Elmbrook enrollment down by 103 students, but no need to worry...now. "The state exempts districts from fluctuations in enrollment for one year."

I first learned about this delay at the April 8th school board meeting when they discussed the 2008-09 budget. There was mention that although the 4K pilot program was discontinued, Elmbrook's budget would still be based on their higher 2007-08 enrollment numbers*. It was a boon--a bit of free money.

In other words 2008-09's budget included about $165,000 in extra state aid money, because the state based their funding on approximately 196 4K kindergarten students no longer enrolled in school. (Kindergarten students count as half a student in the state aid formula since they attend half day.) This money was free in the sense that there were not teacher expenses associated with it, because the 4K program no longer existed.

If memory serves me correctly, Board member Glen Allgaier asked if that extra money should be used to offset the coming budget shortfalls. That idea was quickly dismissed. (Thanks, Glen, for trying.) 

Anyway, this year, Elmbrook School District shows a 103 student enrollment decline since last year (97 resident, 5 non-resident) not counting the 196 4K students.

This came as no surprise though to the administration. The trend toward declining enrollment was "projected:"

Superintendent Matt Gibson said the decrease was on track with projections. He believes a decrease in the birth rate and slowdown in the housing market have contributed to the decrease in students.

Next year, though, the drop will be included in a three-year rolling average that is used to calculate funding for the district. This average figures into Elmbrook’s total revenue cap, the amount it is allowed to collect in aid and taxes.

As such, a drop in enrollment can mean less state aid and higher taxes to make up the difference.

Parents who homeschool or send their children to private schools often send their children to public school in the higher grades. But even at the high school level enrollment dropped by 57 students.

Voters just approved a $62 million dollar high school referendum last spring to expand and improve facilities. Guess we needed that extra room to accommodate those 57 fewer students?

Speaking of the referendum, remember how our additional yearly tax contribution was calculated on a 2% increase in tax base? That 2% has fizzled too.

No need for Elmbrook’s administration to worry though. All budget shortfalls, whether caused by an increase in referendum expenses or declining enrollment will be made up by us, the Elmbrook taxpayers.

 

*I had not thought about this before: If Elmbrook can collect state aid for students no longer enrolled (because of that enrollment fluctuation delay) does this mean Elmbrook calculates their tax levy on us based on students no longer enrolled too? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers pay about $10,000 per student / per year for each resident student. I must ask about that!    

 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News 

Lisa Sink reported that 4 year old kindergarten lacks support in Elmbrook. Am I breathing a little easier? 

Well, yes and no: (Emphasis mine)

Despite a renewed push by some parents to have Elmbrook schools offer 4-year-old kindergarten, it is unlikely to be implemented soon because three School Board members have asked to shelve the hot topic for the next two years.

...

The idea to add 4-K in the next one to two years was vetoed by board members Meg Wartman, Glen Allgaier and Tom Gehl.

There is no doubt in my mind that the subject will come up again. Elmbrook MUST cut $1+ million dollars from their budget each year. 4K is a tempting budget enhancer because it adds more students to the enrollment numbers, thus adding more state aid. (It also adds more expense!)

Please remember that improving Elmbrook's budget is NOT the same as improving the taxpayer's budget, because nearly all money coming into the school district comes one way or another from you, the taxpayers--local property tax, state aid, federal aid.

I believe our superintendent would like to bring back 4K but will not at this time because the public is watching. It seems he is having a hard time leaving those 4K state aid dollars on the table. It is only the resolve of the board members keeping this measure at bay. 

Superintendent Matt Gibson said 4-K was not dead and that the budget priorities were still being debated, but he said there was not strong board support for the program.

Pro 4K parents will swear up and down that their requests are not about free daycare but that they truly believe it is for the benefit of their child. Since there are private schools that offer pre-school--but at the parent's expense--if parents sincerely believe their child needs this, they can avail themselves of these opportunities.

