Election 2007 is not so much about a plan, but about the very future of our district and community. The inflammatory rhetoric that has been tossed around has served to confuse the issues that our community faces. The plan has become bound up in personalities: of what use is this to the voters? Every person involved in putting together the current plan wants nothing but the best for the district. It's one thing to disagree with the plan and quite another to make snide remarks and personal attacks on these people. Where will this lead us?
The voters certainly do have a clear choice in this election. The choice really comes down to electing board members who have are willing to work for the future of the school district or board members who are not willing to make tough decisions. Whatever choice you make on Tuesday, please be sure that you have thought through the consequences for the entire district.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Michelle Monte:Final Thoughts
At this time, I think our community has had enough of politicking, broken promises, ridiculous accusations, and threats. It is time for our community to come together and the single most important way we can do that is to vote.
Since 1979, certain schools have been threatened with closure. Smith, Green Meadow, and Roosevelt to be exact. Every few years those same three schools, and sporadically others, seem to be on the chopping block. There really seems to be no valid reasoning, just something of a tradition. What that mentality by school boards has done, is create rifts in our community. A school is targeted, called zeros, and the families and neighbors rally around to protect their schools, who wouldn't do the same. The school board then accuses those same people of NIMBY and discredits their concerns, questions, and opinions. At the same time BOEs encourage and contribute to other school communities pointing their fingers accusing the targeted school of getting what they want by being the squeaky wheel. In the end, no one wins and we are a divided community.
We need leaders who will not perpetuate this rift by claiming one school is forgotten or one side of town gets everything and the other is forgotten. We need leaders who will keep an open mind right up to a vote and then act in the best interests of the entire community, not people who have their minds made up before the community even knows what is happening to their schools. We need leaders who will work with the community, the entire community, to set, define, and achieve our goals for our children and our schools. It is one thing to say it, it is entirely different to actually do it.
We need leaders who remember that our community is not made up of people only like themselves. We have people who just cannot afford everything and anything thrown at them. Limited and fixed income families are rising and we need to be conscious of what those community members can afford. They care about education too.
School Boards of the past didn't always make the best decisions. Forethought wasn't always emphasized. We have run out of band aides. While we cannot change the past, we can learn from it and not make the same mistakes. We need change. We need fresh ideas, new perspectives, and open-minded leaders.
The voters have a big decision to make. Do you want more of the same that has gotten us in the position we are in, or do you want leaders? People who will do the research, do the leg-work, go into the schools and work with the families and staffs, go into the community and encourage two-way dialogue, keep an open mind and vote for the entire district. Voting for the same people, and the same mindset will do nothing for moving our district forward.
If you are still undecided or unsure of my position, call me. I can be reached at 233-9878. My email is monte07@new.rr.com. My website is http://www.monteforschoolboard.blogspot.com/. I will answer any question with honesty and will listen with an open-mind to any concerns you may have.
The one thing the voters need to keep in mind is that they have the choice. The voters have all of the control on April 3. The voters can define how they want their children to be educated and what their schools and community will look like by casting a ballot. Please vote April 3. Call and email everyone you know and encourage them to get out and vote.
Please vote Michelle Monte April 3. Leadership with common sense, efficiency, and accountability focused on our community, our schools, and our children.
Since 1979, certain schools have been threatened with closure. Smith, Green Meadow, and Roosevelt to be exact. Every few years those same three schools, and sporadically others, seem to be on the chopping block. There really seems to be no valid reasoning, just something of a tradition. What that mentality by school boards has done, is create rifts in our community. A school is targeted, called zeros, and the families and neighbors rally around to protect their schools, who wouldn't do the same. The school board then accuses those same people of NIMBY and discredits their concerns, questions, and opinions. At the same time BOEs encourage and contribute to other school communities pointing their fingers accusing the targeted school of getting what they want by being the squeaky wheel. In the end, no one wins and we are a divided community.
We need leaders who will not perpetuate this rift by claiming one school is forgotten or one side of town gets everything and the other is forgotten. We need leaders who will keep an open mind right up to a vote and then act in the best interests of the entire community, not people who have their minds made up before the community even knows what is happening to their schools. We need leaders who will work with the community, the entire community, to set, define, and achieve our goals for our children and our schools. It is one thing to say it, it is entirely different to actually do it.
We need leaders who remember that our community is not made up of people only like themselves. We have people who just cannot afford everything and anything thrown at them. Limited and fixed income families are rising and we need to be conscious of what those community members can afford. They care about education too.
School Boards of the past didn't always make the best decisions. Forethought wasn't always emphasized. We have run out of band aides. While we cannot change the past, we can learn from it and not make the same mistakes. We need change. We need fresh ideas, new perspectives, and open-minded leaders.
The voters have a big decision to make. Do you want more of the same that has gotten us in the position we are in, or do you want leaders? People who will do the research, do the leg-work, go into the schools and work with the families and staffs, go into the community and encourage two-way dialogue, keep an open mind and vote for the entire district. Voting for the same people, and the same mindset will do nothing for moving our district forward.
If you are still undecided or unsure of my position, call me. I can be reached at 233-9878. My email is monte07@new.rr.com. My website is http://www.monteforschoolboard.blogspot.com/. I will answer any question with honesty and will listen with an open-mind to any concerns you may have.
The one thing the voters need to keep in mind is that they have the choice. The voters have all of the control on April 3. The voters can define how they want their children to be educated and what their schools and community will look like by casting a ballot. Please vote April 3. Call and email everyone you know and encourage them to get out and vote.
Please vote Michelle Monte April 3. Leadership with common sense, efficiency, and accountability focused on our community, our schools, and our children.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Closing comments on restructuring?
First of all, on behalf of the Oshkosh Community News Network I would like to thank all of the candidates for taking the time to participate in this forum focusing on restructuring. I believe your comments have been very enlightening as the community struggles with this important issue.
Looking back over the posts that have been made, I think it is fair to say that two of the candidates, Karen Bowen and Teresa Thiel, are more supportive of the plan known as Scenario 7 while two other candidates, Dan Becker and Michelle Monte, are more skeptical. (I realize that this is an oversimplification, and I don't mean to suggest that any of the candidates hold identical views on the matter.)
Given that there has been so much attention focused on Scenario 7 leading up to next week's election, it is likely that the restructuring proposal will be a major factor in citizens' minds as they decide how to cast their votes.
Under these circumstances, what is the one thing that you think voters should have uppermost in their minds about school restructuring as they prepare to cast their ballot?
Thank you again for your participation.
Looking back over the posts that have been made, I think it is fair to say that two of the candidates, Karen Bowen and Teresa Thiel, are more supportive of the plan known as Scenario 7 while two other candidates, Dan Becker and Michelle Monte, are more skeptical. (I realize that this is an oversimplification, and I don't mean to suggest that any of the candidates hold identical views on the matter.)
Given that there has been so much attention focused on Scenario 7 leading up to next week's election, it is likely that the restructuring proposal will be a major factor in citizens' minds as they decide how to cast their votes.
Under these circumstances, what is the one thing that you think voters should have uppermost in their minds about school restructuring as they prepare to cast their ballot?
Thank you again for your participation.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Michelle Monte: Financial Considerations
Financial considerations, or lack of, are what put us in the position of needing to restructure. The whole point of the long-range facilities plan is to make our district more efficient and to address the long put-off needs of our buildings. This process should be an opportunity to try to save money wherever we can. We should also be planning for future increases in expenses. Savings are not there to any significant degree and future spending is not being addressed at all.
I look at finances in simple terms like a checkbook. You just don't write checks your account cannot cover. We are looking at $32 million in construction costs with a total referendum of $45.6 million. We are expecting to save $1.5 million in operational savings. We are closing six buildings, and not the six most expensive in repairs and operational expenses, and adding on over 100 classrooms. For perspective consider that Traeger Elementary, just the elementary, has about 25 classrooms for a capacity of 552 students.
What savings are we going to realize by closing buildings and, essentially, building seven new and larger ones between deferred maintenance, ADA, functional issues, additions, and remodels? Enough to pay back the referendum in about 50 to 60 years IF we have no other major expenses in the next 50 to 60 years. That does not make sound financial sense, especially when we could close fewer buildings, repair the remaining buildings, and adjust boundaries for much less and realize a greater savings by minimizing our construction costs and transportation costs, and maximizing the utilization of our buildings.
Ensuring we have equitable resources in every building should be our focus. When every building is well maintained and each student and teacher has what they need, education flourishes and our children flourish. It doesn't matter when a building was built, historical societies all over the country care for active buildings far older than ours. The difference is that they take care of them. Our schools, like our children, are an investment. When taken care of, they will service our children for decades. That is a wise investment. That is the kind of spending that makes sense.
I look at finances in simple terms like a checkbook. You just don't write checks your account cannot cover. We are looking at $32 million in construction costs with a total referendum of $45.6 million. We are expecting to save $1.5 million in operational savings. We are closing six buildings, and not the six most expensive in repairs and operational expenses, and adding on over 100 classrooms. For perspective consider that Traeger Elementary, just the elementary, has about 25 classrooms for a capacity of 552 students.
What savings are we going to realize by closing buildings and, essentially, building seven new and larger ones between deferred maintenance, ADA, functional issues, additions, and remodels? Enough to pay back the referendum in about 50 to 60 years IF we have no other major expenses in the next 50 to 60 years. That does not make sound financial sense, especially when we could close fewer buildings, repair the remaining buildings, and adjust boundaries for much less and realize a greater savings by minimizing our construction costs and transportation costs, and maximizing the utilization of our buildings.
Ensuring we have equitable resources in every building should be our focus. When every building is well maintained and each student and teacher has what they need, education flourishes and our children flourish. It doesn't matter when a building was built, historical societies all over the country care for active buildings far older than ours. The difference is that they take care of them. Our schools, like our children, are an investment. When taken care of, they will service our children for decades. That is a wise investment. That is the kind of spending that makes sense.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Dan Becker:Financial Considerations
I find it a bit ironic that financial considerations seem to have become the sole reason for making decisions that will impact the district, especially since the question of equality seems to be a hot button issue. Financial considerations should be equal to the educational impacts. As a result, we must strive to minimize negative financial impacts on the citizens of Oshkosh, while maximizing the educational benefit.
At first, the current restructuring plan will no doubt result in some initial savings, however, over the long term; Scenario 7 will undoubtedly result in increased expenses, which will only be resolved with a tax increase or additional fees. I do not think the current plan will result in significant long term savings.
It does make sense to spend money on our school system when and only when a measurable, long term benefit can be derived by those that need it without sacrificing services, quality instruction, or community unity.
Dan Becker
At first, the current restructuring plan will no doubt result in some initial savings, however, over the long term; Scenario 7 will undoubtedly result in increased expenses, which will only be resolved with a tax increase or additional fees. I do not think the current plan will result in significant long term savings.
It does make sense to spend money on our school system when and only when a measurable, long term benefit can be derived by those that need it without sacrificing services, quality instruction, or community unity.
Dan Becker
Financial Responsibility
Without financial responsibility, the district can not be educationally responsible. Over the years, critics of public education have often said that "throwing money at public schools does not make them better." Strictly speaking, of course, this statement is true. Just increasing a budget willy-nilly year after year is foolish. The district can never and has never simply increased the budget simply to increase it; we get what we get from the state and make up the rest in local revenue -- but we are limited in the amount that we can collect from that source by state caps. The total never seems to equal expenses, which continue to rise.
