About a year ago, the Oshkosh Common Council asked representatives of the Oshkosh Area School District to participate in a Council workshop on the District's facilities plan. I asked for the workshop because I thought closing Oshkosh schools would be one of the worst possible things we could do if we were sincerely interested in creating and maintaining strong neighborhoods. I still think that, and so does John Lemberger.
The workshop, unfortunately, did not lead to any meaningful dialogue between school and city officials about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of closing schools. In fact, the majority of political insiders in town agreed that school closures were necessary. Just as the Hillary Clinton backers in the early days of the campaign tried to make her nomination sound inevitable and therefore not worthy of a serious challenge or debate, advocates for school closures did not even seem to take the "keep all schools open" position seriously. The Oshkosh Northwestern, for example, takes it as a given that "some schools will close."
Barack Obama dismantled the air of inevitability surrounding the Clinton campaign. She still might find a way to get the nomination, but not without political crash and burn maneuvers that could easily put John McCain in the White House.
John Lemberger has dismantled the air of inevitability surrounding the issue of school closures. His was the only campaign that clearly, unapologetically, and repeatedly called for keeping all schools open. District bureaucrats and a board majority might still find a way to close schools, but Lemberger's election gives grassroots opponents to closure an official "seat at the table." Getting a referendum passed that includes school closures was already going to be difficult; with Lemberger on the board it's sure not going to get any easier.
Can we repair and keep open all Oshkosh schools? In Obama-ish fashion, John Lemberger's election says, "Yes, We Can."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Tony, I'm just wondering if you have ever toured Oaklawn school? If not you should -- to get the true picture go on a rainy day.
Mr. Lemberger will keep all schools open by going to referendum to exceed the caps every other year (like Winneconne has done -- problem is Winneconne has gone to referendum 5 times since 1998 but only 2 a have passed). What does Oshkosh do if the first three referenda don't pass?
Would you be willing to share your definition of a "neighborhood" school? A definition you would use to determine if in fact every school should remain open. Do you really think it is fiscally responsible to operate a school with only 84 children in it? What about 115 or 120 students? Would 60students be too few?
I tried to craft this post so it would not sound argumentative (I'm not sure I succeeded) but I really don't mean to argue, I just wonder if those advocating that we keep every school open, have an understanding of all the issues and costs that go along with such a statement?
I will leave you with just one example. We have a school over one hundred years old, that at least one architect has said is not worth putting any more money into, this school is located with in 8 blocks of two other schools. How do you justify putting money into a school where enrollment has dropped most years in the last 10, where an architect said it isn't cost effective to spend more money on said school? Do you support cutting student programs, slashing staff salaries/benefits (of course this is never a given - it would have to go to arbitration and as the city found out, sometimes you lose), and/or increasing class sizes to keep every school open? What about letting our newer buildings deteroriate while we spend hundreds of thousands on our oldest buildings? We just can't continue to do everything the same as before, the money simply isn't there. Costs go up while revenue goes down. The district has little control over either one so, you have to find efficiencies somewhere. I believe consolidating some schools is the most efficient and least detrimental to our students.
I am not convinced that our community values "neighborhood schools" (however you define that). I think parents vaule their children going to the schools they have always gone to. How else do you explain those who say on the one hand they value neighborhood schools and in the next breath say "move those kids over there...to that school"?
Teresa,
I've heard you and others throw out an arbitrary number of students and state that it isn't fiscally responsible.
If you chose 100 as a guide, I suspect that over half of the public schools in Wisconsin have less than 100 students in their school. These schools across the state shouldn't close just because of their enrollment, anymore or less than Oshkosh schools simply because of their enrollment. To suggest that a number of students is the determining guide isn't an appropriate way to proceed.
Why isn't a number of students a way to proceed in determining what is efficient and what isn't? The 100 student number is NOT arbitrary, a school with 100 students only has one section per grade, that is inefficient. In Oshkosh, you will find that elementary schools with 3 or 4 sections per grade are the most efficient when it comes to staffing, and since 85% of the district budget is salary and benefits of employees, being efficient with staffing goes a long way towards saving money.
