|
Monday evening’s Board meeting presented a rather animated clash of wills between, it appears, those (A majority of the Board, based on the meeting discussions) who support Fitchburg’s Swan Creek residents and their desire to remain at a larger Leopold School vs. those who favor using existing District schools that have extra space for the 63 Fitchburg children (no other students would move under the plan discussed Monday evening), such as Lincoln and/or the Lincoln/Midvale pair. |
Lawrie Kobza and Ruth Robarts suggested that the District’s overcrowding priorities are:
They further suggested that any building decision should be part of a district wide 5 year plan. Johnny Winston argued that the Board should “give the people what they want [28:42] and that the District should look for alternative financing options, such as naming rights [22:00]. The Board made a commitment to the community when it acquired land from Oregon. You will be attending Leopold School.” Mary Gulbrandsen discussed bus routes and forecasting. |
|
This video clip includes the public comments. |
The MMSD has had opportunities over the years to construct a facility in Fitchburg. The District turned down an offer of free land from Promega during the mid-1990’s. Eagle School occupies that land today.
Local media roundup:
- Susan Troller: School Board Split on Referendum
- Paul Soglin notes recent discussion on further school district consolidation (Milwaukee & Suburbs) and mentions that Madison did this
within its school district by pairing Franklin-Randall and Lincoln-Midvale. There was success, it could have been greater.
There are certainly no shortage of views on the pairing results, recently expressed within the West Side Task Force.
Facilities are always a tough issue. A reader emailed that Thoreau, for example, does not have a lunch room. Students march in and out of the gym.
Well worth watching, particularly when these questions are sent to the voters via a referendum.
As a parent, taxpayer and citizen, I very much appreciate the questions Lawrie Kobza raised Monday evening (I strongly supported her candidacy last spring). The District’s fiscal challenges are not small: flat enrollment, revenue caps which limit growth in the district’s $321M budget to 2.5% annually – as long as enrollment is flat, high property taxes and two recent failed referenda. In my view, the District must exhaust all options, thoroughly, before asking for more money. I was glad to see Johnny suggest that other means be pursued to fund these facilities. Finally, Fitchburg’s public school climate is a challenge to read. Our neighbor to the south voted down the Leopold expansion referenda last spring. Linking Leopold expansion to a new far west school – built on land which was purchased last fall before the west task force began its work – (part of the Memorial attendance area) is an interesting approach to the question (and, perhaps the April School Board elections).
Another update: another reader emails that four members of the west side task force represented Leopold’s interests vis a vis currently or recently enrolled children.
The Capital Times article makes it seem like I’m ready to go to referendum now. This is not completely accurate. I am very appreciative of the time, effort and commitment of both the East and West/Memorial Task Forces. The work is not/was not easy. However, the final report needs further study and analyzing. I know that time is of the essence, however, I feel as a school board, since we gave the Task Forces the charge; we should analyze their recommendations FIRST. This is before any individual board members come up with their own plans. Otherwise, “Why did we have a Task Force?” Most people who have seen the data recognize the need for building capacity. But the board must explore all options, but most importantly the ones that were brought forth by the task forces FIRST. Otherwise, “in my humble opinion” (a quote Ray Allen used regularly) we are disrespecting the work of the Task Forces.
Board members have every right to vote “no.” It is their elected right. But let’s not fool the public or ourselves in “blaming the process” when the entire board voted for it.
Lastly, referendums are community decisions. They should not be taken lightly. And I don’t. These are challenging fiscal times. But all of these recommendations and the final decisions have social, political and educational consequences. If you don’t believe that, please look closer at the final recommendations
I was at the meeting last night and I must say, I can’t ever recall hearing about a 5 year plan until Lawrie mentioned it. Has there ever been discussion, at the Board level, of a comprehensive 5 year plan for MMSD boundaries and growth issues?
I know the task forces were asked to look into the future for 5 years- something I don’t personally consider long range planning. As fast as the MMSD is growing geographically, 5 years is a blink of an eye! But I do agree that some type of comprehensive plan would make selling referendums for school building (as well as operating budgets) easier to John Q. Public and Jane Doe Taxpayer. I just wonder why this wasn’t done earlier?
I watched part of the meeting last night on television, and I support Lawrie’s proposal (I also supported her election to the board last spring) to look at this issue in the larger context and over a longer timeframe.