However, there are two facts can not be ignored: class size has been shown time after time to be a major factor in improving student performance, and the only way to decrease class size is to hire more staff. Second, costs, such as energy and transportation, never seem to decrease. So saving money is mostly a moot point. What really makes sense is using tax dollars wisely to support our community in the best way possible.
Is the restructuring plan an opportunity to save money? Yes. Certainly, closing buildings saves money; however, the plan is to use that money so that we can keep current programs in place and work toward new programs, at the very least. So is that an actual "savings," as such? In addition, costs WILL rise in the future. Costs almost never go down. Every now and then there is an opportunity to lower costs, as there was a few years ago when we switched bus companies after competitive bidding. It makes sense to spend money on those activities and people which impact our students -- and of course, our staff. At this point, we have pretty much reached the end of what can be cut. If we do not make changes now, our educational quality will suffer over both the long and short term.
In the end, what matters is educational quality. All the fiscal responsibility in the world is meaningless unless it supports what's best for our students which is, in the end, what's best for our community.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Teresa Thiel: Financial Considerations
Question:
"How big a role should financial considerations play in making decisions about restructuring? Is this an opportunity to save money, or should we expect to see increased expenses? When does it make sense to spend money on our school system, and when does it not?"
Given the budget climate of both the district and the state and the demand by the public that the district become more efficient, of course financial considerations play a role in restructuring decisions. Everything the district does requires considering the financial aspect. If we keep all 16 elementary schools there is a financial cost and to pay that cost, money must come from somewhere else, since salary and benefits are by far the greatest cost, we will need to reduce staff pretty dramatically to pay for these repairs. How it is "efficient" or fiscally responsible to spend very limited dollars on buildings that experts have said they wouldn't put another dollar in, is beyond me. I would not support a plan that had NO savings in operating costs because those savings are ongoing and allow less deep cuts to programs or more dollars spent on maintaining our remaining buildings. People say just move the boundary lines, first of all that will only address over/under crowding at a few schools and it will save zero dollars and if busing were added would also add costs. Obviously with new classrooms needed there will be increased expenses in our debt. However, it will cost far less to maintain brand new classrooms than it would to maintain 85 or 100+ year old buildings, that is a savings in future maintenance and capital improvements budgets in addition to the $1.5 million saved in yearly operating costs.
I think it always makes sense to spend money on our school system, if we don't it will deteriorate and I don't mean JUST the buildings. What type of expenditures do not make sense? To me, trying to keep and repair all our buildings, resulting in millions of dollars to be spent with NO operational savings and no reduction but rather an increase in the maintenance and capital improvements budgets is fiscally irresponsible to me. Letting our buildings crumble because we do not and will never have the over $3 million needed for maintenance of over 25 buildings each year is also irresponsible. Deep program cuts in order to maintain buildings at the end of their lifespan is NOT educationally sound. The restructuring is about bringing equity to our buildings while at the same time being much more efficient in our staffing, which saves dollars year after year.
There are a number of educational benefits that will result from the restructuring that have been addressed in previous posts. This effort is not solely about saving money but that must play a part because all school districts need money to function. Yes, there will be additional costs due to the debt for additional classrooms, but adding on to schools costs less than building new schools. Those in the community who participated in the focus groups as well as the two large group meetings agreed that keeping class sizes low and bringing equity to our buildings and our programs were very high priorities. The restructuring plan addresses these priorities.
"How big a role should financial considerations play in making decisions about restructuring? Is this an opportunity to save money, or should we expect to see increased expenses? When does it make sense to spend money on our school system, and when does it not?"
Given the budget climate of both the district and the state and the demand by the public that the district become more efficient, of course financial considerations play a role in restructuring decisions. Everything the district does requires considering the financial aspect. If we keep all 16 elementary schools there is a financial cost and to pay that cost, money must come from somewhere else, since salary and benefits are by far the greatest cost, we will need to reduce staff pretty dramatically to pay for these repairs. How it is "efficient" or fiscally responsible to spend very limited dollars on buildings that experts have said they wouldn't put another dollar in, is beyond me. I would not support a plan that had NO savings in operating costs because those savings are ongoing and allow less deep cuts to programs or more dollars spent on maintaining our remaining buildings. People say just move the boundary lines, first of all that will only address over/under crowding at a few schools and it will save zero dollars and if busing were added would also add costs. Obviously with new classrooms needed there will be increased expenses in our debt. However, it will cost far less to maintain brand new classrooms than it would to maintain 85 or 100+ year old buildings, that is a savings in future maintenance and capital improvements budgets in addition to the $1.5 million saved in yearly operating costs.
I think it always makes sense to spend money on our school system, if we don't it will deteriorate and I don't mean JUST the buildings. What type of expenditures do not make sense? To me, trying to keep and repair all our buildings, resulting in millions of dollars to be spent with NO operational savings and no reduction but rather an increase in the maintenance and capital improvements budgets is fiscally irresponsible to me. Letting our buildings crumble because we do not and will never have the over $3 million needed for maintenance of over 25 buildings each year is also irresponsible. Deep program cuts in order to maintain buildings at the end of their lifespan is NOT educationally sound. The restructuring is about bringing equity to our buildings while at the same time being much more efficient in our staffing, which saves dollars year after year.
There are a number of educational benefits that will result from the restructuring that have been addressed in previous posts. This effort is not solely about saving money but that must play a part because all school districts need money to function. Yes, there will be additional costs due to the debt for additional classrooms, but adding on to schools costs less than building new schools. Those in the community who participated in the focus groups as well as the two large group meetings agreed that keeping class sizes low and bringing equity to our buildings and our programs were very high priorities. The restructuring plan addresses these priorities.
Final discussion topic: financial considerations
This week we'd like the candidates to discuss the role of financial considerations in evaluating the restructuring of local schools.
Teresa Thiel will begin this week's discussion.
"How big a role should financial considerations play in making decisions about restructuring? Is this an opportunity to save money, or should we expect to see increased expenses? When does it make sense to spend money on our school system, and when does it not?"
Teresa Thiel will begin this week's discussion.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Dan Becker: Follow Up to Educational Outcomes
“While smaller, closer schools appear attractive from a philosophical perspective, do we know if they lead to higher levels of educational attainment?”
The speculation is that larger elementary schools have higher levels of educational attainment. However, I have seen no data that supports this position. The largest impact on student achievement is the quality of instruction received. My concern is for the opportunity cost that will result from excessively large Elementary Schools. Elementary school is the most critical level of education. All things are built upon what is learned/taught at our elementary schools.
To put our youngest students into situations where they may not receive the attention they deserve is not in the best interest of either the student or the community.
Dan Becker
The speculation is that larger elementary schools have higher levels of educational attainment. However, I have seen no data that supports this position. The largest impact on student achievement is the quality of instruction received. My concern is for the opportunity cost that will result from excessively large Elementary Schools. Elementary school is the most critical level of education. All things are built upon what is learned/taught at our elementary schools.
To put our youngest students into situations where they may not receive the attention they deserve is not in the best interest of either the student or the community.
Dan Becker
Michelle Monte: Follow up to Educational Outcomes
“Do you think Scenario 7 can be adjusted in a way to accomplish these goals, and if it were, would you support it?”
Yes, I think scenario 7 can be adjusted to reach more goals. If it were to address these goals and a few others (IE peer mentors, transition challenges, future boundary issues, mitigating costs), I would seriously consider it and would be more likely to support it. Without seeing a plan that accomplishes those goals and addresses questions and concerns, I cannot say yes or no. If you have any ideas, I am open to suggestions for consideration.
Yes, I think scenario 7 can be adjusted to reach more goals. If it were to address these goals and a few others (IE peer mentors, transition challenges, future boundary issues, mitigating costs), I would seriously consider it and would be more likely to support it. Without seeing a plan that accomplishes those goals and addresses questions and concerns, I cannot say yes or no. If you have any ideas, I am open to suggestions for consideration.
Third week
First, my apologies for not responding to the question the first time through. I'm sure this will give some people a thrill! In any case, thanks for this opportunity to answer this follow-up question.
In any case, here are the educational advantages that I believe Scenario 7 can address. Is it the best way to improve educational outcomes? This is a difficult question to answer. The best scenario would be one that addresses all issues evenly, would satisfy all segments of the community, and require no additional spending or revenue generation, especially in the form of a referendum. Unfortunately, we have seen, through months of scenario/model development, that such a scenario is not likely to be formulated. If only we lived in that perfect world of which I spoke earlier...
Scenario 7 enables the district to:
In any case, here are the educational advantages that I believe Scenario 7 can address. Is it the best way to improve educational outcomes? This is a difficult question to answer. The best scenario would be one that addresses all issues evenly, would satisfy all segments of the community, and require no additional spending or revenue generation, especially in the form of a referendum. Unfortunately, we have seen, through months of scenario/model development, that such a scenario is not likely to be formulated. If only we lived in that perfect world of which I spoke earlier...
Scenario 7 enables the district to:
- Spread the SAGE program, with its smaller classroom sizes, to more schools.
- More evenly distribute special education programs.
- Provide opportunities for more teacher collaboration involving children (as opposed to the kind of collaboration teachers are able to do now on early release days) in elementary classes.
- Provide more opportunities for elementary students to be matched with a teacher who is more in tune with their needs.
- Lessen the need for specialists (art, music, physical education teachers) to be on the road, but rather to spend their time in buildings with children.
- Provide all elementary schools with separate facilities for art, music, physical education, rather than requiring set-up and tear-down for these classes that now occurs at some schools; this gives students more time to engaged in these learning activities.
- Concentrate on technology in fewer buildings.
- Releases/provides more revenue, assuming that a referendum can be passed.
As someone who has supported neighborhood schools in their present form for many years, it has been difficult for me to come the realization of these educational advantages. However, the need to move on to a style of education that is more in tune with today's needs has convinced me that bold moves need to be taken by this district. Scenario 7 provides us with this prospect.
Teresa Thiel: Answer to Follow-up Question re: Educational Outcomes
Our question to her is this: “If there were one thing about Scenario 7 that you could change, what would it be?”
The one thing I would change would be to keep the grade configurations K-5, 6-8 ---IF that allowed all or most of the positives I explained in my answer to the original question to still be realized. As a previous question addressed, there will be tradeoffs no matter what we do.
The one thing I would change would be to keep the grade configurations K-5, 6-8 ---IF that allowed all or most of the positives I explained in my answer to the original question to still be realized. As a previous question addressed, there will be tradeoffs no matter what we do.
Follow-up questions on educational outcomes
This week we asked the candidates to discuss the educational outcomes that they would like to see from a restructuring of the Oshkosh school system. Unfortunately one of the candidates, incumbent Karen Bowen, did not respond.
So our follow-up question to Karen Bowen is based on the assumption that she believes that Scenario 7 will result in positive educational outcomes. Our follow-up question to her is this: “Is Scenario 7 the best way to improve educational outcomes? Why or why not?”
In her response Michelle Monte identified several educational issues that she says Scenario 7 would not address: the freshman failure rate, high school disparities, block scheduling.
Out question to her is this: “Do you think Scenario 7 can be adjusted in a way to accomplish these goals, and if it were, would you support it?”
