Last night I caught a bit of the July school board meeting on cable TV*. The board was discussing Elmbrook's coming budget woes and the difficult decisions our district needs to make to keep our schools operating within budget. (Unfortunately, I missed at least the first half of the meeting, but I will watch again and take better notes.)

Glen Allgaier had created a list of cost saving possibilities--none of them an easy choice. The list included the unpleasant prospects of closing a school and increasing class sizes. The idea was we needed to dramatically cut spending in order to meet our financial obligations. There seemed to be agreement that drastic measures were necessary.

Then Dr. Gibson chimed in that we could also look at increasing revenue producers to solve our money problems as well as implementing cost savings measures. That was when he mentioned 4K as well as looking at nonresident students. Gibson acknowledged that we had decided to forgo 4K but it seemed the state aid dollar potential was still tempting him.

Another "revenue producer" would be to go to the taxpayers with a referendum to raise the spending cap!

The idea of coming at taxpayers on the heels of our $62mil high school referendum would be very distasteful to me--especially considering our budget shortfalls are nothing new.  While I had suggested a referendum to raise the spending cap to increase the maintenance/capital improvement budget as a way to deal with the high school improvements and needs, that spending cap referendum was to be instead of not in addition to the high school referendum!

4K was mentioned not as an improvement to education but solely as a cure for budget woes--as in increasing the school budget, not decreasing the taxpayer's burden. Our board decided last fall to eliminate 4K because it was not shown to improve student performance in the long run. But here we are again mentioning 4K as a possibility.

Universal 4K is also a subject of the presidential election. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the idea of nationwide 4K. The Democrat party believes in pre-K as it is sometimes called.

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Protect Our Kids From Preschool summed up much of what I wrote last fall when Elmbrook was deciding their 4K question. In a nutshell, there is no longterm evidence that 4K is beneficial in the long run:

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list...

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.
...
Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

The piece concludes with:

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Jay Weber talked about 4K in his 8am hour today too. A man whose wife taught in Elmbrook's kindergarten program called in. He said his wife presented 25 reasons 4K was beneficial at the board meeting, but the board voted to discontinue. The caller then added, he wouldn't send his children for 4K! (He must have had his own 26 reasons it wasn't beneficial?)

Finland was again mentioned as a standard. Finland doesn't start school until age 7. Their students do better than the rest of the world.

Taxpayers are asked for more and more money each year, whether at the local or national level. Can we at least narrow down the wish list to programs that actually work?

 

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

If you wish to read other past postings on this subject, just click the tag 4K and they will come up. 

 

*Our venture in to cable TV was short lived. We signed on with TimeWarner for a special deal that wasn't delivered as promised. Now to get the package that was presented would cost $30 more per month. Too much for television! Monday the cable TV will be shut off. 

 

 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

 

 

Unsure about how an idea will go over? Test the waters!

I saw it happen at the June 9th Plan Commission meeting with AJS'  Percheron Square (VK). Their first plan came in with higher density and so AJS requested a PDD. It passed easily. (Sad part was, the more realistic plan--without the underground office parking--was not that much larger than the density already designated for.) Then, shortly after that approval, Community Watch (June 16) reported,

Property owner V.K. Development Corp. has requested a delay in the city's approval process for the proposed development, known as Percheron Square. The Common Council was to consider the site plan at its Tuesday meeting. But Ajay Kuttemperoor, V.K. Development president, asked the council to delay that action because of an inquiry from a prospective buyer of a portion of the site. That could result in changes to the proposal, Kuttemperoor said today.

To me that says, AJS was just testing the waters at the first plan commission meeting.

John McCain's campaign has also been testing the waters. They have been dropping running mate names like Pawlenty, waiting for a reaction. Testing the waters is an easy way to judge public acceptance.

Now the Elmbrook Swim Club is again testing the waters with their additional competition pool proposal.

The swim club in 2004 offered to raise $1 million to add lanes to one high school pool. Last fall the club called for expanding one pool to 10 lanes and pledged to help fund it.

The club must have thought those proposals were accepted fairly well, because now they have upped the ante. (My emphasis)  

But this week club officials presented a new plan to district officials: to have two pools at Brookfield Central.

The existing pool would be reduced in size and made shallower for use by physical education classes, community swim lessons and other uses requiring warmer, shallower water.

A new 25 yard-by-25 meter competition pool would be built immediately south of the existing pool. That deeper, colder pool would be used by physical education classes, the community, the swim club, and would host regional and state tournaments. It would be configured to run eight and 10-lane events.

The expansion does not stop there. 

The existing pools seat 300 spectators. The new pool would have 1,500 bleacher seats — slightly less than available at the Waukesha South Natatorium, a 25-yard-by-30 meter pool.

Just how many area schools have a facility like this? Three, if you include Madison.

[Swim coach] Rose said there are few competition pools in the area: Waukesha South, Schroeder Aquatic Center in Brown Deer and University of Wisconsin Madison’s natatorium.

The coach added that, "Holding meets could generate $25,000 in annual revenue for Elmbrook."

How much is this thing going to cost to build? $6 to $8 million!  Of that, Elmbrook taxpayers would pay around half.