You really think it would be OK to have a school with 10 children per class? (That is what 60 students in a school would be). I don't see that as fiscally responsible. Please show me the data that says children are harmed by going to a different school than the one the go to today, especially if all or a substantial number of their classmates go to that same school?
I've never seen any such research.
I doubt very much that half the elementary schools in WI have 100 students in them (in Winnebago County there are 36 elementary school, 7 have less than 200 students and of those 7 3 are in Oshkosh). In rurual areas there may be small schools with 100 to 150 students but many of those are part of one building for K-12 so they have other staffing efficiencies and because the distance between districts in the Northern parts of WI is so great, the bussing costs might be greater than the staffing savings when combining schools, we have no such issue here in Oshkosh where many schools are within a miles or two or more other schools.
Teresa,
I've not been inside Oaklawn but will assume, for the sake of discussion, that it's even worse than those who want to close it say it is. To me the the fact that a school is in disrepair is not a compelling argument to close it--unless, of course, schools are thought to be the equivalent of Wal-Mart junk. When they break, just discard and toss in the landfill.
Oaklawn (and other schools slated for closing) historically and today served/serve a meaningful role in the lives of many people. I'd hate to think that in the name of "efficiency" (in quotes because the evidence closure and consolidation of schools produces more efficiency is hardly convincing) we would simply throw away schools. I don't have time to compile the research, but I know that a growing number of economists and other social scientists talk about he "diseconomies of scale" that come with school closures. That is, the money saved by the closure is more than offset by increased costs in other areas associated with the consolidated schools.
I don't find low enrollment arguments very compelling either. The fact that a school was built in the first places means that at one time the enrollment existed to support it. When the enrollment decreases because families no longer move to the neighborhoods in which the schools exist, that means we need a strategy to get families back to those areas. We won't get those families back by letting the schools fall into disrepair or simply closing them.
Lemberger, if I understand him correctly, sees the number of schools in the OASD as strength, a selling point for Oshkosh if you will. I think he's right about that. We could, if we had the will, become "school city," something that would be unique in a state in which malls, prisons, and casinos have increasingly become the chief identities of municipalities.
I think that if we had all seven members of the school board and the superintendant come out in favor of keeping all schools open, and if the city council reinforced that viewpoint by taking the lead to show citizens how the city would benefit, then I think there would be a chance to get save the schools referenda passed. It's not likely that all 7 seven board members will agree to such a thing, and so the only hope is for citizens to make it know that that is what they want and that they are willing to support it.
Well, if this community would actually vote to exceed revenue caps, in perpetuity to maintain and staff all 24 schools, I would go along with that, but I beleive the chances of that are the same as the proverbial snowball you know where...
Just because we have a school every mile, won't get people to locate here (Oshkosh has had more elementary schools, other districts in the valley and I don't see that as having any effect on people locating here) if at the same time, we have substandard teachers because all the teachers of quality have gone to districts that will give them at least the QEO, rather than cut their pay and increase their benefit costs (as one "lame duck" board member has proposed over and over). Or we use the money needed to maintain and staff those schools by increasing class sizes or eliminating programs. Really when 85% of your budget is staff salary and benefits, the only way to "trim" that is to have fewer staff, you can get there by consolidating schools, or by increasing class size, or by eliminating programs or cutting back salary and benefits (though as I stated before, this cannot be done unilaterally and there is the risk that you lose in arbitration and pay even more). If you know of another way to save on that 85% let me know.
You really don't think it is inefficient for two or three school to have a class with say 9 second (or any grade) graders when a school 2-4 miles away has 4 sections of second grade (or any grade) with 20 students? We are not talking of building schools of 800 or 900 elementary students, we are talking schools with 400 to 450students.
Oaklawn, not only is in bad shape, it sits below street level and floods every time there is significant rain. So, not only does it need an addition, it needs to be raised above street level, I have no idea the cost of that, but I have heard nothing to convince me the money is worth it.
You say "The fact that a school was built in the first places means that at one time the enrollment existed to support it." My only answer to that is good luck convincing most families to have 6-8 children (remember some of our schools are over 100 years old and more than half are over 40 years old). Times change, the birth rate has dropped and I've seen nothing to suggest that it is going back to what it was in the 50's (when Oaklawn was built).
