Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Custom Search
(photo ©2008 Bruce Fritz)
About Me
- Peter Sobol
- My family moved to Monona in 2003 and have been happily ensconsed in the Frost Woods Neighborhood ever since. I have 2 kids who graduated from Mg. I have been serving on the school board since April of 2007. We moved back to the Midwest in 2002 after spending 10 years in California, where I was a Department Director for Maxtor, a Fortune 500 company. In truth we left California largely because of the school situation - chronically underfunded schools did not offer the kind of programs or opportunities we wanted for our children. We picked Monona because our thorough research showed that this was a place we would really like to educate our kids. Our experience has taught us to value the quality schools we have here in Monona, and the importance of careful stewardship to maintain community support for those schools.
61 comments:
First things first. What would the school colors be? That seems to be a very important issue to alot of parents, so do not screw that up and everyone will be happy! I suggest letting the students decide and then if anybody is unhappy, simply reverse your postion until the next group comes forward that is unhappy and reverse it again, and so forth. We can keep the in-school suspension kids busy by having them constantly repainting the gym. Then the name. I would suggest Maynickequah (may-'nick-a-kwah). If we are going to have pseudo-Native American-sounding names, that's as good as any.
Amusing, put lets try and keep a constructive tone please!
Oh fine.
My kids are all grown up, but I support consolidation rather than get into a scenario where staff is being shuffled back and forth. I think the current situation does not make sense when these buildings are across the street from one another. There must be many redundant expenses that could be eliminated (it would be nice to have that dollar figure.) I understand that the board will face enormous political pressure from some people in Monona to keep Maywood open, so maybe that is what needs to happen in the short term. Afterall, you can only expect people to tolerate a limited number of big changes in any given period of time, so now is probably not the time to consolidate. But if your budget problems get worse, the majority of people will not see the benefit in two tiny schools so close in geography when other curricular areas are being cut.
I agree with lily schlammelhanger that the board will face pressure to keep Maywood open. Pressure/reelection concerns are probably the biggest "con" of consolidation, as are the multiple changes in one year as they also mentioned. However I don't think these have much effect on the education of our children. Kids don't pay much attention to politics, and can adapt to a new room, or longer walk very quickly.
I think there are other cons which have a much more direct effect on the learning environment. There is a big difference between 6 year olds and 11 year olds. There can be intimidation (just based on presence, not bullying) in halls or playgrounds, and the administration would have to think about this in layout, and recess/lunch periods.
Class size, especially with special needs children, should be maintained. The district should NOT combine these classes or staff.
I also imagine that there would be extra building staff. The district should try to combine at a time when it can combine these positions through attrition. If it can't, the penalties to the unions could offset any savings.
It would be interesting to know the costs of keeping an empty building. I imagine the district would have a good idea after a year of Nichols being closed. Assuming a similar amount for a closed Maywood added to the current cost of opperating Winnequah (at full capacity) would be interesting to compare to next year's cost of running Maywood and Winnequah (at partial capacity).
80+% of the costs of the district are salaries and benefits. An empty school with the heat turned down is pretty inexpensive.
We do currently use a lower/upper elementary school model in this district (although I have heard from some in CG that they would prefer two neighborhood PreK-4 schools). A preK-6 building in Monona would be different from that model. Does that have significant educational impact?
I beleive in the K-6 model of a school and would love to see it in Monona. Having older kids and younger kids in a building together is a great thing- and parents who have siblings in grades close together would have everything consolidated nicely. People are too worried that the older kids would be too rough for the younger kids- but isn't that a matter of teaching respect and respectful behavior? No job in the world has people of all the same age, so why not teach them now to be aware of differences- age and otherwise. And in so many ways, so much easier. I also believe that 6th grade should be an elementary school age- or that they should go to GD. Silly to have all those teachers driving.