Wow! We get a whopping $25,000 a year in fees and only have to spend $4,000,000* or so? (Yes, that was said tongue in cheek.)

What about the hidden costs? 

The annual costs to operate and maintain two pools are unknown.

Pools and their accompanying shower rooms are expensive to operate. They require lots of water, sewer, gas to heat the water, pool chemicals, electricity to run the filters and pumps, heating costs to heat the pool rooms, and don't forget the custodial costs for cleaning 2 pools and the expanded observation deck.

I took a look at the March 24 budget and although there is not a separate line item for pools, I did note the water usage differences between the high schools and other schools.

I may be all wet here (pun intended), but the high schools have about 36% of all Elmbrook students, but they use 53% of the district's water use: $15,682 for grade school and middle school water charges vs. $17,370 for the high schools. I'm thinking some of that disparity is due to the pool and shower use. (Some of that increase would be because of gym class showering, boiler use, and sports field watering too.)

The sewer bills were higher in the high schools too. $31,547 for lower grades, $31,571 for high school water going down the drain.

Now the swim club is proposing another pool. They are thinking of coming up with part of the purchase price. But who is going to pay for the increased utility costs to heat the room, buy the water, heat the water, filter the water, pay the sewer bill, pay the custodian, pay the chemical bill, pay for the lighting of the room, pay for the maintenance of the pool, and pay the custodians to clean the extra pool?

We, the taxpayers would...after that whopping estimated $25,000 a year revenue was deducted.

I think there is a reason there are really only 2 other area competition pools like this. They are EXPENSIVE! Expensive to build and to operate. Interesting that the coach needed to reach out to Madison to find a 3rd one, and that one was at the university level.

Here is an idea. The Elmbrook Swim Club pays for the entire 2nd competition pool, including operation costs. We leave our original pool alone, so then Elmbrook does not need it for phy. ed. purposes. (The school district could be a good sport and donate the land for the completion pool.) Elmbrook schools can then pay the swim club the fees for use of the competition pool. I think we would be cheaper off?   UPDATE: What was I thinking? Elmbrook should be able to use the competition pool for free because we donated the land. We could let the swim club collect the $25,000/year in revenue from other clubs to help compensate them for their expenditure.

True, the Elmbrook Swim Club is just contemplating this idea at this time, but notice that the size, scope, and cost of their project has increased dramatically in just the past 4 years. Another common phrase comes to mind regarding this completion pool project: The Elmbrook Swim Club thinks we should spend money like water!

If you think Elmbrook taxpayers already spend enough on education and sports, contact the school board about this completion pool idea. 

 

*There was no mention of the actual dollar amount the swim club was going to chip in, plus, our cost of the actual pool could be higher if it goes the route of the BC2 Astroturf project.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

I remember being surprised the first time I heard BC(2) was behind in their payments for the artificial turf project at Central High School. Behind?  I would have thought they were required to pay their half up front?  After all, what do you do if they can't or won't pay up?

Best case scenario, even if they only needed to pay their half in installments, that would still mean the school district (us) needed to finance their share until all payments were made. 

Well, BC(2) is still behind and Elmbrook (ultimately us) is holding the bag.

I know the district looked at the artificial turf as a way to cut down on grounds keeping costs. Sports related lawn care accounts for about 80% of the grounds keeping crew's time during turf season (lawn mowing season), according to Rich Basil, our 2007 East High School Mechanical Tour guide. (It's one of the reasons I think we place too much emphasis on sports--it's too expensive! East High School for example has 2 full time groundskeepers--with wage and benefits--and 2 seasonal laborers at hourly wages, we were told.)

Sometimes the cost of a nicety goes beyond the initial purchase price. There is often upkeep associated with that item. In the case of the artificial turf, what happens when the rug wears out and needs replacing? Now who is going to foot the bill for the replacement? What if we did not like the artificial turf? To switch back to grass will be expensive too.

At the very least, I think we need a rule: If a group or club wants a nicety, they must pay their share, in full, up front!  I think the district knows that now.

 

(H/T Fairly Conservative) 

Yippee! Pier project begins at Kinsey Park pond 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

 

I admit it. I was surprised when Elmbrook's $62 million dollar referendum passed last April 1st. Usually, it takes 3 referendum tries before one will pass.

In my opinion, Elmbrook's referendum broke ranks and passed on the second try because of 3 reasons. One, it was held during a spring election (lower voter turnout) rather than a November presidential election (higher voter turnout), and two, there was virtually no get out the vote campaign from those opposed. (The third reason I call the secret weapon*, the HSST.  Voters really trusted that HSST committee theoretically made up of both "No and Yes" voters. But this third reason does not apply to this posting.)

Some might say, well, our 2007 referendum failed by a very high percentage. That one was also held in a lower voter turnout spring election too. True, but those opposed to that $108 million 2007 referendum leafleted nearly the entire Elmbrook school district with information as to why it was not a good plan. That did not happen in spring of 2008.

Why wasn't there an organized opposition? Fatigue. Those who worked hard to defeat the 2007 referendum were still too burned out from the last go round to muster much of a fight.

