I had a board of directors meeting this past Thursday and Friday for my day job. During the meeting we had some very candid discussions about how bad the past year or 2 have been. We discussed how the economy has impacted our stations and how we wish things were different. We talked about changes that were made and how we wish we would not have had to make some of those decisions. It made for a very negative meeting on Thursday.
After we got that out of our system we spent the better part of Friday discussing our successes. We talked about the good things we have done for clients, for the public and for our listeners. We made a conscious decision to stop dwelling on the past and the things that we cannot change and instead focus on the company’s future and what we can impact. The management team in this market is going to stress the wins and successes no matter how big or small. Right now every win is a step in the right direction.
On the way home this got me to thinking about the MG School District. Why can't we celebrate the successes and focus on the future? Where do we want to go and how do we get there? Why can't we celebrate our "wins" whether they are academic or extra-curricular? Why can't we toot our own horn on the good things our students do? I think we do some of this, but not nearly enough.
As a board member I have heard over and over about how things used to be or how they were done in the past. Well I was not a part of those boards and frankly I don't care how they did things. I am a part of this board and I only care how we are going to do things going forward. I am tired of continually looking backwards, when we should focus on the tasks ahead. How do we become more proactive instead of reactive?
I don't really have any answers at this point. However, I can tell you that my perspective has changed. I intend to try helping push us into the future. I will try to be more proactive with regards to the items that face us. Let's get them on the table and discuss them. Let's have those discussions and let's make the hard decisions. We won't know if we made the right or wrong decision immediately, but not making any decision is far worse in my opinion.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Wed. May 28th Board Meeting
Tonight we had our board reorganization meeting, closed session and our regular meeting. We were still done by 8:30 due to the light agenda of our regular meeting.
The board reorganization meeting went as I expected with only one change.
President - Susan Fox received 4 votes and Peter Sobol received 3 votes.
Vice-President - Jessica Ace received 6 votes (not sure why not seven as she was the only nominee after Susan Manning declined the nomination).
Treasurer - Susan Manning received 4 votes and I received 3 votes. (Peter declined nomination)
Clerk - Lionel Norton received 4 votes and Peter received 3 votes (Jill List declined nomintation)
Fox, Manning and Norton remain in their current position, while Ace replaces Sobol.
The board then voted to reinstate the standing committees. Those committees will be the Business Service, Policy and Curriculum committees. There was some discussion on possibly adding some additional ad-hoc type committees, but that will be discussed at a future board meeting to get into specifics. With the committees returning it was decided that the board would return to one meeting a month on the 2nd Wed of the month. Those dates will be subject to holiday and school schedules. The meeting will also continue to alternate between Glacial Drumlin and the District Office.
In the abreviated regular meeting the 2 topices for discussion and approval were the walk zone as it related to the budget and board policy 185. The walk zone was removed as a potential budget cut on a 7-0 vote. The board policy was revised on a 6-1 vote.
I was the lone dissenting vote because I believe the policy puts too much control of the committee appointments in the hands of the board president. Neither the former version nor the new version require board approval of the appointments. I think that should be a requirement. While I think it would be a formality I still think it should be part of the policy. Otherwise I think it is a sound policy.
The board reorganization meeting went as I expected with only one change.
President - Susan Fox received 4 votes and Peter Sobol received 3 votes.
Vice-President - Jessica Ace received 6 votes (not sure why not seven as she was the only nominee after Susan Manning declined the nomination).
Treasurer - Susan Manning received 4 votes and I received 3 votes. (Peter declined nomination)
Clerk - Lionel Norton received 4 votes and Peter received 3 votes (Jill List declined nomintation)
Fox, Manning and Norton remain in their current position, while Ace replaces Sobol.
The board then voted to reinstate the standing committees. Those committees will be the Business Service, Policy and Curriculum committees. There was some discussion on possibly adding some additional ad-hoc type committees, but that will be discussed at a future board meeting to get into specifics. With the committees returning it was decided that the board would return to one meeting a month on the 2nd Wed of the month. Those dates will be subject to holiday and school schedules. The meeting will also continue to alternate between Glacial Drumlin and the District Office.