I do not believe in getting hung up on grade configuration. You will find little research that shows this is the determinign factor in quality education. What we need to get past is that we must do something just because that is what we have always done. I have yet to see one concern about this principal issue that could not be addressed by consolidation. As a parent, I always thought it was a pain to run back and forth between Maywood and NIchols for conferences, etc. Even dropping of and picking up took extra time. I would have much preferred to have my kids in the same building.
Dear Friends,
As of this moment it is my impression that the District and all children will benefit by adding additional administrative staffing to resolve the issue of a shared principal at Maywood and Winnequah Schools. Additional administrative staffing would resolve the issue of a half-time principal at both Maywood and Winnequah and release additional administration to assist at Taylor Prairie and Cottage Grove. Winnequah is at this moment not configured for elementary students and we do not have figures on that cost. Let's get together, solve this issue by appropriately staffing the buildings with an administrator and study the issues together in a constructive, collaborative and analytical manner. Educational research does not use teacher-student ratios to determine administrative staffing. Strong educational research supports the link between student performance and principal leadership in the building. And some wonder how a single principal will take on the building move, supervision of Winnequah staff, supervision of additional new Maywood staff, implementation of a new literacy program at both Maywood and Winnequah and two new sections of 4 year-old kindergarten. Let's work together - - I'm listening. Susan Manning
Susan,
I am sure you can come up with money for a half time principal for one year. But beyond that, it is irresponsible to continue to spend all the redundant funds on Maywood and Winnequah when you are cutting other things. Restaff the principal for next year, and spend the next year with the consolidation plan. There is no educationally compelling reason to keep both those buildings operating across the street from each other - I challenge you to cite any significant amount of research to the contrary. The reasons for entering into this expensive arrangement are entirely political and are an artifact of the middle school referendum. If you are listening, this what I am saying.
Susan- do you really think your judgement is in this matter is better than that of the professionals involved? Do you really think that our principals are so much less capable than so many other principals in the state who manage much larger PreK-8 schools with new programs and much fewer resources? Do you really think the board should be micro-managing administrative staffing decisions in this way?
Dear Friends,
Thanks for your comments. It is important to hear what you have to say.
These are my responsibilities and I take them very seriously:
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES
Recognize that they should endeavor to make policy decisions only after full discussion at publicly held board meetings;
Render all decisions based on the available facts and their independent judgement and refuse to surrender that judgment to individuals or special interest groups;
Encourage the free expression of opinion by all Board members and seek systematic
communications between the Board and students, staff and all elements of the community;
Inform themselves about current educational issues by individual study and through
participation in programs providing needed information,
Many thanks,
Susan
"There is no educationally compelling reason to keep both those buildings operating across the street from each other - I challenge you to cite any significant amount of research to the contrary. "
and
Do you really think the board should be micro-managing administrative staffing decisions in this way?
No, the board should not micro-manage nor should it be rubber-stamp for the administration. These professional can NOT cite ANY evidence that has been tried before AND worked in a manner that all want.
Maywood is not closed (at this point). It deserves principal. The assumption the board seems to be making is that it is closing anyway...what the heck.
You have have no plan to close it and don't know how you would do it.
So why, "short" the building? So, to say there is not reason to keep them both open IS not fair. The reason to keep them open is:
You can not do it at this point (w/o) capital improvements.
You have no plan to even get an idea about what capital improvments.
How about this-keep pumping resources into the building until you can figure out the above two items.
No, Its a serious question. There are many administrators who succesfully manage larger schools with more grades and fewer resources than we do in this district. Those schools also have new programs added and they manage various transitions all the time. Susan posted above that this is too difficult in this district and she also posted that she takes her responsibility to study issues seriously. If true then she must have an answer to this question and should share it with us. Susan made the statement about the difficulty, she should answer the question.
"There are many administrators who succesfully manage larger schools with more grades and fewer resources than we do in this district."
Two separate buildings with a record of success?
How many districts have one principal for two seperate buildings?
When you get done looking for that one...try looking for a district with a succecssful record on co-principals..