Liberal politicians, such as Senator Obama, push for earlier and earlier public education--despite its lack of long term academic benefit. The topic will not go away. But for right now, thank you again, Tom Gehl, Meg Wartman, and Glen Allgaier for voicing your opposition to a program that doesn't perform.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

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

Last night I stopped in at the Elmbrook School Board meeting to say, thank you, to the board. I had heard there might be a group of impassioned pro-4K parents making their pleas during the public forum time and thought a different point of view might be in order.

I thanked them for acting in a fiscally responsible manner last fall when they discontinued 4K. True, parents and children loved 4K, but popularity alone isn't a valid reason for implementation. I also encouraged them to evaluate all programs and purchases in that same way because Elmbrook cannot afford to spend its precious taxpayer dollars on programs that don't show long term academic benefit.

Turns out, the group consisted of 2 pro 4K speakers. I came in half way through one woman's talk. She was disputing the validity of the Goldwater Institutes's preschool studies. She said something about that institute being against public education and so their results were skewed. (Watch the cable broadcast for her exact words.) 

There are of course many studies on the benefits of preschool. The ones I have seen all conclude the same: Students who attend preschool show short term benefit but no long lasting academic benefit.

 

Home School Legal Defense group still sends me email updates. This latest one cites some unpleasant results of preschool that are often ignored by the pro preschool groups. (Emphasis mine)

While proponents of institutionalized early education support their claim that pre-K is necessary and effective by pointing to childhood education research, the results of such studies are, at best, mixed. Many pre-K advocates cite the massive studies on child care and youth development sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to bolster support for institutionalized early education programs. While many NICHD studies do, in fact, report some positive effects of pre-K, they simultaneously indicate several negative outcomes of early education programs. For example, in 2007 the NICHD reported in a single study that early childcare increased children's vocabulary, but that children who spent more time in institutionalized pre-K were more likely than their non pre-schooled counterparts to exhibit problematic behaviors, such as bullying, aggression, and acting out, through the sixth grade.¹ Proponents of government-funded early education often tout the first part of this study, which reflects favorably on pre-K, while ironically neglecting to mention the latter portion of the report. Such cherry picking is academically dishonest and hardly sound methodology for designing and implementing public education policy. ( “Early Child Care Linked to Increases in Vocabulary, Some Problem Behaviors in Fifth and Sixth Grades.” National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development (NICHD). NIH News. 26 March 2007.)

As I stated in an earlier post, you could also look at schools that have had 4K for a long time. Their ACT scores for example are not leaps and bounds higher than non pre school districts.

If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn’t Shorewood’s ACT scores be consistently higher than our school district’s that didn’t offer 4K? The data shows that this year was the first in the past few years that Shorewood edged out Elmbrook’s ACT scores by 1.23 points.  Of the top 10 schools in Wisconsin (Elmbrook consistently is in the top 10), at least 7 had no 4K program at the time those students tested started school. Incidentally, over 250 school districts have 4K so there should have been a better showing in the top 10 if it is so helpful.

The speaker after my turn spoke on a different subject. She was questioning the appropriateness of Elmbrook allowing R rated and PG13 rated movies being shown to underage students. Platoon and Saving Private Ryan were named. Those I know have very foul language in them. I'm in agreement with her!

I then went to the Creation Science meeting to hear Kitty Foth-Regner's talk on her journey from atheism to Christianity, so I don't know what else transpired at the school board meeting. Kitty's talk was pretty amazing. Hopefully I will get to blogging about if. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

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

I almost missed this, but thanks to a reader, here it is: A group of pro 4K residents will be making an appeal to the school board this Tuesday during the Citizen's Forum time--first on the agenda.

My reader had this to say about the pro 4K group:

...Seems as though they believe that the old 'wear em down one request at a time' philosophy will work on the board as well as it works on the taxpayers.

...I was reminded of Tom Gehl's comment about where the taxpayers went the last time the proposal came up, forcing him to face an [emotionally charged crowd]** alone.

My reader then suggested a counter "No Way 4K" cheering section at the meeting, to give the board a little moral support.

Last fall, I was there when they made that difficult decision in discontinuing Elmbrook's 4K program. They made that tough choice because there was no proof that 4K made a long term academic improvement.