To those on the task force, especially westside parents, this may seem like a “stall” and that nothing is getting done and maybe their work is not respected. I don’t think that’s the case. I went back and looked at the charge to the task forces and part of the direction from the board to the task force was to bring their recommendations to the board by January. We seem to be on time, for the work of the task forces. However, this will be little comfort to those working on Leopold space for years.
Also, I’ve been looking at the information and work of the task forces,which is considerable. In addition to the recommendations, there is much information in the task force discussions, presentations, etc., that should be helpful to the board. The work of the task forces is one piece of the picture – not the entire picture. The board’s work begins now, hopefully with a clear idea of next steps, decisions, etc. Perhaps the board leadership could have worked out timelines an next steps earlier, prior to receipt of the task force reports. This did not happen, but I hope the board takes the time for this important step.
The next board steps after receipt of the report are not clear, at least to me. I would have thought the task forces work would have been part of the first discussions following receipt of the report. To identify next steps, which I hope would be a look across the district over time and a look at the budget implications of various options and financial tradeoffs and how this might play out over 5 years or more. That seems to me to be the work of the board and its committees – long range, performance and achievement, finance and operations, human resources.
I think parents and the community deserve to know what’s next and on what timeline. Many parents have been waiting a long time and do not see progress. Next steps with a timeline are critical. A multi-year comprehensive plan (followed by a communication plan) for the district will be important if a referendum is to pass. Also, I think this discussion is needed to help move the board discussions in a postive, productive direction.
As a West/Memorial Task Force member, I also would like to see a good 5 yr. plan, not so much as a document that is out of date in a year, but as a dynamic, working set of processes and data that are organized and accessible to address specific needs at the schools and budget issues. We have that as a bunch of planning documents, a fairly well organized data system and GIS system (Research and Evaluation), and through administrators that support the long range planning committee. It makes sense to continually update and communicate the main decision points that are coming up (such as addressing overcrowding with the right timing). Far more important than a 5 yr planning document is the open discussion and analysis (not so much by the school board but) by the community.
The community really needs to know of the very great contributions of Mary Gulbrandsen, Jane Bellmore, and Rita Applebaum, and the team of others who led the task forces – administrators who have a profound respect for learning, a on-the-spot knowledge of particular school staffing and programming strategies, and the ability to facilitate the discussion leading to specific recommendations by the task forces. To a large degree, these leaders have provided the dynamic, long-range planning that has been requested. Planning is never without uncertainty, however.
Far more important than honoring the specific recommendations of the task force is the fact that we also have at least 30-40 more people very well informed about complex trends and they’ve traveled some distance through difficult processes regarding boundary changes and building needs. On the West/Memorial Task Force, one doesn’t have to look far to find very capable analysts, people like Wendy Cooper, Arlene Silviera, Al Parker, Michael Macquire, Peter Gascoyne, Prasana Raman, Michelle Reynolds, and many others. I’m sure the same is true about the East Task Force. So many parents and community members have been following this closely – and they have great things to add, too.
Real long range planning is 13 years, the time it takes for a Kindergarten student to complete high school. Long range planning should be supported by a hopeful vision that all K (and pre-K) students will have the space, support, and resources within the district to succeed. If we don’t have an optimistic vision now, we better fix that – because we’ll be hitting the skids and continual road blocks as those K students run through a district of eroding quality that was once great.
For those most interested in fiscal resposibility, I suggest that the true costs of alternative plans that do not provide adequate space make those plans fiscally irresponsible. Here are some well supported ideas that support this conclusion:
1. increased MMSD enrollment. When new schools are built in growth areas, the MMSD enrollment grows faster than it would normally. Chavez filled up faster than expected, as so will the Leopold addition and the Far West side school. The long-term revenue gains from the increased enrollment largely offset the increased operating costs. Improvements to the bottom line will be to the benefit to all kids in the district. On the other hand, alternative plans that make a lot of contentious boundary changes (which cost money to implement) will likely lead to reduced enrollment and more in-fighting within our commnity.
2. new space provided more closely to where the students live can greatly reduce transportation costs. The reduction of one bus route over 10 years is $0.5 M. Alternatives that do not provide that space will increase busing, those that add space near growth areas will reduce it.
