It's About Oshkosh Students

STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS... What about that 2/3 funding?

2008-05-16T18:33:00.004-05:00

Most people, even school people get confused by the 2/3 state funding and think that means the State of Wisconsin funds 2/3 of the budget for every school in the state. That is incorrect. The 2/3 funding is an average for the entire state. I found the following on the Madison School District site and while it pertains specifically to Madison, much of the explanation applies to Oshkosh as well (I will insert Oshkosh data when it differs from Madison)

From the Madison School District Web Site:

"The major issue facing schools currently is the revenue cap that limits the amount of money that a Wisconsin school district can spend -- based on a formula that does not take into account the actual increased costs that occur each year.

The state does currently fund 2/3 of the cost of education across the state. This is an average figure and varies dramatically from district to district. In the case of Madison, the state funds approximately 28% of our costs.[For Oshkosh it is nearly 2/3 I think about 62%] The revenue cap is a property tax measure, not an education measure. The more the state funds K-12 education, the less that property tax payers in a district have to pay.

The service reductions that district's across the state are having to make every year is the result of our inability to fund the same level of service each year. This happens because the amount of money we can use per pupil is not allowed to increase as rapidly as the cost of providing the service increases.

In the case of Madison, the state mandates that our budget can increase by only 2.6% a year,[that figure is about the same for Oshkosh] but our costs to continue providing the same services to our children increase at least 3.8% per year. This is the minimum increase that occurs because of the current state law that allows school districts to avoid arbitration with their teachers union if they offer that 3.8% increase in total salary and benefits. Obviously, that means that unions are never going to settle below 3.8%.

Salary and benefits are 86% of our budget,[about the same for Oshkosh] so the 3.8% creates a floor to our expenses. Our other expenses such as insurance and utilities rise much more than the 3.8% each year. In these areas, we are subject to the same market forces that homeowners and businesses are.

The gap that results from the difference between the 2.6% we can expend and the 3.8% minimum increase in costs (it is usually 4.0 - 4.2%) [again that is the same for Oshkosh] is the reason we and almost every other school district in Wisconsin has to reduce services to their students every year.

To put this in context, if we were doing everything today that we were doing in 1993 -- when the revenue cap law went into effect -- we would have 526 more employees and our budget would be $46 million higher that it is today. [I don't know those figures for Oshkosh but it would certainly be more significantly more than it is today]. I think this number quantifies the difference that the revenue cap has made in services to children."

I find the above to be a very understandable explanation for how 2/3 funding works, and why districts can't "live within their means" as some like to criticize. Contrary to what many taxpayers believe, school districts cannot just increase taxes to provide services, most are limited to a 2.6% increase in their budget and as the above explains, costs increase at a greater amount than revenue is allowed to increase, hence budget cuts are required, pretty much every year. Revenue controls have been good for property taxpayers but not good for school districts. The Revenue Controls have hit Oshkosh Schools especially hard because it has always been a frugal district and the Controls locked school districts in at what they were spending in 1993 and only allowed approximately 2.6% increases each year. It doesn't take an accountant to understand why so many school districts are struggling.

It is too bad more taxpayers don't understand this whole issue. It is not poor management on the part of school districts, it is an unfair funding formula (primarily favoring school districts in the Milwaukee suburbs).

SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH

2008-05-03T11:06:00.002-05:00

I think most people would agree the major task facing the school board over the next few months is to hire a new superintendent. A search firm will be hired to assist the board in this process. I imagine at some point the opinions of the community will be sought, I hope more people show up than showed up for a similar meeting regarding the City Manager. Sometimes it seems as if very few want to get involved but many like to complain. Then again sometimes I let the blogs skew my perceptions. If you really stop and count the number of posters on a blog that requires registration (Oshkonversation) you will note that for the most part there are 5-10 different posters on any given thread. Hardly the voice of the community.

At any rate, I'd like to know what readers think should be considered when hiring a new superintendent for the Oshkosh Area School District? Is previous experience as a superintendent necessary? Should board members visit the community where the final candidates work? What qualities are necessary in a new superintendent, what qualities would be nice to have and what qualities are not really important at all?

It appears that all the districts around us that are looking for, or have hired, a new superintendent have paid that person more than our current superintendent makes (anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 more), should this matter? Will we have to pay in that range to stay competitive or do we just set a dollar figure and see who is willing to come to Oshkosh for that amount?

How would you go about "including" the community or is this strictly a Board decision?

I guess that is enough to get people started...

DEFINITION TIME - Must post by April 14

2008-04-06T21:31:00.004-05:00

Throughout the whole facilities discussions, on blogs and forums and in discussions with people, I keep coming back to something... Supposedly this community values "neighborhood schools" yet I have never seen a definition of what that means:

So, please post your definition of "neighborhood schools" with the assumption that said definition to be used to determine that if a school closed, would there still be a school in the "neighborhood". Please be specific and make sure that is all you post... your definition of "Neighborhood Schools" anything will be deleted. You don't need to "criticize" some one's definition right now I'm just looking for definitions. This thread will be locked on April 15 (assuming I can figure out how to do that) and then I will take 3-5 definitions and (again assuming I can figure out how) post a poll to see how much agreement on a definition there is.

Thanks -- again I request you choose a "name" even just a letter works -- so much easier than time posted... PLEASE ;-)

UPDATE: As Smiley pointed out -- low turnout on this post. Apparently no one has a working definition of "neighborhood schools" or they don't want to share it.

I'll have a post on a new but related topic later this week.

Discussion of School Board Election Results

2008-04-02T22:35:00.003-05:00

Rather than just delete the comments on the Facilities Thread relating to what the election results mean... I will be moving them here... so if you want to discuss the results post here... I will delete them from the other thread.

Keep the discussion civil! Thanks

Moving On... Facilities Needs vs. Wants

2008-04-02T00:08:00.005-05:00

I am so excited about the election results I can't sleep.

I am hoping we can have a civil discussion about what the "wants" and the "needs" are in the facilities plan. Or what types of things people think are "wants" and what things people think are "needs". If the discussion is not on this topic or gets nasty I will enable comment moderation and delete those things not on point, even if I agree with the statement. I see this election as really changing the tone of the board and I want to shift my tone as well. While I will still correct factual errors, I would like to find areas where people can agree or at least compromise.

I do not have copies of all the architect reports so I can't give you specifics on what exactly was in or out but here are some of the things I think are needs:

a) Updated electrical, HVAC, plumbing etc. on all buildings that will not close
b) Computer lab with at least 30 working computers
c) Media Center large enough to take a class of 25 5th graders
d) When building new or remodeling, schools with at least 3 sections per grade, 4 is preferable
e) Separate Art Room and Separate Music Room

It is late and I am fading -- that is what I can think of right now... please post your thoughts, but remember, describe the things you think are wants in a facilities plan and or the things you think are needs... anything else I will be putting comment moderation back on and deleting the posts...

A FAVOR -- I will ask once again, would you please instead of choosing anonymous could you choose name and make up a name... it is only one more step than choosing anonymous... you just have to type in a name like "cubfan" did... I just find it so much easier to use monikers than posting times. It is also nice to get a feel for how many individuals are posting. I don't get any information if you choose "name" and you can ignore the URL box. Of course you don't have to choose "name", but I really hope you will. Thanks

The Northwestern's Endorsement got it Exactly RIGHT

2008-03-30T18:59:00.005-05:00

Two posters on the Oaklawn thread have asked that I start threads on two different topics. The first asks when I will have a new post on the 4-3 vote on the facilities plan. The answer, maybe after the election, maybe never. I must say I am frustrated at the end result of almost 2 years (some would argue 10 years) of discussions but if the board majority changes, this won't be the plan anyway (and there probably won't be a "plan" for another 2 years). So I'm leaving that alone until we know just who is on the board.