Why won't anyone who has concerns about the principal-sharing arrangement directly address the idea of consolidation into Winnequah? That just gets blown off and it would take care of all the problems people are talking about? Ms. Manning - why can't the board look into this? Why not keep the status quo for one more year while this issue is addressed?
Conversion of Winnequah to a lower elementary school will not be without costs. If this is to happen, the architects need to be looking at the plans for Winnequah now with the idea it will also be used by 4 through 7 year olds. That needs to happen before extensive money is spent this summer. If that doesn't happen remodeling will need to take place again if/when a decison is made to accommodate Monona's youngest learners in that building. Lower elementaries have special requirements (sinks in every room, storage cupboards, countertops, smaller toilets, changing area for the youngest special needs students, lower bookshelves, smaller playground equipment, etc.)that upper elementary and intermediate schools do not have. Currently Winnequah does not have these things. If Monona is to have one lower elementary it needs to be consistent with the quality of the other buildings in the district and meet the learning requirements the students housed there. Where will this money come from when there is an enrollment decline across the district (CG included)? Another referendum? Sale of the other Monona buildings?
Susan,
You simply cannot continue to spend so much of your time and effort on one particular issue. You and the rest of the board have bigger fish to fry, and one of them is how you engage the public. It has been a problem for years, and the board has not addressed it in any systematic way. They just move from one crisis to another. Before you are done beating this dead horse, another major issue will appear. Then you will be chasing that issue, and another and another. There are bigger budget problems coming and this is the time to figure out the process that will be used to address them. That's where your energy should be directed, not on these single issues. You don't need to reinvent anything - there are districts who have been through this. Find out who they are and talk to some people in them. Get some perspective that includes the world outside of Monona Grove.
Thanks for opening a "let's bash Sue Manning" thread.
Peter, why don't you delete any of these posts? They clearly don't accomplish anything, and only attack Ms. Manning.
Either play fair or don't play. This clearly illustrates how dysfunctional this Board is!
I disagree with the anonymous post directly before me, and agree with the statements of lily schlammelhanger. Ms. Manning, and the school board should be move past the shared principal issue, and start to focus on the budget concerns the district is likely to face in the next few years.
Manning's posting only added fuel to a fire, and the communitees of Monona and Cottage Grove have to work together to get through the budget concerns we are likely to face.
Other posters statements are critical of Manning's position, but the replies are just as critical. These replies demonstrait the "fire" that the board needs to put out with communication, NOT second guessing. lily schlammelhanger's statement did not bash Manning, and put forth a strong suggestion I hope Mr. Sobol and the rest of the board consider.
Well-I have to agree Peter deleted posts that were "personal" and the attacks against Sue sure look and sound personal
It seems to me she put her time where she wants and residents will vote accordingly.
Likewise, Phil, Mike and John are up for election if the do not want to listen-their deal and they may pay the price.
At least there is discussion of issues with sue on the board. The result is the same, but there is discussion.
The rude behavior of her colleagues....swearing , rolling of eyes-raised voices is a little strange, but then I guess that is how the want to be remembered..
Several people have asked about shared principals. Data downloaded from the DPI website shows that about 25% of schools statewide have shared principals, for Dane County elementary schools it is about 14%.
# of Schools Shared Principal Total %
Statewide 550 2231 25%
Elementary 275 1253 22%
CESA 2 Elem 24 201 12%
Dane County Elem 12 84 14%
Here are the Dane county schools with shared principals:
District Name School Name
De Forest Area Holum Education Center
De Forest Area Eagle Point El
Wisconsin Heights Black Earth El
Wisconsin Heights Mazomanie El
Mount Horeb Area Mount Horeb Primary Ctr
Mount Horeb Area Early Learning Ctr
De Forest Area Yahara El
De Forest Area Morrisonville El
Belleville Belleville El
Belleville Belleville Intermediate
McFarland McFarland Primary
McFarland Conrad Elvehjem Erly Lrng Ctr
I went one step further and pulled the 4th grade WKCE results for the elementary schools and compared it to averages:
% Reading A+P % Math A+P
Dedicated Principal 80.1 78.5
Shared Principal 84.3 89.0
Dane Ex. Madison % Reading A+P % Math A+P
Dedicated Principal 85.8 85.3
Shared Principal 84.3 89.0
CESA 2 % Reading A+P % Math A+P
Dedicated Principal 82.0 78.5
Shared Principal 80.8 78.2
Statewide % Reading A+P % Math A+P
Dedicated Principal 81.1 77.4
Shared Principal 81.8 77.6
From this admittedly limited view of schools there does not appear to be any evidence of a performance deficit.