3. our existing stock of schools has maintenance needs that are somewhat dependent on the amount of use. An overcrowded Leopold takes more to maintain than another school of the same age. Building new schools and additions improves our capital assets in the district, and that new space will be more energy-efficient and easier to maintain.
4. The larger community benefits from new buildings. Jobs and increased local sales are created – and this provides our whole community some degree of economic sustainability.
5. New space allows greater flexibility in management of the district, such as finding space for alternative programs supported by external grants. There can be greater efficiencies with transportation planning and balancing low-income disparity. More importantly, principals and teachers will be more effective because less of their time will be devoted to finding temporary fixes to space crunches – and more time on stimulating learning.
6. New space allows better long-range planning. The West/Memorial task force is often thanked for their time – but we were our biggest critics. The situation we have now leads to great inefficiency. So many wasted meetings and frustration. We need the additional space to put forth plans that are truly long-range. This may seem like a cart-before-the-horse argument, but local and regional planning often works like this. Assumptions are made that we will have adequate space provided in the future, so that we can make operations (a much bigger piece of the budget mystery) more efficient.
7. Timing. making decisions on the spot, because we have not appropriately planned in the past (like letting Leopold overcrowding) leads to greater inefficiencies because our options are much more constrained then they have to be. This inefficiency (possibly caused because we can’t agree to spend the money ahead of time) actually costs us more in the long run. The situations at Leopold and Chavez, in particular, lead us to a space crisis NEXT YEAR. A new far west building will take 2-3 years, an addition will take much less time. This is one of the main reasons we need the Leopold addition – and it is a constraint that comes from poor planning and a lack of community support for proper budgeting.
8. Hey, I forgot about the kids – the most important reason we’re working on this. Although it is difficult to get an exact estimate of the benefits of providing long-range plans with optimism, we know that providing stability, continuity, and well-supported schools leads to better learning environments. Let’s continually work towards improvement, maintenance, and efficiency so that what funding we are already providing for education plays out with the primary benefit being student learning.
So, in terms of fiscal responsibility, it is far more important to provide adequate space and have well-thought-out plans to utilize that space. I encourge fiscal responsibility in the implementation of contracts and in the management of our current space.
We’ll all win if we build an addition to Leopold (ASAP) and a new school on the far west side (to open 2007-2009). Let’s get the vote (whether it is 5-2 or 7-0) and move forward.
As I watched the videos this morning, I was amazed at the bullying going on. It did seem like a few board members are ready to go to referendum again, even though it was voted down less than 1 year ago.
My children went to Leopold K-5. We had 700 students at that time in the school before the addition. I also agree with Lawrie asking where does the district think they will be in 5 years. The data that they have basically that 30 students in the Leopold district don’t go to Leopold. I then looked at my child’s school directory and counted the number of K-5 students who went to his school. 30 at his school alone. By the time you add Eagle, Edgewood Campus, St. James, Queen of Peace, Blessed Sacrament, besides other schools including out districting and other places kids kids are at. These numbers are not at all accurate. I don’t know the exact numbers at all the schools, but the district should get an idea on how many kids are not at Leopold. This amazes me at the poor recordkeeping. Granted, homeschoolers don’t need to register, but all the others have to fill out paperwork. Granted, some are not at Leopold because of religious reasons, but alot don’t like the size of the school already. They want their children to attend a smaller school.
I look back 5 years ago, when we had to scream at the board that Leopold needed help. We had some classrooms in closets and SAGE in K-1. At that time, we were knew that the addition would not last long. I also know that the feeling at the school has been make it look like we are struggling with enrollment growing. After the additional rooms and new library were added and old library was not beautified. Granted there wasn’t money in the budget to make small classrooms out of this, but the principal spent thousands of dollars to have very nice shelves for a teacher book room. I feel that the principal has set that she wants a 2nd school on the property and will make the school look bad so it will have families feel that it is really needed.
Also, I don’t disagree that I would rather have my child in a classroom with 15 students vs 24. They receive more attention and theoretically they are getting more needs met. But in actually I feel that the low end needs get better met, and the middle to upper class needs still get ignored. So if this is the case, keep SAGE for those who are struggling, and move those who are average to above into classes that are 24 or so students. Or, in some large classrooms, have 30 students with 2 teachers and have the teachers work together vs. work independently for each other which is what happened one year at Leopold.