True, 4K will add money to the school district's budget, but it will also add more tax burden to Elmbrook taxpayers. We cannot afford to add programs that do not deliver real results. 4K shows no long lasting academic improvement, therefore it is a luxury. Right now is the time to tighten our belt, not indulge in self serving programs.

We will already see higher property tax bills because that magical 2% growth (projected by the experts) the referendum tax calculations were based on has not materialized.

We did not even hit 1% growth this year, and that was a figure from June, when our market was stronger. From Fairly Conservative, Brookfield assessed growth less than 1%: (My emphasis)

The Board of Review met this morning and assessed property values in the City of Brookfield only grew 0.987% to $6,300,693,600.

This low number has enormous implications for taxpayers who will be taxed above that growth according to state caps. Low growth also affects the estimates used for the Elmbrook referendum as well as the failing TIF district in our community.

Come to the School Board meeting on Tuesday to show your support for the board's decision to discontinue 4K. (Maybe I could make the Citizen Forum and still catch most of the Creation Science speaker?) If you plan on speaking, make your comments short (2 minutes) and please be polite.

Superintendent Matt Gibson and some of the board are looking at ways to increase their budget through "revenue enhancers." 4K would do that, but at an added expense to the taxpayer. Let's not even let them think about flirting with 4K** again! 

 

*I could not verify Tom Gehl's original words. This conveys the same meaning. Tom was one among 4 who voted the measure down: Meg Wartman, Patrick Murphy, and Glen Allgaier.

**I don't want to make more of this flirtation than it was: just a mention. But often "mentions" are made to test the waters of acceptance or opposition.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

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

 

 

My posting on Dr. Gibson flirts with 4K again to cure Elmbrook budget woes sparked a bit of a controversy regarding Elmbrook's 5K enrollment requirements in the comment section.

MikeyD stated a startling bit of information in his/her comment, inferring that 4K was necessary: (My emphasis throughout. You can read all of the comments by clicking the above link.)

"...But I was very surprised that when entering 5K, children in Elmbrook are Expected to be able to read and write!  I was pretty astonished. Did any of you know that a 5K kindergartener is expected to be reading and writing? When I found this out, and in light of the very successful pilot program, I was all for 4K. Even if it only helps in the short term. Elmbrook has very high standards, a good thing, but if they expect this much from a 4.5 year old, they should have the means to make sure all students are at this level at the start of 5K, which would make 4K more than just a luxury and certainly not daycare.  They will be learning to read and write, doing math, it isn't all crackers and naps.

Then Kathryn relayed her experience: (Again, her entire comment is under the original posting.)

"MikeyD, I wonder if there was a miscommunication when this was discussed.  I too was startled when my non-reader brought home a book to "read."  Turns out it was more about getting going than presumed ability.  Certainly some children do enter kindergarten already reading and writing; in that sense  it is "expected."  Many other children enter unable to read and write, and that too is "expected." 

Which is it? Are children expected to be able to read and write to enter 5K, or is it just that some can?

So, I contacted Elmbrook Schools.

From:>>> "Kyle Prast"  8/25/2008 8:53 PM >>>

Could you please tell me what requirements or expectations there are for
enrolling a child in 5K? I would be interested in both the academic skills
necessary and social/emotional maturity level that you expect.

Thank you,
Kyle Prast

This was my reply on Sept. 9, 2008: 

The only requirement for enrolling a child in 5 year old kindergarten is that the child is 5 on or before September 1 of the enrolling year.  There are no academic or social-emotional benchmarks that the student needs to meet for entrance in to kindergarten.  

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Mary

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

 

 

I know many parents of 4 year olds and preschoolers are upset that the Elmbrook School District failed to implement a permanent 4K program. I do believe the parents who communicated with the board were sincere in their enthusiasm for the program.

But there was a common thread to their comments that saddened me: many acted as if 4K was the only way their child could learn, achieve, mature, and flourish at this young age.

