Now that the committee has reported to the board and placed the issues in our court I feel it is appropriate (and indeed my responsibility) to let you in on my thoughts relative to the issues. Here are the committee's recommendations:
1. Add modular units to Cottage Grove Elementary Schools to accommodate enrollment
growth, as a temporary solution to a potential long-term problem.
2. Research 4K-8 programming in both communities. Report findings at a School Board
Meeting by the end of the 2009-2010 school year.
3. Research sixth grade programming/curriculum. Report findings at a School Board
Meeting by the end of the 2009-2010 school year. Temporarily keep sixth grade Monona
students at Winnequah.
4. Research 4K-4 grade schools at Taylor Prairie and Cottage Grove Elementary. Report
findings at a School Board Meeting by the end of the 2010-2011 school year.
5. Maintain Winnequah and Maywood Schools until 4K-8 program in each community is
determined, or until it is fiscally not feasible to operate both buildings.
6. Research real estate options district wide.
And my thoughts:
1) First of all I agree with the committee that there aren’t any facilities issues that can’t be successfully managed for now in the existing facilities with the addition of modular units if necessary. The modular units are inexpensive and flexible. Things aren’t ideal (are they ever?), but I think they are manageable within reasonable norms.
2) As far as K-8 in both communities goes, I supported the 2005 referendum that would have established K-8 facilities in both communities, that referendum failed with criticism including concerns about its capital and operating expense, facility and program equity and the idea that the middle school children would be better educated together. Although I’m sympathetic to the K-8 idea, I think all of these concerns are still valid. Glacial Drumlin really does have great facilities and the cost of reproducing them in Monona would be expensive to build and to operate. The alternative would be to deny one segment of the students access to facilities I think are important to support programming. Not that I’m suggesting we don’t investigate the K-8 options, I just think the expense factor will be a difficulty.
Speaking as a parent, I see that as my kids reach middle school age the interests of their classmates diverge and that they do need a larger group of peers from which to draw compatible friends. My daughter is looking forward to next year at GD because she already has some friends among next years Cottage Grove 7th graders. I have had other parents of older children in the district make similar comments. To be fair I also have heard from parents concerned about the larger middle school environment. Of course every child is different, a fact exacerbated by the developmental differences at this age, and there is no one solution that is a best fit for all.
3) Re-arranging the 6th grade programming has the potential to make the logistics of operating this district significantly easier and less expensive, but that’s not a great reason to do it. We should be looking at what is best educationally and working from that. Again, from taking to parents and staff, it seems that the views on the effectiveness of 6th grade programming varies dramatically with the child, some thrive while some falter in the increasingly complex social and educational environment that is middle school. I'm all for a thorough examination of the programming here- there is always room for improvement!
4) 4k-4 has certain advantages, the biggest perhaps being the reduction of transitions for the elementary students. But dividing the classes among two 4K-4 schools limits operational flexibility and presents some operational difficulties, (not to mention the annual adjustment of the boundary line)! But I don't have strong feelings about this one.
5) Maywood: Although I understand what the committee intends, I’m worried that the “fiscally feasible” criteria leaves too much room for debate. No one would like to see Maywood close, but I think we would all agree that below a certain number of students it no longer makes financial or educational sense to keep it open- in my mind any disagreement we have is just over what that minimum number is, IMHO the board should give some guidance on this. Regardless of the disposition, I think this building should be kept by the district in reserve for future increases in student populations.
6) It is important to start planning for the future, there are a number of real estate issues to be addressed: space for future elementary students in CG, the District property on Cold Springs, Nichols? (Here’s my wild idea: the Nichols site should be turned into a small business/technology incubator!)
5 comments:
My sincere thanks to the dedication and committment of those who worked on this difficult issue. I also strongly agree with Peter's assessment of middle school issue. I believe if you asked current middle and high schoolers how they felt about joining together at 6/7 grade or at the 9th grade,a majority would choose the middle school option.
I also feel that the "bricks and mortar" issues need to be resolved quickly and play second fiddle to what goes on IN our schools. We need to stop spending time and resources on facilities issues and start focusing on what we need to do improve the quality of education all of our Cottage Grove and Monona kids need and deserve.
Well, most of the school board candidates elected in the last two years have campaigned on the need to have a long-term facility plan. I'm still waiting to see that plan. Peter, do you know what the time line is to produce such a plan? Is it on the board's radar?
History note: there was a referendum several years ago which made each community K-8. It was overwhelmingly defeated for the two reasons already stated. Cost, and the need for kids to come together sooner than 9th grade. When you ask the kids, and several of them spoke up during that failed referendum, they talk about how they really make great friends when the two communities come together. Whatever building, however it is done, that, for cost reasons, equity of programming, and the fact that kids and parents of kids in High School now recognize its importance- bringing the kids together in 6th grade or at least 7th is a critical issue.
Peter, you made some fine points in all areas. Also, kudos to the committee. I think there were some really good options to explore suggested.
I can see both sides of the argument to keeping k-8 in each as well as combining students earlier.
I think that firmer costs need to be in place before more is done as well as the input of teachers/administrators on feasibility of the options.
Let's say we keep it the status quo (combining in 7th grade) or close a school in Monona. It sounds if either of those happen that we may need to build a new school in CG "some time" down the road. I wonder if we will be able to pass a referendum down the road in either community to build an additional school out in CG. I wonder if there would be bitterness in Monona for closing a school there to build a brand new one in CG or if there would be a resistance to raising taxes in either community. Just "thinking" out loud. I think some long term building planning needs to be done because I think people are going to need to get used to the idea of another referendum coming down the pike.
In any organization there is always a problem with prioritization of pressing issues over important ones. A facilities plan is important, but it never appears pressing at any given moment.
That said, I think the Ad Hoc committee and its recommendations have taken us down that road a bit, and Craig is taking up the recommendation for a group to look at real estate issues. Of course to do that it would be a good idea to know where we are going. But no, I don't have a good answer and I haven't seen much evidence it is on the radar screen for the board.
Post a Comment