Why am I talking about this water over the dam now? Because Germantown's school board is sending their voters this coming November the very same referendum their residents defeated last April 1st! (H/T Jay Weber @ 7:35 am)

The Journal Sentinel's Mike Nichols wrote, Germantown School Board bucks voters. In that article, he reports how the Germantown board isn't even bothering to reduce and refine their April 2008 $16.5 million referendum. They are just sending the very same thing to voters again this fall.

"School boards do this sort of thing frequently. A referendum fails so they wait a little while, cut a little bit out and try again. And again. And again. Until the "no' voters get tired, or move.

"Germantown is taking it a step further. It's not waiting a little while, and it is not cutting.

Considering there are only so many pro referendum votes out there and there will be a larger voter turnout this November, it is hard to believe it will pass. Evidentially, the same thing happened in Hartford last November and this spring. Voters there defeated the referendum both times.

It seems unlikely Germantown's referendum will pass in November, but there aught to be a law against this!

Taxpayers need and deserve a break from this constant whining for more money from their school districts.

Jay Weber suggested this morning that a state law be made that would prohibit a school district from throwing referendum after referendum at their taxpayer base. A 2 to 3 year moratorium between referendums at least would be welcome. (He has mentioned this before.)

If districts knew they would have to wait for 2 years before they came at their taxpayers again, maybe, just maybe, they would present a more thought out and practical plan. Elmbrook's 2008 plan was not well thought out. For one, they budgeted for HVAC improvements before all of the condition reports were known.

While Elmbrook taxpayers know what they are in for now for the next 20 years (theoretically, we are nearly to the end of our referendums our district tells us), keep in mind many referendums are partially financed through the state. Remember Elmbrook paid for some of Janesville's referendum?

For our referendum, Elmbrook residents must pay “dollar for dollar” of all expenses. But according to Bob Borch, “They (Janesville) accounted for receiving 25% of every dollar needed to pay back the bonds as coming from state aid, this lowering the cost to the taxpayer for their borrowing.”

School districts should be prohibited from bombarding their taxpayers with repeated referendums. It would give taxpayers a breather in between referendum pleas, and that would be a breath of fresh air!

 

* The secret weapon, the HSST, made up of "No and Yes" voters, I think this was the main reason Elmbrook got voters to bite on their 2nd referendum try. Many people cited the reason they voted yes this time was that they trusted the opinion of that group's assessment of our needs. Many voters, for example, did not know they were voting for air conditioning both schools, including the gyms, or that the team started with the premise that new gymnasiums would be included. Members of the 2007 opposition expressed quiet doubts that the 3 No voters included on the HSST team were really No voters.

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna

 

 

People constantly ask me if I think the referendum will pass. I just answer, I don't know. Truly, I just don't know.

You would think that amid the sub-prime jitters, falling stock market, rising food prices, rising energy prices, and the probability that our state and federal taxes will go up, the public would not be too eager to take on more debt for the next 20 years. But then again, think, may be the key word here.

You would think people would know they cannot keep purchasing things with a credit card until they have thousands of dollars in carried balances. You would think people would know they cannot buy a home on an a.r.m. and not expect to pay more per month at some point.

You would think people would know that air conditioning 2 entire schools--including 2 acres of gymnasium space--in an era of rising energy costs, would raise a red flag with voters.

I gave up trying to predict what people will think or do a long time ago. By day's end tomorrow, we will find out what Elmbrook voters thought.

A reader sent me this link, urging that voters take a look at the Job Market, 2009 before they vote. It made me think. 

Brookfield Academy's $12.5 mil high school, we can too

Correction: C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS AND AIR CONDITIONING--did you know they are air conditioning even the gyms?

Tomorrow is the big day, Millions of Dollars Tuesday!

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

Cost Breakdowns of Type of Work (cost per square footage)

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: click on that subject heading.

Tax Calculator  

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

Former 2007 Referendum Facilities Facts Sheets (Still a good read)

 

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Jessica Rasmussen reports, "The Elmbrook superintendent will see $5,280 added to his salary for the 2008-2009 school year.", so that answers my question from last week, Will Gibson get hefty raise this year?

"The School Board voted, 5-1, to approve the 4 percent package increase, which will bump Superintendent Matt Gibson's salary to $147,510." (Remember that Dr. Gibson's complete wage and benefit package is substantially more than just salary.)

True to form, Patrick Murphy did not support that raise. I'm going to miss Patrick's presence on the board. " 'I think these wages are excessive,' Murphy said, adding that the administration should show restraint in light of a possible $62.2 million construction project, which will go to referendum April 1."

I agree. It is rather difficult to swallow the Superintendent telling us how dire the need is for improved facilities in our schools or how we face $1.5 to $2million dollars in budget cuts due to declining enrollments and then see him accept a raise like this one.

But Murphy's opinion was not shared by all. Some "viewed the increase as both deserved and as inconsequential in the district's budget."

The $5,280 raise is 3.58%, below the QEO of 3.8% (which I think only applies to teachers).  Often a person in Dr. Gibson's leadership position will make a gesture to refuse the raise or at least make an offer to donate it back to some cause connected with the schools. I have not heard any report of that.