In the abreviated regular meeting the 2 topices for discussion and approval were the walk zone as it related to the budget and board policy 185. The walk zone was removed as a potential budget cut on a 7-0 vote. The board policy was revised on a 6-1 vote.
I was the lone dissenting vote because I believe the policy puts too much control of the committee appointments in the hands of the board president. Neither the former version nor the new version require board approval of the appointments. I think that should be a requirement. While I think it would be a formality I still think it should be part of the policy. Otherwise I think it is a sound policy.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Potential Staff Reductions
Jeremy Duss, Jonathon Farris, Carol Graves, Jeanette Heitman, Garret Jones, Jeff Kasparek, Cindy Rudie, Ryan Thompson, Hong Tran, Ginger Veith, Deidre Bradford, Jill Jensen, Kate Mennenga, Steve Rhoads, Lea Spaay-Kessich, Kris Tudor
Above are the names of staff that were give PRELIMINARY layoff notices. Again, these are PRELIMINARY! Some of these notices were reductions in hours and some are full layoff notices. These notices were approved to be given as part of our last meeting.
Many have asked me if these individuals would have received their notices if we had consolidated Maywood and Winnequah. The answer is maybe. Some of these individuals probably would have been giving notices based on our budget situation and the limited cuts the board did make. The increased time teaching time and reductions in OT/PT contributed to this list. Would these have been saved by consolidation? I will not venture to guess since I cannot predict how the board would vote on an issue.
Additionally, the board has received many concerns over the staffing of strings next year. While it is true our 2 most experienced strings teachers are on this list, that does not necessarily mean we won't have a good program in the future. When administration determines final staffing needs they take into account, among other things, the educational requirements the staff must have and staff seniority. Those two issues single-handedly drive many, if not most, staffing decisions. Therefore, one or both of them may be retained after administration determines final staffing needs.
It is my belief that each year the district should issue some layoff notices, so that it has some flexibility in staffing for the upcoming year. Because the notices have to be given by mid-April and not all staffing levels are firm this is a necessary evil. My concern for flexibility comes out of concern over giving our Administration the ability to maneuver staff as it sees fit. While they have a very good idea of where/how the staff will be made up giving them this flexibility allows them more time to finalize their plans. We have a great set of teachers and we need to keep them to the best of our ability. However, we operate under a pre-determined set of rules and we need to follow those rules. Unfortunately the preliminary layoff notices are one of the unpleasant aspects of those rules.
I know how this negatively impacts our teachers and do not take this emotional toll on them and their family lightly. I had a teacher ask me the other day if the cuts not made this year would be made next year? His concern was that if they are he would be out of a job and wanted to know if he should start looking for a new job this year. I told him that it was too early to tell exactly what cuts would be needed, but potentially yes they would be made. This fear of will I be cut or won't I has a real impact on these individuals lives and I hope as a board that we consider this when we begin looking at cuts next year.
Above are the names of staff that were give PRELIMINARY layoff notices. Again, these are PRELIMINARY! Some of these notices were reductions in hours and some are full layoff notices. These notices were approved to be given as part of our last meeting.
Many have asked me if these individuals would have received their notices if we had consolidated Maywood and Winnequah. The answer is maybe. Some of these individuals probably would have been giving notices based on our budget situation and the limited cuts the board did make. The increased time teaching time and reductions in OT/PT contributed to this list. Would these have been saved by consolidation? I will not venture to guess since I cannot predict how the board would vote on an issue.
Additionally, the board has received many concerns over the staffing of strings next year. While it is true our 2 most experienced strings teachers are on this list, that does not necessarily mean we won't have a good program in the future. When administration determines final staffing needs they take into account, among other things, the educational requirements the staff must have and staff seniority. Those two issues single-handedly drive many, if not most, staffing decisions. Therefore, one or both of them may be retained after administration determines final staffing needs.