The other poster asked for a thread about the School board election, and as you can see from the Title of this thread, I will post on that one.

As the title of this thread implies, The Northwestern's Endorsement captures my feelings exactly.

Schneider is quick to point his finger at the board majority for allowing our buildings to fall into "disrepair". However, he served as Chair of the Facilities and Finance Committee for a number of years and not once did he show any leadership in getting our buildings repaired. He served 6 years on the board and how many resolutions did he bring forth to "fix" our facilities? None... It is so easy to point the finger and vote "no" repeatedly but where was the leadership from the chair pointing out the need to fix our buildings? Instead he preferred to "grandstand" and give taxpayers an approximate $15 tax savings, rather than using the money to fix our buildings. As the Northwestern asked "what does he stand for"?

McDermott in an effort to compromise brought forward a plan he could support... where was Schneider's plan? If he were to be in the majority, who can tell me what his plan will look like? I doubt anyone can since he has never said what he would or would not support. He talks a lot about wants and needs but your need may be my want and vice versa. I especially liked the Northwesterns line: "But ask Schneider how to move forward or what specific things should be tackled, and he invariably withers,". That doesn't sound like leadership to me. Over and over I have heard him say "I defer to the experts" yet he never does. To defer means "to yield respectfully in judgment or opinion" that is not what Schneider does... he invariably votes "no" on those things he "defers to experts". What it seems to me is he just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about an answer.

As far as Monte, the Northwestern is right in stating that she would be a divisive factor on the board.

Her stand on things seems to waffle as well... her opening statement at every forum talks about "if we meet the needs of our most challenged students, we will meet the needs of all of our students." I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. So, why does she feel the need to post this "I don't think Special Needs is the number one priority, though certainly in the top ten."

Then here are just some of her "thoughts" on a "Plan":

March 17 (Oshkonversation) -- The plan I had been working on would cost about $30 million to include the deferred maintenance, a renovated or replacement Oaklawn, and a few other things we have put off too long like permanent homes for some of our special needs programs. (How is this so different from McDermott's plan?)

Yet of McDermott's plan she said on March 21st on her blog: "However, there is far more to the plan I do not like. My personal views aside, no one I have spoken to or who has contacted me would be willing to support this plan. I believe that if there is little to no community support, we are barking up the wrong tree." And "While the amendment may have been well intentioned, I have to consider the timing. At any point in the last two years, McDermott or anyone else on the BOE or in the administration could have turned the focus on Oaklawn. Like other schools, it was the three-headed step-child and had to close." Yet 4 days earlier a replacement Oaklawn was part of HER plan...

On March 14 (Oshkonversation) in response to a question from "tireless" about "Where did this "new Northside School' come from?"

Monte responds: "Tireless, If I remember discussions surrounding the idea of a new school on the northside, the architect on the attendance area team wasn't involved. I don't think there were even the six teams yet (teams were formed sometime in 2007) when that was brought into the equation. I know there were comments about making sure the amount of construction on both sides of town was balanced to be more fair. My understanding is that the new school is to replace Oaklawn in a more favorable location."

Then on her blog on March 21st she writes "When there is community opposition to building a new northside school, suddenly (my emphasis) the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn." Well was it before the six teams were formed (at least 6 months ago, probably closer to a year) or was it suddenly?

March 24 --- (Oshkonveration) UWBlade, the best I can do with the information I have is $30 million. That number includes the FCAP, estimating it to be $15 million. The remainder of the money would go to ADA requirements; conservative renovations to add Special Ed rooms; Fixed equipment needs, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC upgrades; and permits and fees identified in the architectual reports. I would look at closing Lincoln and Lakeside to start and converting Green Meadow to a larger school for the Lakeside and Green Meadow areas. (oops, what about a renovated or replacement Oaklawn?)

Feb 1st (Oshkonversation): "I would look at South Park or Tipler for closing... moving other programs like East High and the Rec Dept into one of the buildings...I would also close Lincoln and sell the property to UWO if possible. ...I would recommend selling the Ryf Rd property and do one of two things with Oaklawn. Either way the funds from Ryf Rd would offset some of the referendum (emphasis mine). Oaklawn is two buildings in one. There is a newer section that is in some need of maintenance but by no means dead on its foundation. The other section is a temp section that is well past its life expectancy and was promised to be replaced. There was never the money to do it. Tear down the temp section and build a two story addition to accomodate more northside students. The other option is to sell Oaklawn's property so the city could rezone it as commercial considering the area we are talking about. Then take a look at some of the vacant properties around Vinland. Rebuild Oakwood there to get it away form the other schools, we already have enough on the east side on top of each other. As the north side develops, there would be a new elementary school to cover the neighborhoods while still being within a reasonable distance to everything else. The new Oaklawn being closer to North could open up some mentoring opportunities for the high school students. ...I already gave my opinion of Lakeside closing and adding to Green Meadow. Town of Black Wolf already put in an offer for Right of First Refusal which is further why Lakside closing makes more sense. ...Looking at the proximity of Washington, Webster Stanley, and E. Cook, I would consider possibly closing Washington or reducing the size of Webster Stanley. ...I think we can accomplish most, if not all, of our goals for less than $30 million, deferred maintenance being our first priority." If you close Washington, would you not have to build classrooms somewhere to accomodate them? The north side really doesn't have excess seats. What is the cost of that?

Also on Feb. 1st Oshkonversation: "Libra, One of the problems Oshkosh is facing is a growing population that is crowding/has crowded Oakwood and Traeger. The new plans do not really solve for this as there is little/no room for future growth.
We could turn Oakwood into a small K-8 (smaller than Traeger) and shift the boundary for Traeger north and then expand Green Meadow to absorb most of Lakeside and feed Green Meadow into Traeger." How does that fit into the $30M? Would the "Oakwood K-8 just not have Science Labs, Industrial Tech Lab, Orchestra and Band rooms?

On Jan. 14th on Oshkonversation "Where I disagree is that there is also the factor of mitigating the debt by selling the properties to be closed or reducing staff when numbers of buildings are reduced. ...

Take a look at the real estate market. We cannot count on the revenue of the sales because there is no way to ensure what will sell or for how much." See Feb. 1st post above...

After reading all this, I don't know what exactly Monte's plan would look like or if the $30M figure is accurate. Just like I don't think anyone really knows what Monte will support or not support, should she be elected.

To sum up, the Northwestern is correct in stating that McDermott is the only "leader" running for the school board.

Oaklawn was never part of the Jefferson referendum

2008-03-22T21:57:00.006-05:00

Just when I thought I could relax and enjoy my holiday weekend I read a blog post and feel the need to correct some inaccurate information.

This was posted on Mrs. Monte's blog in referenced to Oaklawn Elementary "One section is an older temporary section that has outlived its life expectancy. It was promised to be replaced with the Jefferson referendum but the district ran out of money and couldn't get another referendum passed."

I don't know what she means by "temporary section" --- it was built in the 50's by the neighbors but it wasn't meant to be temporary.

I worked on the very successful Jefferson referendum (72% of voters approved the Jefferson question and it was ONLY to build a new Jefferson -- NOTHING ELSE).