The idea that I opened a bash Sue Manning thread is quite simply contrary to the facts. This is a thread about elementary consolidation. Sue weighed in personally and made some specific statements about the issue and her point of view. It is certainly fair for questions about her posts to be raised.
After reading these I see only one sentence that constitutes anything like a personal attack, and that post is otherwise appropriate and relevant. I will edit that out.
EDITED POST
Anonymous said...
Ms. Manning-
Since you wrote in directly, I will address you directly. I read your list of "responsibilities" and I am struck by two things you did not say. One of your responsibilities, it seems to me, is to make difficult decisions- and the second, a clear follow up, is to support the decisions of the board after they are made. I am struck by the fact that we have decided this budget issue. You obviously do not personally agree with it, but a vote was taken. It seems to me that the board has become and will continue to become much less efficient if you cannot stick to the process. I admire the fact that you want to encourage more interaction of the board with the public, but I wonder if you are truly listening to ALL of the public. You represent thousands of people, and most of them support this budget decision, and trust the elected people to listen to people and then vote and move on. That process seems to have been tremendously slowed by revisting things that have been decided. Maybe we all just need to learn that some votes you win, and some you lose, and you have to accept both--without continuing the battle. That is certainly what we teach our children in our tremendous schools.
I think that perhaps you should open your own blog, so that you can be more open and available to ALL of the citizens of the district,...
{DELETED}
...
April 28, 2008 9:23 AM
First of all, thanks for opening up the blog Peter. This has the great possibility of being a forum of healthy discussion...hopefully! While no one is saying it offically, it seems clear that having one principal for Maywood and Winnequah is really just phase one of closing Maywood. But it is phase one with no plan for phase 2-no cost estimates to make at least a part of Winnequah appropriate for lower elementary students. All communities would be better served if the the entire plan was opened up for public scrutiny.
Peter, Peter.
Thanks for the data-However, this appears to be data for data's sake.
Back-a loooong time ago-I took three (count them: 1, 2 and 3) grad stats courses-what I struggle.
Almost quit grad school.
OK, enough about me.
(You?)
I took many things from the courses. You have not proven cause and effect...
That is why I suggested a regression model
Do you recall the story about Ice Cream Sales and Motorcycle accidents or this could be the Monty Hall effect?
(Ice Cream sales increase with Motorcylce accidents. It appears that they are linked. Thus, we could assume that there is alot of motorcylce riders buying ice cream and getting into wrecks licking their Orange Chocalte Chip while cruising Monona Drive.)
If yours and my friend Wood got a hold of that data Ice Cream would be banned during the summer in Monona to reduce Motorcylce accidents.
(shush)
On you own with the Monty Hall thing.
So-this is data for data's sake...cause and effect is not proven.
A for effort-though.
I'm not sure why the sarcasm. The statistics above were posted in direct response to a question above: "How many districts have one principal for two seperate buildings?" Answering a question is being responsive.
An inspection of the data also shows they show no correlation (which was the point) - I am not sure what correlation you are talking about.
Yes, it responsive-agree and we have the same point just different outcomes.
The data does not mean anything either way. Thus, why would a change be made for such a small amount of money with no compelling reason either way or a plan to handle the future?
And you guys wonder why we wonder if there is a secret plan.
Yes, it is interesting to look at the districts.