It is my belief that each year the district should issue some layoff notices, so that it has some flexibility in staffing for the upcoming year. Because the notices have to be given by mid-April and not all staffing levels are firm this is a necessary evil. My concern for flexibility comes out of concern over giving our Administration the ability to maneuver staff as it sees fit. While they have a very good idea of where/how the staff will be made up giving them this flexibility allows them more time to finalize their plans. We have a great set of teachers and we need to keep them to the best of our ability. However, we operate under a pre-determined set of rules and we need to follow those rules. Unfortunately the preliminary layoff notices are one of the unpleasant aspects of those rules.
I know how this negatively impacts our teachers and do not take this emotional toll on them and their family lightly. I had a teacher ask me the other day if the cuts not made this year would be made next year? His concern was that if they are he would be out of a job and wanted to know if he should start looking for a new job this year. I told him that it was too early to tell exactly what cuts would be needed, but potentially yes they would be made. This fear of will I be cut or won't I has a real impact on these individuals lives and I hope as a board that we consider this when we begin looking at cuts next year.
Paralysis by Analysis
Someone asked me to post this a talking point so here is my response to a comment left in another thread.
"so gathering information is a bad thing??? Shouldn’t tough decisions be made with the most information and research possible?"
Having information and being able to make a decision with that information are 2 completely different topics. The administration has done yeoman’s work on research and information gathering, specifically around the budget and the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation. In my opinion stating that you need more information is a cope out for not wanting to make the tough decisions. It is very easy to say I need more information and without it I feel I cannot vote on a specific measure.
Did the administration provide us with all of the information they had? I would venture to say no, but only because we did not hear the conversations that they had as they compiled the information into the packets that we received. I am sure that some pieces of information or rationale where stated verbally and so we missed out on those. Instead we got the most relevant and important pieces of information that the administration discussed. The opportunity for us as a board to gather any pieces we felt was missing was thru the question and answer sessions that we had with the administrators. They too attended all of the budget meetings and stood up and answered our questions.
If after all of that anyone felt they still did not have enough information then they were looking for a reason not to have to vote in my opinion. Does any board member like that we have to vote on these tough issues? NO! However, this is what we are elected to do. The biggest single source of frustration for me with this board is the inability or unwillingness to act on the hard decisions. Two particular items that emphasize this point are the lack of budget cuts since we are about $190k short of our stated deficit of $1M and the fact that we voted not to keep Maywood open or closed, but that we delayed having to make the decision.
Sometimes too much information gives you paralysis by analysis.
"so gathering information is a bad thing??? Shouldn’t tough decisions be made with the most information and research possible?"
Having information and being able to make a decision with that information are 2 completely different topics. The administration has done yeoman’s work on research and information gathering, specifically around the budget and the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation. In my opinion stating that you need more information is a cope out for not wanting to make the tough decisions. It is very easy to say I need more information and without it I feel I cannot vote on a specific measure.
Did the administration provide us with all of the information they had? I would venture to say no, but only because we did not hear the conversations that they had as they compiled the information into the packets that we received. I am sure that some pieces of information or rationale where stated verbally and so we missed out on those. Instead we got the most relevant and important pieces of information that the administration discussed. The opportunity for us as a board to gather any pieces we felt was missing was thru the question and answer sessions that we had with the administrators. They too attended all of the budget meetings and stood up and answered our questions.
If after all of that anyone felt they still did not have enough information then they were looking for a reason not to have to vote in my opinion. Does any board member like that we have to vote on these tough issues? NO! However, this is what we are elected to do. The biggest single source of frustration for me with this board is the inability or unwillingness to act on the hard decisions. Two particular items that emphasize this point are the lack of budget cuts since we are about $190k short of our stated deficit of $1M and the fact that we voted not to keep Maywood open or closed, but that we delayed having to make the decision.
Sometimes too much information gives you paralysis by analysis.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Special Budget Meeting
Just finished our special budget meeting. We had lots of discussion on the 4 topics that were delayed until today. The 4 items were a 5% reduction to Building Budgets/ Department Budgets, Eliminate 4 IMC Paraprofessionals at CG, TP, GD and HS, Extend walk area to 2 miles and Reduce Elementary Related Arts instructional minutes.