As far as the second question from the 1998 referendum, NOTHING is mentioned in that question about Oaklawn, only Merrill is mentioned by name. There is some reference to district wide capital improvements but I can assure you it was NOT a rebuild of Oaklawn. It is also incorrect to say "the district ran out of money" the FACT is the some of the work at Merrill came in under budget so Mr. Gray proposed to the board that the unused funds be used to finish up some items further down on the capital improvements list that the district didn't think they would have referendum money for.

Here is the actual text of the 1998 referendum questions (which, by the way received a 7-0 vote of the board ---members at the time Bird, Boss, Bowen, Kavanaugh, McHugh, Stratz and Werblow):

BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,300,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new Jefferson Elementary School, acquisition of land therefor and removing the existing school building.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,500,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of technology infrastructure and equipment; renovations and additions to Merrill Middle/Elementary School; and district-wide capital improvement projects.

Originally the Merrill School committee recommended spending $4,600,000 to repair and build onto Merrill, but the school board later cut the amount to $4,000,000. Most of the repairs were at the middle school. The money was to be used for fixing the heating and ventilation system, renovating science labs, painting and replacing floor tiles, and making other needed repairs. The addition was to include new music rooms, renovated science labs, a new cafeteria and new office spaces.

Here is another statement that is so misleading "suddenly the new school is a replacement for Oaklawn".

There is nothing "sudden" about it. Anyone who knew anything about the district and its facilities needs knew that one would never build a new school to only serve the 84 students who were at Sunset (in Tipler) and went to Read. There is no justification for building a new school that would serve less than 100 students.

This is from a Northwestern Article right before the Jefferson referendum "...the school district has several projects on back burners. They include a new north side school, an alternative school, an early learning center..."

This is from a Northwestern Article sometime before October 27, 2007

"Heilmann said there are already enough students in the Oshkosh school district to fill a new north side school. He said if students were taken from Oaklawn Elementary, Sunset Elementary and the far northeast part of the Emmeline Cook attendance area, about 300 students could be placed in a new school. "

"We would be looking to build it for about 400 students or so, so that it could accommodate growth," Heilmann said.

This is from a Feb. 3 2008 story in the Northwestern

"The facilities planning teams responsible for gathering information about schools and determining improvements necessary to existing buildings have not yet made a recommendation about where a new school would be located. However, a north-side school is being considered because Oaklawn, the district's northernmost school, would be closed."

The last two articles clearly show a new north side school would replace Oaklawn.

The blog post also says "I would propose tearing down the temporary section and building either a one-story or two-story addition to the newer section which is still serviceable if the deferred maintenance was addressed."

Well I don't know what expertise she has to state the newer section is still serviceable (the architect PMP hired suggested no more money be put into Oaklawn) but even if that were true, I don't see anywhere she addresses the fact that the school floods when it rains and the only way to alleviate that is to raise the playground so it is above (rather than below) street level. What is the cost of that? What about the fumes from the trucking company that is next door which enters the school whenever window are open? What would rebuilding Oaklawn, if one follows Mrs. Monte suggestion to "Base the size of the addition on expected enrollment." save in operating costs? Nothing since you would not be closing/consolidating any schools and you would not free up room at Read for Lincoln students so where would they go?

I hope to post next week on some interesting information I found while researching at the library. Stay tuned.

School Board Race

2008-03-16T08:54:00.007-05:00

Where to begin...I believe this election is crucial to the future of the Oshkosh school district, I really hope the voters who go to the polls are informed on the issues and the implications for the district of a board where Mr. Schneider is in the majority. In my opinion that would be very bad news for the Oshkosh school district. Why people continue to elect someone who says whenever questioned about educational concerns "I defer to the experts" yet when the experts bring forward plans, whether it be for roofs, facilities, educational programs, or other students issues, more often than not he votes against the "experts". Lip service is not what we need. A true commitment to making Oshkosh a quality district where the best interests of students is first and formost is what we need if we are to remain the quality district we are today. Here are some of my thoughts on some of the issues and candidates.

The most interesting piece I've read recently was a link on Eye on Oshkosh to an post by Kay Springstroh which details the candidates answers to questions about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) issues in our schools. Kay takes Mr. Schneider to task for his "open homophobia", lack of actual answers to the questions as well as his significant errors in grammar (note: Mr. Schneider was criticized for his grammatical errors on OshKonversation -- his response was to basically "take his bat and ball and go home":

Mr. Schneider's response to OshKonversation poster critical of grammar mistakes in his post:

"I am accessable and if a person wishes to reach me, (MY NOTE: according to a friend of mine who contacted Mr. Schneider, he stated that he typically won't respond to someone unless they provide both their first and last name - though he did respond to my friend who had only provided a first name in an e-mail) I am more than happy to respond to your request for information... if you wish to set up a mutually convenient time to sit down and discuss differences. KRC, I would be happy to meet with you and hope you take me up on my offer.

I will focus my efforts in the above methods of communication and hope the future communications will be more civil! I look forward to hearing from you with your questions or concerns but no longer through this blog. Thanks! Ben Schneider II"

I would think that a board member would take some care in grammar, usage, spelling in responses to questions during a campaign but, I found the lack of answers to the questions much more troubling.

It is no secret that I do not support Mr. Schneider's candidacy, I do not believe his stand on the issues is good for the students of Oshkosh. In fact what has he accomplished in 6 years? If by some cruel twist of fate Mr. Schneider and Mrs. Monte get elected, it is likely that Mr. Schneider will be board president and anyone who cares about the students of Oshkosh should be concerned by that. I have not seen any actions by Mr. Schneider that show he is concerned with students' learning. He pays some lip service to the topic but if you have ever watched him when Administration is presenting information on WKCE scores, or Charter School results, he does not pay attention to the presenters and tries to shut down discussion, apparently because he isn't interested in discussing student learning.

I just finished watching a portion of the "round table" discussion and found it very interesting that ONLY Mr. McDermott was willing to commit to what schools needed to be closed. Mr. Lemberger stated he would not close any schools, Mr. Schneider said something to the effect of it would not be fair to name schools to close without knowing where the students would go, and Mrs. Monte said it was too complex a question to answer in a minute but she didn't want to keep all schools open. Mr. McDermott said Oaklawn needed attention first and he would rebuild it on an alternate site, building large enough so that both Oaklawn and Lincoln could be closed (though instead of Lincoln students going to the New North Side school, Sunset students would, leaving room in Read for Lincoln students).

For those who are interested in some facts, I suggest you read the letter on the Northwestern website under Opinions, with the headline "Letter: Data shows Oshkosh superintendent excels". It provides facts that are in direct opposition to some of the misinformation certain candidates continually put out there.

I truly hope those who really care about education and the students in Oshkosh, inform themselves about where the school board candidates stand on the issues the district faces. Voters, especially those most concerned with our students should think about the consequences of voting for either Monte or Schneider. The school board needs people who understand the issues the district faces, who actually care about education and put the interests of all students above pandering for votes. This is a crucial time for the district, budget cuts will continue to be required. Please think about who is best suited to make those decisions. Why anyone would want someone like Mr. Schneider to run our board is beyond me. He has never made the tough decisions to vote on cuts needed to balance the budget but, instead just voted "No" on every budget . How can someone who just says "No" to a budget, actually lead a board --- are we really interested in being the district who can't pass a budget because the majority of the board just votes "No". I believe this community wants and expects more than that. We shall see soon enough.

