The next board meeting will be held Wednesday Oct 8th at 7 pm in the Community Room at Glacial Drumlin School.
Items of Note:
A presentation of our Diversity and Minority Student Achievement Initiatives.
Alternative High School End of year report.
Discussion and Approval of the Appointments to the Grade Configuration Study committee.
Discussion and Approval of the 2008-9 budget flyer and the preliminary revenue limit calculation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
What do the appts. look like?
Thanks,
Randy
no committee yet?
Committee appointments were not made Wednesday night. After listening to the discussion involving potential committee members on Tuesday Craig and John wanted to take a step back and examine the scope of the charge of the committee. The board will be discussing this at the next meeting in November.
" After listening to the discussion involving potential committee members on Tuesday Craig and John wanted to take a step back and examine the scope of the charge of the committee"
What does change the scope mean?
We looking at trees per kid or whatcha thinkin?
What was it they heard? I thought the board already put a lot of time and thought into the "scope of the charge of the committee?"
ya know, it can be very difficult to have faith in the decisions the board is making because it seems like those decisions keep getting reopened. Every now and then, this is necessary and the right thing to do because you have new information or circumstances have changed. But others in recent years have been because of the relentless pressure of small groups of people who want what they want without regard for the best interests of the district as a whole. Isn't that how this committee came about in the first place? I don't have enough information to know which it is this time and I don't know where I would even get that information. I just hope that this is not more of the same.
Sure hope the new information was not overcrowding in CG.
Peter, you made a lot of promise in your run that there was NOT overcrowding in CG for the long-term (3-5 years after the referendum) and that the GDMS referendum would solve our bldg. problems for the long term (10 yrs).
Did you overpromise?
The new school primarily solved the problem of an inadequate and overcrowded Middle school. It was also meant to relieve the overcrowding at TP elementary by moving 2nd grade to CG and 5th from CG to GD schools. Last year TP had 453 FTE (full time equivalent) students, and this year it has 401. CG elementary currently has 20 more students than last year with 477 vs. 457. This year these schools are full, and CG has more students than anticipated.
I just looked over the enrollment projections from last year's UW report and they all show declining enrollment for these grades for the foreseeable future. Do we have more students than anyone (including me) anticipated? Yes. But keep in mind that if we have a problem we are talking about an issue of 30-40 students. In a year or two we will have a better picture whether this year's bump in enrollment is a part of a trend or an anomaly.
If I was wrong in trusting the projections at least this is a much better problem to have than the alternative of declining enrollment.
The grade configuration committee should focus on long term configurations. If there are long term needs for CG, the committee can talk about it. This will give the committee time to think and not rush to solve short term issues.
The overcrowding in CG should be (has been?) addressed quickly as it is a pressing need. Overcrowding in general should not be sent to a committee that meets monthly.
I agree that this is a good problem to have, unless you are going to have to start talking about another referendum.
Our School Board just shuttered a school in Monona, to bus Monona kids out to CG - and now we find out that CG schools are overcrowded?
I think I remember someone pointing out during the last referendum that there was a very good chance that this might happen. In fact, the referendum that failed included money for expansion at CG elementary, the very school that Peter indicates is either at capacity or over crowded today.
This Board better start taking a serious look at how to use the resources and buildings that we already have, because in these tough economic times, another referendum would go over like a lead brick.
Maybe we can start bussing some CG elementary kids to Monona. Or, hey! We could just bring those exported Middle school kids back to their own community and put them back in the school that was just shuttered.
"I think I remember someone pointing out during the last referendum that there was a very good chance that this might happen."
Actually, I recall Peter pointing when he ran for school board that this would not happen. However, I doubt people realized that a 2% increase would mean those statements were nothing more then words.
With the housing market the way it is, we should be jumping for joy that we have an enrollment bubble working it's way through CG. What a happy problem to have. Everyone who wants to catch Peter in a "gotcha" should understand what would be happening in this district if the enrollment was declining. Look outside your own little world and see what is happening, and what has happened, in those districts who have been experiencing declines. We also must be careful with what we consider to be "overcrowded." That's something our new superintendent needs to be careful about in the words he uses. It's nice for everyone to have all the space they want for everything, but efficiencies can be achieved in building usage, especially when there is uncertainty about future trends.