I don't know how deserved the raise was however, since Gibson's contact was only extended by one year, through June 30, 2010--one year beyond the coming school year. If the board had not extended it, his contract expiration date would have ended at the end of June 2009.

.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.)

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

The countdown continues: Just 13 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

While on tour at Central on March 4th, our tour guides Principal LaBonte and Shawn from the maintenance department repeatedly emphasized that they were keeping as much that was usable as possible for this referendum. That was good news.

They directed our attention to the terrazzo floors, which will remain. Great, I thought. Terrazzo is a durable, but expensive flooring choice. I am glad they do not need to rip them out and replace with some sort of inferior tile.

But as we were walking down the halls, they mentioned they were going to replace all the lockers.  

The other people on the tour with me seemed pretty pro referendum, but even they questioned the en-mass replacement of lockers as being rather wasteful. The lockers looked fine to us. (This is not a criticism of the maintenance department. Maintenance department heads take their marching orders from the powers that be.)

Shawn explained that the problem with the lockers was that many of the handles or latch devices were broken. Replacement parts were no longer available, and so the district opted to replace them all.

I did not note any lockers without locks on them on our short tour route, but that is not to say that they don't exist. But do they really need to replace them ALL? It seems this is more of a maintenance issue than a referendum issue.

Are there any alternatives to replacing them all?

Sure there are.

Sometimes when you have a quantity of items needing a specific part, there are companies that will custom make the replacement parts you need. That is one option. It may cost a bit to get the part made, but if it is one you potentially need 100s of, it is the less expensive and easier method of dealing with the lack of replacement parts. Plus, you have to consider the labor involved in removing an entire locker and installing a new locker into your price comparison equation.

Option 2 would be something that anyone could do. Simply replace a bank of lockers with a new style and then use the locking devices and locker parts from those removed as replacement parts for the others in service.

Many school districts use this simple methodology for repairing/replacing ceiling tiles, light fixtures, cabinets, lockers, etc.

Say you have a water damaged ceiling in a room. The acoustical tiles are no longer available. If you have all one style ceiling tile in your school, frugal maintenance departments will remove the tiles from the leak-damaged room and save the usable tiles for future repairs. Now you replace the tiles in the water damaged room with something new. Next time there is need for tiles to repair the ceilings in the remaining school rooms and hallways, you have a stock from which to obtain the exact matching old tiles!

The same strategy could work for the lockers.

I would start by taking out the bank of lockers opposite the library at Central. This location for lockers interferes with the stairway traffic anyway, and since the school is not at maximum enrollment, you probably do not need any lockers there at all. (The wall would need to be repaired.)

Now you have around 25 lockers to use for replacement parts for your existing lockers. Depending on how many are needing new latches, you may have to replace other banks of them as well. Again, I would remove the ones from the most congested areas first and only replace them with new lockers if enrollments again are up to the all time highs.

So, just how much would a en-mass locker replacement cost if the referendum passes?

They don't know.

Very little of this referendum planning has gone that far. New items and space needs to be bid and spec'd out. That fact was repeated frequently on the tour whether it was in reference to the new windows, new uni-vent heaters/air conditioners, new lockers, new rooms, whatever.

This is my cost guesstimate. It is only a guesstimate because I really don't know and our tour guides did not know either.

If our highest enrollments were 1,646 at Central, 1,479 at East for a total of 3,126 students in 1982 and last year we were at 1413 Central and 1391 at East, it would seem they would not need every single locker. (Information: The Corridor Report: How wide will they be? We Don't Know.)

For very easy math, let's just say we wish to replace 3,000 lockers total. 

I looked a bit on the internet for new locker prices. They ranged from around $100 to $175 each--the lower price for larger quantities. So for the lockers alone, we are looking at at least $300,000 for the lockers themselves, not including labor to remove the old and install the new.

I think it is safe to say replacing the lockers could be at least a half million dollar project! 

Contrast this $1/2 million price tag with removing a bank of lockers to use for parts or purchasing and installing a replacement bank. If the district truly wanted to replace them all, they could nibble away at a section every summer.

$500,000 or more may not seem to be a lot of money to the school district, but it is to me. I usually think, where else could that money be better spent? I would think significant improvements to the chemistry room could a better place to spend that kind of cash than for just new lockers.

Like our roof replacement schedules, many other items in our schools should be on a routine maintenance or replacement schedule. I do believe the district when they say they do not have the money in the capital improvement budget to do this type of maintenance. The maintenance directors can only do so much with the budget they have. Whether that is because Elmbrook chooses to allocate monies elsewhere or if they truly do not have the funds, I don't know. Elmbrook will not stop coming at us with referendums that include maintenance items though, until we manage our facilities better, and that is one reason I favor increasing the yearly capital improvement budget.

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Referendum ad raises questions

The countdown continues: Just 15 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO!

 

 

I spent last night going through all of my past Practically Speaking postings from the last referendum up until Easter 2007. I gave them a quick read and made the appropriate subject tags.

Many of them are still very pertinent this year. I hope to make a master list with titles, but if that never materializes, you can just click on the High School tag or Elmbrook to the right and they all should come up.

