Between preparing for Christmas and the snowy weather, I did not make it over to Elmbrook School's Administrative Offices to look at the newest version of the Human Growth and Development curriculum materials. I wasn't alone though. Because of "additional interest", Elmbrook extends sex-ed review sessions.

So, there is still opportunity to look at what our school district plans on teaching our students about this sensitive subject. Materials may be reviewed every day next week, January 5th - 9th, as well as the following Monday, Jan. 12th and Wednesday, Jan. 14th. The hours are the same each day: 8:30am to 4pm. All materials are located in the board room.

These review sessions are called "listening sessions" where residents may view the lessons and materials by grade level and also submit written comments. 

If you wish to take a look at another time or need more information, you may call Director of Learning Melanie Stewart at 262-781-3030, extension 1112 or email her at stewartm@elmbrookschools.org.

The administrative offices are located at 13780 Hope Street, just a few blocks north of Capitol Drive. 

If you have children enrolled in Elmbrook Schools, I encourage you to look at what will be covered during their school year at their grade level for the next few years.

Let me know what you think if you reviewed the curriculum.
 

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: 

File this under: Plan ahead. Human Growth and Development team member Cheri Mastel left a comment reminding us of these upcoming HGD meetings. Since I don't want any interested parents or residents to miss this opportunity, I am posting portions of her comments here:

Soon we [team members] will give of time, effort, and talent to the HGD parent advisory committee again.  

Three 2-hour meetings are scheduled FOR ALL PARENTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE K-12 CURRICULUM, OR ANY PORTIONS THEREOF.  Personally, I do not believe 6 hours is sufficient to review the entire k-12 curriculum including videos, DVDs, printed materials, etc, for this would imply 1/2 hour of instructional materials per grade level. Even viewing one video or DVD may use most or all of the time alloted.  More time has been requested of the district.  

The district has also been asked to provide copies of the not-yet-approved high-level-outcomes as a check-off-list for matching each of the instructional materials to their proposed outcomes during the review.

Meeting dates and times will undoubtedly be announced by the district but if you'd like as much advance notice as possible, and not risk overlooking a tiny notice on an obscure page, here is the info board members and HGD parent advisory committee members have received:

Tuesday, Dec. 9th 4:30–6:30PM, Friday, Dec,12th 1–3PM, and Tuesday, Jan. 6th 8:30–10:30AM

Again, many parents may be working at these times. The second meeting may be especially difficult to attend as it also coincides with school dismissal. Special arrangements may need to be made in advance, juggling schedules to attend.  I hope many will find it to be worth the effort.

I am glad there are a variety of times offered. I interested parents and residents should be at least able to attend one review meeting.

If I had a child in the district, I would want to know ahead of time what information my child would be given in class. You might be surprised by what is taught in the early grades.

Human Growth & Development (Sex Ed.) is a very personal issue. Opting out is always an option, but at what grade level do you need to start that? (For me, it would be K5, the school district's world view does not match mine.) The HG&D review should help you decide.

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: 

Tuesday, about 20 Elmbrook residents gathered at Brookfield El. to discuss state funding and its affect on class sizes. Board member Glen Allgaier attended as well.

We all introduced ourselves and stated the ages and grade level of our children in the Elmbrook school system. I think I was the only person there who never had a child in the Elmbrook system. (I homeschooled my son.) I would say most of the attendees were mothers of grade school aged children. 

Assistant Superintendent of Finance Bob Borch spent the majority of the time explaining the intricacies of state funding. (Very worthwhile.) As a result, there was not much time left for discussing class sizes.

Superintendent Matt Gibson did briefly outline how Elmbrook is embarking on a 5 year financial plan. Enrollments are dropping, wage and benefits to employees are rising, and the district is looking at budget shortfalls each year. He said it is estimated that by the 5th year, we are looking at a $9 - $10 million total reduction.

Since 83.5% of Elmbrook's "total expenses" came this school year from salaries and benefits, that leaves very little room for cutting. That remaining 16.5% goes for things like text books and utilities. Dr. Gibson stated that they like to keep salary/benefits percentages at 80% of the budget total; districts that are in trouble are at 90%.

Obviously, this will have to change at some point. Taxpayers cannot continue to support this ever growing percentage of the school budget. Not the percentage itself (83.5%) but the amount of money that 83.5% represents. The total budget from last year, 2007-08, was $82 million. I believe Bob Borch gave a figure of $95 million as the budget for next year, 2009-10.