Teresa Thiel’s response is the one the most directly addresses educational outcomes: more classes of reduced size, more evenly distributed special-education programs, more teacher collaboration among teachers of the same grade level. While she expresses misgivings about some aspects of Scenario 7, overall she appears to give it at least a passing grade.
Our question to her is this: “If there were one thing about Scenario 7 that you could change, what would it be?”
In his response Dan Becker stresses the importance of neighborhood schools, particularly at the elementary level. Our question to him returns to the issue of education outcomes.
Our question to him is this: “While smaller, closer schools appear attractive from a philosophical perspective, do we know if they lead to higher levels of educational attainment?”
So our follow-up question to Karen Bowen is based on the assumption that she believes that Scenario 7 will result in positive educational outcomes. Our follow-up question to her is this: “Is Scenario 7 the best way to improve educational outcomes? Why or why not?”
In her response Michelle Monte identified several educational issues that she says Scenario 7 would not address: the freshman failure rate, high school disparities, block scheduling.
Out question to her is this: “Do you think Scenario 7 can be adjusted in a way to accomplish these goals, and if it were, would you support it?”
Teresa Thiel’s response is the one the most directly addresses educational outcomes: more classes of reduced size, more evenly distributed special-education programs, more teacher collaboration among teachers of the same grade level. While she expresses misgivings about some aspects of Scenario 7, overall she appears to give it at least a passing grade.
Our question to her is this: “If there were one thing about Scenario 7 that you could change, what would it be?”
In his response Dan Becker stresses the importance of neighborhood schools, particularly at the elementary level. Our question to him returns to the issue of education outcomes.
Our question to him is this: “While smaller, closer schools appear attractive from a philosophical perspective, do we know if they lead to higher levels of educational attainment?”
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Dan Becker: Vision for Restructuring
If restructuring were to proceed in the way that I think is most appropriate, our schools would not only be better utilized on the north/east side, but there would also be some space available on the west side to accommodate the projected growth over the next few years.
I would propose that we begin by looking at the buildings on the far eastern edge (the lake) of our district. By adjusting boundaries for these buildings to utilize them to their fullest, the benefits we all desire will be provided. In my vision, the process would continue to move westward, finally ending with Traeger and Oakwood schools. This would create a trickle down affect that if administration is so confident that the enrollment projections are accurate, will allow us to better utilize our schools AND retain flexibility for the future.
My biggest fear under the current scenario is that after asking our children to walk great distances to school, we may find ourselves in a situation where we need to add space. Under the current scenario, the ONLY way to add that space would be to build a new school, which is , in my opinion, irresponsible to the taxpayers as they will have no choice but to pass a multi-million dollar referendum. Why not simply make use of our already existing buildings?
I do realize that some of our buildings are in need of some “TLC”, but not so much as to make them unusable. It’s unfortunate that BOE majorities of the past have opted to put a higher priority on issues other than the buildings our children occupy every day and thus putting the board, and the community as a whole, in the current situation it is in.
I believe it is imperative to do whatever is needed to maintain the availability of neighborhood schools. Smaller schools provide the attention that our youngest students both require and deserve. I do realize that this comes at an expense, however, in particular at the elementary level, that is a cost that is worth bearing.
Neighborhood schools not only provide benefits for our students, but also to our parents. Schools provide our community with far more than just a place to send their kids to for a few hours a day. One of the issues that this district has focused on in years past is parental involvement. How involved do you think parents will be when they have to make a two mile trek to their child’s school?
We must make our youngest students feel secure in their existing schools. By sending them across a great distance, when their “old” school was three blocks away, is not in anyone’s best interest.
I would propose that we begin by looking at the buildings on the far eastern edge (the lake) of our district. By adjusting boundaries for these buildings to utilize them to their fullest, the benefits we all desire will be provided. In my vision, the process would continue to move westward, finally ending with Traeger and Oakwood schools. This would create a trickle down affect that if administration is so confident that the enrollment projections are accurate, will allow us to better utilize our schools AND retain flexibility for the future.
My biggest fear under the current scenario is that after asking our children to walk great distances to school, we may find ourselves in a situation where we need to add space. Under the current scenario, the ONLY way to add that space would be to build a new school, which is , in my opinion, irresponsible to the taxpayers as they will have no choice but to pass a multi-million dollar referendum. Why not simply make use of our already existing buildings?
I do realize that some of our buildings are in need of some “TLC”, but not so much as to make them unusable. It’s unfortunate that BOE majorities of the past have opted to put a higher priority on issues other than the buildings our children occupy every day and thus putting the board, and the community as a whole, in the current situation it is in.
I believe it is imperative to do whatever is needed to maintain the availability of neighborhood schools. Smaller schools provide the attention that our youngest students both require and deserve. I do realize that this comes at an expense, however, in particular at the elementary level, that is a cost that is worth bearing.
Neighborhood schools not only provide benefits for our students, but also to our parents. Schools provide our community with far more than just a place to send their kids to for a few hours a day. One of the issues that this district has focused on in years past is parental involvement. How involved do you think parents will be when they have to make a two mile trek to their child’s school?
We must make our youngest students feel secure in their existing schools. By sending them across a great distance, when their “old” school was three blocks away, is not in anyone’s best interest.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Teresa Thiel: Educational Outcomes
QUESTION: This week we'd like the candidates to talk about educational outcomes that could result from restructuring the Oshkosh school system, either as proposed in Scenario 7 or in some other way. Here's our question:
"If the restructuring were to proceed in the way that you think most appropriate, how would our schools be different? How would students benefit?"
In restructuring our school system our schools would be different under Scenario 7, obviously in the grades within our buildings. I am still not completely sold on the K-3, 4-8 configuration (as one student asked at the student forum tonight at North, who will be our role models in the K-3 configuration?). While I see a number of positive is this Scenario 7, I am curious as to how much of the efficiencies, and positives like increased number of students served by SAGE, Special Education students served closer to home, etc. could be realized by maintaining our K-5 configuration. The K-3, 4-8 configuration would definitely be different, would it be more beneficial than the K-5 or would it be neutral? I think the jury is still out on that one. I think that if our administrators thought this would have a negative impact on our students they would speak out against it.
The efficiencies realized in Scenario 7 would benefit students in many ways, some of which I've already mentioned, more students would be served by SAGE, in all the focus groups as well as the large group meetings, one of the issues that consistently was rated as highly valued was keeping class sizes small. Allowing more Special Education students to attend school closer to home is another plus, instead of moving those programs from school to school to make room for "regular" education students, these programs will have a more permanent place. The savings in operating costs of $1.5 million per year means $1.5 million more that can be spent on student programs, or $1.5 million less we need to cut from student programs. The maintenance and capital improvement savings on the buildings we close will also mean fewer or less deep cuts to student programs and money that can be spent on maintaining the remaining buildings.
Having schools with 3-4 classes per grade allows for more varied teacher collaboration on a regular basis, which research has shown improves student learning. With the district moving to a standards based teaching model this collaboration will be even more important.
All of the schools in this Scenario where children currently walk to one school, where one will close and the students will move to another school are located within 2 miles of each other. For example, if Smith were to close and the students go to Jefferson, the old and new schools are .6 miles apart, so some students will actually be closer to the new school, and of course some students will be farther away. So in the case of the K-3 schools I think it is fair to say, we will still have neighborhood schools. Again I have concerns about how much farther 4th and 5th graders will have to walk to school than they currently do. I know that data is coming soon and it will be helpful in looking at the distance issue. If children have to walk too far to school, it could impact their learning.
I believe we have to consolidate our schools, trying to repair, maintain and keep up with capital improvements at 16 elementary schools is not efficient, especially old buildings that do not have 20 years left in them. Closing only one or two schools in the budget climate we face for the foreseeable future will not get us where we need to be in terms of savings or equity. The results of both the focus groups and the large groups that discussed the Long Term Facilities Plan said equity among our building is important. The consolidation and construction allows our buildings to become as equitable as is reasonable. We will no longer be teaching children in musty smelling basements, or former janitors closets, that can only have a positive impact on our students and their learning.
While the K-3, 4-8 configuration is a huge philosophical shift, much of the rest of the plan is similar to the school closings mentioned in Scenario 1. I believe there is much in Scenario 7 that will positively impact student learning, the plan is not perfect, no plan will be. This Scenario meets a number of goals the community said they wanted to reach. Some changes will likely be needed once all the data is in but many aspects of the plan will result in positive educational outcomes for our students.
"If the restructuring were to proceed in the way that you think most appropriate, how would our schools be different? How would students benefit?"
In restructuring our school system our schools would be different under Scenario 7, obviously in the grades within our buildings. I am still not completely sold on the K-3, 4-8 configuration (as one student asked at the student forum tonight at North, who will be our role models in the K-3 configuration?). While I see a number of positive is this Scenario 7, I am curious as to how much of the efficiencies, and positives like increased number of students served by SAGE, Special Education students served closer to home, etc. could be realized by maintaining our K-5 configuration. The K-3, 4-8 configuration would definitely be different, would it be more beneficial than the K-5 or would it be neutral? I think the jury is still out on that one. I think that if our administrators thought this would have a negative impact on our students they would speak out against it.
The efficiencies realized in Scenario 7 would benefit students in many ways, some of which I've already mentioned, more students would be served by SAGE, in all the focus groups as well as the large group meetings, one of the issues that consistently was rated as highly valued was keeping class sizes small. Allowing more Special Education students to attend school closer to home is another plus, instead of moving those programs from school to school to make room for "regular" education students, these programs will have a more permanent place. The savings in operating costs of $1.5 million per year means $1.5 million more that can be spent on student programs, or $1.5 million less we need to cut from student programs. The maintenance and capital improvement savings on the buildings we close will also mean fewer or less deep cuts to student programs and money that can be spent on maintaining the remaining buildings.
Having schools with 3-4 classes per grade allows for more varied teacher collaboration on a regular basis, which research has shown improves student learning. With the district moving to a standards based teaching model this collaboration will be even more important.
All of the schools in this Scenario where children currently walk to one school, where one will close and the students will move to another school are located within 2 miles of each other. For example, if Smith were to close and the students go to Jefferson, the old and new schools are .6 miles apart, so some students will actually be closer to the new school, and of course some students will be farther away. So in the case of the K-3 schools I think it is fair to say, we will still have neighborhood schools. Again I have concerns about how much farther 4th and 5th graders will have to walk to school than they currently do. I know that data is coming soon and it will be helpful in looking at the distance issue. If children have to walk too far to school, it could impact their learning.
I believe we have to consolidate our schools, trying to repair, maintain and keep up with capital improvements at 16 elementary schools is not efficient, especially old buildings that do not have 20 years left in them. Closing only one or two schools in the budget climate we face for the foreseeable future will not get us where we need to be in terms of savings or equity. The results of both the focus groups and the large groups that discussed the Long Term Facilities Plan said equity among our building is important. The consolidation and construction allows our buildings to become as equitable as is reasonable. We will no longer be teaching children in musty smelling basements, or former janitors closets, that can only have a positive impact on our students and their learning.
While the K-3, 4-8 configuration is a huge philosophical shift, much of the rest of the plan is similar to the school closings mentioned in Scenario 1. I believe there is much in Scenario 7 that will positively impact student learning, the plan is not perfect, no plan will be. This Scenario meets a number of goals the community said they wanted to reach. Some changes will likely be needed once all the data is in but many aspects of the plan will result in positive educational outcomes for our students.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Michelle Monte: Restructuring Vision
In thinking about restructuring as it is happening right now, I am distracted by the rapidity of the current phase of the process. While we have been trying since at least 1986 to figure out how to best organize our buildings, programming, and curriculum to the best possible benefit of our children, we have only had this radical scenario 7 for a couple of weeks and a few Board of Education members are pushing to vote no later than April 4.