The 2 mile walk zone impacts more students than first discussed. Due to this the board agreed not to institute the walk zone as proposed. The cut to reduce the elementary arts was also removed from the list of potential cuts on a 7-0 vote.
The board also voted 6-1 to remove the building budgets from the list of potential cuts. The department budgets will still be discussed in the coming months for potential savings.
The IMC paraprofessionals discussion was original going to ask for more information regarding how the staff would be utilized if we cut 1, 2, or 3 of the 4 positions in the original proposal. After more discussion I moved to eliminate only 2 of the IMC Paraprofessionals and this motion passed on a 6-1 vote. This will result in an additional $66K in savings and when added to the previous total of $745k we have cut about $811K. This is $189k short of our stated $1M deficit.
Some board members felt that this $811K amount is okay, because we still have a chance to save in departmental budgets or possibly in administrative costs or in increased open enrollment dollars. I will argue that not making the full $1M in cuts this year makes the task bigger next year, continues to use fund balance and violates board policy of keeping our fund balance above our stated goal of more than 15%, which negatively impacts our short term borrowing. I don't like any of the cuts we have made, but these are the tough decisions we have been elected to make and coming up short is a disservice to our district in my opinion. I am hopeful that we can close the gap thru the other options that we will discuss in the coming months.
On another note and this is just my opinion.......
A lot of tonights discussions centered on getting more specifics of what potential cuts would look like. While I understand the need for information, at some point the need for information becomes dangerously close to micro-management. I particularly thought we as a board (and I include myself in this statement) were doing this with regards to the building budgets and the IMC Paraprofessionals. If we want the building budgets cut by 5%, I don't think it really matters what those cuts are. We have to trust the administration to make the right decisions for their buildings. If we cut 2 paraprofessional we have to trust that Administration will utilize the remaining staff in the best manner possible. I don't feel I have the expertise to tell them where to make those cuts or which buildings to place staff in. They are the educational professionals and we have to respect their ability to make sound judgements. I will try to stay more cognizant of this in the future.
Lastly, next week is our regularly scheduled meeting and we will be discussing the topic of race relations. I know that with the press coverage we have received in the past 2 weeks this is a hot topic. I hope that we can have a thoughtful, informative and productive conversation. I don't think any single person has all the answers, but hopefully we can raise awareness, open the lines of communication and begin working on solutions. Our schools need to be a safe haven for the students and if 1 student feels it is not a safe place then we need to work to make it a safer place.
The 2 mile walk zone impacts more students than first discussed. Due to this the board agreed not to institute the walk zone as proposed. The cut to reduce the elementary arts was also removed from the list of potential cuts on a 7-0 vote.
The board also voted 6-1 to remove the building budgets from the list of potential cuts. The department budgets will still be discussed in the coming months for potential savings.
The IMC paraprofessionals discussion was original going to ask for more information regarding how the staff would be utilized if we cut 1, 2, or 3 of the 4 positions in the original proposal. After more discussion I moved to eliminate only 2 of the IMC Paraprofessionals and this motion passed on a 6-1 vote. This will result in an additional $66K in savings and when added to the previous total of $745k we have cut about $811K. This is $189k short of our stated $1M deficit.
Some board members felt that this $811K amount is okay, because we still have a chance to save in departmental budgets or possibly in administrative costs or in increased open enrollment dollars. I will argue that not making the full $1M in cuts this year makes the task bigger next year, continues to use fund balance and violates board policy of keeping our fund balance above our stated goal of more than 15%, which negatively impacts our short term borrowing. I don't like any of the cuts we have made, but these are the tough decisions we have been elected to make and coming up short is a disservice to our district in my opinion. I am hopeful that we can close the gap thru the other options that we will discuss in the coming months.
On another note and this is just my opinion.......