If you are willing to head the referendum to save all our schools, (get a referendum to pass to exceed revenue caps in perpetuity for probably $5M/yr.) I won't fight you on it, and if it passes I won't advocate closing another school. If you aren't willing to spearhead that, then find some people who will, because it is the only way the district can maintain its programs and staff and keep every school open.
I think when it comes time for the community to open its wallet, there won't be too many lining up to save every school. After all, the public soundly defeated the 2001 referendum (approx. $12M) and that didn't suggest closing any school but Sunset and replacing it with a new school in that same neighborhood and fixing up a number of other schools but the community said "NO" and many of the comments were that people didn't want to spend money on all those other schools - just build and new Sunset and change boundaries and close the schools with lower enrollments.
Tony, I would still like to know your definition of a neighborhood school. Are schools 8 blocks apart in separate neighborhoods?
Teresa.
I don't understand--in 2001 it would have been okay to fix schools but not now? I didn't hear any voters in 2001 call for school closures. I didn't hear anyone in 2001 say, "come back with a plan to close more schools and we'll vote for the referendum."
In fact, it's difficult to find any critical mass in the city that supports school closures. Lemberger's election, I am convinced, was the result not just of his support for "neighborhood schools" (let's fact it, just about every candidate for school board says they support neighborhood schools), but because of the fact that he wants to keep the schools open. After the primary, John's position school closures became more well known and he received a ton of "bullet votes."
You ask, "Are schools 8 blocks apart in separate neighborhoods?" Why not? I know that if I walk 8 blocks from my house in any direction I am in a different neighborhood.
I don't have a formal definition of neighborhood school, but I think they usually include high parental involvement and interaction, students who see each other in and out of school, and a sense of ownership on the part of everyone who lives around it. In other words, they are not merely "buildings" that provide "space" for meeting standards. When schools become just building space, they easily become victims of deferred maintenance and end up in the landfill, like Wal-Mart junk.
I guess neighborhood schools are kind like neighborhood grocery store co-ops. People take ownership in them, they serve social and cultural purposes, and they greatly improve the surrounding community. Neighborhood grocery stores and neighborhood schools are worth caring about.
Tony,
My point was, everyone SAYS they WANT neighborhood schools but when it comes time to pay for them... ie the 2001 referendum, suddenly we don't seem to want them quite that much (over 2/3 of the voters voted "No" on that referendum). This district cannot afford to keep taking money from the general fund budget to staff classrooms with 9-12 students, repair and maintain buildings that need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth or work a few need close to $1M to bring them to an acceptable standard.
As I said, if this community would support a referendum to exceed revenue caps forever in a dollar amount sufficient to staff classrooms with 9 students and repair and maintain all 23 buildings then I wouldn't advocate for closing schools (though I do think it fiscally irresponsible, I would support it, if that is truly what this community wanted.)
Such a referendum would not pass here and without it we are left with choices that I believe will destroy the quality of education in Oshkosh and that certainly will not draw anyone here.
Tony and Teresa,
I appreciate your dialog and you both make thoughtful points. From my perspective as a veteran teacher (who has taught in buildings of all sizes and socio-ecomnomic mixes) I can say that sustaining the community that IS the neighborhood school is extremely important. The comfort and support available to students who attend schools with their neighbors and who see parent/neighbors working together cannot really be measured but its value is sure. This is especially true for students whose families are divided and/or dysfunctional as school becomes a certain safe place with adults who consistently care. I realize some tradeoffs would be needed to keep neighborhood schools open and in good repair but I think it's a top priority.
We can't just keep wringing our hands over the fact the funding for education is steadily diminishing. The underlying reasons for it need be identified and addressed. An alternative to the way in which public education in Wisconsin is funded must be seriously considered. And health insurance costs need to be addressed in a meaningful way (like Healthy Wisconsin)as that is a major factor in the "cost" of a teacher.
There are no simple answers and I really appreciate all the time and effort Teresa continues to devote to Oshkosh schools but I have to agree with Tony (and John Lemberger) that every effort must be made to keep school communities together.
It is all well and good to say you support neighborhood schools and want to keep them all open. But the question I keep asking is "at what cost" at the cost of slashing teacher salary and benefits, at the cost of cutting programs, or extra-curriculars, or at the cost of increasing class sizes?