Brookfield7's postings can be found by typing in High School in the search box at the top of that blog. (I will try to list those too if time allows.)

One tidbit I found of interest was about Matt Gibson's raise from last year, just before the referendum. Last year he got an extra $4,881.

Uncle Matt wants you, Even if it means we have to build bigger schools:

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

 

I wonder what it will be this year? 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.) 

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

 

The countdown begins: Just 20 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

Recently, a reader of my other blog, Brookfield7, sent me this comment anonymously regarding my "cynical view on today's children" and my "gluttonous greedy miser who can't spare money on the children who need it" attitude. I would encourage you to read it and see if you agree. 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Corridor Report: How wide will they be? We Don't Know!":

"guess wut...
schools get old and run down... its not like since that peak year... things have gotten better. You simply attack one thing but yes, the school is crowded and most of the students, although irritated at the bottleneck that occurs at every staircase but can live with it... You need to consider everything else that is of poor quality in the school. recently due to the freeze and melting of the ice, the orchestra/choir room has sustained considerable damage due to leaking in the roof. There are priceless instruments in that room, all suspecting of water damage. With a cynical view on todays children as you seem to have, why not cut the music program. why not cut out all extracurriculars while your at it. The fact of the matter is... all things come to an end, and BC is reaching its end. Nearly every school in southeastern wisco is better than BC/BE and yet, you still argue that its fine??? If you don't care for our nations future, then fine, be a gluttonous greedy miser who can't spare money on the children who need it."

Well, someone is not happy, but they are not very well informed.

First, the orchestra/choir room. I saw that room while on the Brookfield Central tour both last year and this year, and yes, the roof leaks. There was a woman in the room, I think she was the music teacher? She stated the roof leaks every year. She had a line of large, gray, plastic garbage cans under the ceiling beam where the leaks occur. The double basses were stored in a rolling rack near that area.

Now I know roof maintenance is a very expensive piece of the yearly operations budget. Most commercial facilities operate on a 20 year repair/replacement schedule cycle for their flat roofs.

Schools usually do a section every summer. In a 20 year time span, the whole roof then will be replaced. 

Principal LaBonte explained that there is an expansion joint above the structural beam. When there are freeze/thaw cycles, that joint leaks.

I think I asked about the 20 year roof replacement cycle, or he just volunteered the information, that with or without the referendum, that roof will be replaced this coming summer.

I hope they use that newer rubber membrane technology--at the very least for that problem area of the expansion joint. It is supposed to work well. (We have it on 2 flat areas on our home. So far so good--it is 13 years old.)

Want to know what roof area was replaced last year? That would be the gym roof. I don't know if it had a history of leaks. If the orchestra room was such a dire need, either the roof replacement schedule could have been re-prioritized, or the contingency fund used to make necessary repairs.

As for the Gluttonous greedy miser charge...

Often people forget that our community is still paying off the last referendum. 

If the commenter would have read TIME IN THE DISTRICT = NO VOTE OR WHY PAY AS YOU GO MAKES CENTS
they would have known that although I am frugal, I am not a greedy miser.

In this posting I proposed raising the Capital Improvement budget by $1,000,000/year. To me, this is the only way to keep our facilities in better condition and make improvements every year.

I am also on the record as stating I think we place too much emphasis on athletics and not enough on academics. I consider music to be an important part of a child's education. 

In fact, I think that idea would be a good slogan for this year's $98 million dollar referendum (referendum + bonding) that spends far too much on new athletic space--97% of new construction is for the gym:

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO! 

 

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.)

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

 

The countdown begins: Just 22 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

 

FYI: If you want to look up last year's referendum fact sheets, they are still available.
  

 

Although I am not in favor of the present $62.2+ million dollar referendum, I was pleased to see this practical solution for creating larger classrooms while on the Central High School Tour this week. They are proposing removing the approx. 8' x 9' office cubes from some of the classrooms.

(These would be those classrooms you visit at the top of the stairs at the beginning of the tour--same ones that last year were mentioned as only having 3 working outlets: The Tale of Three Outlets)

I have no idea what they were thinking when this school addition was built--like so many "new" ideas, it seemed like a good idea at the time? But the office within the classroom really plays havoc with the arrangement of student desks.

You can see in the first photo the front of the classroom with the green board. The 15 student desks are arranged perpendicular to the front wall.

The second photo shows the teacher's office cube in the back. The
remaining 15 desks are arranged perpendicular to the back wall.

Each set of 15 desks face each other.

Now, I am not claiming credit for this idea. I think the referendum committee just saw what I saw, a relatively easy and inexpensive way to expand and improve the layout of some classrooms.
 

I had suggested removing those small teacher's office cubes last year in a posting : Post WW2 era buildings = modern construction: 

One “need” on the referendum wish list is larger classrooms. Classrooms at Central are not large enough. Solution: knock out the teacher’s office cube inside the classroom and suddenly the room meets No Child Left Behind standards. Presently we are told the rooms are 750 sq. ft. If the office were removed the room would exceed 825 sq. ft. The layout of the room would improve too. The concept of a teacher having their own classroom is necessary at elementary schools but not at the high school level. This work can all be done “in house” with maintenance staff during the summer as other districts do.