I like the points made by jim blair. However, the other posts in this blog demonstrait what would be unleashed if Sobol, Kitslar, McDade or Duplayee proposed it, and presumably the newest members Fox and List won't either. This really only leaves Manning to bring up the proposal to consolidate (or investigate the consolidation), but her previous votes suggest she wouldn't.
jim blair is right. If the whole district knows what could be saved or lost by consolidation, the whole district would be better. The numbers could go against closing the school. Manning (who apparently reads this blog) should propose an investigation so we all know, and it is out in the open.
Manning is the least likely to bring a negative reaction (and the board needs all the good PR it can get), and knows many members of the "two principal" supporters personally. She would be able to meet with them to explain the investigation.
It is the suggestion that there is a "secret plan" to close Maywood that bugs me the most. There isn't. Maywood is a school that works and is a successful learning environment. However because of the small size these schools are quite expensive to run if we want to provide the full range of services, and that cost in the end needs to be balanced against the benefits. Any reductions in cost tilt the scale toward maintaining two schools, while increases in costs tilt back toward consolidation.
One other important consideration is that is the fact that the APL population projections show a significant increase in Maywood enrollment in two years (approximately 60 students.) If this materializes (knock on wood) the economics of these two schools becomes much more sustainable.
It is the suggestion that there is a "secret plan" to close Maywood that bugs me the most. There isn't. Maywood is a school that works and is a successful learning environment.
I am not sure what makes me more frustrated. That you are changing what you yourself say works OR that you are flying by the seat of your pants OR that you have no plan (secret or otherwise).
I am left with this...past school boards have ran Maywood or some of the el schools on hopes and prayers and conversations in hallways and dark parking lots.
Mr. Sobol -
Please answer this very direct question, as you seem to be contradicting yourself in your answers on this blog.
Do you support Monona Elementary consolidation, or do you support keeping Maywood open?
How can anyone have an opinion on consolidation? It hasn't been studied. The correct question is whether or not Peter, or the rest of us for that matter, are open to studying it. For me, that depends. It depends on the process and it depends on who is leading the process. It would have to be very open and include citizens who can get along with each other and who are open to examining without a personal agenda
When have I ever changed what I have said on this issue? I have always said that Maywood is a successful school that works, I have also always said that at its current size it is more expensive to run than the alternative. These positions are not contradictory.
Do I support consolidation or not? There is no answer to that question except in the context of the enrollment and the district's financial condition.
In an ideal world of unlimited resources of course we would want to keep it open, small highly resourced schools make for excellent learning environments. But we don't live in an ideal world, the only question really is: Do the benefits of keeping two schools outweigh the negatives caused by the relatively inefficient use of district resources? At this point we haven't really annunciated the total cost savings consolidation would produce, nor have we prioritized other potential expenditures to weigh against them. So there is no one who can make an informed answer to this question.
So my uninformed answer is that given any significant decreases in enrollment or deterioration in district finances that consolidation is probably appropriate and that given any significant increases in enrollment and stable district finances then there is little reason for consolidation. No one would disagree that there is a lower limit for enrollment that justifies consolidation, or an upper limit that justifies two schools - the only disagreement is where those limits are.
Right now my opinion is that we probably are in the gray area that needs further definition of the expenses and alternatives to decide – and until we develop that information it would be best to maintain the status quo. But it has always been my position on this issue that we should have this discussion and decide as a community where the line is so that we can plan appropriately.
"Right now my opinion is that we probably are in the gray area that needs further definition of the expenses and alternatives to decide – and until we develop that information it would be best to maintain the status quo. But it has always been my position on this issue that we should have this discussion and decide as a community where the line is so that we can plan appropriately."
But Peter - you contradict yourself again right here. You have NOT left things status quo. You have significantly reduced resources at Maywood and Winnequah by way of your yes vote for the new principal arrangement.
Either leave it TRULY status quo, or have the guts to shut it down. That is a very misleading statement, and you are misusing the words "status quo".