A school with current 9 kindergarten classrooms and with the addition probably 16 kindergarten classrooms doesn’t meet the needs of children. Kids want to have classes with their friends. With a school the possible size, doesn’t help students socially. Kids like to have classes with friends, and when they make a friend one year and then not have them in a class again, this doesn’t help the social needs of these children.
One thing the board needs to really think about, back in the 70’s the district closed a bunch of schools (3-5 I think). As population changes, so does the needs of the schools. The community isn’t going to forget, just last year, the board was talking about closing some schools, and now there is no need. It isn’t that the numbers have changed, just the use of the schools have. I can not support building onto a school which is already to large. A school this large isn’t meeting the social needs of young children. Maybe the SAGE program needs to be more creative in how to meet children’s needs rather than giving each teacher a large classroom with 15 or so students. Granted not all schools have large classrooms, but there needs to be some give and take.
Would someone please tell me where to find the school board approved multi-year plan – 5 years, 10 years, whatever – that currently exists for the district and includes considerations of student count, space, curriculum, finances, etc., for kids learning and is districtwide. Does an umbrella document exist with this information? I know there is the student forecast, I know there is are area long-term facility plans, I know there is an annual budget. Where does this come together with achievement goals, staffing, curriculum, resources, etc.?
I’ve not only read the task force material, I’ve spoken with knowledgable task force members, appreciate their work and the MMSD staff’s work and dedication. If we go to referendum, I want a referendum to pass. I just think we need to have a “story” that is written by the board using input from many sources and tells the tale of one district, not multiple areas. Perhaps, naively, I think one story will garner more support citywide.
As treasurer of hamilton’s pto, these are some of the questions/thoughts I hear from parents who we need to vote and to vote yes.
Barb, don’t you think there are some creative ways like some teachers joint teaching a larger group or having kids who are ave. to above average in a larger classroom vs. running out and building more? Living in Fitchburg, I would not be excited about sending my kids all the way over to the East neighborhood where there are alot of open classrooms. But there is open classrooms in Lincoln/Midvale and at one time Thoreau (what ever happened to this choice). I agree that once families start a school, they would like to stay at the school, on the other hand, as I said before, I have neighbors who had children 30 years ago start at Leopold, go to Midvale a few years and end back up at Leopold again. Fitchburg school taxes went up again this year, and many of them send their children to private schools, if they are not in favor as a community, other creative alternatives need to be looked at rather than if you don’t say yes, your kid will have an hour bus ride.
I’m all for long range planning….if only we had a way to get better projections! I was on the East task force and, having also been one of the citizen members on the long range planning committee last year, I happened to have last year’s 5-year enrollment projections in hand when Kurt Kiefer handed out this year’s projections to us in October. There was a swing of over 700 students in the LaFollette area’s attendance projections. Last year, there didn’t look to be any issues in the LaFollette area, thus they were excluded from the task forces. This year, it looks like LaFollette will be several hundred students overcapacity in 5 years. Those numbers, among other things, led the East task force to conclude that closing a school in the East attendance area just wouldn’t be a prudent thing to do at this point in time.
(Regarding the projections, the overenrollment numbers on the west side also reversed…last year, the West area looked to be most overcrowded in 5 years…this year, it’s Memorial.)
I remember Art saying about 5 years ago that we were going to need to build a school on the far east side within 5 years….things obviously changed. I commend Lawrie and Ruth for wanting the Board to come up with a long range plan….it just seems like a difficult task when the projections don’t seem to hold from year to year.
edukation4u
I feel the ideas you’ve mentioned and mary battaglia has raised as well as others could benefit from further deliberate, creative discussions, but I’m not sure of the mechanism for this now. I am puzzled. As part of their public discussions on facilities, capacity and borders last Monday, I had hoped the board would discuss what steps are next following receipt of the task force reports, what does the board need to discuss, which of these discussions should be further worked on in committees – human resources, performance and achievement (where curriculum could be discussed further, for example). What are the risks, costs, benefits of different options?
The community area task force reports represent a considerable amount of information, including the information that is a key part of future board discussions/decisions. Has the board absorbed this information as well as additional information and has a clear idea for the entire district?