From Rose Moylan’s quote in the paper, "It [4K] stimulates and challenges (my son) in ways that I simply cannot do at home," to Katie, who spoke at the board meeting, They [4K teachers] can pull out an energy and excitement of learning [that I cannot], their attitude is that public school 4K is the only way this can be accomplished.

What a sad commentary on parenting today.

Since when have parents become so hesitant to nurture their own children? So insecure that they think they are not up to the task of teaching 4K skills at home?

I suppose this reluctance or feeling of inadequacy shouldn’t have surprised me. I heard it all the time in people’s voices when they found out I homeschooled my son K–12. Whether it was during the elementary years or high school years or even now that my son is in technical college, people’s reactions were and are always the same: I could never do that!

Some people I knew better than to try to persuade otherwise—their minds were made up. Others, I would encourage with, “Yes, you can--if you really want to.”

Parents are a child’s primary teacher. We teach them how to eat, talk, walk, use the bathroom, etc. But somehow, when it comes to schooling, some very intelligent parents suddenly feel ill-equipped.

HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association (naturally, a pro parents can be teachers stance) compiled some very interesting data that illustrates that anyone can teach their own children from a 1997 study.

Pay particular attention to the comparison between the mother’s educational levels and the basic battery test scores on page 2. The mother’s who did not even finish high school scored higher (83) than those who did graduate (80) and just one point away from the mother’s who had some higher education after High School! (84)

If you compare these test score averages to the public school sector on page 1, you see that even the drop out mom’s kids scored 33 points higher than the average public school students.

Another interesting graph shows the test score differences between homeschool parents who had teacher certification and those that did not. Surprisingly, the average scores were equal at the 4th grade level and 1 point higher in 8th grade if the parent had no educational certification!

Now this posting is not about the virtues of homeschooling vs. public education. There are many factors which contribute to those higher test scores of homeschooled students. Mainly that the child receives so much more one on one time and that the parent knows if the child is “getting it” or not. (When a child has to answer each and every question asked by the teacher, there is no faking it!)

Also, just by virtue of a child being at home and being part of the running of a household, there is much more life skills education taking place. Plus, homeschool families usually eat their meals together.*

Homeschooling parents tend to never turn off the teaching either. Everything is a teaching moment. (Many parents do this too, not just homeschoolers.)

I use this homeschool comparison information only to illustrate that if an uneducated parent can teach and guide their child to outperform the public school student, even in upper grades, certainly any parent can teach their child 4 year old kindergarten skills.

If a parent feels compelled to do a 4K program at home, there are a host of curriculum ideas, materials, and plans available. Rainbow Resource is one online source of all manner of materials. But please, don’t overload your children.

Personally, I do not think this is at all necessary. Just being with your child and involving them in your life: grocery shopping (colors, counting, sizes, etc.), meal preparation (measuring, counting, basic fractions, addition, subtraction), reading to your child (if they have a favorite book, point to the words as you read, when you come to a repetitive fun word, stop and let them say it—that is how my son learned to read), singing, art projects, nature study, pretend play (playing store is great—use real money!), going to the park or other special places, etc. Basically, you just take advantage of the teachable moments throughout the day--not in a tiresome, heavy handed way--make it fun.

PAMELAMUNCH left a comment regarding the importance of family time on my blog. Here is an excerpt:

I feel so many people want a 4k so they have some place to put their child for free (no tuition) so they can work. Why not promote less material gain and more importance on the value of our children at home with mom and family meals etc. I agree w/ LISAMCL and TESTOSTERONE that time with our families is our greatest gain.

Instead of your child telling you how they learned their left from their right hand, you teach it to them! (By the way, you can remind them that if they hold up their index finger, like they are pointing to the sky, and their thumb, out at a right angle, it forms the letter L if it is their left hand. Wish I would have known that when I was a kid!)

You are qualified to teach your own child. Don’t be afraid of it, be a part of it.

*Coming up next: Family Time and Family Meals—more important than we think

If any of you are thinking of homeschooling your children and would like some information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

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 agree...to a point. Simply raising the revenue cap with no effort to cut out the fat in the budget, is not something I would advocate, but even that may be more cost effective than increasing student populations which will prompt the need for more classrooms, teachers, support staff, and services. In a budget as large as the Elmbrook School District's certainly there are places to make thoughtful reductions. 