One area where we could save Gibson said would be to limit special classes such as art, music, some of the applied tech, etc. (Somehow sports are never mentioned.) Another area would be to eliminate some teachers by increasing class sizes. 

Dr. Gibson gave a quick look at Elmbrook's current class size averages:

Elementary School: K - 5th grade - 22.5 students/class

Middle School: 6th - 8th grade - 25 - 26 students/class 

High School: 9th - 12th grade - English 23.5 students/class

                                             Math 22.4 students/class

Phy. Ed. would be a higher ratio.  AP, specialty, end of sequence classes (like German 4) have a much lower student/teacher ratio. (I believe some have as few as 12?)

The class sizes mentioned seemed very manageable. They could probably increase by a few students, especially if Chapter 220 students are no longer entering our system after 1st grade. (These students often require more help.)

I wondered how Elmbrook's class sizes compared to the "good old days." So I got out my photo album from my Shorewood grade school days. I counted up the students from the 4 class pictures I could find.

Half day K5 class, 39 students/ 2 teachers (1957) This large class used 1 room and 2 teachers in afternoon; (K4 used the same room and 2 teachers in the morning.)

4th grade - 23 students/class (1961)

5th grade - 23 students/class (1962)

6th grade - 25 students/class (1963)

Pretty close to what is current at Elmbrook. High School classes I remember as being larger than Elmbrook's 22.4 - 23.5/class. But then Elmbrook's figures are averages. That means some have more, some have fewer students/class.

Between now and June 2009, the Elmbrook School district is looking for community involvement in the financial planning process: 

The School District of Elmbrook is currently faced with a projected budget shortfall of $1.3 million for the 2009-10 school year.  This deficit is anticipated to increase over the subsequent three years.  It is a consequence of projected expenses increasing at a rate greater than the approximated 2.5% annual increase allowed by the legislated revenue cap on property taxes.

Here are some of the areas of study: 

• Enrollment revenue potential – resident and non-resident
• Other revenue potential
• Class size and/or program/service savings potential by level (elementary, middle & high school)
• Other staffing savings potential
• Negotiations and/or benefits plan design savings potential
• Energy savings potential

   If you are interested in participating on a study team, please contact Melinda Mueller at 262-781-3030 ext. 1176 or e-mail melinda.mueller@elmbrookschools.org.

I think it is good that the district is looking to long term planning. There is cushion built into the budget, since every year we are told there is this shortfall, yet most years end with a surplus. (At the 2007-08 fiscal year end "Elmbrook Schools spent $1.16 million or 1.4% less than the budget of $82 million.") At some point, with declining enrollment, thus less state aid, this might not always continue.

The district will also be looking at possibly closing a school or two, moving the district office, or even going to referendum to exceed the revenue cap. However, these measures wouldn't be looked into--if at all--until after June 2009 

Belt tightening is never pleasant. The real question is, can you find creative solutions that make it less painful? 

Links: 

I almost missed this little notice, it was tucked away on page 27 of Thursday's Brookfield NOW:

Members of the Elmbrook community are invited to attend a discussion about the effect of state funding on class sizes.

If you are interested, come to the meeting at Brookfield Elementary School, 2530 North Brookfield Road. It is being held in the LGI room from 1:30 to 3pm on Tuesday, Nov. 18th.

Because of our large tax base, Elmbrook schools get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to state aids for our resident students. Late in October, I asked Bob Borch what Elmbrook's per student costs and state aids were. He replied:

Using the budget approved last week and the methodology the district uses for calculating per student cost, the property tax portion of the total per pupil cost of $12,311 would be $10,384, with another portion coming from state aid at $1,161 and the remainder from local and federal sources.

The state contributes more for Chapter 220 and Open enrollment students, however, there is the perception that these students often are more disruptive in the classroom and school. From Brookfield NOW, "Elmbrook receives between $10,000 and $12,000 per Chapter 220 student in state integration aid." I don't have the Open enrollment reimbursement handy, but it is around half that number.

Because costs continue to rise (teacher and administration wage and benefit packages, rising utilities, etc.), I think larger class sizes are coming. I believe many classes at the high school level are in a 18 - 22 student range. But some of our classes, like German 4 for example, are very small because they are more specialized. The school feels they have a responsibility to high school students who already took 3 years of a language and wish to complete their studies by graduation.  