Thoughts on School Facilities Direction

2008-03-01T09:27:00.004-06:00

I was disappointed that Team 6 did not bring a recommendation to the board but rather a choice of two, but given the dynamics of the board I can see why they didn't bother.

Once again the board majority had to compromise to move things forward --- I just hope they don't, once again, end up compromising with themselves because those they compromised for end up not supporting the plan because it isn't EXACTLY what they wanted.

While the board majority clearly supported the K-3, 4-8 configuration (and contrary to what a NW poster thinks - no one "admitted" they were wrong in supporting K-3, 4-8) but also realized that to get the 6-1 vote administration was asking for, they would need to abandon the K-3 configuration because that was the only way to garner Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker's support.

It was clear that Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker would not support a plan that was K-3 so the majority of the board, who actually preferred K-3 (because of the educational benefits for children) were willing to stay with the K-5 in order to get a 6-1 vote of the board for a referendum (of course it still remains to be seen if Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker will actually support any referendum and it appears the board is writing off getting Mr. Schneider's vote, since he said nothing at the meeting about what he would support and no one asked where he stood).

Some are already putting their "conspiracy theory" out there as to how it was $40M then $60M then $75M then back to $40M so that $40M looks like a bargain. Well the reason the referendum figure is now slated for under $40 M is that, that is the dollar figure Mr. Becker said it had to stay below for him to support a referendum. It seems that to reach that figure, much of the equity will be eliminated or the board will try in 3 or so years to attempt another referendum, much like the Traeger and Jefferson referendums which were several years apart.

I feel that staying with K-5 has already drastically reduced the equity for special needs students, while the K-5 plan is better than what we have currently the K-3 plan actually allowed nearly every school to have every special needs programs in their school.

I spoke with Karen Lieuallen, Director of Special Education Services and At-Risk for the district and she explained that she has 10 programs that would need to go into Webster Middle school but only 4 rooms available (and that isn't even counting space for Speech/Language teachers, OT or PT rooms). There is not enough space in Merrill Middle for all the needed programs either so once again, it is OK to bus special needs students across town so they can receive needed services. This plan will also, from a special needs perspective, require some schools to house large populations of special needs students, while others have few or no special needs programs/students. I see this as a far cry from meeting the needs of all our students in an equitable manner. Some will say, well just make this work like K-3 but it is not possible due to the fact that under K-5 the number of special needs students will be too low in many of their "home schools" to efficiently and effectively provide those services there (unlike K-3 where only 2 schools would not have every special needs program) not to mention that under K-5 even when the student numbers warrant it, in the North side middle schools, there simply aren't enough classrooms to provide all needed services.

It is too bad that a "belief" that K-3 is bad (based on nothing more than that is not the typical grade configuration) will have a negative affect on our special needs population. You know, we wouldn't have Middle Schools (6-8) and high schools (9-12) if the above so-called logic had been followed. Before the Middle School movement, the most common grade configuration in the country (at least for public schools) was Junior High (7-9) and Senior High (10-12) but somehow we were able to change that.

In the end it will be interesting to see if in fact there are 6 votes for this plan (I predict no more than 5). I think that if, in the end, there are only 4 votes for any plan, the whole thing should be scrapped, go to referendum for the $14M in deferred maintenance and reconfigure schools however you need to, and close as many schools as possible to get the greatest savings in operational costs and give up on the idea of equity or reconstruction of schools like Oakwood and Shapiro.

I guess we'll know in a couple weeks.

WHAT IS A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL?

2008-02-15T07:51:00.003-06:00

Please read this next sentence carefully... I am looking for people's definition of a neighborhood school, that is ALL. If you can't post your definition of "neighborhood school" then don't post on this thread. I'm just curious since that term is thrown out there a lot. I'm pretty sure there will be as many definitions as there are posters but I have only heard one "definition" that seems to fit with what happens when proposed boundary changes occur.

So please give us your definition of a "neighborhood school" -- anything off topic will be deleted.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION RE: SO-CALLED CALCULATOR TO PREDICT DROP IN PROPERTY VALUES

2008-02-14T12:33:00.004-06:00

Well it didn't take long but I didn't figure it would. A local blogger has jumped on a presentation from the board meeting last night and posted a link to a website that will supposedly calculate the value of your house based on its proximity to schools. I say supposedly because the blogger failed to include the disclaimer from said website. The disclaimer reads:

Data is provided for informational purposes only. Actual sales value of a home will depend on many factors, of which proximity to schools is one. Estimates are based off of a study of 1075 residential properties sold in the Oshkosh area over the past year as recorded by the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and City of Oshkosh Assessor's data. Beta Biostatistics makes ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY on the suitability of these estimates for any purpose.

Well the way I read the last sentence, these estimates are basically USELESS since the "site" gives ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY that the estimates are suitable for ANY purpose. The site itself says they won't say the estimates can be used for any purpose yet the blogger puts it out there as if it is a fact that your property WILL decrease as the site indicates.

The blog owner also doesn't understand how, even if these figures were accurate, this would work. Contrary to what is posted, property taxes are based on ASSESSED values, not speculative sales price and if the property values did actually drop, the city is still not allowed to increase taxes to "make up the difference", the state holds the city to pretty tight revenue controls and even if property values dropped (and remember there is NO WARRANTY that any of these figures can be used for ANY purpose) the city would have to cut the budget NOT raise taxes.

So don't be fooled by a website that won't vouch for itself. There is no way to verify any of this so called data or the calculations presented.

For those of you who still insist on believing this nonsense, then what you are saying is the district can never change a boundary line that would require a student to go even 6 blocks further to school as it would have a negative impact on property values. Of course once again if you insist on believing in this flawed data, those students who live on the South side of 14th and all of 15th between Oregon and Minnesota have to be happy, under the current plan, their property values would actually increase because Jefferson is closer to their house than Smith is! I'm sure there are many other locations that would find similar results but I'm not about to waste my time on this flawed non-verifiable, non warranted website.

School Board Election

2008-01-04T08:19:00.000-06:00

Well, it is that time of year again... local elections. I must say I was surprised that no one is challenging the incumbents for City Council. The only benefit to that is for once the school board election will not take second place to the Council.

So readers, what are the qualities you are looking for in a School Board Member? What criteria will you use to determine who to vote for in this election or do you think it is already a "done deal" with the incumbents getting re-elected?

I think there are a couple of interesting candidates to investigate this time around. I am looking for someone who is most concerned with providing a quality education (not doing things as cheaply as possible). I want a person who is willing to make the tough choices, to have the courage to do what is right, not someone who plays politics and is swayed by every small but loud group. I will not be voting for someone who believes we need to continue to have 16 elementary schools as I believe that is fiscally irresponsible. I want someone who has a command of the issues facing the district and who can accurately communicate those issues to the public. I want someone who is straightforward and doesn't put a biased "spin" on what they observe, changing the facts to put the district or administration in a bad light. I want someone who will give clear and specific answers to questions like: How many and which schools do you think should be closed? I will not accept an answer of "I will have to study the issue" because after 10 years of study it is time to act and if you are running for the board, you should have a handle on such issues by now --- this issue has been front and center for the last year.

Accuracy is very important to me, I don't think a candidate should make statements that are inaccurate in an effort to try and "set themselves apart" from the rest of the candidates. Case in point this is an excerpt from one candidate's blog (the inaccurate statement is in bold):

Michelle Monte For School Board
We must protect our neighborhoods and not bus kids to mega schools.We must have complete, open, and honest communication.We must meet the needs of our most challenged students to meet the needs of all our students.I am the only candidate with personal and current experience with special education, the fastest growing group in our schools.We need reasonable changes that raise achievement without bankrupting citizens.