All that aside, I have given a lot of thought to what would make a better scenario. I have pored over documents I have gotten as a CRT member and research I have obtained on my own and through interested community members. I have talked to hundreds of community members and several PTOs from across the district. I have asked what they would like to see, what they have a problem with, and what they would be willing to compromise on for the betterment of their children. Had the Board of Education taken a little more time on scenario 7 and done as much one-on-one, I think they would have developed a far better and more equitable plan.
My idea of what is appropriate would be to set a timeline for adequate discussion, accumulation of community input, and verification of research and numbers associated with the scenario. If we were to continue with scenario 7 and work to turn it into something the community would willingly support, I would expect a timeline that is close to the timeline that was followed for the January 10th meeting. It took months to get a scenario most of the committee members could agree on. Only year one was approved out of all that work. Years two through ten were presented March fifth with a vote expected March 28 or April 4. The only comparable plan offered is an inflated status quo plan. I would not be opposed to a timeline that puts a vote at the end of the school year. Since year one has already been voted on and nothing can proceed until a referendum passes, it would behoove us to tread carefully, take the time we have, and get this right.
As for what our schools and district would look like and this process, I would go back to what was set as the goals and educational considerations in November when scenarios were being developed. These were based on the PMP report we paid almost $40,000 for. Without rehashing the documents, I would direct attention to the Goals/Criteria of the OASD Long-Range Facilities Plan from 2/9/2007. In this document, the committees were reminded what our focus was supposed to be. The second document is the OASD Educational Standards from 11/10/2006.
Our focus should also be on the goal of making the district more efficient both with buildings and spending. Currently scenario 7 does little for the high schools and still prevents the block scheduling that the district claims would be of great educational benefit. It also does not address the freshmen failure rate the district mentions every now and again. I would explore moving the ninth grade into the underutilized middle schools making them 6-9. This makes room for block scheduling without major additions to the high schools and allows freshmen who have academic deficiencies the remedial help they need. This could cut the number of kids in summer school, significantly reduce the freshman failure rate, allow for block scheduling, and utilize our middle schools to their optimal capacity. Currently, the numbers show an excess of about 80 freshmen or 4 classrooms. Adding four classrooms to Tipler is far less expensive than adding 100+ classrooms to seven buildings. The north side, where elementary buildings are virtually on top of each other, could benefit from a K-4, 5-9 model similar to scenario 7. The southern and western schools could feasibly handle K-5, 6-9.
As for school closings, I think the criteria were greatly subjective and architectural biases towards only modern designs eliminates older schools which are servicing our students and have a lot of life left if they were taken care of. Taking care of buildings is something we need to do significantly better on. I can think of six buildings that are expensive to operate, have significant repairs attached to them, and are in locations where their students could be easily absorbed by nearby schools. They are not the same six identified by PMP and SODEXO. I think we could realistically close up to three schools. To close more than that would set us up for a future referendum to build one or two new schools if development on the northwest and southwest sides of town are as large as expected. I also think we need to be careful how large we create our elementary schools. The community has spoken loudly against megaschools throughout this entire process.
All buildings should have equitable resources: art rooms, cafeterias, gyms, science labs, computer labs. There should be no teachers on carts. Of course this may become a problem with one middle school having a pool. I do not want every middle school to have a pool, we cannot sustain that kind of expense. I am not even sure we can sustain the expense of the one pool.
Finally, we need a detailed and comprehensive boundary plan and policy to spread our students in such a way that our buildings are used to their optimal operating capacities. The boundary policy should have periodic checks (3-5 yrs) to ensure our buildings do not become overcrowded or underutilized. In addition, there should be triggers identified to illicit interim boundary changes if there is a significant population change in any part of the district.
Our students would benefit by having enough space to work, maintained buildings to study in, and teachers who are happy and proud to step into their classrooms that are of appropriate size, maintained, and equipped. Our schools do not necessarily have to be different from what we have to be an improvement on what we have.
At the very least, any change that occurs and any dollars asked from the community need to be justified in quantitative and qualitative ways that are specific and detailed. All goals for educational standards needs to measurable and accountability needs to be assured. Only then can I see our community supporting a large-scale referendum.
All that aside, I have given a lot of thought to what would make a better scenario. I have pored over documents I have gotten as a CRT member and research I have obtained on my own and through interested community members. I have talked to hundreds of community members and several PTOs from across the district. I have asked what they would like to see, what they have a problem with, and what they would be willing to compromise on for the betterment of their children. Had the Board of Education taken a little more time on scenario 7 and done as much one-on-one, I think they would have developed a far better and more equitable plan.
My idea of what is appropriate would be to set a timeline for adequate discussion, accumulation of community input, and verification of research and numbers associated with the scenario. If we were to continue with scenario 7 and work to turn it into something the community would willingly support, I would expect a timeline that is close to the timeline that was followed for the January 10th meeting. It took months to get a scenario most of the committee members could agree on. Only year one was approved out of all that work. Years two through ten were presented March fifth with a vote expected March 28 or April 4. The only comparable plan offered is an inflated status quo plan. I would not be opposed to a timeline that puts a vote at the end of the school year. Since year one has already been voted on and nothing can proceed until a referendum passes, it would behoove us to tread carefully, take the time we have, and get this right.
As for what our schools and district would look like and this process, I would go back to what was set as the goals and educational considerations in November when scenarios were being developed. These were based on the PMP report we paid almost $40,000 for. Without rehashing the documents, I would direct attention to the Goals/Criteria of the OASD Long-Range Facilities Plan from 2/9/2007. In this document, the committees were reminded what our focus was supposed to be. The second document is the OASD Educational Standards from 11/10/2006.
Our focus should also be on the goal of making the district more efficient both with buildings and spending. Currently scenario 7 does little for the high schools and still prevents the block scheduling that the district claims would be of great educational benefit. It also does not address the freshmen failure rate the district mentions every now and again. I would explore moving the ninth grade into the underutilized middle schools making them 6-9. This makes room for block scheduling without major additions to the high schools and allows freshmen who have academic deficiencies the remedial help they need. This could cut the number of kids in summer school, significantly reduce the freshman failure rate, allow for block scheduling, and utilize our middle schools to their optimal capacity. Currently, the numbers show an excess of about 80 freshmen or 4 classrooms. Adding four classrooms to Tipler is far less expensive than adding 100+ classrooms to seven buildings. The north side, where elementary buildings are virtually on top of each other, could benefit from a K-4, 5-9 model similar to scenario 7. The southern and western schools could feasibly handle K-5, 6-9.
As for school closings, I think the criteria were greatly subjective and architectural biases towards only modern designs eliminates older schools which are servicing our students and have a lot of life left if they were taken care of. Taking care of buildings is something we need to do significantly better on. I can think of six buildings that are expensive to operate, have significant repairs attached to them, and are in locations where their students could be easily absorbed by nearby schools. They are not the same six identified by PMP and SODEXO. I think we could realistically close up to three schools. To close more than that would set us up for a future referendum to build one or two new schools if development on the northwest and southwest sides of town are as large as expected. I also think we need to be careful how large we create our elementary schools. The community has spoken loudly against megaschools throughout this entire process.
All buildings should have equitable resources: art rooms, cafeterias, gyms, science labs, computer labs. There should be no teachers on carts. Of course this may become a problem with one middle school having a pool. I do not want every middle school to have a pool, we cannot sustain that kind of expense. I am not even sure we can sustain the expense of the one pool.
Finally, we need a detailed and comprehensive boundary plan and policy to spread our students in such a way that our buildings are used to their optimal operating capacities. The boundary policy should have periodic checks (3-5 yrs) to ensure our buildings do not become overcrowded or underutilized. In addition, there should be triggers identified to illicit interim boundary changes if there is a significant population change in any part of the district.
Our students would benefit by having enough space to work, maintained buildings to study in, and teachers who are happy and proud to step into their classrooms that are of appropriate size, maintained, and equipped. Our schools do not necessarily have to be different from what we have to be an improvement on what we have.
At the very least, any change that occurs and any dollars asked from the community need to be justified in quantitative and qualitative ways that are specific and detailed. All goals for educational standards needs to measurable and accountability needs to be assured. Only then can I see our community supporting a large-scale referendum.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Discussion topic for week of March 19
This week we'd like the candidates to talk about educational outcomes that could result from restructuring the Oshkosh school system, either as proposed in Scenario 7 or in some other way. Here's our question:
Michelle Monte will begin this week's discussion.
"If the restructuring were to proceed in the way that you think most appropriate, how would our schools be different? How would students benefit?"
Michelle Monte will begin this week's discussion.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Karen Bowen Follow-up
For Karen Bowen—Did you hear anything at the March 14 workshop that changes your view that the tradeoffs are worth making and that the plan should be implemented soon?
There certainly were a great many people with passionate views at the board meeting on Wednesday. I do appreciate their views and their willingness to stick with the process and with the meeting until the end. What I heard Wednesday was that there is no consistent view withing the community that would indicate that tradeoffs are not worth making, because each person who spoke had a different perspective, based on where their children go to school.
The e-mails I received after the board meeting confirmed that assessment; some agreed with people who spoke on Wednesday, others did not. For example, there are North High parents and staff who would like to see boundaries changed between the high school much more quickly than the current proposal would allow.
There certainly were a great many people with passionate views at the board meeting on Wednesday. I do appreciate their views and their willingness to stick with the process and with the meeting until the end. What I heard Wednesday was that there is no consistent view withing the community that would indicate that tradeoffs are not worth making, because each person who spoke had a different perspective, based on where their children go to school.
The e-mails I received after the board meeting confirmed that assessment; some agreed with people who spoke on Wednesday, others did not. For example, there are North High parents and staff who would like to see boundaries changed between the high school much more quickly than the current proposal would allow.
Once again, I believe that these tradeoffs are worth making because they benefit the school district as a whole, particularly for the long run.
Michelle Monte: Answer to trade off follow up
Based on what I have heard in the community, what I heard at the recent BOE, and what I have seen in the way of researched dollars and statistics from OASD administration, I would make several suggestions. I do not think the entire scenario needs to be scrapped. We, historically, have given up too often and too quickly on ideas only to have to go back and reinvent the wheel instead of building on what we have already proposed.
Considering the new scenario is addressing academics and not just facilities, I feel it does not address the freshman failure rate at all that we have heard so much about over the last several years. And considering the capacity issues with the High schools, I would consider K-4, 5-9, 10-12 or K-5, 6-9, 10-12. The possibility exists of doing more than one configuration at different school groups. One set of High school feeders (elem, Mid) could be a K-3, 4-8/9, another might be K-5, 6-8/9 depending on how many section, whether SAGE or not, and capacity of available buildings.
We definitely need to do more with the boundaries. Cherry-picking, for any reason, is unacceptable and a band-aid covering a much more serious problem for the future. I think we need to wipe the map clean of buildings except the high schools. Move the HS boundary southwest and southeast to avoid having it across the street from West. Move the boundary until the capacities of the two high schools are at the determined goal with room for growth. I have heard that a continuous boundary is more acceptable to the community that islands in the farthest reaches of the district.