I don't know how many specifics will be discussed on Tuesday, but certainly I will post any new information if I attend the meeting. 

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: 

The Elmbrook School Board will be discussing future Chapter 220 enrollment at their work session on Tuesday, Oct. 28th from 6:00 to 6:55pm at the District Offices.

The actual board meeting begins at 7pm with the 2009-2010 Chapter 220 and Open Enrollment planning topic starting at 8pm. 

Both meetings are open to the public. 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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 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:

I attended the Human Growth and Development (Sex Ed.) work session Tuesday night. Several of the HG&D parent committee members were in the audience along with some interested parents. 

It was great to see many of our board members boldly standing up for the rights of the parent members of the HG&D committee as well as their own right to review and approve of specific lesson plans and materials used for Elmbrook's Sex Education program.

On a minor note, Glen Allgaier questioned the change in terms from STD (sexually transmitted disease) to STI (sexually transmitted infection). He said that the word "disease" caught his attention more than "infection." I would agree with that. Disease seems more detrimental than the term infection, especially considering some of these "infections" are fatal or incurable. The change from STD to STI was not made by Elmbrook, but was a change made by the CDC, I believe. (Update: See comment below from Cheri who notes that CDC still uses STD. Anyone know why we changed to STI?)

Another question about terminology that keeps cropping up is, what is meant by "curriculum?" This becomes important when discussing who is responsible for approving curriculum. Are we talking outcomes/general topics or actual teaching materials/lesson plans?

Dave Marcello said he would be in favor of getting curriculum in place, not outcomes. Outcomes is fuzzy.

Tom Gehl noted that it may be semantics, with curriculum, I conjure films, lesson plans, etc. 

Later in the meeting, Glen Allgaier suggested that they should just drop the word curriculum all together and just talk lesson plans and outcomes.

I would agree, because then everyone would know exactly what was being decided on. Are we agreeing to just the general topics of what is to be taught (outcomes)? or are we talking about the exact lesson plans and materials used to teach that topic?

If you remember, this was brought up before. Eileen Depka and Dr. Stewart say curriculum is the collective word for the total of individual outcomes. But State Statute 118.019 does state, "...nothing in the law prevents the [HG&D] committee from actually writing and developing lessons or a curriculum, for that matter." It later refers to "curriculum (lessons)" in their instructions.

Curriculum review is one area the HG&D committee does not agree on:

12 of the committee agreed: I believe that the HG&D Advisory Committee should review and approve all outcomes and Certified faculty should create the lessons. Grade Level parents (2 or more) should review the lessons and provide recommendations prior to adoption. Parents can review any lesson before their student participates in the class. (Current practice)*

5 of the committee agreed: I believe that the HG&D Advisory Committee should review and approve all outcomes and all lessons. Parents can review any lesson before their student participates in the class. 

*My note: It may be current practice in principle, but not in reality. At the last meeting we were told by the Pilgrim Park Principal that the binders were not available for parental perusal.  

So 5 of the HG&D committee wish a greater role in reviewing and approving the actual lessons taught. According to State Statute, they have that right.

Depka many times said that allowing the parents on the committee to approve of actual lessons would slow the process down. She seemed to favor that the teachers gather the materials--some prepared, some designed--and then parents (not necessarily HG&D parents) can look at the program. If all of that went to committee, it slows down the process.

David Marcello asked how long would that take?

One semester for the staff approval method, Depka answered. Dr. Stewart said that maybe we need to say, this is what we need done, this is the time frame.  She added, This time we are not starting from zero--some (outcomes) were not changed.

Marcello then said, we heard testimony for Pilgrim Park's Principal Galster that the binders are not in order. We ought to give support to teachers and parents sooner than later. I am in favor of speeding up the process, that is why I like the pre-printed materials. (The "Game Plan" Galster held up at the April school board meeting from Just Say Yes.)

I think Depka and Stewart said that they looked at them, but had not been given any materials.

Marcello estimated that 70% of parents probably would agree with the parents on the committee (that the pre-printed program was good.)

Board President Meg Wartman mentioned that the board had not approved of those materials. She also mentioned that as policy is written now, there is no formalized step for parent review. They then talked about where parent review would come in to play.

Dr. Gibson emphasized that the authority (for approval) resides with the board.