By removing the office cube, the layout of desks improves and the number of potential students per room could increase--if needed. The teacher would be moved to a department office room that would have a private area for student/teacher meetings. Moving the teacher's office out of the classroom also helps when the classroom is used by another teacher. Where this departmental teacher's office area will be is not know at this time Principal LaBonte told us.

I don't believe we need a $102 million referendum ($62.2 million dollar + interest) to make this type of improvement.  Like School Board Member Patrick Murphy, I favor increasing our Capital Improvement budget--I suggested  by $1million a year, last year Murphy suggested by $2 million.

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.)

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

 

The countdown begins: Just 25 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Yikes! Gas prices rise 14 cents overnight!.

Technology can be a wonderful thing. Two weeks ago, we had that snowstorm warning on Sunday and the weatherman cautioned people to stay home. We were rather torn as to what to do, but since we just had 2 weather related fender benders that week, we chickened out and stayed home. The great thing was though, we did not need to miss our church service.

Thanks to the internet and some tech. minded members, we sat around the computer screen and watched the live sermon  from the comfort of our home! Not quite as good as being there, but we did virtually see and hear the LIVE service. I can also go back to the church website and review a sermon if I want to.

This technology has hit our beloved Yellowstone National Park too. We are what is kindly referred to as Geyser Geeks*--people who love to sit and observe geysers. If all goes according to plan, this summer we'll make our 5th pilgrimage to geyserland in 7 years.

To help us bide our time until the day we set foot on the Upper Geyser Basin, we now have the option of watching some of the geysers LIVE on the park's newly installed geysercam. Just this afternoon we watched Old Faithful and Plume go off. Pretty terrific.

As time goes on, I believe we will see more and more of this type of LIVE broadcast technology. It will enable people to "attend" events from the comfort of their own homes.

Currently, our Elmbrook School District is proposing a $62.2 million dollar high school referendum. The District states this is needed to solve our future facility needs. But I believe, because of technological advances, we can implement this type of live, virtual broadcast technology in our schools and thereby reduce our classroom space needs.

Virtual live broadcast could be used for some classes for all students, and virtual technology could also be used for all classes for some students. Either way, virtual education reduces the burden on classrooms. It also reduces the need for having a teacher for every class.

Virtual, live broadcast and virtual school should be looked at BEFORE we commit to 20 years of higher taxes.

*The official geyser watchers are called Geyser Gazers.

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

.

The countdown begins: Just 29 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

Be sure to read Representative Rich Zipperer's Legislative Update: Right to Bear Arms, Tax Relief, Ending Sanctuary Cities, Banning Partial Birth Abortion, and Virtual Charter Schools.
 

 

When I read the Community Watch posting, Board considers change in Open Enrollment* headline, I thought, at last they are starting to "get it".  (*Sorry, this is not a perm. link)

I thought the posting was going to state that the board would be reducing the number of non-resident students. I was half right, but the posting was not exactly what I expected.

Certain board members, Sylla and Schwei, are actually proposing that the number of non-resident students increase instead of decrease!  Elmbrook's current policy is to give preference to Open Enrollment students' siblings but not to guarantee siblings a place in Elmbrook schools if no open seats exist.

According to the posting, "Cheri Sylla said the lack of open seats hurts some nonresident families who have sent all of their children to Elmbrook high schools." 

I have to ask, what about the hurt to Elmbrook taxpayers? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers must pay the difference between the state reimbursement of about $5,500*/Open Enrollment student and the real cost per student in the Elmbrook School District of about $13,000! That means for each Open Enrollment student, Elmbrook taxpayers must kick in around $7,500. (*The exact reimbursement figure of $5,435 for 2005 was supplied to me by Bob Borch last spring.) And let's not forget that one of the reasons we are looking at a high school referendum is because of "crowding".

Steve Schwei, always one eager to increase enrollments at any cost to Elmbrook taxpayers--even if that means building more schools, dismissed the effect of Cheri's request.  Not because there are not many siblings who would want to attend Elmbrook schools, but because "most siblings enter during elementary school". Most siblings are already IN OUR SYSTEM!

Thankfully, not all of our board is supporting this change. Board President Meg Wartman seemed wary of making a change that could increase the crowding at the high school level.

Tom Gehl did not support the sibling guaranteed enrollment. Patrick Murphy and Glen Allgaier wondered about the expense of making this change and the crowding issue. 

The exact number of proposed Open Enrollment students would be 46 for this year. The posting stated this was a "downward trend". According to some correspondence with Bob Borch from 2007, the figure from 2006 was 80 new students.

Keep in mind that 46 is not the total number of Open Enrollment nonresident students in Elmbrook, it is just the additional new students for the year. The total number of nonresident Open Enrollment students in 2007 was 430. (FYI we also had and additional 294 nonresident Chapter 220 students last year too.) 

The whole nonresident student issue is a very important one to the Elmbrook School District and the Elmbrook taxpayers. A total of around 720 non Elmbrook School District students is not to be dismissed lightly. These students crowd our schools and use our support services. Student population is one of the driving forces for our high school needs.

