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:

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!)

About last night...

State Senator Miller kicked off the evening with a discussion of the state budget issues and its impact on school funding. Among concerns that school boards have with the new budget are provisions eliminating the QEO in 2010 and the mandatory arbitration provisions this July. I asked Senator Miller about my concern that the QEO is an integral part of WI education funding formula, and eliminating one part of this system without comprehensive reform of the entire system could create significant difficulties. Senator Miller agreed with the need to examine the entire system, but that comprehensive reform usually has to wait for favorable fiscal times.

The Board received the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Grade configuration committee but didn't discuss it much. I'll put up a separate post with my view of the recommendations when I have time.

The Board also discussed our transportation policy as it relates to day care providers. Recently there has been a stir over a decision not to continue to provide transportation from Cottage Grove Elementary to Kids Safari day care in Cottage Grove. Our current policy allows students to be dropped at a day care facility instead of their homes if location is on a route and there is room on the bus, essentially the policy is designed to provide this service to the public if it can be done at no additional cost to the district. Because of the large number of KS students an additional bus run is needed to provide this service. Currently we do this run using our reserve bus, but this practice is not sustainable because the reserve bus is needed if there is a breakdown anywhere in the fleet.

Some are concerned about equity issues because we do service other providers, such as Learning Ladder - but we can do that because there is room on a bus that goes right past the Learning Ladder location anyway.

The board forwarded the policy for review by the policy committee. My two cents is that the policy should be amended to allow the district to provide this service to the day care providers, but to charge our actual costs. This allows us to leverage our capabilities and cost structure to the benefit of the district's residents, but continues with a principle of no net cost to the district. It also provides us with a way to fairly accommodate any other requests. I would certainly support efforts to try and minimize or eliminate these costs through re-arrangement of our service when possible.

In other significant news we were pleasantly surprised by the preliminary new budget estimates from PMA. They showed that the additional reductions in state aids (~215,000) will be offset by new, more accurate (and more positive) open enrollment projects. We are now conservatively estimating about 65 new OE students in.

More important than any of the above was the presentation about the New Teacher Mentor Program in the district. This is a key program that help build the skills of teachers new to the district as a way to strengthen student learning (which is, after all, our core mission.) Studies show that this kind of classrom mentoring is one of the most effective ways of improving student achievement!