Steve Schwei doesn't think any board review of lessons is needed. (He earlier referred to board review as micromanaging.)

Marcello rebutted, someone should.

Gehl said, what I am looking for is elevating the voice of parents to that of staff.

The Journal reported Gehl as saying, "greater scrutiny is warranted because without it, Elmbrook and other districts have 'led to a case where (sexual) abstinence is presented as an option, but it's nowhere close to being presented as the healthiest option.'" We're not standing behind the policy that says abstinence is promoted. I looked at the pre-packaged, Just Say Yes. I liked much of it. It addresses hesitant teachers, it is uniform, transparent, consistent and aggressively promotes abstinence as the healthiest choice.

Gibson again said the way policy is currently written, (review) is not the role for the board or parents.

Marcello stood up for parents again, We'd like to see parents review this. Later he added, Why wouldn't you solicit the parents on HG&D? 

Depka stated that they want to expand to more parents to look at all materials. In just approving outcomes it took 1/2 year already. If we took actual lessons, it would take longer.

Allgaier said, We have a terrific source in this HG&D team. I would advocate for a very strong role of HG&D team parents. They will reach consensus, the ones (lessons) with disagreement will come to the board.

Wartman added, Prior to parent review, the HG&D team should review. 

There was lots of back an forth on the issue of who reviews the lessons. Some comparisons were made to how they approve of other classes like math, but to me, that is rather apples to oranges.

HG&D parent members, who wish a greater role in reviewing and approving what is being taught in HG&D, have every right to that role. Board members Allgaier, Marcello, Gehl, and probably Jones, seem like they are interested in reviewing/approving at the very least the HG&D lessons the committee couldn't come to consensus on.

It may not be the way we did it in the past, but that does not mean that the way we used to do it is the only way to accomplish the goal of a HG&D program. Plus, past methodology is hardly a shining beacon. Remember last year when oral sex instruction was going to be taught to 6th graders without proper approval process?

Considering there is pre-written curriculum in place that the parent members of the HG&D committee and middle school principal Galster thought excellent, it would seem pre-printed would be the more efficient place to start, rather than reinventing the wheel.

One statement from Dr. Gibson stands out as a glaring, What? Fairly Conservative talked about that yesterday. Please know that nothing the HG&D parents asked for was "Christian" material. Just Say Yes is not a Christian based group either, and an emphasis on abstinence as the best choice is the State's priority.

Past Postings: Updated: So What Happened With HG&D and School Board? April 11, 2008

Links:

(Be sure to contact our state legislators today about budget!)

Elmbrook's Human Growth and Development team (sex education) and the school board are meeting tonight for a work session.

Anyone can attend these sessions, though attendees are not allowed to address the board.

Agenda:

6:00      1.  Review Human Growth and Development Policy Revisions
                 as Recommended by Advisory Committee

6:45      2.  Review Process Questions
                 • Process for Review of Curriculum Outcomes
                 • Process for Selection of Materials to Deliver Outcomes

6:55      3.  Adjournment

It seems that although the state statutes emphasizes an abstinence first approach and prohibits directing a student to abortion only solutions to an unplanned pregnancy, the curriculum does not necessarily reflect the state's priorities.

I plan on attending; hope you will too.

April 8, 2008  HG&D Advisory Committee Recommendations 

Previous posts: Updated: So What Happened with HG&D and School Board? 

HG&D "Outcomes" on School Board Agenda Tuesday 

Links:

Thank you Elmbrook board for accommodating the few parents who still want a half-day kindergarten experience for their children.

Although I still am not convinced that all day 5K academically has any long term benefit, at least parents, who believe a full day for a 5 year old is too much, can opt for just the half-day offering.

I had wondered if something like a combined full-day/half-day class could be arranged but did not know how that would work out logistically. Elmbrook mixes in half-day kindergartners explains how it will work--at least curriculum wise. (Hopefully the half-day students will be sprinkled across all of the classes so we don't end up with 2 or 3 too small afternoon classes.)

Because of the concentration of core classes in the morning (can you call kindergarten classes core?), will parents feel a little more free to take their full-day children out of school for an occasional afternoon? I hate to see children have to give up a play date at the park on a beautiful day or a fun trip to Betty Brinn, etc. Only time will tell. 

