN $15 MILL.
6. Will the school be designed to handle special ed populations? If so, where will the students move to for middle school? How is this solution better than making Merrill the northside special ed school? SOME. DON'T KNOW. IT ISN'T.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
7. Why would it be a good idea to invest $15,000,000 in a new elementary school on the Ryf Road site?
Ask Paul Esslinger, the sidewalk czar, to put some in. He should be on board with this since he's really into that. If it's the Town of Algoma's jurisdiction, Esslinger can use his powers of persuasion and leadership to git 'er done.
11:03 Nothing worthy to add, huh?
Nothing worthy? Hmm, IMHO it would seem that one person's concern about there being no sidewalks at the Ryf Road location and another's suggestion to get Paul Esslinger to sponsore getting them in there is worthy. After all, he sponsored and helped railroad sidewalks through in a small subdivision where safety was no issue at all. Why not here where children will be aplenty? Not only sounds like a worthy suggestion but a good cause for the mayor wannabe.
Ryf Road is in the TOWN of Oshkosh. Not the City. Esslinger has nothing to do with it.
The sidewalks that were put in the River Mill area were part of the Wiouwash Trail. You say there were no safety concerns? What about the trail users? Is their safety not important?
As for Ryf Road, go see the town board about sidewalks... BTW, it is an awful long sidewalk to reach out there from the city where Oaklawn is currently located.
Gee whiz, put on your reading glasses before you spout off, 11:33. It was already stated that if the Ryf Road location is in someone else's jurisdiction, Sidewalk Czar Paul Esslinger could at a minimum use his powers of persuasion to get sidewalks put in. In your haste to protect and defend him you missed it.
Since you're busy defedning his concern about safety, let's talk about that, shall we. There were NO incidents in the River Mill area but he helped shove those down everyone's throats. Yet he does not see a need to improve the intersection at Jackson and Murdock because there haven't been enough accidents there to warrant it. He also is not too concerned apparently about getting sidewalks installed along the remaiing areas of our frontage roads where people are walking to and from stores. It's always dangerous but especially this time of year with slippery conditions and less than properly plowed roads. I guess if he can't stick it to someone the sidewalks don't matter that much to him. Hypocrite.
"There were NO incidents in the River Mill area but he helped shove those down everyone's throats."
Must be writing about Frank Tower. He was the key swing vote that put sidewalks in River Mill
There wouldn't have been a need for ANY VOTE if not for Safety and Sidewalk Czar Paul Esslinger. He was just trying to stick it to the former mayor. If it were really about safety he'd push for sidewalks in other areas of the city more heavily traveled by pedestrians and that don't have them. He's a power hungry hypocrite.
The hypocrit here is the one that is deflecting the conversation away from the referndum questions. Is this blog "About Oshkosh Students," or Paul Esslinger?
Stop deflecting and answer the seven questions with your best effort.....please.
You are not in charge of what is and isn't approrpriate discussion for this blog and FYI the argument was made that there are no sidewalks at the Ryf Road location. That argument was addressed and when challenged it was addressed again. Just because YOU don't like the answer does not mean you can stifle the discussion. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
Thanks largely to Frank Tower for his pivotal vote, we now have sidewalks in River Mill. It was a gutsy vote, as no one even suspected Frank would cast the key vote, but I have to hand it to Frank, because of him, pedestrians are safe walking in the River Mill subdivision.
They were always safe. Esslinger used his position to stick it to the people there. Too bad he's such a pandering hypocrite that he's not done the same for all the other parts of town where sidewalks are more desperately needed. He's a joke.
Too bad you are so good at name calling and not so bright in the business end of things.
Just a little FYI for those that are spouting off about sidewalks... Take a look at the City CIP and you will see that many of the troubled areas ARE addressed within the next year or two. River Mill was an exception because it was supposed to be addressed several years ago and got removed. Rather than try and schedule it into a future budget, they decided that it was put off long enough. There were FOUR council members that made that decision... I understand though, you want to deflect to Esslinger. If it makes you feel better, have at it.