The FACT is candidate Kevin Janke has a child in a special education program in one of our district schools so I would call him a "candidate with personal and current experience with special education". In the Northwestern article Mr. Janke referenced his interest in special education, I would think a candidate concerned with accuracy would have changed the inaccurate message, maybe the change is yet to come, time will tell.

Please share with readers (according to the reports I receive, I had over 50 visits to my site this week, even though I haven't had a new post in a month) what you are looking for in a candidate, or the types of questions you would like to see the candidates answer. What are the "burning issues" for you in this race?

UPDATE on 4K Charter

2007-11-28T22:12:00.000-06:00

I was able to speak to Mrs. Vickman after the School Board meeting tonight to find out what DPI's requirements were for the Charter Grant to be pursued. She told me DPI required that the charter school contain grades 4K through 5th grade because that is the current configuration of elementary schools in Oshkosh.

So to "create" a school that serves 4K - 5th grade, even if you only had one class per grade would cost $392,000 in staffing alone ($56,000 per teacher x 7 classes) the grant was for $150,000. NONE of the $150,000 could be used for staffing and presumably the 4K students would be "new" students for school funding purposes so the student count for the 4K students would cover one teacher which leaves the district to find $336000 to staff the other positions. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that the district would lose a lot of dollars with this scenario. Not to mention how is a school that serves grades 4K - 5th grade a 4K charter anymore, which is what the board had approved. Why the board needs a workshop to understand this is beyond me.

4K Charter School -- The Real Story

2007-11-18T16:02:00.000-06:00

The following is a post that was posted on another thread, the author asked me to start a new thread on this subject so here it is, I will comment on this post at the end of the post...
Note: I did some minor editing of statements I felt were not relevant to the subject.

Anonymous said...
Teresa, would you please start a thread on the Ready 4 Learning Charter School grant money not being pursued by OASD? I understand M. Monte has posted Dr. Heilmann's letter to the charter school grant consultant for DPI on her blog, followed by a bunch of questions that she says she hopes will be answered by him in a future report. Unfortunately, this is more typical Monte hypocrisy. Throw out a fact or two, followed by questions designed to stir the pot of gossip, innuendo, rumor, and speculation. Why is this hypocritical of her? Because she always tells others to go directly to the source, but refuses to do so herself AS LONG AS SHE CAN GET PEOPLE RILED UP BY NOT DOING SO. I AM SO SICKENED BY PEOPLE LIKE HER ALWAYS VIEWING THINGS AS IF THERE'S SOME CLOAK AND DAGGER MYSTERY GOING ON. EVERYTHING IN THEIR MINDS IS CLOUDED IN SUSPICION, AND YET M. MONTEHAS TALKED ABOUT BEING A POSITIVE PERSON ALWAYS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO SMILE ABOUT. I hope we hear answers from Dr. Heilmann too because they'll put this hypocrite in her place. He's done it to her before and I'm sure will do it again. Between now and then, might you be able to get some real answers on this from administration? If Monte knew how to work with people she could, but that isn't possible, given her reputation. Thank you for your help. You can transfer my comment to the new thread.
Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:04:00 PM CST

Teresa's Post:
First I will explain what I know in general about the Charter School Grants process this time around, then I will address specifically what I know about the Oshkosh 4K grant. Most of the information I have comes as a result of working for the CESA 6 Grant Office, our office writes grants for school districts, including some of the grants Oshkosh has submitted in the past.
Sometime in April the US. Dept. of Education notified DPI about issues they had with WI Charter School Grant funding namely; schools needed to encompass more than one grade, schools with-in a school were problematic, there needed to be much more autonomy in governance of the charter school from the school district (there were other issues I can't recall at the moment but these were the main issues).
During this year's DPI review of the Charter School Applications DPI funded only ONE Charter Planning Application and TEN Charter Implementation Applications (last year DPI funded around 35 planning grants and 13 Initial Implementation grants). In the past, if schools were successful in their planning year they were almost always funded for the Initial Implementation so we should have seen at least 30 Initial Implementation grants NOT 10.
This year DPI's review of the charter grants came back with the following: Fund, pending revisions, do not fund.
It is my understanding that the Franklin, Shapiro and Merrill applications were all "pending revisions" and the 4K was "do not fund" --- though they did have the option of resubmitting the proposal by Oct. 15 with the required revisions and a CHANCE for funding --- the resubmit was NOT a guarantee of funding. The main reason the 4K charter was not funded was the 4K was a single grade charter --- which was fine when the planning grant was funded but then the Fed's said -- NO more single grade charters so the 4K Charter as described in the planning grant was not fundable. My understanding is to be funded the school would have to encompass more than just 4K -- just how many more grades, no one seems to know. From everyone I've spoken to this is a case of the Feds. changing the rules in the middle of the game with nothing for the district to do but adapt where possible.

Now, I will address those questions from M. Monte's blog (her questions are in italics) that I have answers for (my answers are in blue) :

From M. Monte's blog:

Does anyone remember just a couple of years ago when Brad Caufmann sat before the BOE touting the revenue we could be expecting from four-year-old kindergarten?

See, these are the kind of comments that frustrate anonymous (Nov. 17) and me. The fact is Mr. Cauffman wasn't "touting" the revenue he was simply explaining that after conferences with DPI and the design of the 4K plan (mind you this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter School) namely it being community based with parent involvement as a component, the district could count the 4K students as .6 instead of the usual .4 which would result in a small (I don't recall the figure now) positive balance in the budget, rather than the initial reports of a cost to the district (again I'm not sure of the exact figure but I believe it was in the $30,000 range). See, first when 4K was proposed those opposed to it (or just opposed to the district?) said 4K was nice but the district just couldn't afford it. Then, when it is discovered that in fact, with the additional .2, 4K wouldn't cost the district anything and would bring in a small amount the first year -- suddenly those same naysayers we saying the district was making 4 year olds go to school just to raise money. Such a distortion of the facts, but they keep on saying it hoping people will believe them.

How about the argument that we have no choice but to go to universal 4K to get state funding or lose the 4K ESL program. Anyone remember when I questioned such a claim or other parents asking when children will be allowed to be children?

The first part of the question is still true, DPI told the district that if they didn't implement a universal 4K program, they would no longer get ANY funding for the 4K ESL program. Again, this has NOTHING to do with the 4K Charter as that was NOT universal 4K that was a Charter School with a special focus for 4K students in the charter. The district has already begun implementing 4K and is expanding the available sites as they can. As to the second part of the question: NO ONE I repeat NO ONE is required to send their child to 4K (or 5K for that matter) compulsory education in WI starts at age SIX!

Were the conditions DPI placed on the grant so difficult that we would throw away money for a program we have already implemented?

Right now I don't know specifically what conditions DPI placed on the 4K grant (but I will get that information) but I do know that ALL charters were told they cannot have a charter with only ONE grade so one of the conditions would have been to expand the 4K charter to more grades --- which as Dr. Heilmann wrote in his letter, would expand the charter beyond its original intent --- I also wonder just how loud M. Monte would be screaming if the district decided to do this JUST to get the money???? Not to mention, resubmitting the application was NOT a guarantee of funding.

How are we going to pay for 4K for this year and in years to come? Are we going to cut the program? What about all the children desperate for the leg up before regular kindergarten?

