I have heard some complaints about the annual budget flier being delivered late in Monona, with many people not receiving it until the day of the meeting.
The budget flier was delivered to the Post Office the week of the 8th, after approval by the board. This should have allowed plenty of time for postal delivery, and indeed the flier was delivered in Cottage Grove the beginning of the week prior the meeting. However the USPS apparently mishandled those destined for Monona addresses. The district did inquire with the local Post Office when it was noticed the flier wasn't received, at which point the USPS did deliver it.
The budget flier, with its annual meeting notice, is sent out each year as a courtesy to the residents of the district. It is my understanding that most districts don't do this, relying instead on the usual meeting notices posted in newspapers, district offices and on-line.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I am curious about why you always avoid the actual problem at hand.
We're supposed to feel lucky that we get mail from the district at all? Not the answer I was looking for.
You skewed enrollment projections, and instead of admitting being wrong, you tell us we should feel lucky to have this new problem.
There is a strong sense that you are taking the political route and avoiding the real issues.
Can you reply? People really want to trust you, but it's pretty difficult when these are the kinds of answers we get from you.
Anonymous posters like the above and myself can only speak for ourselves and nobody else. I think Peter has explained the alleged "crowding" situation in Cottage Grove very well. He also explained why the district mailing was late, and that this mailing is not a legal issue. Honest to goodness, when I read this blog I sometimes think it doesn't matter how carefully he tries word things, there are people who will read into everything what they wish. So please use the first person singular, not plural in your anonymous posts. You do not speak for me. If you have been elected to represent a group, please sign your name so we know for whom you speak.
I haven't ever "skewed the enrollment projections". And yes, being in a situation with more students is certainly better than the alternative giving the current funding formula. But I don't think "luck" has anything to do with it: The positive steps the district has made in the last few years, improved academic programs, leadership in assessments, a new middle school facility are having a positive impact on the perception of the district and as a result our enrollment.
As for the mailing, what sort of answer were you looking for? What sort of "real issue" am I avoiding? One alternative may be to send the flier first class, but I don't think I could justify that cost to the district.
This is so ridiculous. The district does not have a responsibility to send us a piece of mail about the annual meeting. In fact, I would argue that it is an unnecessary expense. The meeting was listed on the school calendar, on the website and in the newspaper. Anyone who wanted to go had plenty of notice to do so. How much does the district spend on the mailing, and could that money maybe go to helping some of our teachers offset expenses in the classroom?
I got the mailing after the event, and thought, 'why waste the money to even send'.
Good to find it was a mistake on the post office, and not just bad planning.
I do like the mailers, even if they aren't required. I've gone to a couple of meetings over the years after getting them.
I know they aren't required, and if they cost too much and were discontinued, not a big deal. But it's nice that the district is trying to communicate in different ways.
There was another big problem with the mailer. There was a pretty significant number problem. Equalized value for property tax was stated as 1,999,308,341, and the DPI numbers ended up at $1,877,729,956. I assume this is a timing problem since these numbers were late, published the 23rd.
THE ERROR IS HUGE THOUGH. The mill rate was shown to increase only 4.5% despite the levy going up 12.86%. In reality, the mill rate goes up 12.4%. in the final numbers.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!! I'm not sure how many people understand any of this, but if you look at percentage change only, the only way to figure how much your own taxes will increase, which is the bottom line, you have been somewhat led astray. The same applies to the actual mill rate calculation.
It is important to note that despite Cottage Grove's revaluation higher of many assessments, Monona's total equalized property value increased more than Cottage Grove's. This year will be the first time in many years that Monona's share of the School Levy will increase. It will be 55.7%.
It is also important to note that at $44 million in expenditures, each kid costs about $15,000 to educate. With Monona property tax share at almost $13 million, we can support a school district with 866 children INDEPENDENT OF ANY STATE AID! Sure would be nice to know how many kids are attending from Monona. I know there are about 430 in pre-K to 6.
Any help with that answer would be nice, Peter.
Interesting analysis, Kristin. Thank you.
The only question I have left is WHY ARE WE WAITING to split this district?
This is absolutely ridiculous. If we split, not only would my tax bill go down, but my children could attend classes of a reasonable size, and in their OWN neighborhood.
Anyone else out there on this page?
"Anyone else out there on this page?"
No.
If you are on that page start the petition it is a fairly easy process to start.
The independent "split study" done by the district a few years ago showed that a split would be uniformly bad for students for a whole host of reasons.
I think there are about 840 Monona students. Given the equalized property value per student we would be close to the minimum state aid ($1000/student). On the other hand expenditures per student would increase in the smaller district because overhead expenses are spread over a smaller number of students. It is unlikely that there would be a significant change in your property taxes. It is also likely that we would have to consolidate all students in to one or two buildings because of the overhead.
"The independent "split study" done by the district a few years ago showed that a split would be uniformly bad for students for a whole host of reasons."