"If you don't like it, go elsewhere."
I suppose that you would like that because then you wouldn't be pestered into having a real discussion that would point out all the flaws in the concept of a new northside school. You'd rather deflect and squirm your way out of it.
Your desire to have a "discussion" is nothing more than a poorly disguised way of goading someone into an argument with you. You like to argue and no matter what anyone says or what the data shows, you continue to argue. So in your own words, have at it, but you'll have to do so by yourself.
As far as the sidewalks go, believe what you want, but if Esslinger was truly concerned about safety, he would have suggested moving up the more troublesome areas to an earlier date and put the River Mill area to a later date. I'm sure he would have gotten similar support from other councilors. A truly concerned person would have fixed the most dangerous areas first, but not Esslinger. Since you're so worried about someone being business smart, THAT would have been good business.
Call it what you want but for Esslinger, the River Mill sidewalks were nothing more than him wanting to stick it to someone. Just remember, what goes around comes around. For Esslinger that time will come in the next few months. Happy campaigning.
So, who will you vote for Mayor?
Esslinger- voted in favor of the River Mill sidewalks.
Tower- voted in favor of the River Mill sidewalks.
Looks like if you are stuck on an issue, you can't vote!
Too bad, so sad. Maybe next time.
You're assuming I'm a one issue voter. Too bad, so sad for you. Wrong AGAIN. Esslinger is power hungry, panders to voters, and grandstands at every opportunity, especially when there's a camera or microphone nearby. He's a poor choice for mayor all the way around and won't be getting a vote from this blogger. It's Tower all the way.
6:21 said....
"It's Tower all the way"
So you'll cast your vote for the council member who was the key swing vote in your hated River Mill sidewalk issue. Hummm.
Sounds like you might have some type of odd manrage envy thing going here agains Esslinger.
I say that as your "logic" is illogical!
"Your desire to have a "discussion" is nothing more than a poorly disguised way of goading someone into an argument with you. You like to argue and no matter what anyone says or what the data shows, you continue to argue. So in your own words, have at it, but you'll have to do so by yourself."
Squirm, squirm, squirm. I guess that is all you have left. You know, it's really just seven little, simple questions.
How is asking seven questions an example of "goading" someone into an argument. That assertion is rather ridiculous.
If you support a new northside school, you should answer the questions and feel free to provide additional information or ask additional questions.
That would be a discussion of the issues.
Manrage? Not sure that's a word but it's really quite simple. I will not focus on just one issue in voting for mayor or any other office. If you do, that might explain why your views are so skewed. SOme of us look at a person's overall record and Esslinger's is awful. He does nothing but grandstand and pander, even when he knows he can't win an argument. But he knows he can then sit back and point to others and say to the public "See, I tried to do something for you but my fellow councilors just aren't taxpayer friendly." He's so transparent it's pathetic and voters have seen him for what he is. Can't wait for April to see him get shot down again.
What a wonderful referendum proposal discussion this has become.
Someone keeps replying that the questions have been answered when they clearly haven't.
1. Is the Sunset/Oaklawn area an area with declining attendance?
2. What percentage of students will be required to be bussed to the new Ryf Road school?
3. Of that percentage bussed, how many of those students are now able to walk to Oaklawn?
4. How much would it cost if we were to simply add classrooms to existing schools to accept the Linclon and Oaklawn populations instead of building a new school?
5. How much would it cost to raze the oldest portion of Oaklwan and build an addition that would be large enough to accept the Lincoln population?
6. Will the school be designed to handle special ed populations? If so, where will the students move to for middle school? How is this solution better than making Merrill the northside special ed school?
If anyone can find the time to answer these few questions, I may be able to come up with a few more.
You don't really want answers. You only want to argue.
How is asking seven questions an example of "goading" someone into an argument? That assertion is rather ridiculous.
If you support a new northside school, you should answer the questions and feel free to provide additional information or ask additional questions.
That would be a discussion of the issues.