Um, I thought M. Monte said 4 K was implemented for the money ---so if she is right about that, what is the problem? Sorry, I guess I need to repeat, the Charter School was a separate program from the district's universal 4K, it was a CHARTER SCHOOL --- it will have no affect on the universal 4K program and the district's ability to fund that. The only affect it will have on those who were to attend the charter school, but I'm guessing the school is operating this year anyway so it will just be a matter of running the program without the added dollars, since Charter School funding NEVER covers teachers' salaries, the staff is still there, it is things like bringing in experts for intensive staff development (and subs for staff to attend such workshops), furniture, supplies etc. that either will not be funded or the funding will come from elsewhere (knowing Patti Vickman this is probably already in the works ---but that is JUST ME speculating) the lack of charter funding may result in the charter school not existing next year --- that is something else I will check on and report back on.

Can we now let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be?

Again, a repeat but I guess it bears repeating--- NO CHILD in The OASD has EVER been required to attend 4K, that is a parent's choice. (Remember in WI you don't have to start school till you are SIX!!). (SIDE NOTE: when parents of 3 year olds were surveyed before 4K was implemented the VAST MAJORITY were in favor of the district instituting 4K). So if you believe keeping your 4 year old home to "let 4-year-olds be children if they want to be" you have EVERY right to do so, where M. Monte got the idea you couldn't is beyond me.

What about 4-year-old ESL?

What about it? The district has implemented UNIVERSAL 4K therefore they are in compliance with DPI requirements and can continue the 4K ESL program with funding (in terms of fte) from the state.

Anonymous (Nov. 17) and anyone else who cares about what the facts are, I hope this helps... as Anonymous (Nov. 17) wrote, a simple phone call or e-mail to either Mrs. Vickman or Dr. Heilmann would have given M. Monte all the answers she needed. And those of you who are going to post about me attacking M. Monte don't bother --- I am NOT attacking her, I'm simply pointing out where her facts or her understanding or BOTH are in error.

SO MUCH FOR COMPROMISE

2007-11-09T14:19:00.000-06:00

Well, after what was it, a workshop and a retreat to try and find compromise that all 7 board members could support, in the end the boundary decision was a 4-3 vote, with not one of the 3 who voted no back in (July?) voting for the latest plan. It is clear Mr. Rylance was correct when he told Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Weinsheim on Eye on Oshkosh that one of the 4 (Bowen, Kavanaugh, McDermott or Weinsheim) would have to compromise as the other 3 were not going to. What is AMAZING to me is that the plan voted on Wed. night was essentially the plan that Schneider and Becker crafted at the retreat. I spoke to district officials who drafted the resolution and they spoke to both those board members telling them what was in the resolution and even working with Mr. Becker to revise the resolution prior to the board meeting(which is why they were referring to Mr. McDermott's amendment as the SECOND amendment to the resolution). Neither member gave district officials any indication they did not support their own plan. Someone on OshKonversation said they didn't support it because it was changed from their original proposal (hence the title of this post --- if I can't have it exactly my way I'm not voting for it --- that is NOT compromise) and I didn't hear either of them actually offer an amendment to be voted on to bring it back to the plan they developed. Schneider did offer a suggestion to just deal with the high school issue (which of course would have unraveled the rest of the plan and was not the plan developed at the "retreat") but never actually verbalized an amendment the board could vote on. So what you were left with is those who voted for Option E back in the summer in the really interesting position of compromising by choosing the Roosevelt Option, thinking it would be a unanimous, or nearly unanimous vote and in the end they were in the very odd position of compromising with themselves.

Why this community wants people on the school board who work against the very interests of children is beyond me. Some board members seem determined to make sure the referendum fails, this referendum is needed to bring equity to our children, that is who will benefit the most --- not our staff, certainly not our administration, but our children.

One thing I found very interesting Wed. night was that Mr. Schneider --- staunch defender of respectful behavior at board meetings (he had a great deal of difficulty with me rolling my eyes at his comments) had NOTHING to say to the very disrespectful display put on by some of the citizens in the audience after the vote on the boundary resolution --- I just don't see how rolling eyes is MORE disrespectful than citizens shouting to board members things like "I hope you are proud of yourself", "nice work", "just wait till election time" and the most mature thing of all that occurred was the "citizen" who kicked a chair on his way out the door all because a resolution didn't go their way--- where was the "defender of respect" when all that occurred? Of course it really isn't respect for the board members or the board meeting he cares about, for some reason, he is just overly concerned with my thoughts about his comments and I guess he thinks he deserves respect over and above everyone else.

I am glad we are finally moving on to the rest of the facilities plan though I don't expect the 3 to compromise on anything left to come. And does anyone know why Becker and Schneider voted against hiring the architect? That is one of my pet peeves explain your NO vote!

Well I must pick up my children from school --- remember, keep comments on topic or they aren't going to be published.

Making Class Sizes Smaller May Be More Cost-Effective Than Most Medical Interventions

2007-10-19T23:47:00.000-05:00

Well hopefully in the next month the board will have moved on from the never-ending boundary issue and I think the SAGE committee report is up next. I recently read a very timely article regarding smaller class sizes, you can read it here or here .

Here are some interesting comments from the articles:

"The study indicates that class-size reductions would generate more quality-adjusted life-year gains per dollar invested than the majority of medical interventions. "

"Project STAR is considered the highest quality long-term experiment to date in the field of education. "

Project STAR is what the Wisconsin SAGE program is based on. Project STAR randomly assigned teachers and students to classes with either 22 to 25 students or 13 to 17 students. SAGE went much further than that, first there is no "random assignment" and SAGE requires a rigorous curriculum, professional development for teachers, and family involvement.

"The researchers acknowledged “some uncertainty” about whether the results of the Tennessee study could be reproduced nationwide or could “produce substantive health benefits,” but said their analysis suggests that reductions in class sizes would save money from the societal perspective."

"The researchers estimate that reducing class sizes would mean an additional 72,000 to 140,000 students would graduate high school each year, producing net savings of $14 billion to $24 billion."

During the whole boundary mess you have people saying "just direct the resources to where the need is". Yet, many of the same people are opposed to SAGE because they say it is too costly or it is unfair or unproven. Those comments would be laughable if they weren't so ill informed yet widely believed.

Just remember the researchers that came up with this latest study were not from a school of education but rather from the medical field, a school of Public Health. Not that it will matter to many of the naysayers, I don't post this information for those who care nothing about the facts and just want to criticize with no data of their own, I post it for those who really want to learn more and understand the issues... I hope there are a few out there.

Latest Boundary Plan

2007-10-11T22:54:00.000-05:00

Well it was clear to me at the ASC/CRT meeting tonight that the Lakeside Plan is not coming back. The strangest thing about the meeting is, it seemed the authors of the "Roosevelt Plan" (for lack of a better name) appeared to be backing away from the plan. Mr. Becker still wants everything to ride on "volunteers" and not get into areas to move.

In looking at the maps and capacity numbers for K-3 and 4-8 schools, my opinion is that the better option than the one the board seems to be looking at (check out the map here ) is to move sections 1, 5, 6 and 8 (rather than 1-4). I think section 1 should go Merrill/North because even though that area is currently not bussed, those children do and would have to cross Oshkosh Ave. without a crossing guard to get to Tipler/West, it would be safer to put them on a bus to Merrill/North and the difference in distance doesn't appear to be that much. The rest of the sections 5, 6, and 8 are already on a bus whereas those in sections 2, 3 & 4 can and do walk to Tipler and West. The other benefits to moving 5, 6 and 8 is it will free up space at Traeger 4-8 which would be near capacity for the foreseeable future if those sections continue to go to Traeger. Taking 1, 5, 6 & 8 is a geographic chunk, it gives children in section 1 a safer way to school and allows for some room at Traeger 4-8.