I would love to see the school funding formula change, but that would have to come from the legislature and I have spoken to a number of people (including a few legislators) "in the know" and there is just no will to overhaul the funding formula -- mostly because the state has terrible budget deficits... until the state is sitting MUCH better financially.
When I was on the school board, I helped organize listening sessions with Fox Valley legislators, school board members and administrators. At that time(fall 2002 I think) there were a number of proposals to change the school funding formula. Personally I liked Sen. Ellis' proposal best. It would basically have redistributed all school dollars both local and state, put all the dollars in a pool and distributed the money based on a formula -- everyone starts with a basic per pupil amount, then you get a little more for ELL students, a little more for low income students, even more for severely disabled students etc. This would not have required ANY increase in ANY tax, but our very own Rep. at the time, Mr. Underheim said "well that won't work because our colleagues in Waukesha won't like it. That's when I knew the formula wouldn't be changed for a very long time. Sen. Ellis' proposal would have benefitted nearly (if not all) Fox Valley school districts, but Mr. Underheim was concerned about Waukesha.
There is nothing wrong with working to change the Funding Formula but Oshkosh can't just keep doing what we do while waiting 5 or 10 or ? YEARS till it happens. There are yearly budget cuts that must be made just because the QEO alone is more than Revenue Controls allow. Now if we are to spend millions to keep open schools that have outlived their usefullness AND spend thousands more staffing schools with 9-12 students in some classrooms, well that money has to come from somewhere else - as the report showed if we really wanted to bring our buildings to equitble 21st Century standards, it would take upwards of $75M and that does NOT include fixing Oaklawn, Smith, Lakeside, or Lincoln... add at least a couple million more.
So please tell me, where do you propose to get the money to pay to fix these buildings? Are you willing to work on a referendum that will keep open every school, with just basic fix up -- forget equity and 21st Century just fix the crumbling parts for say $20M and then another $2M to exceed caps to staff these schools, so we don't have to cut programs elsewhere?
I just keep hearing we must keep all these schools open but no one will say what they are willing to give up to do so? I repeat, we cannot keep everything we have now. The money simply isn't there and I don't see a groundswell of people rising up to work on such a referendum.
So what will it be, larger class sizes, lower salaries and higher benefit costs for staff, program cuts and accompanying staff layoffs to pay to keep every school open? Or do you have another alternative to pay the cost of keeping every school open? Time has run out, we can't spend another 10 years we have already begun the program cuts in the last 3 budget cycles (likely HS French is next on the list) I fear class size increases are next and probably limiting staff salary increases is next.
As you pointed out on another blog Tina, Oshkosh is already at the bottom in per pupil expenditures where is this money to come from? As I posted earlier in this thread there are only 7 elementary schools (not counting Charter Schools which are too hard to determine if they are stand alone or school within schools) in Winnebago County with fewer than 200 students and of those 7, 3 are in Oshksoh. So not only are spending less per pupil than most, if not all, the districts around us, our operating costs are greater because we have these small schools with inefficient staffing. Eau Claire is closing a single section per grade elementary school and their projected savings is $500,000 per year. So we could save nearly our entire budget deficit by closing the 3 schools with fewer than 200 students.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, I live 2 blocks from Jefferson and 6 blocks from Smith and I consider both to be in my neighborhood and while it would be nice if these schools were the center of the neighborhood but I drive by both frequently and other than the Jefferson playground I don't see either of these schools as a hub of activity for the neighborhood. Maybe that is something we could actually implement if we had a manageable number of schools.
I know I've not convinced anyone but you have pretty much convinced me that NO referendum has a likelihood of passing what with the "I'm not going to spend a dime on throwing money at the schools" taxpayers on one had who will vote down any and every referendum and on the other hand the people who will only support a referendum that keeps every school open. I fear there aren't enough of us in the middle who believe we need to close some schools, combine schools to allow for more efficient staffing and keep the programs that have made us a quality district and dare I say, spend more in those areas that will increase the quality of our schools.
I really fear we will be forever stuck where we are now, the only thing changing is the quality of the education we provide.
Post a Comment