tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8895200797299787815.post-83183499334070946822007-03-30T22:53:00.000-05:002007-03-30T23:03:00.034-05:00I was reading the Oshkosh Northwestern Candidate Site and the answer to a question about SAGE that was posted by Mrs. Monte. I truly don't understand how she could have been following the whole SAGE discussion as well as the facilities discussions and come up with what she did for an answer:<br /><br /><br />Mrs. Monte's post from the Northwestern site is <a href="http://forums.thenorthwestern.com/viewtopic.php?t=4476&start=30">here</a>:<br /><br /><br />Here is my response:<br /><br />I would like to correct a few mistakes in Mrs. Monte's post ...<br /><br />First of all there is NO requirement by the state that a school has a certain percentage of students on free/reduced lunch. That was only required during the first two years.<br /><br />Second; the "pivot point" Mrs. Vickman was referring to was the point at which SAGE pays for the additonal teachers and professional development without the district needing to supplement, that point is between 40%-45%. We would NOT lose SAGE if a school dropped below that point the district just might have to supplement the SAGE funding. It appears that under Scenario 7 SAGE funding would cover the cost of the additional teachers.<br /><br />Third: There is no current SAGE school in our district that has just ONE student in a classroom that qualifies for free/reduced lunch. That would be a ridiculous way to assign students. If a school has 40% of its students qualify for free/reduced lunch approximatley 40% of students in a classroom will also qualify. SAGE no longer pays for classroom building.<br /><br />Finally, the last paragraph is just not accurate. The district cannot afford to keep most of our elementary schools and "spread the students over all of the schools and have smaller class sizes" --- without the SAGE funds from the state where would the district get the millions it would cost to reduce class sizes and pay for all the additional teachers? There are no "educational savings" by spreading kids out. SAGE does not cause "liabilities to a district" and how would transportation costs be reduced from what they are today by reducing class sizes?<br /><br />End of Post on Northwestern site<br /><br /><br /><br />I believe a board candidate should have at least a passing understanding of SAGE and its funding and what exactly staffing efficiencies are...I am truly astonished by the comments made -- that somehow spreading our students out among 15 school buildings will create "educational savings" whatever that means. All it does is assure that you will have class sizes of 8 or 9 in some places... in larger schools you will have more classes of the same grade and thus more likely to have each room filled close to the 15 student limit (which can go to a maximum of 17 though 15 is optimal). The more schools you have the less efficient your staffing becomes.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8895200797299787815-8318349933407094682?l=oshkoshstudents.blogspot.com'/></div>Questioningnoreply@blogger.com20