Recently at a neighborhood party, a few of the moms were talking about school and the high cost of private school tuition. Two of them had their children enrolled in parochial elementary and high schools.

I believe it is the right of every parent to choose the type of school their child attends.Sending children to private school or homeschooling them is a financial sacrifice many parents are willing to make, but as our property taxes increase it is a choice that is becoming increasingly difficult. (The major portion of your bill is the school tax).

That discussion reminded me of something I read in January's 2007 Elmbrook Link regarding the budget.

There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools, according to assistant superintendent for finance and operations, Bob Borch. The amount of revenue that the State of Wisconsin allows school districts to receive each year is based on enrollment figures under what are called, "state revenue caps." Either the School District of Elmbrook increases its resident enrollment as one way to produce more revenue or it must continue to make dramatic spending cuts to keep the annual budget in balance.  (Emphasis added)

When that publication came out, some people made the comment that because property taxes (school taxes) were getting so high, soon residents would have no choice but to send their kids to public school--they couldn't could afford tuition on top of the property taxes. Elmbrook was taxing us out of our ability to choose! This holds true for homeschoolers too. (Most homeschool moms cannot work outside the home and teach their children at the same time, so they are single income families.) 

The absurdity of Elmbrook's rational in their wish to recruit every possible student is unbelievable. In very rounded numbers, the total cost per student is $13,000/year. The district receives about $3,000/student from the coveted state reimbursement mentioned in the Link. The remaining $10,000 per student comes from us, the ELMBROOK School District taxpayers!

But cost aside, is this what Public Schools were designed to be? Something that parents had to enlist their children in with out a choice? A drift net that would snag and snare every living creature in its path? Or was the concept of the public school set up to be a safety net, designed to catch those who fell through the cracks, to keep them from injury.

If we look at the history of public education in the United States, we see that the Puritans were the first to implement free public education in the colonies. They wanted their children to be literate so they could read the Bible. It is ironic that the very reason for free public education is evolving into a mandate to attend a school where God cannot be mentioned nor a Bible read.

The first free public school in the United States was not available until the mid 1800s. (Section, The Beginning of the Public Education System)

The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty.

These reformers thought education should not just be for the wealthy, who could afford tuition to a private school or a tutor, but be available to all American children. It was not until 1918 that there even was a Federal law on the books requiring compulsory elementary school attendance in all states. These laws came about to ensure that all children, regardless of financial ability to pay, could reap the benefits of a basic education.   

Many families today are already being priced out of their ability to choose the type of education their child receives by the very system of public education (and resulting high property taxes) that was created to ensure all children be educated.  If this pattern of ever increasing school property taxes continues, then ironically, the only families that will still be able to choose will again be those who are very wealthy, or in select districts, the poor who qualify for school choice vouchers.

Elmbrook must come to terms that they must find other ways to work within their budget than just continually trying to increase their student enrollments. Recruiting all the resident students who currently attend private schools, non-resident students, and now the possible 4K students, just to receive the paltry (in comparison to the total cost) state aid monies to boost their budget is not the answer.

Enrollments will continue to drop. That is just the reality of the aging baby boom. Adding 4K may ease Elmbrook's budget woes for now (not the Embrook taxpayers' burden), but how will that help when enrollments drop further?

Elmbrook will suggest adding all day 4K, to double the state aid money. Then they will suggest adding 3K. The real answer lies in cutting the fat out of the budget and improving efficiency, and only asking the public to fund our own students.

Elmbrook needs to be reminded that they only receive about 25% of actual cost for each Elmbrook student from the state (that includes Elmbrook taxes too) and that it is the Elmbrook taxpayer that must make up the remaining 75%.

Elmbrook's drift net mentality costs the taxpayer about $10,000 per student. At that price, how does snagging a larger catch help us? 