Then we need to look at the middle schools and the capacity needed for each building and current programming. Draw the boundaries in sort of a circle around the schools until the optimal capacity is reached and all students are accounted for. Students in overlapping areas would have a choice as long as there is room in the desired building and it wouldn't cause a split class in the other building.
At that point we could do the same with the elementary schools. However, we need to determine which schools to close. I do not agree that the six identified are beyond repair or beyond their life expectancies. I also do not believe it is smart to remove the farthest north schools and farthest south schools leaving buildings we know cannot handle growth in those areas. If we are going to develop a facilities scenario, we need to pay attention to what the information actually tells us and not what some people want it to tell us.
We also need to get back to the educational standards and community values and goals we started with. Scenario 7 has deviated too far from what we set out to do. I look at scenario 7 and do not see the vision the BOE voted on.
Considering the new scenario is addressing academics and not just facilities, I feel it does not address the freshman failure rate at all that we have heard so much about over the last several years. And considering the capacity issues with the High schools, I would consider K-4, 5-9, 10-12 or K-5, 6-9, 10-12. The possibility exists of doing more than one configuration at different school groups. One set of High school feeders (elem, Mid) could be a K-3, 4-8/9, another might be K-5, 6-8/9 depending on how many section, whether SAGE or not, and capacity of available buildings.
We definitely need to do more with the boundaries. Cherry-picking, for any reason, is unacceptable and a band-aid covering a much more serious problem for the future. I think we need to wipe the map clean of buildings except the high schools. Move the HS boundary southwest and southeast to avoid having it across the street from West. Move the boundary until the capacities of the two high schools are at the determined goal with room for growth. I have heard that a continuous boundary is more acceptable to the community that islands in the farthest reaches of the district.
Then we need to look at the middle schools and the capacity needed for each building and current programming. Draw the boundaries in sort of a circle around the schools until the optimal capacity is reached and all students are accounted for. Students in overlapping areas would have a choice as long as there is room in the desired building and it wouldn't cause a split class in the other building.
At that point we could do the same with the elementary schools. However, we need to determine which schools to close. I do not agree that the six identified are beyond repair or beyond their life expectancies. I also do not believe it is smart to remove the farthest north schools and farthest south schools leaving buildings we know cannot handle growth in those areas. If we are going to develop a facilities scenario, we need to pay attention to what the information actually tells us and not what some people want it to tell us.
We also need to get back to the educational standards and community values and goals we started with. Scenario 7 has deviated too far from what we set out to do. I look at scenario 7 and do not see the vision the BOE voted on.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Dan Becker: Answer to Follow Up Question(s)
Do you believe that some form of restructuring is necessary? Do you know of a way to restructure that does not involve trade-offs? If trade-offs are necessary, what trade-offs would you urge the community to consider and possibly accept?
I do believe that some form of restructuring is necessary. However, I do not believe that the current plan is the best solution to the problems that the district faces. Solutions do exist that minimize the tradeoffs that would be necessary.
I have given some serious consideration to the idea of "fluid boundaries". This approach would eliminate the necessity to "cherry pick" a particular area, which is what Scenario 7 does. Under such a plan, as I envision it, changes would be made to the boundaries of our easternmost schools in order to achieve optimal capacity. The process would then move westward. Using this approach would allow us to more fully utilize buildings on the East/North side of town. At the same time it would provide for the additional space that is necessary as the community grows to the West. The necessity to close a building may still be deemed necessary, but a minimal number of families would be impacted as a result.
As I said, it is not for me to suggest what tradeoffs the community should accept. I will seek out comments and feelings and make my decisions based on community input.
I do believe that some form of restructuring is necessary. However, I do not believe that the current plan is the best solution to the problems that the district faces. Solutions do exist that minimize the tradeoffs that would be necessary.
I have given some serious consideration to the idea of "fluid boundaries". This approach would eliminate the necessity to "cherry pick" a particular area, which is what Scenario 7 does. Under such a plan, as I envision it, changes would be made to the boundaries of our easternmost schools in order to achieve optimal capacity. The process would then move westward. Using this approach would allow us to more fully utilize buildings on the East/North side of town. At the same time it would provide for the additional space that is necessary as the community grows to the West. The necessity to close a building may still be deemed necessary, but a minimal number of families would be impacted as a result.
As I said, it is not for me to suggest what tradeoffs the community should accept. I will seek out comments and feelings and make my decisions based on community input.
Teresa Thiel: Answer to Follow up to Trade-offs Question
Teresa Thiel focused her comments on positive outcomes from the trade-offs, both educational and financial. Our follow-up question to her is this:
For Teresa Thiel—What level of confidence do you have in Scenario 7 that it will achieve its goals in terms of education and money? Do you think it can be improved? If so, how so?
I still have some concerns regarding the 4-8 configuration but that did not seem to be as big a concern with speakers as I expected it would be. I would still like more details on the educational benefits to 4th, 5th and perhaps 6th graders. I think the educational benefits of SAGE for the additional students will definitely be significant.
As for the dollars saved, I have asked Administration for additional information. First, due to the concern people have regarding the distance that students will have to walk, I asked "what is the furthest distance students walk (those that are not bussed by the district) under our current elementary and middle school boundaries? I would not want to increase that distance for students. The second question I asked was "if we keep the six schools slated to be closed in Scenario 7 what would the maintenance and capital improvement costs be for those six schools over the next 20 years (the length of the referendum bond). That figure is a savings to the district, over and above the approximately $1.5 million in operational savings.
I do know for a fact that if we close no schools, we will have $0 savings in operational costs and will have to spend a significant amount in maintenance and capital improvement costs over the next 20 years. According to the experts some of these building probably don't have 20 years left in them.
If the community wants us to be efficient with our dollars I don't know how you justify continuing to operate inefficient school, both in staffing and in maintaining buildings that experts we hired said they would not invest dollars in. I understand people don't want their schools closed and it seems we are heading down the same road the board has gone down in the past, people are upset, so don't close any schools. That is fiscally irresponsible. If non-experts are going to second guess the experts as to which buildings are not worth investing in I don't think we should waste our money hiring experts.
As for the movement of 150 students from West to North, I'm not really in favor of busing students who can walk to school, it seems to make more sense to me to move students already on a bus. I also think there should be a tipping point at which we decide we must move students, say when North is projected to go below 90% of operational capacity then students will be moved. I don't want to move students only to over-crowd a school even temporarily. I think this decision needs to be made based on what is best for the district as a whole and I have concerns when decisions are made based on the "squeaky wheel" philosophy.
For Teresa Thiel—What level of confidence do you have in Scenario 7 that it will achieve its goals in terms of education and money? Do you think it can be improved? If so, how so?
I still have some concerns regarding the 4-8 configuration but that did not seem to be as big a concern with speakers as I expected it would be. I would still like more details on the educational benefits to 4th, 5th and perhaps 6th graders. I think the educational benefits of SAGE for the additional students will definitely be significant.
As for the dollars saved, I have asked Administration for additional information. First, due to the concern people have regarding the distance that students will have to walk, I asked "what is the furthest distance students walk (those that are not bussed by the district) under our current elementary and middle school boundaries? I would not want to increase that distance for students. The second question I asked was "if we keep the six schools slated to be closed in Scenario 7 what would the maintenance and capital improvement costs be for those six schools over the next 20 years (the length of the referendum bond). That figure is a savings to the district, over and above the approximately $1.5 million in operational savings.
I do know for a fact that if we close no schools, we will have $0 savings in operational costs and will have to spend a significant amount in maintenance and capital improvement costs over the next 20 years. According to the experts some of these building probably don't have 20 years left in them.
If the community wants us to be efficient with our dollars I don't know how you justify continuing to operate inefficient school, both in staffing and in maintaining buildings that experts we hired said they would not invest dollars in. I understand people don't want their schools closed and it seems we are heading down the same road the board has gone down in the past, people are upset, so don't close any schools. That is fiscally irresponsible. If non-experts are going to second guess the experts as to which buildings are not worth investing in I don't think we should waste our money hiring experts.
As for the movement of 150 students from West to North, I'm not really in favor of busing students who can walk to school, it seems to make more sense to me to move students already on a bus. I also think there should be a tipping point at which we decide we must move students, say when North is projected to go below 90% of operational capacity then students will be moved. I don't want to move students only to over-crowd a school even temporarily. I think this decision needs to be made based on what is best for the district as a whole and I have concerns when decisions are made based on the "squeaky wheel" philosophy.
Follow-up questions on trade-offs
We asked the Board of Education candidates to identify the kinds of trade-offs that the community should be willing to make to address the imbalances and other challenges in the existing school structure. Their answers raise additional questions, which are posed here.
Karen Bowen, the only incumbent member of the board in this year's race, listed several tradeoffs that are contained in “Scenario 7.” She described them in such a way that it would appear that on balance the Scenario 7 plan will be more advantageous. She also suggested that the board should move as quickly as possible to allow the maximum amount of time for people in the community to adjust to the new school structure. Our follow-up question is this:
Dan Becker responded to a slightly different question than the one that was posed. We asked what should the community be willing to do, but he replied that he did not know what the community would be willing to do. So we repose the question:
Michelle Monte made the case the community it willing to make trade-offs if the plan for restructuring is sound. She said that she had heard of several suggestions to Scenario 7. Our question to her is like the one to Ms. Bowen:
Teresa Thiel focused her comments on positive outcomes from the trade-offs, both educational and financial. Our follow-up question to her is this:
Karen Bowen, the only incumbent member of the board in this year's race, listed several tradeoffs that are contained in “Scenario 7.” She described them in such a way that it would appear that on balance the Scenario 7 plan will be more advantageous. She also suggested that the board should move as quickly as possible to allow the maximum amount of time for people in the community to adjust to the new school structure. Our follow-up question is this:
For Karen Bowen—Did you hear anything at the March 14 workshop that changes your view that the tradeoffs are worth making and that the plan should be implemented soon?
Dan Becker responded to a slightly different question than the one that was posed. We asked what should the community be willing to do, but he replied that he did not know what the community would be willing to do. So we repose the question:
For Dan Becker—Do you believe that some form of restructuring is necessary? Do you know of a way to restructure that does not involve trade-offs? If trade-offs are necessary, what trade-offs would you urge the community to consider and possibly accept?
Michelle Monte made the case the community it willing to make trade-offs if the plan for restructuring is sound. She said that she had heard of several suggestions to Scenario 7. Our question to her is like the one to Ms. Bowen:
For Michelle Monte—Based on what you have heard in the community, and particularly from the March 14 workshop, can you make suggestions—either specific or general—for improving Scenario 7.
Teresa Thiel focused her comments on positive outcomes from the trade-offs, both educational and financial. Our follow-up question to her is this:
For Teresa Thiel—What level of confidence do you have in Scenario 7 that it will achieve its goals in terms of education and money? Do you think it can be improved? If so, how so?
Dan Becker: Coming to Grips with Tradeoffs
The question, as stated, is very difficult to answer. I cannot determine what the community is willing to trade-off in order proceed with the restructuring plan. It depends on who you ask. Someone whose school is closing may not be willing to trade anything, someone whose school isn’t closing may not have anything to trade-off, or someone who is on a fixed income may not be willing to pay higher taxes if there is a referendum to accommodate the cost of restructuring. I cannot answer the question for the community; it would be irresponsible of me to tell someone what they should be willing to trade-off.