Contact the board and let them know how you feel about nonresident students in Elmbrook. They could vote on this Jan. 22.

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7

 

The room was packed; emotions ran high. Maybe 80 residents were in attendance? Judging from the Pro 4K-ers holding up little yellow "4K Yes" paper hands, they outnumbered those against maybe 5 to 1.  I thought to myself, Oh, this is going to be an emotion filled night. I was right. (My aside comments will be in parenthesis.)

Superintendent Matt Gibson opened the topic at 7:55pm stating that 4K was 1 of 25 ideas discussed as ways to ease Elmbrook's financial problems. 4K was the only one that had an educational and revenue benefit to it. He gave the statistic of 70% of districts in Wisconsin have 4K and touted that our 4K brought in more dollars than it spends: Cost $800,000 Brings in $2 million. (We can debate that at another time.)

 

Then Matt said something I really took issue to. He predicted 5 board members will vote FOR continuing 4K and said something about pressure on the newest board member.

I don't think that was proper at all!

Gibson then stated that he saw 4K as essential to replace declining enrollment. Then he gave the usual cautions of if we don't approve 4K, we think we can keep electives and interventions but the district would also need to look at closing schools or a referendum to raise the cap. (Check the cable broadcast for exact words.)

Board President Meg Wartman then said, that as we look at the same question and issue from different sides we may have different remedies: financial and educational. That told me she was still a no vote.

Now the public comment parade.

First was Julie Cramer, Hillside Principal. Of course she extolled the marvelous educational and socialization attributes of the 4K program. She also relied on the too familiar argument for keeping any pilot program in place: We already invested $500,000 in the program (as if that justifies anything).

Next was the Principal from Brookfield El. She raised the question: Do we need it? Students are fine without it--they have been fine without it for 40 years. Is fine good enough? Our vision has been to be an exemplary district. (We could be exemplary in that Elmbrook spends money very wisely--only on programs that show real benefit!)

I think 14 spoke in all--only one against. Emotions were high as the parents and grandparents told of their child's wonderful experiences with our 4K. One woman, Laurie B-something, a Psychiatrist in the community, was all excited because her little one recently at the Dr.s office knew their left from their right. She saw that as a milestone evidently.

Other comments included that 4K attracted young families to our community, those who favored 4K also favored the high school referendum, parents felt they could not "pull out" the energy and excitement from their child, and that it was not about the money: even without a 4K program, they would pay a private school for the 4K program if necessary.

Time for board discussion. Ziegler made the motion and Steve Schwei (on the phone) talked about 4K filling up the decline and deferring the need for cuts.

Tom Gehl commented first on the process saying he was deeply concerned with how Matt Gibson introduced the topic tonight. I hope I never hear a prediction on a vote prior [to voting] to relieve pressure on a new board member, he said. (So, Matt's comments did not sit well with Tom either.)

The only new information I heard was from Glen Allgaier. That man has really done his homework! He said those studies that the pro 4K-ers cited to show 4K to be beneficial were in regards to Kindergarten readiness, not long term benefit.

Eileen Depka, the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services was pushing hard to keep 4K.

Cheri Sylla then proposed the Sunset 4K motion (5 year trial). The board eventually voted and it failed, 4-3.

Matt, now shaken, brings up our Strategic Plan--the Vision Statement. He concludes with 4K is one more piece of advance planning.

Meg took issue with his assumption that a No vote showed a lack of planning. She said, 4K came out of a financed need in the 2005 study and 4K was not even at the top of the list. Since then, we have been trying to prove academic merit, which we can't find. That brought up a startling comment regarding all day 5K. Meg questioned the benefits of all day 5K--We have not even tried to show the benefit of it by 5th grade--have we ever shown 5th grade gain? (Again, check the broadcast for her exact words.)

Meg concluded her remarks with, leadership sometimes means going against [what is popular] and looking at your neighbors and saying I can't. I have not supported 4K in the past or today; High School facilities [meetings] talks about wants vs needs. I don't know they have to have it [4K].

Eileen again pushes for passage of 4K citing the 400 responses from pro 4K residents. Tom Gehl questions that number and reminds her that since the 400 were from separate surveys, many of those were repeats.

Surprisingly, Steve Schwei pipes up again asking if they voted for a Sunset vote. (I thought they already did this.) But they vote AGAIN! Same result: 4 no--3 yes.

Now a woman, I think Laurie B, from the audience is allowed to speak before the board! This struck me as very unusual since it was in the middle of the discussion period. There were already 2 failed votes. Plus, I think this was the same Psychiatrist who was so excited that her youngster knew their left from their right spoke up. (Check the broadcast.) She was practically in tears, You are dealing with our kids lives! Etc. etc.

More discussion by the board. Finally, the board votes at around 10 pm. The results are the same: Elmbrook rejects 4K 

The four board members, Gehl, Wartman, Allgier, and Murphy showed real strength by voting NO amidst such emotions, but vote no they did.

Making these kind of unpopular decisions must be difficult. But in the future, because of budget constraints, we will have to look at each and every aspect of public education and weigh it in the light of does it show real merit and is the gain worth the investment.