A lot of tonights discussions centered on getting more specifics of what potential cuts would look like. While I understand the need for information, at some point the need for information becomes dangerously close to micro-management. I particularly thought we as a board (and I include myself in this statement) were doing this with regards to the building budgets and the IMC Paraprofessionals. If we want the building budgets cut by 5%, I don't think it really matters what those cuts are. We have to trust the administration to make the right decisions for their buildings. If we cut 2 paraprofessional we have to trust that Administration will utilize the remaining staff in the best manner possible. I don't feel I have the expertise to tell them where to make those cuts or which buildings to place staff in. They are the educational professionals and we have to respect their ability to make sound judgements. I will try to stay more cognizant of this in the future.
Lastly, next week is our regularly scheduled meeting and we will be discussing the topic of race relations. I know that with the press coverage we have received in the past 2 weeks this is a hot topic. I hope that we can have a thoughtful, informative and productive conversation. I don't think any single person has all the answers, but hopefully we can raise awareness, open the lines of communication and begin working on solutions. Our schools need to be a safe haven for the students and if 1 student feels it is not a safe place then we need to work to make it a safer place.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Conversation from Peter's Blog
When you consider the real role of the board, financial and management experience is IMHO significantly more important that knowledge of education. After all the district has lots of education experts.
I disagree, we need board members who know education-because they don't respect or follow the advice of the MG experts in education (Maywood). The administration and staff clearly communicated what they felt was best for the district- and they were ignored. Not education experts, I guess.
This quote was taken from Peter's blog and I thought it needed a proper response of it's own.
I am not sure if this poster thinks my support not to delay the vote was a good thing or bad thing. I due trust the administration to make the best decisions educationally that is why we keep them employed. As long as my questions about the rationale/reasoning the administration uses gets answered I am satisfied.
Each board member brings certain strengths to the board and if we were all from education or finance or science or construction or any other field then that would be bad also. The biggest strength a board member can bring is the ability decipher the information they have and then make the tough decisions. Not being willing to make those tough decisions is were a board can fall apart.
I will always vote from the perspective of the impacts on education 1st and fiscally 2nd. If you disagree with my decisions then vote me off when I am up for election. Political factors don't really matter to me because I didn't do this for politcal aspirations. I think I am in the minority of most elected officials when it comes to the weight politics carries in decision making.
If my decisions/votes fly in the face of political agendas then so be it. In my opinion school board decisions should remain out of the normal political dealings done at the local, state and federal level. I know firsthand that some of my fellow board members have had conversations with either one of or both the Village President of CG and the Mayor of Monona regarding the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation and a potential referendum. I have no knowledge of the details of those conversations, since I was not invited to participate in them (which I prefer).
I think Mr. Mikalsen and Mr. Kahl have done and will continue to do good things for their communities, however I feel that Mr. Mikalsen and Mr. Kahl have overstepped their bounds by getting involved this in-depth with school board issues. I fully acknowledge that decisions the school district makes does impact their communities, but have they ever onced asked the school board how the decisions they make for their community impacts the school district or what the school board recommends? Have they asked the school board or Superintendant to weigh in on their local decisions? I don't think it is the school district's right to weigh in on these topics just like I don't think they should be pushing an agenda in school district matters.
Do I wish that the 3 entities would work together? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think it will happen? Probably not based on past interactions between the 3 entities, but never say never.
Okay, I have rambled enough, but let me leave you with this:
As Jessica and I have discussed:
We can agree to disagree on a vote, but after that vote we will support the decision and move on to the next issue.
With that being said, I do disagree with the Maywood/Winnequah vote, but I fully support the boards vote and now we (THAT MEANS EVERYBODY not just the board) need to move on and work on the remaining budget items and working on the next set of issues facing the district.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Questions Posed to Me
I was posed 2 questions last night and I don't have an answer to either.
How can we ask the teachers, administrators or any other district employee to take a pay freeze or furlough days when we have decided we have the funds to operate a school at 30% of capacity? (asked by a CG resident)
How can we ask Cottage Grove to justify a refendum to keep 2 elementary schools with enrollments under 200 open and yet have 2 elementary schools with enrollments around 400? (asked by a Monona resident)
My response was that I don't know how we work thru these issues, but that we will work thru them.
