The board approved the charter school planning grant application after a presentation by Nancy Gagnon and some of the other proposers, although many questions remain to be answered during the planning grant period. The charter school proposal as presented calls for up to 180 seats (3 grades of 2 sections of 30 students each), very preliminary budget numbers were about $950K/year in operating costs. The proposal calls for a school that is an "instrumentality" of the district: although it has a separate governance board it would not be a distinct fiscal entity - this is the way our current charter school (MG21) is operated. The school would use a "project based learning" model and feature an environmental and health sciences curriculum. Ann Schroeder raised concerns that there was not sufficient room n Winnequah for 180 Middle School students.
The next step would be to negotiate and agree to a charter in December of next year. IMHO any agreement would have to be budget neutral - the costs of the charter school should not exceed the differential savings of taking those students out of our existing program - anything more would result in fewer resources for students in our existing programs.
The board also approved open enrollments for next year. Out of a total of 206 applicants we accepted 125 based on available space. This includes 55 4K, 20 Kindergarten students at Winnequah, and 30 high school students.
We also got a look at an updated budget forecast: we are anticipating a $3.1M deficit representing a proposed budget reduction of 5.5% per student. The deficit can be offset by projected savings of $1.1M in WRS and Health insurance payments (the pay cut to teachers), $100K revenue from open enrollment, $850K in Federal Jobs Bill revenue, $245K savings from the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation, $340K from staffing maximization (reducing staff and moving them around to match student needs) and $362K in program and services reductions (more on those next time). This leaves us with a projected negative $88K balance on the year, plus whatever is required for remodeling in Winnequah due to the consolidation.
P.S. The H-I website embeds my cell phone video of the 1812 overture played by the combined 4th-12th grade orchestras at the bottom of the front page: http://www.herald-independent.com/, check it out!
Showing posts with label Monona consolidation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monona consolidation. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Friday, January 29, 2010
The third rail...
Peter McKeever kicked things off last night with a thoughtful call to the board not to cut the budget. Peter is right that the future rests on the investment we make in educating the next generation, and that cut backs can be short sighted. This is particularly true in the situation where we are not talking about a one time reduction due to the economy, but an ongoing structural deficit that will year after year erode public education. Peter called for additional public investment and taxes to restore school budgets and asked the school board to take a leadership role in strengthening public education. I would add that according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php, WI state and local spending on primary and secondary education has declined by 7% (as a percentage of GDP) since the year 2000.
The board moved to hearing the results of the annual financial audit, and received (as usual) a clean unqualified report from the auditors. We also heard from a reports concerning the new teacher project and the January head count (up 12 students since September). The board also decided to issue preliminary notice of non-renewal to several administrators. These are due to budgetary considerations and unrelated to any job performance issues, it also does not necessarily mean we will be terminating these staff members. In a related action the board approved one year (down from the standard two year contracts) for several other administrators, in order to keep these options available for next year. Again, none of these actions are performance related.
The board then had a brief discussion concerning the Nichols property. Although no consensus was apparent, IMHO the location is a valuable piece of real estate and the best interest of the district is that it should be on the tax rolls and working for the economic development of the community.
The board then approved a recommendation from the administration concerning the 4k-8 study report. I don't have the language, but essentially the motion stated that in consideration of the costs the district not pursue separate 4k-8 programs in each community. We talked about some of the other grade configuration committee's recommendations, there was particular focus on the issue of studying combining 6th grades in GDS. The consensus from the staff seems to be there may be significant cost and educational benefits to this move. Personally, I would be reluctant to approve this without a significant show of community support as the current configuration was approved in the 2006 referendum.
The board then reviewed the board and administrator surveys of the budget cut items. The surveys were designed to solicit judgments about the impact of each proposed budget cut relative to the board goals. A copy of the board version of the survey can be found by clicking here.
The compiled survey results can be found clicking here. There are three pages: administrator averages, board averages and a comparison of rankings.
In general I found no surprises in the results, with general agreement between the board and administration on nearly all items.
I don't have access to my original answers on the survey (when I clicked the "next" key it disappeared into cyberspace) I will reproduce my answers to the best of my ability and post them here tomorrow. Its the best I can do.
Craig then presented an initial proposal from the budget reduction list totalling $1.008M dollars. I will publish that list separately also. There was some discussion about a few items on the list, such as the teacher mentor program, and some items that aren't, such as the proposal for Maywood-Winnequah consolidation.
The board and the district are faced with some stark choices, and the current proposal falls heavily on our music, related arts and encore curriculum. The Maywood-Winnequah consolidation may give us the opportunity to significantly mitigate the impact of these cuts to staff and curriculum; I believe that we owe it to the community, students and the dedicated teachers responsible for these programs to take a hard look at this option.
The board moved to hearing the results of the annual financial audit, and received (as usual) a clean unqualified report from the auditors. We also heard from a reports concerning the new teacher project and the January head count (up 12 students since September). The board also decided to issue preliminary notice of non-renewal to several administrators. These are due to budgetary considerations and unrelated to any job performance issues, it also does not necessarily mean we will be terminating these staff members. In a related action the board approved one year (down from the standard two year contracts) for several other administrators, in order to keep these options available for next year. Again, none of these actions are performance related.
The board then had a brief discussion concerning the Nichols property. Although no consensus was apparent, IMHO the location is a valuable piece of real estate and the best interest of the district is that it should be on the tax rolls and working for the economic development of the community.
The board then approved a recommendation from the administration concerning the 4k-8 study report. I don't have the language, but essentially the motion stated that in consideration of the costs the district not pursue separate 4k-8 programs in each community. We talked about some of the other grade configuration committee's recommendations, there was particular focus on the issue of studying combining 6th grades in GDS. The consensus from the staff seems to be there may be significant cost and educational benefits to this move. Personally, I would be reluctant to approve this without a significant show of community support as the current configuration was approved in the 2006 referendum.
The board then reviewed the board and administrator surveys of the budget cut items. The surveys were designed to solicit judgments about the impact of each proposed budget cut relative to the board goals. A copy of the board version of the survey can be found by clicking here.
The compiled survey results can be found clicking here. There are three pages: administrator averages, board averages and a comparison of rankings.
In general I found no surprises in the results, with general agreement between the board and administration on nearly all items.
I don't have access to my original answers on the survey (when I clicked the "next" key it disappeared into cyberspace) I will reproduce my answers to the best of my ability and post them here tomorrow. Its the best I can do.
Craig then presented an initial proposal from the budget reduction list totalling $1.008M dollars. I will publish that list separately also. There was some discussion about a few items on the list, such as the teacher mentor program, and some items that aren't, such as the proposal for Maywood-Winnequah consolidation.
The board and the district are faced with some stark choices, and the current proposal falls heavily on our music, related arts and encore curriculum. The Maywood-Winnequah consolidation may give us the opportunity to significantly mitigate the impact of these cuts to staff and curriculum; I believe that we owe it to the community, students and the dedicated teachers responsible for these programs to take a hard look at this option.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Ad Hoc report
First things first: a big "thank you" to all the hard working committee members who helped sort through these difficult issues!
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:
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!)
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!)
Monday, April 21, 2008
Topic: Monona Elementary Consolidation
The recurring theme in the open thread was the idea of consolidating the Monona elementary schools into one building. Please post your thoughts and comments concerning the pros and cons of such a consolidation as comments on this thread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)