 

There are a couple things to note in yesterday's Brookfieldnow article. The first is the subtitle: Few academic gains, tax costs are concerns

Bringing the tax cost in is misleading because it implies that the (our) tax cost would be less if we adopted a 4K program. Even though academically it does not improve children's lives, it does improve our tax situation, says those pro-4K.

Their argument is, "The increased revenue cap would help fund programs and services for all students, not just 4-year-olds, Gibson said."

The opposite, however, is true. Elmbrook's budget will increase by keeping 4K, but the taxpayer's tax bill does not go down as a result. The taxpayers are the ones funding this increased budget for Elmbrook. It does not help us.

One component of 4K that I don't think has been addressed by the board is where are we going to put the potential 500 students. Currently we have 200. They are planning on 300, with a total potential of 500. We don't have room for them all.

The administration keeps telling us that after the high school referendum is passed there is only one more phase--a minor one. Don't believe it. If we adopt a permanent or even sunsetted 4K, we will need to add on to our elementary schools. 

Tom Gehl, opposed to 4K, said that Research has not shown academic benefits to be sustainable beyond early elementary school. He is right--he understands.

Steve Schwei, Bob Ziegler and Cheri Sylla approve of 4K expansion. The paper said, "Each acknowledged the lack of long-term benefits demonstrated in the research but said they think Elmbrook has the ability to establish a more rigorous, challenging program that will show sustainable academic gains."

Unbelievable. They DON"T get it! This is exactly the worst thing you can do to a 4 year old--putting them into a more rigorous program. Children need to be children, free to learn and explore on their own through observation of the real world and creative play. Earlier rigors will only create very burned out, unhappy children once they hit 5th grade.

Did you notice the price went up again? The last quote I saw was around $860,000 a year. This article stated $2 million! Don't forget to add in the future elementary referendum for adding more kindergarten classroom space. 

There was a reference to one pro 4K parent who spoke in favor, the paper said, "she found it sad that the critical argument in the K4 debate has been cost." The point she is missing is that it is the administration itself that is making the emphasis on money.

The article concluded with, "Academics aside, Superintendent Matt Gibson said the continuation of K4 has financial benefits that may be critical to the district". If I were him, I would put academics aside too because there is no real benefit. (Sylla, Schwei, and Ziegler acknowledge the lack of benefit too.)

So, it is all about the money. Never mind that the 4K program really does not work--it lacks true academic benefits. Never mind that the taxpayers will foot the bill for all of the increases. All the administration and some board members care about is that their budget will increase.

I call that sad.

 
Contact the board--especially Patrick Murphy, by phone, in person, or letter and Glen Allgaier.

If you don't want the Elmbrook School District to implement a permanent 4K program, you better contact the board soon, or forever hold your peace. The board will vote on this next week Tuesday, Nov. 27.

Be sure to mention that adopting a 5 year Sunset Clause (the program would be discontinued after 5 years) is not a solution either.  For one thing, rarely does the sun ever set on any government program--the only two I can think of are the CCC and WPA. The vast majority of government programs expand in scope: think Social Security, Income Tax, Medicare, and for a more local flavor, Badger Care.

The five year Sunset option is no solution. It would still cost the taxpayers just as much each year and given that we don't have adequate facilities now, the 5 year plan could create the need for expensive additions. 

Don't just be the Silent Majority. The Board needs to hear from you! 

Contact the board--especially Patrick Murphy, by phone, in person, or letter and Glen Allgaier.

If this picture and title seem a bit familiar, it is because I used it last April to discuss the district's desire to pull in every possible student--even if they were non-resident students. See: Uncle Matt wants you, even if it means we have to build bigger schools

The defeat of the spring referendum and the groups that formed as a result of that defeat, at least brought attention to the fact that the non-resident student population was driving the space needs at the high school level.

But the district is still looking for ways to increase their income. One of the ways they can do that is by increasing enrollments. Adding non-resident enrollment is a rather hot potato right now, but the district is still trying to sell us on the merits of 4K.

The Journal Sentinel reported today that the push for 4K was primarily for monetary reasons.