I do feel that some people are giving the impression that the older schools in Oshkosh are somehow “a lesser school” just because of their age. A new building DOES NOT make a good school. Good schools are made up of caring people, involved parents, dedicated teachers, hard-working administrators, and most of all students who feel valued, loved, and important. Any building new or old can be that. I believe the public is getting the impression that if something isn’t done right now, the district is destined for disaster. This is not true. Decisions of this magnitude need to be thoroughly investigated, completely researched, creatively thought out, and well planned. I do not think these things have been done. I do not think the public should be asked to even consider forced trade-offs until there is a definite plan with an accurate price tag in place.
Without any concrete information, I can only speculate on the trade-offs, and to do so would be a disservice to the families directly affected, the children impacted, the staff displaced, and the already over burdened taxpayers, in other words, all the members of the community.
I do feel that some people are giving the impression that the older schools in Oshkosh are somehow “a lesser school” just because of their age. A new building DOES NOT make a good school. Good schools are made up of caring people, involved parents, dedicated teachers, hard-working administrators, and most of all students who feel valued, loved, and important. Any building new or old can be that. I believe the public is getting the impression that if something isn’t done right now, the district is destined for disaster. This is not true. Decisions of this magnitude need to be thoroughly investigated, completely researched, creatively thought out, and well planned. I do not think these things have been done. I do not think the public should be asked to even consider forced trade-offs until there is a definite plan with an accurate price tag in place.
Without any concrete information, I can only speculate on the trade-offs, and to do so would be a disservice to the families directly affected, the children impacted, the staff displaced, and the already over burdened taxpayers, in other words, all the members of the community.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Teresa Thiel: Coming to Grips with Tradeoffs
Discussion topic for week of March 12
The topic this week is trade-offs, specifically the ones that will be necessary in any restructuring of the Oshkosh school system. We asked the candidates to respond to this statement:"Clearly restructuring is an issue that Oshkosh has had trouble coming to grips with. The change is almost certain to require trade-offs. What are the trade-offs that you think the community should be considering and should be willing to accept?"
I think some of the trade-offs in the restructuring will be giving up small neighborhood schools that are inefficient to operate for larger schools that are more efficient to operate and that will have more full time staff --- most of the remaining elementary schools will have full-time at their school a phy-ed, music, and art teachers and a full-time counselor (which I think will be especially valuable -- I remember times at Jefferson when a child was in crisis and we had to call over to another school, locate the guidance counselor and have her come to Jefferson to help the child --- which could take an hour or more for the counselor to arrive -- that is a long time for a child in crisis to wait). The larger schools will also allow most special education students to attend school in their home attendance area with their siblings and neighbors (1 in 6 children in our school system have special education needs). Another trade off will be students going to the school they have always gone to for more students being taught in SAGE classrooms, this is a huge educational benefit for students. Another trade-off will be saying good-bye to schools we love but that are 80 to 100 years old (the lifespan of a well maintained school building) for building that still have 30 or more years of life in them.
If we close 6 schools it is projected that we will save $1.5 million in operating costs EVERY year (the figure will go up due to inflation) but what many who focus on that number fail to recognize is that we will also SAVE a significant amount of money (you can total it up by going to this link) in needed maintenance and repairs -- unless of course you want to keep all our schools but not maintain them. While the deferred maintenance would be a one-time savings, you will also have ongoing maintenance and preventive maintenance costs for every building you keep, the more buildings you keep the more dollars you need to spend on maintenance and since there isn't an overabundance of dollars you will have to cut staff or programs to pay for the ongoing building maintenance.
Closing schools is difficult and for many heart-wrenching, I'm a mom, I know how sad it would be to have your child's school close, but the board needs to look out for ALL children, and spend our dollars in the most efficient way possible. Keeping schools that will not last another 25 years and that do not meet today's educational needs and never will, because people are upset that schools will close is not being fiscally or educationally responsible. We have to be willing to make the difficult decisions that will leave our district better off financially as well as educationally as we look to the future. I think that is a trade-off worth accepting. Remember, if we close no schools, we will still need a referendum to do "catch-up maintenance" but we will have NO operational savings to off-set that cost and we will have continuing maintenance costs for those old buildings well into the future, that must be factored into the cost of NOT closing buildings. That is not a trade-off I'm willing to accept.
The topic this week is trade-offs, specifically the ones that will be necessary in any restructuring of the Oshkosh school system. We asked the candidates to respond to this statement:"Clearly restructuring is an issue that Oshkosh has had trouble coming to grips with. The change is almost certain to require trade-offs. What are the trade-offs that you think the community should be considering and should be willing to accept?"
I think some of the trade-offs in the restructuring will be giving up small neighborhood schools that are inefficient to operate for larger schools that are more efficient to operate and that will have more full time staff --- most of the remaining elementary schools will have full-time at their school a phy-ed, music, and art teachers and a full-time counselor (which I think will be especially valuable -- I remember times at Jefferson when a child was in crisis and we had to call over to another school, locate the guidance counselor and have her come to Jefferson to help the child --- which could take an hour or more for the counselor to arrive -- that is a long time for a child in crisis to wait). The larger schools will also allow most special education students to attend school in their home attendance area with their siblings and neighbors (1 in 6 children in our school system have special education needs). Another trade off will be students going to the school they have always gone to for more students being taught in SAGE classrooms, this is a huge educational benefit for students. Another trade-off will be saying good-bye to schools we love but that are 80 to 100 years old (the lifespan of a well maintained school building) for building that still have 30 or more years of life in them.
If we close 6 schools it is projected that we will save $1.5 million in operating costs EVERY year (the figure will go up due to inflation) but what many who focus on that number fail to recognize is that we will also SAVE a significant amount of money (you can total it up by going to this link) in needed maintenance and repairs -- unless of course you want to keep all our schools but not maintain them. While the deferred maintenance would be a one-time savings, you will also have ongoing maintenance and preventive maintenance costs for every building you keep, the more buildings you keep the more dollars you need to spend on maintenance and since there isn't an overabundance of dollars you will have to cut staff or programs to pay for the ongoing building maintenance.
Closing schools is difficult and for many heart-wrenching, I'm a mom, I know how sad it would be to have your child's school close, but the board needs to look out for ALL children, and spend our dollars in the most efficient way possible. Keeping schools that will not last another 25 years and that do not meet today's educational needs and never will, because people are upset that schools will close is not being fiscally or educationally responsible. We have to be willing to make the difficult decisions that will leave our district better off financially as well as educationally as we look to the future. I think that is a trade-off worth accepting. Remember, if we close no schools, we will still need a referendum to do "catch-up maintenance" but we will have NO operational savings to off-set that cost and we will have continuing maintenance costs for those old buildings well into the future, that must be factored into the cost of NOT closing buildings. That is not a trade-off I'm willing to accept.
Michelle Monte: Coming To Grips With Tradeoffs
I believe the community has full grasp of the fact that there will be trade offs with any scenario. Community members who participated in PMP forums and whom I have met at various functions in the last few weeks realize there will be trade offs and sacrifices. The possibility of closing schools was commonly known and accepted if a good case could be made for each school identified for closure and hardships were not created by closing buildings. The possibility of a large referendum was known and a detailed case was expected to be made for the money. Goals and expectations have been identified and discussed in a variety of forums. The trade off for the money was to be significant cost savings with the potential for raising achievement in our district.
I do not believe that Oshkosh is not able to come to grips with the trade offs. I believe Oshkosh is not able to come to grips with the tenuous cases made for six building closures, multiple upheavals, massive building expansions and renovations, tremendous referendum dollars, minuscule financial savings, and debatable educational returns on the extreme investment.
I have talked to many members of our community of all ages and areas of the city. No one has told me that they are not willing to accept changes. People do comment that change will be difficult, but can be accepted if there is more to gain than will be lost. If the changes make sense, people can accept, though in some cases grudgingly. Most of the people I talked to who were opposed to the various scenarios, and particularly scenario 7, had numerous suggestions to make the scenario better. Some had ideas for entirely new scenarios. Several had ideas that could be combined into more equitable scenarios.
I believe that the community will have to sacrifice some buildings that are no longer cost efficient. The possibility exists that some children may have to attend schools they would not be slated to attend after sixth or eighth grades in order to equalize building capacities. I believe that the community will need to accept boundary changes. The community will need to consider a reasonable referendum if nothing more than to get our buildings repaired and upgraded.
In exchange, they should expect more efficient buildings that are well maintained and used to their optimal capacity with room to grow. The community should expect schools with equitable educational opportunities across the district. We should expect our children to be within safe walking distances or within reasonable busing distances. We should expect our money to be spent wisely and be accounted for. We should expect our BOE and any scenario they pass to be flexible and ensure room for growth when and where needed in the future.
I believe our community is ready and accepting of change at this point in time but only if the change is reasonable, affordable, and based on common sense, fiscal responsibility, and maintains the goals and priorities of the entire community. Our community is ready to find the right compromise to move forward. Hopefully the BOE will see this and be willing to work with the community for the greater good.
I do not believe that Oshkosh is not able to come to grips with the trade offs. I believe Oshkosh is not able to come to grips with the tenuous cases made for six building closures, multiple upheavals, massive building expansions and renovations, tremendous referendum dollars, minuscule financial savings, and debatable educational returns on the extreme investment.
I have talked to many members of our community of all ages and areas of the city. No one has told me that they are not willing to accept changes. People do comment that change will be difficult, but can be accepted if there is more to gain than will be lost. If the changes make sense, people can accept, though in some cases grudgingly. Most of the people I talked to who were opposed to the various scenarios, and particularly scenario 7, had numerous suggestions to make the scenario better. Some had ideas for entirely new scenarios. Several had ideas that could be combined into more equitable scenarios.
I believe that the community will have to sacrifice some buildings that are no longer cost efficient. The possibility exists that some children may have to attend schools they would not be slated to attend after sixth or eighth grades in order to equalize building capacities. I believe that the community will need to accept boundary changes. The community will need to consider a reasonable referendum if nothing more than to get our buildings repaired and upgraded.
In exchange, they should expect more efficient buildings that are well maintained and used to their optimal capacity with room to grow. The community should expect schools with equitable educational opportunities across the district. We should expect our children to be within safe walking distances or within reasonable busing distances. We should expect our money to be spent wisely and be accounted for. We should expect our BOE and any scenario they pass to be flexible and ensure room for growth when and where needed in the future.
I believe our community is ready and accepting of change at this point in time but only if the change is reasonable, affordable, and based on common sense, fiscal responsibility, and maintains the goals and priorities of the entire community. Our community is ready to find the right compromise to move forward. Hopefully the BOE will see this and be willing to work with the community for the greater good.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Karen Bowen: Coming to Grips with Tradeoffs
Organizations make decisions every day, and every decision is accompanied by trade offs. This is probably nowhere more true than in a school district. Here's a list of some of the trade offs that our district is making:
Deciding between small elementary schools close to neighborhoods in favor of larger schools that offer more educational opportunity.
Allow special education students to receive services in schools closer to their homes rather than being bused across the district.
Larger elementary schools allow for educational opportunity for students and staff that does not now exist in small buildings.
Closing buildings which are not conducive to 21st century education.
Is socioeconomics an issue?
Should the district continue to try to satisfy everyone, or make a decision and move forward?