"Everyone who wants to catch Peter in a "gotcha" should understand what would be happening in this district if the enrollment was declining. "
Mr. Sobol created his own gotcha moment by doing the following:
-Telling people something that by any standard was or would be proven to false with such vigor that he sounded like he knew what he was talking about....when I wonder if he knew the margin of error was very small.
AND
-Is now trying to justify those words by backpedaling and doubletalk, rather then just saying I was wrong-and I will do better next time. For example of well this works, please see our current president.
I am not trying to hurt feelings just pointing out the crystal clear.
This is a really good problem to have. If we are experiencing enrollment growth instead of predicited declines, I am happy about that. I would rather have a school board member who believed the best experts that could be found, and then had the negative predictions from those experts proved wrong, than to have those experts have been proved correct. If you've got better empirical model for predicting enrollment growth than the UW Applied Populatoin lab you should let the board know what that is.
See, but that is your problem. The Applied Pop Lab data was just fine. BUT, even using that data, anyone who took the time to look at it could figure out that we were already over capacity at those Cottage Grove schools that are being referred to in these posts. The overcrowding in those schools was WORSE than at the old Winnequah middle school, by the numbers.
Frankly, the Board was BETTING ON declining enrollment to get the numbers back in line. Even a small bump like the one the district is enjoying this year could be catastrophic for the learning environments of certain students - for example, the ones with special needs who will be unable to learn equitably in an overcrowded classroom.
This is where we learn that taking the data and twisting it to say what you want it to say backfires in certain circumstances. Peter had plenty of people argue the numbers with him. Many of them even directly pointed this out to him. He didn't want to hear it.
And, here we are. Monona should just ask to split the district now so that Cottage Grove can deal with their overcrowding on their own dime. I am tired of saying "I told you so" and then having to pay the tax increases anyways.
Here we go. It always comes back this, doesn't it? Well, the statutory process exists so instead of complaining, use the law and get it done. Unless you think there isn't public support for it, and if that's the case, why keep bringing it up all the time?
When the referndum issues were happening, nobody was planning space for 4K, where they? Would we still be crowded if didn't have 4K? Did the board consider the space issues when they approved 4K? And, by the way, how "crowded" are we? Do we not have room for each home room of kids? Is the art teacher travelling on a cart? What, exactly, is the problem that is being claimed?
"And, by the way, how "crowded" are we? "
Exactly question-
cottage grove elementery doesn't host 4k, nor has its grade configuration changed. it's just plain over crowdwd.
'just plain overcrowded' is not an answer. Does each section of each grade have a room? Is special ed in a converted closet? Do the art teachers and music teachers have a classroom? Are the classes coming up from TP larger or smaller? Peter, the public needs an answer from the board and or the superintendent. These rumors about 'overcrowding' are growing. Soon it will be fact, whether it is or not.
""And, by the way, how "crowded" are we? ""
It seems people have assumed we are overcrowded based on Peter's statement. It is my hope that we are not and life is good.
Peace and Love
Peace and Love
I don't think terms like "Overcrowded", "Full", etc. are well defined in the context of schools. The idea that CG was "Overcrowded" was started by a document shared with the prospective committee members that shows the capacity of CG at 440, while it currently has 477 students in it. Does that mean it is overcrowded? Depends. GDS has a nominal capacity of 750 as configured, but it has lots of flexible space that can be rearranged to accommodate significantly more without being "overcrowded". The difference between "full" and "overcrowded" comes when the capacity of the building limits the quality of the education for the students. The questions mentioned above are the important ones. Things like: Does every student have a desk? Are the music classes forced into hallways? Do we have to add lunch periods because the cafeteria can't seat enough students?
For example at CG the large group instruction room has been converted to a music room. Does that equal "overcrowded"? If this change to the LGI (and other adjustments) have a significant negative impact on other programming then yes it is overcrowded, if there isn't then no.