Well, I disagree with that statement, but still stand by my last one.
I do not want that for my kids.
But if others do...please get started.
I second the "get started" comment. If Ms. Yates and those who agree with her fail to get moving the board can take that as a sign that there is very little interest in this in Monona. Honestly, part of me wouldn't mind seeing this come to a vote so we can finally move on with the business of educating children as part of Monona Grove or on our own. I plan to start holding my school board candidates accountable for our student outcomes and not how they voted on a referendum. Heck, we don't even know our student outcomes. There is no follow up to show how our kids do when they hit college, tech school or the job market...at least none that I have seen. For all who are excited about the 'new faces' on the board how about you start holding their feet to the fire on that issue?
This following list is taken from a LTE I wrote to the Cap Times in 2005 after receiving the report of the split study. In comparison to our current district, districts around WI about the size of a Monona Only district:
1. Offer half the number of core courses (average 37 vs. 70).
2. Offer half the number of elective courses (average 38 vs. 74)
3. Struggle to offer AP courses because of a lack of willing or qualified teachers.
4. Rely on “creative solutions”, such as distance learning and online courses, as a substitute for classroom instruction.
5. Offer fewer athletic options outside the “major” sports
6. Have only one or two teachers per subject area.
7. Have difficulty retaining qualified administrators as they use small districts as stepping-stones to larger districts.
8. Share staff between middle and high schools.
9. Often have all K-12 students in a single facility.
10. Have special education students attend regular courses because there are not resources to offer separate classes.
11. Have fewer co-curricular offerings (example: none of the comparable schools offered an Orchestra)
12. And in at least one case were unable to offer the foreign language of choice because of the inability to find a qualified teacher.
In the entire split study report there was not one positive observation associated with the smaller schools.
OK- I want to respond to this, but please understand I do not support a split.
3. Struggle to offer AP courses because of a lack of willing or qualified teachers.
We currently struggle to offer AP courses. I have had multiple students tell me there is NOT enough AP courses. Low income alternatives exist.
4. Rely on “creative solutions”, such as distance learning and online courses, as a substitute for classroom instruction.
False. We would relay on them more.
5. Offer fewer athletic options outside the “major” sports
Please at this is a valid reason. Are you from the, but "we would play in a smaller conference crowd?"which sickens me
7. Have difficulty retaining qualified administrators as they use small districts as stepping-stones to larger districts.
This might not be a bad thing-new energy and new blood whether then adminstators who are spent and burnout treating citizens in a negativie manner.
8. Share staff between middle and high schools.
And the problem with that?
9. Often have all K-12 students in a single facility.
I will give you the response that the current president of the board gave me about busing. I had that and turned out great, what is your problem bias-prejendicue that big is better?
11. Have fewer co-curricular offerings (example: none of the comparable schools offered an Orchestra).
Are we a school or some kind of charter school for the arts? I wonder with the current configuration. Do not get me wrong my kids love band and orchestra.
12. And in at least one case were unable to offer the foreign language of choice because of the inability to find a qualified teacher.
Please....we offer French and Spanish now right?
How useful is French for the future of our students? It sure sounds pretty...
Ok, I do not want a split, but most of your arguements are based in your own bias. Would the a split district be different, yes.
WORSE OR BETTER.
It depends.
"For all who are excited about the 'new faces' on the board how about you start holding their feet to the fire on that issue?"
Please DO!
"For all who are excited about the 'new faces' on the board how about you start holding their feet to the fire on that issue?"
"Please DO!"
Please they have bias just like you-Peter.
Or
Was that poster talking about you?
I agree with the poster that told Ms. Yates (I don't even know who she is...) to get on with it. Get a petition going, and get people on board with a split district. Actually do the legwork instead of constant complaints. And see what happens. I am so tired of this conversation- and I opposed the referendum-- but the people clearly spoke on that issue. Just like last night- majority wins. So, let's see her get the 1000 names for a split district. Maybe by December or January? I will wait to see if that materializes......
AND I am still waiting for the "newer faces" to live up to their campaigning- but they also seem to just complain about their own board. Yes, let's look at how our kids are doing in post-MGHS experiences and where we need to actually move FORWARD.......
I count myself among the "new faces" on the board whos feet need to be held to the fire on academics- the entire board does. We spend so much time on issues that aren't directly related to achievement, often because we are drawn there by the public.
As for looking at the post graduate performance of our students, that is starting to happen. It requires the cooperation of the UW system and MATC, but we are starting to see movement in that direction. When representatives from MATC came to the board several months ago I expressed to them that feedback along those lines was the number 1 thing they could do for schools in WI.
Just an update on the annual meeting notice:
Supt. Craig Gerlach informed the school board last night that the post office has: a) sent a letter of apology to the school district for the delay in mailing out the annual meeting notice; and b) agreed to reimburse the district for that portion of the mailing, a savings of @ $230.
Post a Comment