I’m concerned that a referendum will not pass if the board does not take these next steps. Because a referendum proposal is out there and now referendum language will soon be on the table, it may prove hard for board members to have the needed board discussions outside the context of are you for/against the referendums. I hope that is not the case. A more reasonable timeline might be to time board work and decisions that would put something on the ballot in the fall.
Also, Jill mentioned the changing numbers on the eastside. Forecasts are always subject to changes, and this needs to be factored into decisions that are made. I don’t remember seeing task force recommendations based upon different sets of assumptions – so, if there are x number of children more or less in a neighborhood, how would this change the recommendations. Can someone point me to these? What are the proposals/ideas if the numbers are more or less?
My property taxes are rising as well as the property taxes of others in Madison, so next steps need to be carefully considered. I have always supported school referenda, but it is not only my vote that is needed to pass a referendum.
fyi – I am Treasurer this spring for Lucy Mathiak’s campaign, my daughter goes to school at Hamilton (at West next year), I’m the Hamilton PTO Treasurer and my spouse teaches instrumental music at MMSD. School decisions affect my personal and family life in many ways.
As an interested, non-district-resident observer (admission: I serve on a nearby suburban school board), I think most school board members would like to plan on five- or multi-year budget cycles. The difficulty in doing so rests mainly on three factors — the state budget cycle, the teacher (and other employee group) contract cycle, and the incoming kindergarten enrollment cycle.
All of these run, more or less, on two-year cycles. The state budgets money for education every two years, and all school districts in the state find themselves having to react/make adjustments to their budgets based on those deliberations (this isn’t an argument for more or less state funding — districts have to react regardless of whether state funding is up, down or flat). Employee group contracts account for roughly 80 percent of a district’s budget, and most of those run on two-year cycles, and are adjusted every two years. There may be an argument out there for running, say, teacher contracts on five-year cycles, but I don’t see much effort from any parties involved in educating funding to embrace that. And kindergarten — most districts have a good handle on how many “new” children they will enroll for next fall, and a decent handle on how many they will enroll for the fall after that. Beyond those two years, it’s really a crapshoot, and anyone who suggests they can accurately predict enrollment trends beyond two years should be viewed with skepticism. And as Jill J. suggests (further admission — we’re friends), enrollment really drives building usage, and it absolutely drives the budget train.
To me the three factors you mention are certain uncertainties, and I am not being facetious. The three you mention are key factors for WI school boards.
In Madison, a two-year budget cycle would be a positive first step.
However, any assumptions in a multi-year effort/forecast/plan are based upon uncertainties. It isn’t easy, but I don’t see how Madison cannot do this given our fiscal challenges. The risks on kids of wait to find out is even greater if the margins are so slim and the swings potentially so large. Or, given those three factors as great uncertainties, it would seem to be unwise for a district to add capacity with available capacity, perhaps, unless they are more certain or do so in a way that provides the greatest flexibility for the district should changes arise.
Think of utilities – they have no idea of the weather, they have no idea of how customer demand will change. Large customers can and do move – whenever they want to and on no schedule, which can wreak havoc on their load and cost of doing business. Until the 70s utilities built to about a 7% growth rate about for electricity – some say no more planning was done than to lay down a ruler. This is not done anymore. Active commissions, focus on demand, nuclear moratoriums, threw everything up in the air in the 1970s including how they forecasted. Demand issues became as important as supply issues, etc. More attention was paid to longer-term forecasting and more flexible plant strategies. (I’m not happy about all the natural gas plants and the strain this puts on the residential market, but that’s a discussion for another day, another blog.) We still don’t know the future, but decisions are made based upon a process that considers more non-renewable and renewable supply options.
Forecasting is not about accuracy. It never has been and never will be. But, if you’re open and honest about the discussions about the assumptions you are using, and the risks and uncertainties in those assumptions and how they come together, the discussions you have will be more helpful in a decisionmaking process.
A school board is political and board members are often on the hot seat, as you well know, so this is inherently difficult to do; but in Madison, I don’t see how we can avoid having these discussions if we want to be successful in future referendums. Madison’s school board has the information from the hard work of the area task forces to draw on as well as other information, and I simply hope our board takes the time to do this and to have these important conversations with the public.
In response to a post from long ago “Handcuffed, Isolated, and Gagged” Johnny Winston, Jr. wrote:
“When I see the final recommendations, I want to have a “clean slate” and would like to make a decision based on the information I’m given.