"But Peter - you contradict yourself again right here. You have NOT left things status quo. You have significantly reduced resources at Maywood and Winnequah by way of your yes vote for the new principal arrangement."
Now, now, now-peter is saving our district about $15,000 by this wise move. I am sure it is a correct move and he has examined a whole mess of studies that says it is a good idea
Yes, scarasm
You are right, when talking about whether or not to keep these two schools open the phrase "status quo" must obviously mean that every last teacher, administrator, paraprofessional, secretary and custodian should be kept at exactly the same level without any thought of adjustment up or down regardless of student needs. There couldn't possibly be another interpretation of what I meant by status quo? Could there?
The net 0.6 reduction of administrative support under this proposal represents about a 1% reduction of the total staffing between these two schools. At the same time the district is increasing the teaching staff by 1.0 FTE in order to meet student's needs. Net staffing is increasing, not being "significantly reduced".
These are very robustly staffed schools, among the best in the state ( and they will continue to be next year.) This fact represents the district and board's ongoing commitment to meet the educational needs of its students.
"You are right, when talking about whether or not to keep these two schools open the phrase "status quo" must obviously mean that every last teacher, administrator, paraprofessional, secretary and custodian should be kept at exactly the same level without any thought of adjustment up or down regardless of student needs"
Why the scarasm?
A 1.0 FTE teacher does not a principal make!
You have been missing this important point all along.
I certainly did not mean to imply that the Board has a "secret" plan. My concern is that the scenario of a shared principal is a very short step to closure, whether intentional or perhaps worse yet, randomly.
"perhaps worse yet, randomly.
"
Yes, that is my worry.
No, I have long ago concluded that plans are not what this board has their focus on.
Strategic, long range planning should be a goal for this Board.
They spend way too much time doing damage control and downplaying bad press and slipping test scores.
A couple of comments:
The one and only reason to consolidate the Monona elementary schools is to save money. Anything that reduces the costs of these schools reduces the reason to consolidate. Consolidation of the Principal positions is as a result not a step toward consolidation of the schools, but a step away from it.
Strategic planning: The administration has been working on strategic planning and continuous improvement processes for sometime, studying and using the "Baldridge" framework for adoption. The board recently approved this as policy. This is something that many members of the board have been pushing for some time.
Although a global strategic planning process hasn’t been an emphasis for some time, the board and administration puts substantial time and effort into planning although on a more piece meal fashion. The 4K program is an excellent example of an extended study and planning process that involved the board, administration and community. The Elementary World Language program is something else that comes to mind.
Test scores: If you take this district's composite WKCE scores averaged across the grades you find we are a solid second place in Dane County and the Badger conference only behind Waunakee. WKCE scores are at the 90th percentile, but more importantly year-to-year growth has been around the 90th percentile in the state. We will see this year's scores at the end of May, hopefully this trend will continue. The improving scores we have seen I think are a reflection of the focus and planning that this district has put on assessment, achievement and curriculum improvements in the last few years.
WKCE 4th Grade Math Scores.
Advanced +Prof.
Nov. 2002 80%
Nov. 2003 83.4%
Nov. 2004 83.5%
Nov. 2005 85.2%
Nov. 2006 89%
WKCE 8th Grade Reading Scores.
Advanced +Prof.
Nov. 2002 90%
Nov. 2003 88.8%
Nov. 2004 91.9%
Nov. 2005 94.1%
Nov. 2006 95.7%
Unfortunately our ACT scores do not appear quite as good, we are in the 70th percentile in the state and right in the middle for Dane County (although Dane county is easily the toughest competition in the state). Nor are our scores as good as they were a decade ago. (Although trends are harder to define because the average score is sensitive to varying participation rates.) This is one of the reasons that the district has been a leader in WI in adopting the Explore/Plan/ACT tests - these should provide the data needed to improve our middle and high school programming to raise test scores. Adoption of EPAS is certainly a forward-looking plan for future improvement. Further I think the improving elementary WKCE scores (and MAP shows the same improvements) will "trickle-up" through our high school in the next few years.