Should we think outside the box in terms of grade configuration or remain in the traditional format, even if this means we can't achieve some of our other objectives?
Whether the community is willing to accept these changes or not is another matter. It's been my experience that some people are willing to move on and others are not. The emotional impact of anything involving our children is easy to understand, but someone needs to make decisions based on the good of the district for the long term. Probably the best way to makes such decisions is for the board to be as united as possible and to implement the plan as soon as possible so that people have time to adjust to it. Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen.
Deciding between small elementary schools close to neighborhoods in favor of larger schools that offer more educational opportunity.
Allow special education students to receive services in schools closer to their homes rather than being bused across the district.
Larger elementary schools allow for educational opportunity for students and staff that does not now exist in small buildings.
Closing buildings which are not conducive to 21st century education.
Is socioeconomics an issue?
Should the district continue to try to satisfy everyone, or make a decision and move forward?
Should we think outside the box in terms of grade configuration or remain in the traditional format, even if this means we can't achieve some of our other objectives?
Whether the community is willing to accept these changes or not is another matter. It's been my experience that some people are willing to move on and others are not. The emotional impact of anything involving our children is easy to understand, but someone needs to make decisions based on the good of the district for the long term. Probably the best way to makes such decisions is for the board to be as united as possible and to implement the plan as soon as possible so that people have time to adjust to it. Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Discussion topic for week of March 12
The topic this week is trade-offs, specifically the ones that will be necessary in any restructuring of the Oshkosh school system. We asked the candidates to respond to this statement:
"Clearly restructuring is an issue that Oshkosh has had trouble coming to grips with. The change is almost certain to require trade-offs. What are the trade-offs that you think the community should be considering and should be willing to accept?"
This week the first response will come from Karen Bowen.
"Clearly restructuring is an issue that Oshkosh has had trouble coming to grips with. The change is almost certain to require trade-offs. What are the trade-offs that you think the community should be considering and should be willing to accept?"
This week the first response will come from Karen Bowen.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Oshkosh News: candidate similarities & differences
The following is an attempt by Oshkosh News to summarize the views expressed by the candidates on this week's topic. The candidates are invited to respond to this summary or to the views expressed by the other candidates.
Some differences emerge among the candidates in response to the question about the school district’s vision for facilities planning. The district’s vision statement is built around three concepts: equity, excellence and equity. But the candidates disagree on how to balance the competing interests that these concepts imply.
Three of the candidates say which one is their highest priority while another points to the importance of balancing student needs with affordability.
Although Dan Becker and Karen Bowen were the top voter-getters in the primary, they often seem to be ideological opposites. But both say they would rate excellence as the key goal.
Dan Becker:
Karen Bowen:
Michelle Monte suggests a mixed approach:
For Teresa Thiel equity is most important:
Vision statements are, necessarily, vague. They aren’t supposed to supply all the answers, only give some direction. But if a vision statement is too vague, then it fails because it creates more confusion than consensus.
Is the district’s facilities planning process suffering from a flawed vision?
The candidates disagree about this. Mr. Becker and Ms. Monte express concerns about the lack of definition and specificity for three key terms in the vision statement.
“I think the vision statement is at best over simplifying the actual issues that the district is trying to address and resolve,” says Mr. Becker.
“The reality is that there is no definitive definition of those concepts,” Ms. says Monte.
Ms. Thiel seems more comfortable with the vision statement as written, although she acknowledges that excellence is hard to define and “sometimes you just know it when you see it.”
Ms. Bowen sees the vision statement as a clear expression of where the district should be headed. She also sees it as a “challenge” laid down to which the district needs to respond in moving to “the next level.”
An interesting difference of opinion emerges between Mr. Becker and Ms. Bowen.
Mr. Becker:
Ms. Bowen:
An area of agreement among the candidates is that equity is not the same thing as equality.
Ms. Monte:
Ms. Thiel:
Some differences emerge among the candidates in response to the question about the school district’s vision for facilities planning. The district’s vision statement is built around three concepts: equity, excellence and equity. But the candidates disagree on how to balance the competing interests that these concepts imply.
Three of the candidates say which one is their highest priority while another points to the importance of balancing student needs with affordability.
Although Dan Becker and Karen Bowen were the top voter-getters in the primary, they often seem to be ideological opposites. But both say they would rate excellence as the key goal.
Dan Becker:
“The most important of the three is excellence. Without excellence, equity and efficiency have no meaning.”
Karen Bowen:
“Providing excellence for all students is the most important part of this vision.”
Michelle Monte suggests a mixed approach:
“The bottom line is what does our student population need and what will our community support financially.”
For Teresa Thiel equity is most important:
“I believe that we must support all of these values but because we don't live in a perfect world we cannot support them equally. I believe the most important should be equity.”
Vision statements are, necessarily, vague. They aren’t supposed to supply all the answers, only give some direction. But if a vision statement is too vague, then it fails because it creates more confusion than consensus.
Is the district’s facilities planning process suffering from a flawed vision?
The candidates disagree about this. Mr. Becker and Ms. Monte express concerns about the lack of definition and specificity for three key terms in the vision statement.
“I think the vision statement is at best over simplifying the actual issues that the district is trying to address and resolve,” says Mr. Becker.
“The reality is that there is no definitive definition of those concepts,” Ms. says Monte.
Ms. Thiel seems more comfortable with the vision statement as written, although she acknowledges that excellence is hard to define and “sometimes you just know it when you see it.”
Ms. Bowen sees the vision statement as a clear expression of where the district should be headed. She also sees it as a “challenge” laid down to which the district needs to respond in moving to “the next level.”
An interesting difference of opinion emerges between Mr. Becker and Ms. Bowen.
Mr. Becker:
“I really don’t think the excellence of Oshkosh Schools is in question.”
Ms. Bowen:
"While our students do well on many measures of excellence, my concern is that if we allow the district to remain the way it is at this point in time, we will no longer have the resources to maintain even current standards, much less take the district to new levels.”
An area of agreement among the candidates is that equity is not the same thing as equality.
Ms. Monte:
“To me equity means that every building has similar opportunities, quality education, quality instruction, and facilities. Note I did not say equal. If everything were equal, every building would look identical and every teacher would be robotically identical. That is not fair as students are not equal.”
Ms. Thiel:
Equity “does not mean that everything is equal or exactly the same. It means that our buildings should make it possible for students to have the same exposure to the same experiences across the district.”
Karen Bowen: Vision
What is vision? Vision is a broad statement that gives an organization its shape, allowing it to then set specific goals which govern its day-to-day operation. If a vision is to be taken seriously, it must be memorable and able to be accomplished, but it should also challenge the organization to move to the next level of accomplishment.
The vision of excellence, equity and efficiency accomplishes this task because it allows the OASD to govern the operation of the long range facilities plan; it also challenges the district to move to the next level of providing the best education for all students in the community.
Providing excellence for all students is the most important part of this vision. It's hard imagine that anyone would believe that our students are worthy only of "good" or "standard" education, and certainly, electing school board members who can envision an education that is less than excellent makes no sense. One could argue that excellence is in the eye of the beholder, but in education we have many measures of excellence, including, but not limited to, test scores and looking at what our graduates accomplish when they leave us. While our students do well on many measures of excellence, my concern is that if we allow the district to remain the way it is at this point in time, we will no longer have the resources to maintain even current standards, much less take the district to new levels.
Everyone has already pointed out that equity does not mean that everything in every building is equal, but instead that students have equality of opportunity in every building. It has also been pointed out that every school community in Oshkosh is excellent. We are very fortunate to have excellent staff (in fact, our staff is what makes our district excellent) in every school community. Because some of our buildings do not function well for 21st century purposes, staff and students need to work extra hard to obtain that equality of opportunity. In the case of art and music in some buildings, this is simply not possible. Is it fair to teachers and students in some buildings to spend the bulk of their time in art and music setting up and taking down equipment, while at other schools, students can use all their time in learning? Is it equitable to have special education students bused all over the district to receive services that can not be offered in their home areas because of buildings that can not accommodate their needs?
The answer to these questions is obvious, and the time has come for the OASD to decide how it will look in the future. Because our district also values efficiency, which could be defined as wise use of taxpayer dollars, and because the state funding formula limits our resources, the ways in which we will continue to provide excellence and attempt to provide equity are also limited. Will we look back in 30 years and wish, as we do now, that previous generations might had invested more in our facilities and in excellence for the future?
Let us hope that we have the wisdom to give our students the excellence that they deserve as equitably as possible so that all Oshkosh citizens can be part of a strong Oshkosh future.
The vision of excellence, equity and efficiency accomplishes this task because it allows the OASD to govern the operation of the long range facilities plan; it also challenges the district to move to the next level of providing the best education for all students in the community.
Providing excellence for all students is the most important part of this vision. It's hard imagine that anyone would believe that our students are worthy only of "good" or "standard" education, and certainly, electing school board members who can envision an education that is less than excellent makes no sense. One could argue that excellence is in the eye of the beholder, but in education we have many measures of excellence, including, but not limited to, test scores and looking at what our graduates accomplish when they leave us. While our students do well on many measures of excellence, my concern is that if we allow the district to remain the way it is at this point in time, we will no longer have the resources to maintain even current standards, much less take the district to new levels.
Everyone has already pointed out that equity does not mean that everything in every building is equal, but instead that students have equality of opportunity in every building. It has also been pointed out that every school community in Oshkosh is excellent. We are very fortunate to have excellent staff (in fact, our staff is what makes our district excellent) in every school community. Because some of our buildings do not function well for 21st century purposes, staff and students need to work extra hard to obtain that equality of opportunity. In the case of art and music in some buildings, this is simply not possible. Is it fair to teachers and students in some buildings to spend the bulk of their time in art and music setting up and taking down equipment, while at other schools, students can use all their time in learning? Is it equitable to have special education students bused all over the district to receive services that can not be offered in their home areas because of buildings that can not accommodate their needs?
The answer to these questions is obvious, and the time has come for the OASD to decide how it will look in the future. Because our district also values efficiency, which could be defined as wise use of taxpayer dollars, and because the state funding formula limits our resources, the ways in which we will continue to provide excellence and attempt to provide equity are also limited. Will we look back in 30 years and wish, as we do now, that previous generations might had invested more in our facilities and in excellence for the future?
Let us hope that we have the wisdom to give our students the excellence that they deserve as equitably as possible so that all Oshkosh citizens can be part of a strong Oshkosh future.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Teresa Thiel: A vision for what restructuring should accomplish
The vision is the broad goal or achievable "dream" the district wants to accomplish. That vision is to have our district buildings, as much as possible, further the vision of a school district that offers an excellent education, with equity of surroundings and educational opportunities in as efficient manner as possible.
I believe that we must support all of these values but because we don't live in a perfect world we cannot support them equally. I believe the most important should be equity, this does not mean that everything is equal or exactly the same. It means that our buildings should make it possible for students to have the same exposure to the same experiences across the district. For example, all students should be able to experience a "clay" unit in Art, not deny some the opportunity because Art is on a cart or shares a space that also has phy-ed and lunch. The rooms that all students learn in should be of an adequate size so that we no longer have students being taught in former closets.
Excellence is somewhat more difficult to define, everyone has their own idea of what an excellent education is, sometimes you just know it when you see it. I believe we cannot skimp on the idea of striving to provide an excellent education for our students.