A few people have said they like Mrs. Monte's idea of moving East into North... I've already expressed my opinion --- but I wonder if anyone has asked the students at East how they would feel about that? It is my understanding that they chose East because it is NOT a traditional High School and many students do not want to be in a traditional high school environment. Perhaps if Mrs. Monte talked to East students she would understand why this is not a good solution.

Hopefully, come November, the board will move on to discuss other parts of this plan, leaving the boundary issue behind them. There are a number of issues with what is to come. Some of the numbers I heard tonight, further convince me that building a South school doesn't make any sense at this time. There are only about 150-175 students that would attend. It is ridiculous to build a school or add on to a school that would only have 175 students. The standard for any rebuilds or additions should be 4 classes per grade. That is the only way to get efficient staffing.

I am eagerly awaiting the new architect's (Mr. Bray) report on our facilities and what buildings are worth keeping and which are worth adding on to and which should be gone... hopefully the board will listen to this expert, especially if it is confirmation of what previous experts have said. I really think architects know a little more about this than parents do.

This facilities plan should be about efficiencies (especially staffing) and equity. NOT about appeasement and politics. I can only hope...

The "Lakeside" Plan

2007-10-08T16:34:00.000-05:00

A poster on another thread said I should address the "Lakeside" Plan:

That is easy, it makes no sense to me, how Mr. Traska thinks this makes sense geographically since that was one of his major complaints about Option E. I just can't get away from seeing this as nothing more than a way to keep the Option E people happy.

I was surprised to find (when I drove the routes) that it is only .5 difference from Lone Elm to North and Lone Elm to West but when students already live more than 10 miles from a school, why add any more miles?

I do not see the Lakeside plan as superior to Option E or an even acceptable plan. The board should go back to Option E, adopt it, with only 4 votes if necessary and MOVE ON to finishing this plan ---then take the ENTIRE plan to the public and see what people think of the whole thing.

While consensus is nice, this board is so unlikely to come together as evidenced by a workshop and retreat which doesn't appear to have resulted in consensus, though I guess we will see Wed. just where everyone is on this. I truly hope the Lakeside plan is NOT what the board ends up supporting. This one just doesn't seem to make sense to anyone, even those who are not at all affected.

The Latest "Solution" to the High School Disparity Issue

2007-10-06T20:34:00.000-05:00

WOW, Just when I thought I've read it all... I read Mrs. Monte's "solution" to North's declining enrollment as being "send Oshkosh East to North -- as a separate school." Shows such a COMPLETE LACK of understanding of so many issues I don't even know where to begin.
First of all the concern is not with underutilized classrooms, which is ALL sending East High to North as a separate school would do.

Her so-called "solution" shows a lack of understanding how some "At-Risk" students need to be in an ENTIRELY different enviroment than a traditional High School --- and yes Ms. Monte, there are students who live withing walking distance of East.

The suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the concerns administrators, staff and parents have of North dropping below current numbers, as the student population decreases the number of single sections of classes increases. North is trying to "ward off" a scenario where students find themselves having to decide between Honors English, Physics 2, AP Psychology and Orchestra where by all 4 classes are scheduled the same hour, resulting in students being unable to take 3 of 4 classes they wanted. If you've never created a "Master Schedule" for a niddle or high school perhaps you should talk to someone who has... the fewer the students, the more difficult it becomes!

The concerns relating to the projected growing disparity between North and West are not about North getting 100 students to fill up some classrooms, it is about maintaining the current equity of opportunity that currently exists at our high schools. After all it is called a "long range facilities plan" that means it is looking to the future. I have not heard any board member say we currently do not have equity, what I have heard is concern that if the gap between the two high schools gets too large and the number of students at North drops too low, it will have an effect on the equity of opportunity for North students.

Finally, all the talk about "social engineering" it seems to me plain common sense that if you have one high school with a 35% poverty rate and one with a 14% poverty rate, the best solution when moving 100 students to the higher poverty school is not to move the students who live in an attendance area that has a 77% poverty rate (the highest rate by far on the West side). You can bury your head in the sand all you want, or call world reknowned Ruby Payne's work "tripe" but after 7 years at Jefferson (not to mention having a mother who volunteered at Head Start for years) I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, poverty has a negative effect on learning.

Here is another take on Ruby Payne:

This link has a very interesting article... the following excerpt begins to explain to me the comments from some that there is no correlation between poverty and learning and the schools should just ignore it:

"The problem here, of course, is that Kipp isn’t unusual. We don’t just ignore the effects of class, we deny them. We bury them, blind ourselves to them, and then act as if they don’t exist. Kipp’s is the kind of experience Payne reports having constantly. It’s the reason schools want her to come. And it explains why her seminars are so dumbed-down: so’s her audience. We are woefully ignorant of class distinctions and the effects of class on education, and we are ignorant despite years of our school systems trying not to be. "

Discussion on Taxpayer support of Athletics

2007-09-23T13:58:00.000-05:00

I'd like to start a discussion on district funding of Athletics. This school year the district will have a co-op Hockey team that is fully supported by donations, scholarships and fees, there are no taxpayer dollars going to fund this team.

Is this fair? Is this something we should look at for all our teams? If our sports teams had to be privately funded, would the teams disappear? Should the district at least have a minium number of participants to continue a team? Currently the district does not want to run academic classes if there are less than 15 participants, should the same standard hold for athletics?

I completely believe that athletics plays an important part in an adolescent's life but the question is, when educational institutions continually are cutting their budgets by millions, is the investment in athletics more valuable than the othe programs being cut?

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on the issue.

More on High School Boundaries

2007-09-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

There was an interesting "Commentary" in the Northwestern from a former Oshkosh student who attended both West and North high you can read it here. She makes some good points and maybe it is worth a second look. I think it is better than the "lottery" idea I read somewhere. I still think the "High School Attendance by Mother's Birthday is better mostly just based on opportunities for students. Unless you have two of every club at the "split" schools, you will decrease students' opportunities. I also wonder what will happen to 8th graders from the North side who need to take Freshman level courses... will it be feasible to bus them to West High? The split high school raises some issues but should it have been dismissed as quickly as it was?

High School Boundaries

2007-09-16T23:33:00.000-05:00

So what do people think about high school boundaries by mother's birthdate? As someone wrote on OshKonversation... it isn't likely to happen given the sacred nature of athletics in this district and what such a scenario would mean for our athletic teams.

I would like to see what this would cost in bussing and administrative time and if it was less than what we pay now, I think it is the right thing to do for Oshkosh. It would almost guarantee balanced high schools and it just wouldn't matter where one lived anymore and you wouldn't have to adjust boundaries and have angry parents fill up board rooms. Everyone would know the day their child was born (well even before that) which school they would go to. Could make things interesting in the dating world. Oh, your birthday is an odd date, can't marry you, I want my children to go to ....

I think it is an idea worth considering but I'm 99% sure that won't happen.

Poverty and Education

2007-09-05T16:14:00.001-05:00

I have read and listened to comments from people who seem to believe that poverty plays no role in a child's learning. That poor, middle class and rich kids all have the same opportunities etc. Is that what most people believe or just a few bloggers? I have to ask a few questions for those who actually do believe that poverty makes no difference.