I haven't seen any kind of report on the situation at CG. But is my understanding that while CG is definitely full that it can accommodate the additional 20 students it has this year (over last year).
I you are a CG parent, what do you think?
I think that you are trying to double-talk your way out of this situation.
When we elected you, you told us that this school (and the tax bill that would come with it) would fix our overcrowding concerns. It hasn't.
You specifically spent time in CG to get elected, and you jumped on the Middle School bandwagon.
Are you going to wait until we are holding music classes in the hallways before you do anything about this, or is the plan to continue the double talk until you are forced to do something?
As we've seen, waiting until it gets that bad and you end up caving to community pressure instead of coming up with a well thought out plan that addresses concerns and issues in all of our schools in both of our communities makes you look like a laughing stock.
Actually it largely has solved the district's problems. The biggest overcrowding problem was in Middle school. Fixed. The second biggest problem was that TP was overcrowded to the point they forced to use trailers for classrooms, that has been resolved too. The referendum eliminated our overcrowding issues.
Sorry, that is not the fact. Those buildings have an ideal capacity for a reason!
If you had a special ed child perhaps you would understand more about their rights.
":The referendum eliminated our overcrowding issues."
I am so glad to be reassured of this fact. However, Peter reassusered me of this during his camppign so I knew already we were fine, it is of little surpise to me.
Thanks!
Was there a candidate that ran recently who said that we needed another addition/referendum to solve projected overcrowding? Not that I recall. Could you see anyone proposing another addition/school after the divide caused by the last referendum. I sure can't.
I support holding elected officials accountable to their promises, but the 'you said the referendum would take care of it' seems to be an unrealistic complaint.
Some of the posts above recall events as I do, GD was supposed to releive stress at Winnequah and TP, and that recent projections showed stable to declining enrollment at CGE. I think the board has been forthcoming with the data they received, and realistic with their solutions.
So, I am a Monona parent, and I heard that my supposedly-soon-to-be-appointed committee to study facilities issues in Monona has been either cancelled or indefinitely delayed. Is this true? I gotta tell you, my tax bill isn't going to like this. Why are we even paying the heat bills at an antiquated building like Nichols?? Just for the administration? Not good enough! Not when I am paying for all of these other buildings with plenty of room....
According to some of these posts, our administration should be able to conduct their daily business in the over crowded classrooms at Taylor Prairie or Cottage Grove Elementary! After all, capacity is just a number, right Peter?
Give me a break! There are capacity numbers in place for a reason, don't you think?
And to top it all off, I heard recently that there is a parent group in place studying the overcrowding issues in their elementary schools. Where is the Monona study group??? Hell with the School Board and their appointments! Monona parents unite now or lose again!
History repeating itself would be such a tragedy.
TP and CG don't have "plenty of room". Winnequah does. It might make sense to put the district offices in Winnequah, it certainly doesn't make sense to put them in any of the CG elementary schools.
Sure there is "ideal" capacity, but in case you haven't noticed school districts haven't had the money to do anything to the "ideal" in a long time.
That middle school is 28 million dollars worth of ideal! What are you talking about???
The worst thing is that we can't get information. I really do not know what to believe about this alleged CG crowding issue. The board and the superintendent need to respond. We're either having serious space problems at CG school or we aren't. If we are, that is either do to an enrollment bubble, or it isn't. If history is repeating itself, it is that rumours are flying around and the board and administration are silent. Now that we have the web, it is not that difficult to get information out.
Since the question was asked...(and apologies in advance for the length of this response):
In my view, it's important to distinguish between the two elementary schools in Cottage Grove -- Taylor Prairie (TP) and Cottage Grove School (CG).