The answers have been discussed in different circles. More importantly, the decision for the site of the new school has been made. And still, people like you just keep arguing. It not only proves the point some of you just want to keep arguing, but it's sickening besides.
Our $800.00 per day Administrators referendum will fail in historic fashion. The taxpayers are tapped out. Jobs are lost. People are unemployed. Others are underemployed. No one has money to give to this plan. It will fail!
I strongly suspect some aspect of this referendum will pass. You cna't possibly know what's in the thought process of every voter to make such a blanket, not to mention negative, statement as "it will fail" and in historic fashion. Even in communities where people have lost their jobs, etc., referendums have passed, so you really ought to get your head out of the sand and do better research while perched in front of your monitor.
Your poor defense of this idiotic plan is sickening.
I'm sorry I gave this blog an oppurtunity to try and defend it.
You can't defend your negativity nor the fact that other referenda have passed. Good riddance.
"You can't defend your negativity nor the fact that other referenda have passed. Good riddance."
It's in no way negative to try and enter into a discussion regarding a very important public issue facing our community. Especially when it is directly on topic with this thread and this blog. The fact that no one here can defend this proposed referendum should speak volumes to anybody reading this mess.
Good riddance? I'm not going anywhere.
Another question:
How does the fact that other referenda have passed have anything to do with this one?
is this board now making a decsions to make no decision for a year and then hire Vickman as superintendant? i sure hope not, but reading the article in the Northwestern sure looks like they are priming someone internally.
I can not believe the stupidity of some of these posters. They say a referendum will fail miserably because people are out of work and tapped out financially. When the point is made that other referendums have passed in communities where the people ahve experienced the same or worse, they respond with "what does that have to do with it." They say they're not negative, but every word from their lips is that of a naysayer. They say they're sorry they gave this bog a chance (or in their words an oppurtunity, sic) but then say they're not going anywhere (so it can't be too bad for them here). They say they're not trying to goad anyone into an argument but every time someone disagrees with them they have a smart ass response and ignore the previous answers as if they never happened. Never mind the fact that they are still whining about a site selection that's already been approved by the BOE. Now they say the supt selection seems to be an inside job when there was absolutely nothing said to even remotely suggest that. Yikes, what negative fools these odd ones be, never happy and always wanting to bitch about something.
I really must agree. I am not thrilled with a lot of things this school board has done but I am not going to take my feelings about them or their individual personalities out on schools that need repairs or what have you. The ones who do that are the ones we have to fear as they are more dangerous and detrimental to this this district and our children than many of the BOE decisions put together.
Maybe the fact that the economy is in trouble is only part of the reason that the referndum will fail. maybe the larger reason is that the proposed new school makes no sense.
If the proposed new school is indefensible and it makes no sense, then how is the fact that other (completely seperate and different) referendums would apply to this referendum?
One can be sorry that they gave this blog an "oppurtunity" and still not walk away from an attempt to start a discussion.
I did not make the post about the superintendant. That was an assumption on your part and does not discredit my comments in any way.
I will continue to bitch about this complete waste of money. After all, it is taking away from dollars that could be put towards my childrens education.
I'm sorry if you feel that I am being argumentative, but most would agree that you (and your friends) have not been very civil either. Most would agree that you have not addressed the discussion and have made every attempt to deflect from it.
This blog may be a waste of time, but I am willing to tough it out for the children.
Look at the defensiveness (along with negativity). You were not necessarily accused of making a comment about the supt. The post talked about stupid and negative POSTERS. Note it is plural. Sorry to say many children have a better reading ability than you. When the new school is built maybe you can volunteer at it and learn a few things from the children.
5:16
Your entire argument was that posters contradict themselves. In order for that to be true the posts would have to be from the same poster. I guess I assumed that you knew that. My bad.
I still do not see any reasonable defense of this referendum proposal.
The word "contradict" was never used. You're right -- you bad. Please make it your new year's resolution to enroll in a literacy program ASAP.
You are wrong and you are still deflecting from the discussion.
Post a Comment