Here are some revealing excerpts from the article: (Emphasis added)

If the Elmbrook School Board does not create a permanent 4-K program, it will have to find other ways to raise revenue to protect district wide programs and services, Superintendent Matt Gibson said.

Stressing that he didn't intend it as a threat, Gibson said the main motivation for adding 4-K was financial - the state's revenue cap formula.

Student learning and achievement, and competitiveness with area school districts, are other reasons to offer 4-K, Gibson said. But finances are the key reason, he said.

As Elmbrook's enrollment declines, the state revenue caps endanger the district's ability to fund existing programs and services, Gibson said.

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.

Please keep in mind that the taxpayers of Elmbrook must fund every student enrolled in the Elmbrook school system. There are state aids, but these too are funded by taxpayers! Since state aid does not cover the entire tuition costs, our portion varies from about $3,000 to $10,000 per student. The Elmbrook taxpayer never comes out ahead. 

The more students we enroll, the more taxes the district must collect. There is no cash cow here, not even with the 4K students.

Notice that there was no mention of how the 4K program increases long term academic success.

Even Matt Gibson admits, finances are the key reason to start a 4K program.

Remember that yes, 4K puts more money into the school budget, but that money comes from us!

It is rather like the stereotypical welfare mother having more children to collect more money each month. The additional children give her an increase in income, but her increase is funded by an increase in our taxes. And like that mother, the increase in number of children also causes an increase in operational expenses.

There is no getting ahead on this one.

I could have just as easily titled this posting: Uncle Matt wants your 4 year old--for the money! Is that what education is all about?

Contact the board--especially Patrick Murphy, by phone, in person, or letter and Glen Allgaier.

 

NEW COMMENT POLICY: Your pertinent, constructive comments are welcome. Please be aware however, that there is no guarantee that I will post them in their entirety. Some may not be posted at all.  By submitting your comment to me, you are agreeing to these terms: that if I do post your comment, I may use a portion or all of your comment.

 

On November 27^th,  Elmbrook's school board will decide the very important question of should we continue or discontinue 4K. We do not get to vote for or against it; our only opportunity to influence that decision is to contact the board members.

Whenever I am faced with an important decision, I ask myself a few questions: What are the expected benefits and consequences resulting from my decision, and can I afford it. We don't always have the luxury of knowing the results of trying something new, but if others have already made the change in question, I certainly like to evaluate the results of their decisions.  Fortunately, with  4K, there is longterm data available.

One basic question came to my mind regarding the 4K decision. If 4K is so important, so beneficial to a student's success in school, then why does our state only set the compulsory school age at 6 years old on Sept. 1? (That means students with a later birthday than Sept. 1 will start 1st grade at 7 years of age.)

The fact that children need not attend school until age 6 in Wisconsin made me wonder how our school age requirement compared to other states.

I found that answer and more in this article, Early Education Shows No Benefit - Compelling children to attend school at an earlier age does not yield expected results , by HSLDA, Home School Legal Defense Association. It is a treasure trove of information on the subject of early education.

The article stated in the section labeled: State-by-State Comparison:

A review of compulsory attendance laws across the nation shows that requiring young children to attend school may be largely unnecessary. Only eight states and the District of Columbia require attendance of 5-year-olds, and six of those nine allow exemptions for parents to withhold their children from school until age 6. The other 41 states allow parents to wait until their children are 6, 7, or even 8 years old before beginning formal education.²⁴

That information makes one wonder about the long term success of earlier and later starts in school. I read on in that section to find the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) test results from schoolchildren in all 50 states:

Scores of children from states that have low compulsory attendance ages (5-6) did not score any higher than children from the other states, and in some subjects their average was actually lower.²⁶

There was a link to All-Day Kindergarten Failing as Education Reform, which detailed information published by the Goldwater Institute:

All-day kindergarten fails to improve Stanford 9 reading, math, language arts scores

PHOENIX—A report published today by the Goldwater Institute examines Stanford 9 test scores and finds Arizona kindergarten programs initially improve learning but have no measurable impact on reading, math, or language arts test scores by fifth grade.