Start with TP. It currently enrolls 401 students. The school houses K and 1st grades, plus some sections of the district's new 4-year-old kindergarten program. Although its capacity is listed by the district as 364, I think it's important to look at actual classroom usage, to my mind a more insightful way of assessing usage. We have 8 sections of K at TP, 7 of 1st grade. We have 4 sections of 4K, but since they only attend half-days, we use only two classrooms for those 4K students. We also have dedicated classrooms for art, music, and a computer lab, in addition to dedicated rooms for children with special needs, such as our occupational therapy/physical therapy (OT/PT)classroom. In addition, the "step-room" at TP -- used in previous years for music -- is now open and available for use (teacher training, art shows, the like). The library, gym and cafeteria are used for their original purposes, i.e., we don't have any "spillover" usage of those spaces for anything other than regular instructional/other use. In short, we're using all of the available classrooms at TP, but -- in my view -- we're not overcrowded in that school.
CG School: There is a legitimate argument, in my view, that CG is beyond capacity, but not terribly overcrowded. It currently enrolls 477 students; its listed capacity is 440. We currently have 7 sections each of 2nd, 3rd and 4th grades in CG. We have two dedicated computer labs there, plus a number of spaces for instruction of children with special needs. Are they smaller than regular classrooms? Yes, some are. Are they closets? Not by any stretch. As for crowding at CG, it's mainly confined to related-arts classes like music and art. Music is currently being taught in the step room -- a much larger space than a regular classroom, but it makes that space unavailable for other school uses. Art (and 4th graders who take strings) is currently held in a portion of the cafeteria walled off with a temporary, movable wall. So, in the end, "crowding" at CG comes down to music and art being taught in something other than classroom space, and a smaller cafeteria. Is that less than ideal? Without question. But it is less-than-ideal for only a (relatively) small portion of any student's given day. Most instruction at the elementary levels takes place in regular education classrooms. In my view, CG is "overcrowded," but it's on the order of a few small degrees -- essentially two or three classrooms.
But didn't the school district/board at one time talk about a building addition for CG School? Good question; indeed it did. Some background that may be helpful. The school board put together the referendum package in February '06. The previous referendum, at a cost of $39.9 million, included a four-classroom addition to CG School. A friend of mine dubbed that referendum the "everything AND the kitchen sink" referendum. It failed badly, garnering only 37 percent support. When the board came back to put together the second referendum, it was concerned (quite appropriately, I would argue) with holding down its cost, and by a significant amount. Part of what was pared from the second referendum was the CG classroom addition, at a cost of at least $1 million and perhaps as much as $2 million. As one of two current board members who helped put together that referendum package, holding off on the CG classroom addition was one of the tougher decisions we made. But we also knew the second referendum had to be less expensive, viewed as more affordable by the citizenry, and demonstrate that the board was serious about paring back costs. In the end, the second referendum cost $28.7 million (still a substantial amount for a district our size), and passed with 59 percent of the vote.
The broad point is this: the school board made a very explicit (and unanimous) decision to approve a referendum package that included a new middle school, and significant improvements to Winnequah, in return for not expanding CG School. The board tried, in the old political parlance, to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Was there a solid rationale at the time for adding on to CG School. Yes? But the larger rationale was passage of the referendum.
Now, I fully recognize and accept that there are those in our school district community who continue to believe that referendum did not meet the needs of the district, and that it should have focused instead on renovating/expanding Winnequah and providing, in some form, additional elementary classroom space in the Cottage Grove attendance area. But the referendum put out by the board, the one that focused instead on building a new middle school (along with improvements to Winnequah), was endorsed by 59 percent of the voters. I don't know of any similar-sized districts that have seen anything as expensive passed by such a margin; maybe there is one, but I haven't found it. In short, I believe the board's decision on the referendum was soundly endorsed by a significant share of the district's voters.
What about future enrollments? They are tough to predict, for anything more than two years out (for a variety of factors, i.e., housing markets, open enrollment trends, gas prices...).
Things we know:
-- TP enrolled eight sections of K this fall, and will likely enroll 8 sections next fall. TP has never enrolled more than 8 sections (classrooms) of K in any one year since it opened in the mid-1990s. That's not to say it won't happen in the future, but it hasn't in the decade-plus that the school has been open.