Just know, when the recommendations are given, that’s when the public input (and scrutiny) will begin.”
Will the Board invite public input and scrutiny? Will the Board itself take up the challenge of putting the recommendations into a five-year plan? Will the Board now look at program changes, which Johnny said the Long Range Planning Committee could not do, changes such as charter schools or restructuring programs in the context of the task force reports?
From all appearances, the Board only plans to rush toward another referendum rejection.
Yes, school boards are political — perhaps a reason why they find it a challenge to engage in the long-term planning one might otherwise see. As of April 5, MMSD school board will have how many members on the board for 10 years? Five years? Less than two? That’s not to disparage any of my Madison board colleagues, or those who may join the board after the April election, or to suggest that turnover is or is not a healthy thing for political bodies. But it is to suggest that board members are subject to public election, and defeat. With such elections come changing priorities, and changing plans. Think the priorities of the MMSD school board circa 2002 might be different than those of the board as of April 5? I do.
Wow! What a great discussion.
After sitting on the task force, I must say the number one problem is we all hate change. We want others to sacrifice but not our kids, neighborhood, etc. That is why the task force was unable to have a clean decision and we were not subject to “re-election” just societial pressure and personal needs. Many were able to see the whole picture but many were not.
**** I see a bigger issue. Many cities integrate city “planning and governing” with school planning and governing. It was clear task force members that lived in the areas where growth was going on knew more than the district employees that are suppose to get that info from the city. I see a real need for change in how Madison does business. Like before a builder can start building 250 homes in Fitchburg there must be some discussion with the School district, maybe fees paid……but right now the system does not work. It would benefit the city in recruiting business,growth and development to have a better planned school system. I think we need to talk to Mayor Dave, and develop a new city/school committee.
Mary Kay:
Unfortunately state law does not allow schools to require fees from developers; however, developers must pay for infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.) and donate land for parks. This is an issue that the Legislative Committee could take up – but so far hasn’t.
There is a City Council/Board of Education Liaison Committee (2 alders, 2 Board members, one representative each of the mayor and superintedent). I think this Committee may have had a discussion about the growth issue. Lawrie Kobza and Ruth Robarts are the Board members on the committee.
Carol
Here’s the website with information on the Board of Education – Common Council Liaison Committee:
http://www.cityofmadison.com/mayor/102500.HTML
With the exception of Mary Gilbrandsen, whose appointment date runs through the year 2999 (I’m sure that will make her day – 900+ more years of school board work), appointments are up on 4/18/06.
I couldn’t find the minutes, but there are contacts listed on the website who should be able to provide these if needed.
Carol,
As board president will you ask the Legislative Committee to take up the possiblity of seeking legislation to require fees for schools from developers?
The idea makes good sense to me. I’ll also e-mail Ruth Robarts, who chairs that committee, to ask her to take it up.
For an overview of state law re. impact fees, see Wisc. Stat. 66.0617, and especially 66.0617(1)(f) for specific language regarding school district prohibition on assessing impact fees.
Those looking for general insight into the intersection of public policy and impact fees might want to start here:
http://www.wra.org/Government/Legislative/taxation.htm
and then move on to here:
http://www.wisdc.org/WEB_PAC_Amt2005.php
and note the 4th and 5th largest contributers.
While I do think donating land or paying a fee for a neighborhood built beyond a certain size could help, I was more surprised by the LACK OF INFORMATION.
The members of the task force frequently told Mary and Tim about new developments (with pipes, and roads) that were going up that they were obviously unaware of their existance. Their response was they could not include them in planning unless they were informed about them, which is true, (and some weird rule that they wait a year to add to the planning) however, how can the board or the task force do any REAL LONG TERM planning without this vital INFORMATION.
The city and the school need better communication. When permits are approved by the county/city there needs to be immediate information provided to the schools so they can plan. Even better would be consulting with the schools about new developments. The current system is suppose to do that but it clearly is not working which was obvious during this process.
I want to clarify my previous statement. Mary, Tim and Jane (from the W/M task force) did have a city planner from Madison come one night and one from Fitchburg come another night. They were attempting to reach that information. However, during the duration of this process more times than not new neighborhoods were discovered, therefore I question the systems validity and even the city planners knowledge of the contracts being given to builders.