How can we ask the teachers, administrators or any other district employee to take a pay freeze or furlough days when we have decided we have the funds to operate a school at 30% of capacity? (asked by a CG resident)
How can we ask Cottage Grove to justify a refendum to keep 2 elementary schools with enrollments under 200 open and yet have 2 elementary schools with enrollments around 400? (asked by a Monona resident)
My response was that I don't know how we work thru these issues, but that we will work thru them.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thank You All for the Public Input
I know that Peter's blog has a list of the budget cuts and that Jessica's blog has a couple of discussions on the upcoming vote, so I won't post about those. Instead as I sit here tonight thinking about all the information and the various conversations that I have had over the last few months I keep thinking about how our decisions tomorrow will impact the kids. How do I as a non-educational based professional determine the impact my votes will have on the kids?
Lastly, I want to thank everyone that has written e-mails, spoken at the listening sessions or spoken with me via phone or face to face regarding our budget decisions that we face tomorrow. It has been invaluable getting this feedback. As I sit here tonight re-reading many of the e-mails and recalling those conversations and listening sessions it sure helps give me perspective on what people are thinking.
Again, thank you all for your input on these difficult decisions.
Lastly, I want to thank everyone that has written e-mails, spoken at the listening sessions or spoken with me via phone or face to face regarding our budget decisions that we face tomorrow. It has been invaluable getting this feedback. As I sit here tonight re-reading many of the e-mails and recalling those conversations and listening sessions it sure helps give me perspective on what people are thinking.
Again, thank you all for your input on these difficult decisions.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Open Records Request
I was notified this afternoon that an open records request was made for an e-mail that I sent on 3/1 regarding the addition of an agenda item. The entire original e-mail is below. I stand by my assertion that the pending vote on the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation option has been held to a different process than the other recommendations from the 4k-8 Ad Hoc committee.
As you can see I originally sent the e-mail to Board President, Susan Fox, and Superitendant, Craig Gerlach, as they set the agenda for our meetings. Craig then forwarded the e-mail to the entire board. Additionally, I have an e-mail from a district resident dated 3/9 who informed me they had read my e-mail. The funny thing is that prior to today no one had made an open records request for my e-mail. I am unsure who forwarded my e-mail or the intended purpose behind forwarding it.
toSusan Fox,
CRAIG GERLACH
dateMon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:19 PM
subjectConsolidation vote
mailed-bymgschools.net
hide details Mar 1
I will formally ask to put the discussion and possible vote of the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation on the agenda for March 10th.
I am not sure if a vote will happen, but not having the ability of putting this to a vote on the 10th is just another example of different processes for different agenda items. We have held all the listening sessions, we have all of the details and we have the Administrations recommendation. The fact that this potential consolidation is nearly cost neutral this year may mean that it should not even be part of the budget discussion when we make the cuts for this year. Any savings should be looked at, for this year, to help bring up the fund balance. The real savings starts with the budget year after consolidation, whether that happens this year, next year or in 10 years.
I understand that some will think we are fast tracking this, but I don't know how they can make that arguement when we have been discussing this at the Ad Hoc Committee since last year and at the board level for the past 2 months. Do we need to notify the residents of the district? I would say it is in our best interest to send a 1/2 page note home with elementary kids, post it on the district website, notify the City, Town and Village and contact the H-I to let everyone know that this may happen. I am sure the local community access station that broadcasts our meetings would even put a message out. Will some claim they did not know...absolutely. However, we were elected to make these hard choices and the fact that this one has not come before us in the normal process means that we are playing by 2 very different sets of rules depending on the issue. That is not acceptable.
All I ask is that this issue be posted for discussion and possible vote. Regardless of the political magnitude we must follow the process and right now we have 2 different processes being used.
Thank you for considering this.