Please send a note of thanks to these board members. It was a rough night!

 

P.S. I have tried to give a flavor of the night here for those of you (like me) who don't have cable TV. If I find out some of this information is incorrect, I will post a correction.

 

I hope you are planning to attend the school board meeting tonight. I am planning on being there. It will probably be a very late evening.

The meeting starts at 7pm at the administration offices at 13780 Hope Street. If you are approaching from Capitol Drive, just turn right on 138th Street. Then take the fork to the right, which is 137th. Hope is the first cross street. Turn right and you will see the building set back a bit from that corner.

If you have never been at one of these meetings, you may speak, but only for a very brief time: 2 minutes, I think. I am not sure they require you to sign in ahead of time, but either way, you must state your name and address.

I am sure there will be a whole host of pro 4K people there who will speak--either those with children now in the program or parents of preschoolers who wish their children to attend 4K for "free" in the future. They will probably tell the board how much their little one enjoys the program or how much this program is needed. (It takes a strong soul to withstand these pleas designed to evoke a sympathetic, Its for the children YES vote.)

If you come to the meeting and speak, may I suggest you keep your comments brief, polite, and to the point. 

4K shows no longterm academic benefit.

For every student enrolled, the Elmbrook taxpayers must contribute to their educational expenses.

We don't have room for the present 200 students. Where are we going to put the 300 or potential 500 students? 

You may wish to cite the quote from the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel's Oct 8th article:

"It [4K] would, however, cost the taxpayers more money, because it would be funded primarily from increased property taxes. The district would be allowed to collect more taxes because of its increased enrollment."

Lastly, you might wish to remind the board that if they want to be taken seriously regarding our high school needs, they should be looking for ways to reduce unnecessary teaching and support staff, classroom load, costly additions, and needless tax burden to the Elmbrook taxpayers instead of increasing them by implementing 4K.

IF you have not called Patrick Murphy yet, please do. He is key to the decision tonight. 

 

 

I know I pick on Lucy Ricardo of I Love Lucy fame from time to time, but no other character so easily embodies ridiculous thinking when it comes to money. Lucy Ricard math is: the reasoning process by which Lucy justifies a faulty fiscal policy in order to finagle what she wants out of Rickey.

Currently, some Elmbrook administrators and board members are engaging in what I call, Lucy Ricardo math by thinking that by boosting enrollment, we can ease our budget woes.

Tomorrow the board votes on keeping or discontinuing 4K. The board and administration admit there is not much real academic gain to a 4K program but tout it as a way to boost revenue.

In a recent article, Gibson said, "...finances are the key reason [for 4K]" and "...the main motivation for adding 4-K was financial..." and "If the board does not approve 4-K, members will need to find other ways to 'shore up' enrollment and revenues to avoid major budget cuts, he said."

Bob Borch, in the Elmbrook Link last January, urged increasing all possible enrollments for the same reason. We can see this desire to recruit every possible student in the district's reluctance to limit enrollment to resident students.  

Board President Meg Wartman, however, seems to "get it"; that adding more students to the Elmbrook School District is not the way to ease budget problems. (Meg does not buy into the Lucy Ricardo Math scenario.) She appears to understand that every student added means added expense for Elmbrook taxpayers and added burden on facilities, faculty, and services. 

In a recent article, Board President Wartman commented that raising the revenue cap instead of starting a 4K program to generate income for Elmbrook was a better solution. I would agree...to a point.*

I think her statement about raising the revenue cap leads me to believe that she understands that while adding 300 4K  students will increase Elmbrook's income, it would be at a huge expense to the taxpayers. She is also factoring in the increased burden 4K will place on facilities, faculty, and services--none of which are cost free. .

Adding 300 4K students would generate approx. $1,950,000 for Elmbrook's budget, but the majority, about $1.5 million of this comes directly from the Elmbrook taxpayers. Only about $450,000 comes from state aids.

Since the 4K program is estimated to cost Elmbrook around $860,000 out of their school budget, (the Journal recently stated $2 million) it seems foolish to burden Elmbrook's taxpayers with another $1.5 million just to get the $450,000 of "free" state aid money for a program that costs nearly twice that amount.

We cannot enroll our way out of our budget problems. Lucy Ricardo might do that, but intelligent people in the real world would not.

While I would favor some practical budget cuts to reduce the dollar amount needed from the raised revenue cap, Meg's method, in the long run, of raising the budget cap would still save the district taxpayers money and reduce the "student footprint" on the district.

Since the 4K plan could include up to 500 students at some time and we don't have the facility space at present with our current 200, it is not difficult to see that more elementary school additions are in our future.

The High School needs should be the board's top priority right now as far as facilities go. Adding 4K would only add to classroom shortages first at the elementary schools and then telegraph up to the high schools.

If the board wishes the community to take them seriously about our high school needs, then the board must act responsibly now and discontinue 4K. Since it has shown no real academic gains, this 4K program is more of a financial burden to the taxpayer than a benefit.

Be sure to contact the board (Patrick Murphy must be called--he does not use email) and come to the meeting tomorrow night at 7pm.

We may all Love Lucy, but not as Elmbrook's financial adviser!

*I