-- CG School will likely have the same number of regular-education sections next fall (21) that it currently has (7 sections each of the three grades). Seven sections of 4th grade grade will move out, and seven sections of the 1st graders that are now at TP will move in. To my mind, the bigger crunch at CG School comes in the fall of 2010, when the school has to absorb the 8 sections of K now at TP, or one more than CG school currently has now (we have fairly sophisticated models of enrollment retention done by the UW population lab; essentially they tell us that once students enroll in our schools, they tend to stay with us until they graduate. Modest growth in grade enrollment occurs primarily in the middle and high school years, largely through private school/open enrollment into those grades. We tend not to "grow" that much in the elementary years).
-- We enroll 703 student at Glacial Drumlin; its official capacity is 750. There is some room for enrollment growth there, but not a ton (middle school classroom space tends to be a bit more flexible than elementary space, as well). Again, getting back to the referendum, the board tried very hard to "right-size" that school -- not too big (as one of my board colleagues said at the time, "You don't build a church for Easter Sunday"), but large enough to handle some level of enrollment growth. I remain convinced GDS is large enough to handle future enrollment growth in the district.
To answer the question directly of the previous poster, my view (perhaps shared by others on the school board, but perhaps not) is that we don't have a serious overcrowding issue at our CG schools. We have overcrowding at one elementary school there, but it is relatively modest, in my view (on the order, roughly, of 10 percent of the building capacity, or enrollment projections from two years ago, however you want to look at it). Others may view it as alarming, but I don't share that view. Is it manageable in the near-term? I think so, although my guess is that how it can be managed will provoke some interesting debate in our school community. I will say flatly that the crowding at CG School, in my view, doesn't necessitate the drastic step of a referendum for a third elementary school in the CG attendance area; that, to me, would be an overreaction to what I view as a relatively modest problem. (Besides, I don't think this district should seek approval of another school building referendum until the high school referendum is paid off, which I think is about 10 years from now.)
I hope some or all of this provides some additional context for this debate, and perhaps even proves helpful.
Then why the dithering on the Monona grade configuration committee? That's a group to look at whether or not we want to consolidate at Winnequah or keep Maywood, is it not? There seems to be no reason to move anyone around again out in CG, but instead keep a watchful eye on the kindergarten enrollment. The nice thing about CG School is that you can see the problem coming a few years ahead of time. If we need a very small referendum for a classroom addition at CG in the future I suppose there would be a few of the ever-disgruntled who would grumble, but just like the new school there would be enough yes votes for that.
"If we need a very small referendum for a classroom addition at CG in the future I suppose there would be a few of the ever-disgruntled who would grumble, but just like the new school there would be enough yes votes for that."
It would be a wonderful time for a referendum....add a new field for the HS with it AND it is a winning combo.
(tongue-planted in cheeck.)
I removed a few offensive posts above. I was considering editing them, but I just don't have time. So keep the entire post civil if you want it left here.
I want to move forward with the grade configuration committee ASAP, and I argued for that at the last board meeting. However Craig is new to the situation and since he is leading this effort he has the right and responsibility to bring it along at a pace that he is comfortable with (in consultation with the board.) If that means that we take a little time to reconsider the nature and scope of the committee then I support that. Its better to do things right the first time.
I think adding a few classrooms is not the same thing as artificial turf for a new football field. Not even close. I think if the teams who use that field want artificial turf, then fund raise for it. Just like the orchestra pit. But, I wouldn't support money for classrooms until we see an increase in the elementary enrollment in CG which it looks like we aren't. I also don't think it would be the end of the world as we know it if a section or two of 2nd grade was at TP while the others are at CG school - if there is room at TP. The kids would be just fine with that unless their parents make think it isn't fine. From what I am hearing, some of this issue with expanding the scope has been driven by CG people who want to see "neighborhood schools?" They want two k-4 schools with attendance areas? I hope that this is just a rumor and that the board and admin aren't seriously considering this. This would be very expensive and create even more space needs. We cannot afford it.
"I think the board has been forthcoming with the data they received, and realistic with their solutions."
Trust is earned and when lost takes a long time to get back. I think the new super is a step in the right direction and he has my support, trust and patience.
Post a Comment