Jason
As you can see I originally sent the e-mail to Board President, Susan Fox, and Superitendant, Craig Gerlach, as they set the agenda for our meetings. Craig then forwarded the e-mail to the entire board. Additionally, I have an e-mail from a district resident dated 3/9 who informed me they had read my e-mail. The funny thing is that prior to today no one had made an open records request for my e-mail. I am unsure who forwarded my e-mail or the intended purpose behind forwarding it.
toSusan Fox
CRAIG GERLACH
dateMon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:19 PM
subjectConsolidation vote
mailed-bymgschools.net
hide details Mar 1
I will formally ask to put the discussion and possible vote of the Maywood/Winnequah consolidation on the agenda for March 10th.
I am not sure if a vote will happen, but not having the ability of putting this to a vote on the 10th is just another example of different processes for different agenda items. We have held all the listening sessions, we have all of the details and we have the Administrations recommendation. The fact that this potential consolidation is nearly cost neutral this year may mean that it should not even be part of the budget discussion when we make the cuts for this year. Any savings should be looked at, for this year, to help bring up the fund balance. The real savings starts with the budget year after consolidation, whether that happens this year, next year or in 10 years.
I understand that some will think we are fast tracking this, but I don't know how they can make that arguement when we have been discussing this at the Ad Hoc Committee since last year and at the board level for the past 2 months. Do we need to notify the residents of the district? I would say it is in our best interest to send a 1/2 page note home with elementary kids, post it on the district website, notify the City, Town and Village and contact the H-I to let everyone know that this may happen. I am sure the local community access station that broadcasts our meetings would even put a message out. Will some claim they did not know...absolutely. However, we were elected to make these hard choices and the fact that this one has not come before us in the normal process means that we are playing by 2 very different sets of rules depending on the issue. That is not acceptable.
All I ask is that this issue be posted for discussion and possible vote. Regardless of the political magnitude we must follow the process and right now we have 2 different processes being used.
Thank you for considering this.
Jason
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Open Enrollment
At the 3/10 Board meeting we received our 1st look at the total requests for Open Enrollment. In total we have 212 requests to transfer In and 41 to transfer Out. The breakdown by school is:
High School - In = 77 and Out = 16
Glacial Drumlin - In = 47 and Out = 8
Cottage Grove - In = 10 and Out = 2
Winnequah - In = 16 and Out = 4
Taylor Prairie - In = 10 and Out = 2
Maywood - In = 17 and Out = 4
Non-Specific (PK-6)- In = 35 and Out = 5
One of the things that I struggle with regarding open enrollment is my philosophical/ethical belief on this issue. I am of the mindset that we educate the students of our district 1st. I also believe that if you accept a student, know matter at which grade they start in our district, that you have now committed to educating them until they graduate.
Furthermore, when reviewing potential students to accept, siblings get a higher priority if space allows and that you have to look at what impact educating those students will have on our buildings at each grade level. If you accept an elementary student how will that impact enrollment at middle school and high school in future years?
Some will say that you accept each and every applicant every year. I completely disagree with this, because I believe that you don't accept an open enrollment student for purely financial reasons. Open enrollment is not a way to balance a budget.
High School - In = 77 and Out = 16
Glacial Drumlin - In = 47 and Out = 8
Cottage Grove - In = 10 and Out = 2
Winnequah - In = 16 and Out = 4
Taylor Prairie - In = 10 and Out = 2
Maywood - In = 17 and Out = 4
Non-Specific (PK-6)- In = 35 and Out = 5
One of the things that I struggle with regarding open enrollment is my philosophical/ethical belief on this issue. I am of the mindset that we educate the students of our district 1st. I also believe that if you accept a student, know matter at which grade they start in our district, that you have now committed to educating them until they graduate.
Furthermore, when reviewing potential students to accept, siblings get a higher priority if space allows and that you have to look at what impact educating those students will have on our buildings at each grade level. If you accept an elementary student how will that impact enrollment at middle school and high school in future years?
Some will say that you accept each and every applicant every year. I completely disagree with this, because I believe that you don't accept an open enrollment student for purely financial reasons. Open enrollment is not a way to balance a budget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