I can provide more detailed analysis of the test results, but I was planning on waiting for the 2007 results to be available May 30th.
There are quite a few positives in our test score data, particularly in the WKCE growth data, but just to be clear in my opinion there is not a single result that is good enough.
Interesting spin on the numbers.
We are not #2.
We are not even close.
Although, being on the Board I guess you do need to look for a positive spin.
Please analyze flat out performance.
It can't be that hard. Madison Magazine did it.
"Consolidation of the Principal positions is as a result not a step toward consolidation of the schools, but a step away from it."
I found this statement confusing.
"Consolidation of the Principal positions is as a result not a step toward consolidation of the schools, but a step away from it."
I got it now-you are cutting the head off to stop the spread of the diease. It makes sense now-sorry I was being a little slow.
The scarasm is intenended-here. It is intended to demonstrate that your answer is worse than the diease. Thus, you are treating the vicitm (school, family and community) with an answer that will surely not help the diease.
The point-schools are about people.
Here are the Nov 2006 WKCE scores (% advanced and proficient) averaged across all grades for reading and math for all districts in the county.
District Math Adv + Prof Reading Adv + Prof
Waunakee 92.6 92.4
Monona Grove 90.1 92.3
McFarland 85.4 91.7
Cambridge 85.6 90.3
DeForest 87.1 90.0
Verona 84.1 89.6
Oregon 81.0 89.4
Belleville 82.4 88.7
Sun Prairie 83.4 88.4
Deerfield 85.1 88.3
Mount Horeb 83.6 88.1
Stoughton 86.1 87.3
Middleton-CP 83.9 87.1
Wis. Heights 82.7 86.6
Marshall 77.4 82.1
State 74.4 81.3
Madison 74.3 78.6
MG is solidly in 2nd place. More importantly our WKCE scores have been improving faster than any district in the county.
Quick question-Now that you have increased a teacher, added more time for the school pscy, added more time for the secretarty and added a asst principal.
How is your ratio looking?
How is it better?
That question should properly be addressed to the anonymous posters above who made the statement that these schools would be "half-staffed" or the district had "significantly reduced resources" and made this topic about ratios.
The additional teacher is not in anyway to compensate or balance the reduced administration staff. It is an independent decision based on requirements to meet the needs of a particular group of students as a result of an assessment of those needs by the staff. It's important that we have both the flexibility and the resources to make such adjustments when necessary.
peter, i would agree with that train of thought.
However, you seemed to be concerned that the ratio thingey was too high at Maywood (never mind what the right number is).
I was just asking what it looked like with all the additiona regardless of implications kinda like of whether we needed it or not....oh forget it.
The low staff/student ratios at Maywood and Nichols are a natural consequence of small schools, robust programming and a commitment to meet student needs. I am not concerned they are "too high" - I simply bring them up to counter the impression I see in some comments that these schools are understaffed or that there is a general trend of stripping resources from Monona Elementary schools. I don't think the evidence supports that contention.
I have no concern that staffing is "too high", it is probably what we need to do to meet the needs given the current building configuration and education model. The question is whether or not it is too expensive to justify when compared to the alternatives. Judging from the comments on this thread this is a conversation that the community is ready to have.
"The question is whether or not it is too expensive to justify when compared to the alternatives. "
Yes, which is the exact impression that the ratio leaves with the community The indirect message is for Maywood to stay open the ratio or expenses need to decrease-you better let the administration do this for your own good.
(This is an argument that government have made for years and seldom is it for our own good....back to my point.)
Most of us know MOST of an organizations costs are people.
Thus, it still seems to me their your posts has said two different things with the negative leaving the lasting impression.
On one hand, you say-I am not concerned that it is too high. Then you publish a ratio (showing Maywood clearly out of whack) and then say but for Maywood to stay open we need to be more efficient.
As a result, I agree with the last poster remove all dirt from the parks-it would be much more efficient than pulling all of that mustard.
Post a Comment