Finally, efficiency, we have to be more efficient and one way to do that, and I believe the best way is to close the schools that would cost too much to repair and that will not last at least another 25 years. It doesn't make sense to put $300,000 into a school that experts say has outlived its useful life. This is neither efficient nor responsible. While I do not like Scenario 7's philosophical shift to move 4th and 5th graders into the middle school, I do like the way boundary lines have changed based on geography moving students from a school that has been closed to the open school nearest them, rather than moving an entire school to another which would increase the distance to the new school for many. While this Scenario 7 may be the most efficient as far as utilizing middle school seats, I think this is where efficiency should take a back seat to excellence. This shift in philosophy is to be the most efficient with our buildings but I don't think it is worth the upheaval it will cause. There are not direct, proven educational benefits to this shift and I'm not even convinced it will save as many dollars as keeping the K-5, 6-8 configuration due to the increase in middle school staffing.
The dollars saved by closing schools are dollars that can then be spent to maintain educational programs that are continually under consideration for cuts in order to balance the budget. These efficiencies will allow excellence to be maintained. The extra classrooms and other space that will need to be built to accomodate students from closed schools will provide equitable buildings and programs across the district. I don't thnk Scenario 7 is the one that accomplishes this but there are many aspects of it that get us closer.
I believe that we must support all of these values but because we don't live in a perfect world we cannot support them equally. I believe the most important should be equity, this does not mean that everything is equal or exactly the same. It means that our buildings should make it possible for students to have the same exposure to the same experiences across the district. For example, all students should be able to experience a "clay" unit in Art, not deny some the opportunity because Art is on a cart or shares a space that also has phy-ed and lunch. The rooms that all students learn in should be of an adequate size so that we no longer have students being taught in former closets.
Excellence is somewhat more difficult to define, everyone has their own idea of what an excellent education is, sometimes you just know it when you see it. I believe we cannot skimp on the idea of striving to provide an excellent education for our students.
Finally, efficiency, we have to be more efficient and one way to do that, and I believe the best way is to close the schools that would cost too much to repair and that will not last at least another 25 years. It doesn't make sense to put $300,000 into a school that experts say has outlived its useful life. This is neither efficient nor responsible. While I do not like Scenario 7's philosophical shift to move 4th and 5th graders into the middle school, I do like the way boundary lines have changed based on geography moving students from a school that has been closed to the open school nearest them, rather than moving an entire school to another which would increase the distance to the new school for many. While this Scenario 7 may be the most efficient as far as utilizing middle school seats, I think this is where efficiency should take a back seat to excellence. This shift in philosophy is to be the most efficient with our buildings but I don't think it is worth the upheaval it will cause. There are not direct, proven educational benefits to this shift and I'm not even convinced it will save as many dollars as keeping the K-5, 6-8 configuration due to the increase in middle school staffing.
The dollars saved by closing schools are dollars that can then be spent to maintain educational programs that are continually under consideration for cuts in order to balance the budget. These efficiencies will allow excellence to be maintained. The extra classrooms and other space that will need to be built to accomodate students from closed schools will provide equitable buildings and programs across the district. I don't thnk Scenario 7 is the one that accomplishes this but there are many aspects of it that get us closer.
Michelle Monte:A vision for what restructuring should accomplish
“By 2016, the Oshkosh Area School District shall align its schools with the district’s building and educational standards and the community-based values of equity, excellence and efficiency.”
That is the vision statement as approved by the BOE. As a member of the CRT, I questioned where the specifics were. How will this be measurable? Is this measurable? We talked about the meaning of equity, excellence, and efficiency. Untlimately, it was decided to be as open as possible to allow for flexibility in developing scenarios.
The reality is that there is no definitive definition of those concepts. There certainly is no definition that will appeal to the majority of the community. These ideals were identified by approximately 500 interviews over the year prior to the long-range facilities process beginning.
In my opinion, this vision means that we want all of our schools to have safe and maintained buildings and similar educational opportunities. Students should be able to move from one building to another without falling behind academically or suffering socially or psychologically.
To me equity means that every building has similar opportunities, quality education, quality instruction, and facilities. Note I did not say equal. If everything were equal, every building would look identical and every teacher would be robotically identical. That is not fair as students are not equal. Equal is not fair and fair is not equal. Some students and populations need different things and each building should be able to accommodate the special needs of their school community while providing a quality education. That is equitable.
As for excellence, we have to look at achievement of the students and teachers. Teachers should be continuing to improve their instruction and curriculum resources with every year of experience. Hopefully, they are continuing their educations as well for themselves and their students. Students achievement is currently measured with standardized tests. I don't agree because of the risk of teaching to the test and not to the student, but that is what we have right now. I think excellence would be a building proficiency of 80% or higher in all core academic areas. Certain factors would be accounted for like special needs and ESL populations. Another measure of excellence would be incidences of truancy and behavior issues like bullying, vandalism, and respecting teachers and staff. All of those factors should be a rarity and should flag that student as needing additional evaluation and possible services.
Efficiency is measured by our spending habits. Are we spending more than we have? In what areas? How can this be remedied? For the last question, we should not be solving our financial problems by cutting budgets to facilities maintenance and cutting student programs. We should be looking at what is working in other districts of our size and seeing if we can apply those measures here. For example, Sheboygan has over 10,000 students and three middle schools. Why and how does that work for them and could it work here? Other districts of our size have 10 to 12 elementary schools. Why is that the magic number range? Why are we cutting to seven and are we setting ourselves up for failure?
The bottom line is what does our student population need and what will our community support financially. Spend within your means assuring educational and instructional quality is not jeopardized. In addition, where we can, we should be shopping around for the best prices on supplies and services to include health insurance. However, we should not be outsourcing jobs if safety and quality are compromised.
That is the vision statement as approved by the BOE. As a member of the CRT, I questioned where the specifics were. How will this be measurable? Is this measurable? We talked about the meaning of equity, excellence, and efficiency. Untlimately, it was decided to be as open as possible to allow for flexibility in developing scenarios.
The reality is that there is no definitive definition of those concepts. There certainly is no definition that will appeal to the majority of the community. These ideals were identified by approximately 500 interviews over the year prior to the long-range facilities process beginning.
In my opinion, this vision means that we want all of our schools to have safe and maintained buildings and similar educational opportunities. Students should be able to move from one building to another without falling behind academically or suffering socially or psychologically.
To me equity means that every building has similar opportunities, quality education, quality instruction, and facilities. Note I did not say equal. If everything were equal, every building would look identical and every teacher would be robotically identical. That is not fair as students are not equal. Equal is not fair and fair is not equal. Some students and populations need different things and each building should be able to accommodate the special needs of their school community while providing a quality education. That is equitable.
As for excellence, we have to look at achievement of the students and teachers. Teachers should be continuing to improve their instruction and curriculum resources with every year of experience. Hopefully, they are continuing their educations as well for themselves and their students. Students achievement is currently measured with standardized tests. I don't agree because of the risk of teaching to the test and not to the student, but that is what we have right now. I think excellence would be a building proficiency of 80% or higher in all core academic areas. Certain factors would be accounted for like special needs and ESL populations. Another measure of excellence would be incidences of truancy and behavior issues like bullying, vandalism, and respecting teachers and staff. All of those factors should be a rarity and should flag that student as needing additional evaluation and possible services.
Efficiency is measured by our spending habits. Are we spending more than we have? In what areas? How can this be remedied? For the last question, we should not be solving our financial problems by cutting budgets to facilities maintenance and cutting student programs. We should be looking at what is working in other districts of our size and seeing if we can apply those measures here. For example, Sheboygan has over 10,000 students and three middle schools. Why and how does that work for them and could it work here? Other districts of our size have 10 to 12 elementary schools. Why is that the magic number range? Why are we cutting to seven and are we setting ourselves up for failure?
The bottom line is what does our student population need and what will our community support financially. Spend within your means assuring educational and instructional quality is not jeopardized. In addition, where we can, we should be shopping around for the best prices on supplies and services to include health insurance. However, we should not be outsourcing jobs if safety and quality are compromised.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Dan Becker: a vision for what restructuring should accomplish
I think the vision statement is at best over simplifying the actual issues that the district is trying to address and resolve. The Board of Education must recognize that the community needs an actual long term plan. Not one that is put together year by year. Having said that, the plan does need to consider equity, excellence, and efficiency.
To begin with, equity of education has many different meanings to many different people. As the parent of a child who will be attending North High School in two years, I am concerned about the possibility of classes not being offered because of insufficient enrollment. However, I am hopeful that with the innovative academy program that will not be a concern. I put a priority on equality of education and feel we have not exhausted all the ideas to make sure that happens.
Excellence of education is also an ambiguous statement. Oshkosh has many excellent teachers. I know firsthand that excellent teachers can inspire students to do excellent work. Access to the latest technology, books, and equipment would be ideal. Realistically we need to be able to take what we have and make it work. This is currently being done by our excellent staff. I really don’t think the excellence of Oshkosh Schools is in question.
Efficiency is the crux of the issue. Can the district be run more efficiently? Yes it can. Does the idea of closing schools automatically make the district more efficient? No it doesn’t. To improve the efficiency of the district all areas need to addressed. The duplication of services and staff, efficient use of funds, implementation of technology, boundary changes, and the possible closing of buildings are all issues that need to be considered. While not my first choice, the closing of some buildings would seem to be inevitable.
The most important of the three is excellence. Without excellence, equity and efficiency have no meaning.
To begin with, equity of education has many different meanings to many different people. As the parent of a child who will be attending North High School in two years, I am concerned about the possibility of classes not being offered because of insufficient enrollment. However, I am hopeful that with the innovative academy program that will not be a concern. I put a priority on equality of education and feel we have not exhausted all the ideas to make sure that happens.
Excellence of education is also an ambiguous statement. Oshkosh has many excellent teachers. I know firsthand that excellent teachers can inspire students to do excellent work. Access to the latest technology, books, and equipment would be ideal. Realistically we need to be able to take what we have and make it work. This is currently being done by our excellent staff. I really don’t think the excellence of Oshkosh Schools is in question.
Efficiency is the crux of the issue. Can the district be run more efficiently? Yes it can. Does the idea of closing schools automatically make the district more efficient? No it doesn’t. To improve the efficiency of the district all areas need to addressed. The duplication of services and staff, efficient use of funds, implementation of technology, boundary changes, and the possible closing of buildings are all issues that need to be considered. While not my first choice, the closing of some buildings would seem to be inevitable.
The most important of the three is excellence. Without excellence, equity and efficiency have no meaning.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Discussion topic for week of March 5
This week's discussion topic is the overall vision for the restructuring process. We asked the candidates to respond to this statement:
This is the stated vision for the facilities planning process: “By 2016, the Oshkosh Area School District shall align its schools with the district’s building and educational standards and the community-based values of equity, excellence and efficiency.” In your own words, what does this mean? You might address such things as current gaps as you perceive them, and the definition in your own mind of words like “equity, excellence and efficiency.” Can we support all three of those values equally? If not, which one(s) should be most important? Does this vision need to be modified?
This is the stated vision for the facilities planning process: “By 2016, the Oshkosh Area School District shall align its schools with the district’s building and educational standards and the community-based values of equity, excellence and efficiency.” In your own words, what does this mean? You might address such things as current gaps as you perceive them, and the definition in your own mind of words like “equity, excellence and efficiency.” Can we support all three of those values equally? If not, which one(s) should be most important? Does this vision need to be modified?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
