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.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Oaklawn was never part of the Jefferson referendum
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.
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.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
School Board Race
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.
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.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Thoughts on School Facilities Direction
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.
Once again the board majority had to compromise to move things forward --- I just hope they don't, once again, end up compromising with themselves because those they compromised for end up not supporting the plan because it isn't EXACTLY what they wanted.
While the board majority clearly supported the K-3, 4-8 configuration (and contrary to what a NW poster thinks - no one "admitted" they were wrong in supporting K-3, 4-8) but also realized that to get the 6-1 vote administration was asking for, they would need to abandon the K-3 configuration because that was the only way to garner Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker's support.
It was clear that Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker would not support a plan that was K-3 so the majority of the board, who actually preferred K-3 (because of the educational benefits for children) were willing to stay with the K-5 in order to get a 6-1 vote of the board for a referendum (of course it still remains to be seen if Mr. Traska and Mr. Becker will actually support any referendum and it appears the board is writing off getting Mr. Schneider's vote, since he said nothing at the meeting about what he would support and no one asked where he stood).
Some are already putting their "conspiracy theory" out there as to how it was $40M then $60M then $75M then back to $40M so that $40M looks like a bargain. Well the reason the referendum figure is now slated for under $40 M is that, that is the dollar figure Mr. Becker said it had to stay below for him to support a referendum. It seems that to reach that figure, much of the equity will be eliminated or the board will try in 3 or so years to attempt another referendum, much like the Traeger and Jefferson referendums which were several years apart.
I feel that staying with K-5 has already drastically reduced the equity for special needs students, while the K-5 plan is better than what we have currently the K-3 plan actually allowed nearly every school to have every special needs programs in their school.
I spoke with Karen Lieuallen, Director of Special Education Services and At-Risk for the district and she explained that she has 10 programs that would need to go into Webster Middle school but only 4 rooms available (and that isn't even counting space for Speech/Language teachers, OT or PT rooms). There is not enough space in Merrill Middle for all the needed programs either so once again, it is OK to bus special needs students across town so they can receive needed services. This plan will also, from a special needs perspective, require some schools to house large populations of special needs students, while others have few or no special needs programs/students. I see this as a far cry from meeting the needs of all our students in an equitable manner. Some will say, well just make this work like K-3 but it is not possible due to the fact that under K-5 the number of special needs students will be too low in many of their "home schools" to efficiently and effectively provide those services there (unlike K-3 where only 2 schools would not have every special needs program) not to mention that under K-5 even when the student numbers warrant it, in the North side middle schools, there simply aren't enough classrooms to provide all needed services.
It is too bad that a "belief" that K-3 is bad (based on nothing more than that is not the typical grade configuration) will have a negative affect on our special needs population. You know, we wouldn't have Middle Schools (6-8) and high schools (9-12) if the above so-called logic had been followed. Before the Middle School movement, the most common grade configuration in the country (at least for public schools) was Junior High (7-9) and Senior High (10-12) but somehow we were able to change that.
In the end it will be interesting to see if in fact there are 6 votes for this plan (I predict no more than 5). I think that if, in the end, there are only 4 votes for any plan, the whole thing should be scrapped, go to referendum for the $14M in deferred maintenance and reconfigure schools however you need to, and close as many schools as possible to get the greatest savings in operational costs and give up on the idea of equity or reconstruction of schools like Oakwood and Shapiro.
I guess we'll know in a couple weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
<