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.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Latest Boundary Plan
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...
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...
Monday, October 8, 2007
The "Lakeside" Plan
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.
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.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Latest "Solution" to the High School Disparity Issue
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. "
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. "
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Discussion on Taxpayer support of Athletics
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.
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
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?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
High School Boundaries
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
<