This test score information affirmed everything I had heard about the merits of earlier and earlier education, that it may initially seem to give kids a head start, but that head start does not translate into long term improvement. In fact, as a homeschooler, we were warned that too early of an introduction to school is counter productive. It actually causes burn out in the upper elementary grades through high school.

Earlier education does not benefit the underprivileged either. Head Start, the government early intervention program for at risk children, is often touted as the poster child for earlier education success. I mistakenly bought into this idea last year when I blogged, “You may be able to make the argument that early education is beneficial for inner city children, whose crack addicted mother may be passed out on the couch.” But now I see I was mistaken:

The most important goal of any education program is that children be educated. Studies of Head Start, however, demonstrate that early education produces no apparent academic benefits. In its early years, extensive studies were undertaken to prove Head Start worked. But the opposite turned out to be true. In 1969, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation found no difference in the behavior and educational achievement between Head Start and other underclass children.

Sixteen years later, the CRS Synthesis Project study, commissioned by HHS, came to the same conclusion. Although children showed “immediate gains,” by the second grade “there are no educationally meaningful differences.”²³

As I mentioned last year, I attended 4 year old kindergarten in the Shorewood school system. If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn’t Shorewood’s ACT scores be consistently higher than our school district’s that didn’t offer 4K? The data shows that this year was the first in the past few years that Shorewood edged out Elmbrook’s ACT scores by 1.23 points.  Of the top 10 schools in Wisconsin (Elmbrook consistently is in the top 10), at least 7 had no 4K program at the time those students tested started school. Incidentally, over 250 school districts have 4K so there should have been a better showing in the top 10 if it is so helpful.

All of this information presents quite a compelling reason to NOT start the education process so early. So when I saw last week's Brookfieldnow featuring those cute pictures of very young children enjoying 3K and 4K in the private school setting, it made me bristle. The article was misleadingly titled, "Learning early, 3-year-old kindergarten classes bring success to two schools".   

I ask you to look at the data, not the cute pictures in the Brookfieldnow article. What criteria are we using to measure success?

No one is arguing that young children do not enjoy an outing or activity from time to time. Our culture abounds with such opportunities. I still remember the Bible stories and making fun craft projects in Sunday School. My son used to enjoy his once a week, 2 hour visit at Elmbrook Church’s Moms and More (I did too!). Children love birthday parties, toddler gym classes, Park and Rec. programs, Library programs, trips to the zoo, and just doing things with mom! But all of these activities are not the responsibility of Public Education. Enjoyable? Yes.  Public Education? No.

The data just does not support starting school at age 4, and our state does not mandate it. The Brookfieldnow article shows that if these types of programs are wanted, there are plenty of opportunities for parents to avail themselves of them in the private sector.

The facts illustrate 4K is actually detrimental to a child's long term success in school. The cost of 4K then goes beyond just the financial investment in the program; it costs our children's future success in school. 

Please read through the information and contact the board--especially Patrick Murphy, by phone, in person, or letter and Glen Allgaier.

 

 

FYI: The footnote numbers at the end of the quotes correspond to the Early Education Shows No Benefit article. Incidentally, that article affirms that internationally, the trends are similar:

The country of Finland was a standout in both of these international assessments [PISA, the Program for International Student Assessment tests], ranking near or at the top in all tested subjects. These impressive results were achieved despite the fact that school attendance in Finland is not compulsory until age 7, later than almost any other European country.¹⁷

Some of the lower scoring countries in PISA were Sweden and Greece, which both emphasize early education. Sweden has some of the most comprehensive childcare in Europe, with the vast majority of children ages 1-12 having a place in a publicly funded child-care center. Even with this emphasis, however, Sweden ranked among the average countries in the PISA test, and Greece was among the five worst nations in all three subject areas.¹⁹

Last year I blogged:

Research shows that an earlier start in school does not translate to an increase in academic proficiency. Raymond and Dorothy Moore have done many studies that show an earlier start in school does not make for a better education or better student. In their book, Better Late Than Early, the Moores found When children are ready to learn, around the ages of 8-10, they quickly catch up to those who started earlier. So, why start so early?