Past Posts: Half-Day Kindergarten Extinct? Show Me the Benefit

Does 4K Deserve Tax Dollars? (Cites studies such as "Early Education Shows No Benefit")

Links:

Elmbrook just ended half-day kindergarten for 5 year olds. Why? Because there was lack of interest in half day kindergarten. The public only wanted full day.

But is that the way we make academic decisions these days? We do this or that just because parents want it?

Can anyone tell me the long term academic benefit of going from half day to full day kindergarten? Not the budget benefit to the school district, I am speaking of the academic benefit.

Last fall, during the debate over ending 4-K, School Board President Meg Wartman realized that Elmbrook never evaluated the long term benefit to all day 5-K in the same way they were scrutinizing the long term benefit to 4-K. The conclusion was of course that there was no measurable long term benefit to 4-K and so the district could not justify continuing 4-K.

But what about the long term All-Day 5-K gain? This is what I blogged from the 4-K vote meeting:

"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.)"

So why have we bypassed this same scrutiny for all day 5-K?

I think it is all about the budget--primarily when the decision to go to all day was made a few years ago.

You see, going all day in 5-K does the same thing as going half-day in 4-K. It increases the state aid by 100% per half day student.

State aid does not pay for the entire education costs per Elmbrook student. The Elmbrook taxpayer must make up the difference, which is significant. I believe in 2006, for example, Elmbrook received $1,701 per full time student in state aid. That would mean for half-day kindergarten students, Elmbrook received $850. So the move to all day kindergarten for those students who were half-day, the district would receive $850 more. The Elmbrook School District taxpayers must make up about $5,435 or more difference, however.

Granted, Elmbrook made the largest leap when all day 5-K was implemented. My question is, did Elmbrook ever weigh the cost to the taxpayer of going full day against the measurable long term academic gain? Judging by Board President Wartman's comments from last fall, it would seem not. 

The district could have handled the all day 5-K question much differently. If they would have provided only a section or 2 of all day 5-K (enrollment by lottery) and left the remaining sections as half-day, then I think we would see a different level of interest right now. Since all day is really just a nice-ity, not a necessity academically speaking, we should really be asking why we are going to all day 5-K. 

I believe that the school district has a responsibility to provide a good primary and secondary education to Elmbrook resident students. Period.  Extras, like all day 5-K (and extracurriculars) need to be examined under the the lens of longterm academic benefit.

Links: 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Kinsey Park Clean Up and Pier

There were about 40 residents attending last Tuesday's School Board meeting--most of them because of the HG&D topic.

Early in the meeting, one man from the Christian Civil Liberties Union threatened to picket Elmbrook's building project if the school adopted the controversial oral sex warning policy in the 6th and 8th grade.

At about 8:05pm, Dr. Stewart began her report by stating the HG&D team had 2 tasks. One was to look at policy and make recommendations and the other was to look at the curriculum and outcomes. She then asked the board if they had questions.

Steve Schwei requested that the chart of outcomes for each grade level be reprinted, so the rationale would be noted for every outcome: 73 Outcomes were unchanged, 38 updated, 17 new, and 19 eliminated. 

Ms. Depka clarified that Outcomes were the individual pieces of the total Curriculum picture.

(Please note that while those definitions may be Ms. Depka’s and Dr. Stewart’s interpretation of those terms, they do not reflect the entire HG&D team’s definition of “curriculum” or use of the term “curriculum” in the DPI’s instructions for HG&D. This issue is too large to cover here and will have to wait for another post. Just be aware however, that the DPI states, “...nothing in the law prevents the committee from actually writing and developing lessons or a curriculum, for that matter.” and refers to curriculum (lessons) in their instructions.)

Dr. Stewart (I think it was her, not Depka) stated that there were 2 areas that the HG&D team did not come to agreement on. One regarded the use of substitute or alternate lessons. Often the substitute materials are unrelated lessons, and they are not consistent. Should the substituted lessons be consistent so parents could know ahead of time what they would be? Should the substituted lesson be graded? This topic still needs further discussion but is not a hill to die on. 

The other area the HG&D team could not come to consensus on was much more important. Once outcomes are agreed upon and approved by the team, who develops and approves the actual lesson materials for each outcome/curriculum item? This is a question that needs answering.

*Currently, policy directs the Advisory Committee to make recommendations on curriculum/outcomes only. Faculty then creates lessons for the curriculum/outcomes and chooses educational materials to