1. Why does the Federal Government give Title I funds to schools with high poverty rates?
2. Why does NCLB look at the gap between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged?
3. Why was SAGE created?
4. Why do schools with high poverty rates almost always have low test scores?
5. Why was Head Start created?
6. Why have a "War on Poverty" if poverty has NO effect on children?

Why do people want to deny that poverty does affect children and their learning? I am not saying that every child in poverty will be affected the same way or that if you are poor you will not succeed. But to deny that teaching and learning is more difficult in high poverty schools just has no basis in reality.

It was asked on OshKonversation, "Is it fair that only some of our children benefit from SAGE classes and not others; what happened to equitable?"

The poster is confusing EQUAL with EQUITABLE.. SAGE is the very definition of equitable... equal means everyone gets the same thing, equitable means giving everyone an equal opportunity, which is what SAGE does.

It just baffles me that some continue to argue that poverty has no effect... or like the speaker at the last board meeting... those whose children qualify for free or reduced lunch aren't poor --- they just need someone to show them how to spend their money more wisely. Yeah, you go on believing that the families who make $6 and hour don't have it any harder than those that make $20. I guess it makes one feel better to believe poverty really doesn't matter, because then we are not required to address a problem that doesn't exist.

Just wondering

2007-09-03T21:50:00.000-05:00

I've put off posting for awhile because I've been so frustrated, I've refrained from posting on the OshKonversation for awhile but couldn't stay away for long. I just can't really figure out why I keep bothering. I can't seem to stop operating under the misguided notion that people want the facts --- they don't! A poster says Smith's enrollment is increasing because a family with children moved in down the street. Well the WINNS data from DPI shows that the only significant increase in enrollment at Smith is due to Pre-K programs being put there. In the 2000-2001 school year there were 265 K-5 students last year (2006-2007) there were 181 K-5 students... how is that increasing enrollment? The response on OshKonversation? I was asked why I didn't send my children to Traeger when Jefferson was in disrepair? I had several reasons the primary one being Traeger did not/ does not have the diversity in its student body that Jefferson does, that diversity was very important to me as a mother. It is important to me that my children experience children of other cultures and economic situations so they understand that "everyone is not like them" which is not just OK but a good thing! Not that the posters really care about the answers to any of the questions they post, they just use it as another reason to bash someone. The question I keep coming back to is WHY do I keep posting???? Anyone out there have an answer???

One more irritation today --- I was perusing the blog of a former school board candidate and she had posted some questions on the state budget stalemate, the first one just had me shaking my head... it asked the governor (who has ties to education - she posts) why the education funds are being held up? Budgeting/State Government 101 --- The governor can only provide a budget to the legislature (which he did many months ago ---probably in April) then he must WAIT for a budget to be passed by BOTH houses (Senate and Assembly) this has NOT happened and the governor has no power to make it happen so why ask the governor why the hold up when HE is NOT the one holding it up!! I know I'm sure I misunderstood something ... just drives me crazy that people don't even get the basic functioning of our government.

I'm waiting for the Sept. 12th Board meeting to see if there is more delaying, yet another boundary option or if they will actually make a decison. I predict either more delays or they move the poor kids whose parents won't complain. Hope I'm wrong on both counts.

Will the Oshkosh BOE Cave or Stand Firm?

2007-08-09T22:56:00.000-05:00

Well as those affected by Option E put on the pressure, will the school board cave to the pressure and find yet another area to move, one this time that doesn't have such active parents? I sure hope not, but I certainly can't predict which way it will go.

I'm so tired of hearing about "driving clear across town". Let's look at what Mapquest has to say:

from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Oakwood it is .35 miles and est. 1 min
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Roosevelt it is 2.02 miles and est. 7 min.

from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Traeger Middle it is 3.12 miles and est. 9 min.
from 1220 Sheboygan Street to Merrill Middle it is 3.10 miles and est 10 min .02 miles closer than Traeger and a whopping MINUTE longer to drive to Merrill vs. Traeger

from 1220 Sheboygan Street to West High it is 2.27 miles and an est. 7 min. drive
from 1220 Sheboygan St. to North High it is 3.05 miles and 10 min.

Yes, Oakwood is closer than Roosevelt BUT, Roosevelt is closer than Traeger and Merrill is closer than Traeger too (though by a mere .02 mi.). The difference in the distance to the high schools is less than a mile.

Are you still going to argue that North is "clear across town and West is right in our neighborhood? Less than a mile difference and THREE minutes difference in drive times, sorry the facts just don't bear out the rhetoric.

With the K-3 configuration many families will live farther than 1/3 of a mile (as many do already). This is NOT sending kids clear across town.

Then there is the whole "friend" issue. First of all what does being in a school with your friend have to do with educational quality? In my childrens schools often the teachers have to decide that "friends" can't be in the same class together because it is too disruptive for others. Are these same people going to make sure their children go to college with their "friends" too, we wouldn't want them to be damaged by being separated from their friends.

I can't even believe people live so far under rocks they "had NO idea this was going on". Please we are going on 2 years since PMP was hired, and for 10 years the district has been looking at balancing enrollments. School newsletters discussed it, it is on the HOME page of the website, right in the middle of the page, the Northwestern, WOSH, Eye on Oshkosh, the Oshkosh Common Council have ALL discussed the facilities issues. If people choose not to pay attention that is their choice but don't turn around and say it was under the radar, being sneaked through in the summer or not communicated to people. What do you want? A door to door campaign? It is NOT that people didn't know facilities were being discussed, they just didn't pay attention, didn't really care what was being discussed because they were not being affected. Once they are involved everyone is all interested and NOW the process is moving too fast. I've been paying attention all along because I'm interested in what happens. Then there are the "perfect plans" put forth that have no numbers, no bussing costs, no construction costs just a lot of "I'm sure" it will cost less than Scenario 7. It all hinges on a NEW K-8 for Oakwood (apparently refurbishing isn't good enough for that school) and sending half that school to North (which of course would require an addition to North) and then build a new school for Green Meadow (I'm sure the costs will be low to build a school for 500+ on a septic system) and then just leave all the rest of the schools in the disrepair they are in. Just LOVE that idea. I guess if you are wealthy enough to build a new house your kids need to go to a brand new school, if you can't afford to, or choose not to live in a "new" house well then, your children don't deserve their school refurbished. You think I'm making this up... Check out OshKonversation

I really see no point in trying to educate people on the blogs about why the choices being made are necessary. Most posting don't "listen" to what is said... as they so quickly criticize others of not listening... yet I know and can repeat for you the "arguments" they give. I just happen to know that many posters miss the whole point of efficiencies of staffing and why some schools must close.

Back to my original question. I think this is the closest we have come to a board with a majority that understands action must be taken. Whether there is a majority to do so or not, we will have to wait and see. Clearly it has become impossible to continue to have all the schools we have and one of the lowest tax rates and per pupil spending amount of the 25 largest school districts in the state. In the end what will the tradeoffs be?

I really wish those who WANT the board to take action and those who do support the plan would come out and speak in favor of it but I understand the audience is rather hostile and it is an effort to come and speak. I just don't want to hear anyone tell me (as they have in the past) "the board needs to; close Green Meadow, get rid of all those little schools, stop putting this off etc... If the board caves once again, those who chose not to speak in favor will be partly to blame.