Why a new elementary school should be funded on it's own referendum

Anyone who has studied the New Richmond School District enrollment knows that the elementary schools are bulging to overflowing with students.  Of all the schools they are the most critical.  

Some have said they want a single referendum to build a new high school, convert the high school to a middle school, build a new elementary school and buy the necessary land.  The bottom line would be $72.6 million as estimated by ATS&R, the board’s architect.  

The largest school referendum ever approved in Wisconsin was $65.4 million in 1999 in Wausau.  Wausau has a population of 37,430 with stable employment from Wausau Insurance Co.  What do you think the chances are of passing one for $72.6 million in New Richmond with a population one-fifth the size of Wausau?   Kenosha (population 92871) wished to pass a $114 million referendum since June 2004, but has postponed it repeatedly after encountering intense opposition.

Then we come to the payments for a $72.6 million referendum.  As it turns out the district has pushed past its limit for state aid and will pay the majority of the $5.5 million yearly payment.  Here’s what it does to your property taxes.  

        Property Value      Taxes 2005-6      With $72.6 mill Ref.
           $100,000                  $703                        $1076
             150,000                   1053                         1614
             200,000                   1404                         2152
             250,000                   1757                         2690

You are looking at a 53 percent increase in your school property taxes should a $72.6 million referendum pass.

Other impediments to a large referendum are pressure on local retailers by Wal-Mart, pressure on salaries such as last year’s strike by Bosh/Doboy, and gas and heating fuel prices.  It’s the perfect storm.  

There is no reason that the new elementary school can not be divorced from a one size fits all referendum.  Constructing a new building to the north of the East Elementary Building will save the cost of new land that is selling at upwards to $25,000 per acre.  

A new elementary school can be built on existing school property, saving money for the taxpayer and giving us a chance to really study the needs of the high school and middle school.  Bottom line: $12.5 million and maybe less if steel construction proves feasible.    

061006

More reasons for a new school on East Elementary property

There are several other reasons for building a new elementary school on the same property as East instead of a so-called neighborhood school north or south of New Richmond. Here they are:

1. Less bus transportation time in picking up all the elementary school students.

2. Sharing a school nurse between the new school and East.

3. Using the assistant Principal for administrative duties in the new school and the Principal retained at East for overall administrative duties at both schools. The 900 student Valley Crossing School in Woodbury had three lead teachers and only one principal.

4. Greater chance for lower utility cost installation into the new school.

5. Lower cost for site preparation.

Now that you have read these advantages drop down to the next post and read how it can be accomplished.

Build a North Elementary School

What if the New Richmond School District could build an elementary school that would…

• Require no additional land


• Be 25 percent cheaper to build


• be ready for team teaching that doubles student performance


• allow for year-round scheduling if desired

This type of school is operating now in Woodbury Minnesota and was toured in April to learn just how they accomplished year-round scheduling and managed their team teaching.

The school is Valley Crossing Community School. This school was designed for 900, K-6 students in three neighborhoods,” A, B, and C. The building had three wings with folding walls to enlarge a single classroom for team teaching. Neighborhood B was scheduled for year-round and the others for traditional summer vacation. Let’s see how a smaller version might fit into the East Elementary property. See figure at top of story.

Note that the new school is situated north of the East Elementary building so we’ll call it North Elementary School for want of a better name.

Another school on East property was never considered by the Long Range Planning Committee partly because the mind set was to evaluate each building as a stand alone unit. Once it was determined that the elementary grades were overcrowded (forget the future years) it was concluded that a new neighborhood school was needed.

The committee did not define neighborhood, but it appears that most members of the committee assumed it to mean a school in some nebulous educational campus along with a high school and middle school or in one of the outlying areas, preferably north or south of New Richmond.

Since we know a large elementary such as Valley Crossing is feasible if approached in the right way, it seemed natural to research a similar, smaller building on East Elementary property. The advantage, of course, is no additional land need be purchased. Some may object to the reduction of so-called “green space.” The answer is that land for the new school would be situated in an area of scrub trees and rocks.

The new school would be designed for 600 students. To handle the additional traffic, the entrance and parking areas will have to be expanded. The cost should be no different than site preparation on new land. Note the connection to the City’s East 8th street. Traffic flow in and out of the property will have to be evaluated by the City zoning commission.

It can not be emphasized enough what an opportunity a new elementary school offers the School District. The secret to 80 percent honor roll performance at Valley Crossing is team teaching. Compare this to the 40 percent average for the state of Minnesota. This means class rooms must be expanded via folding or bellows type walls. These walls do not contribute to structural strength of exterior walls and roof. Therein lies the necessity of going to steel construction and its attendant cost saving, some estimate, to be as high as 25 percent.

Think of the advantages of team teaching: 1) A new or less efficient teacher can be mentored by more experienced teachers in a dynamic situation. 2) Student learning problems can be observed by more than one teacher to bring about a team solution. 3) A substitute teacher can be guided by the other two leading to more productive days when one teacher is absent and 4) Team teaching and learning will be observed by students so they can more easily adapt to future work requirements in employment.

The cost: $12.5 million plus land preparation.

This school should be built now to alleviate current crowded conditions. It should not be held hostage to a $72.6 million building program recommended by the Long Range Planning Committee. It may fail. Lets take the New Richmond School building program one step at a time.


060529

Valley Crossing community school

TO:  Mike Williams

FROM:  Bob Ziller

SUBJECT:    Trip Report, 18 April 2006

     Contact: Mr. Bill Bjorum, Principal
              Valley Crossing Community School
               9900 Park Crossing, Woodbury MN 55125
              Phone: 651-702-5773

     Attended by:  Brian Johnston, Debra Heyerdahl, and Mike Williams

Background   The purpose of this trip was to obtain information on year-round scheduling.  Valley Crossing Community School has a single track year-round schedule in one of its three “neighborhood” schools.   Mr. Bjorum gave us a tour of this school and we found more of interest than year-round scheduling.  The school is a relatively new 10-year old facility.  It is unique in that it is in its own school district.  It draws students from four school districts.

It was started by an entrepreneurial Stillwater superintendent who wished to try year-round scheduling and team teaching.  He promoted this school in a new school district funded by three surrounding districts.  This was unheard of and required state legislation and cooperation from the other districts.  Mr. Bjorum labeled the superintendent a risk taker and needless to say required risks by the surrounding school boards.  New Richmond School Board take heed.

After state and district approvals, district #916 was established and a 900 student school was built.  It was designed into three so-called “neighborhoods A, B, and C, teaching K-6 grades.  The B neighborhood had a single-track year-round schedule while the other two were traditional.  Thus, each neighborhood handles 300 students.  The rooms were built with bellows type folding walls allowing expansion for team teaching with three teachers per team.  There are three lead teachers; one in each neighborhood reporting to the principal.  

Mr. Bjorum emphasized that year-round scheduling should not be tried in an existing building with traditional scheduling.  There are too many problems to overcome—it should be left an option.  As to acceptance the over-subscription by parents of year-round speaks for itself.  Year-round scheduling does not impact student achievement; it neither improves nor hinders it according to Bjorum.  

Mr. Bjorum was proud of the team teaching and performance showed it.  Honor roll students were 80 percent as compared to state average of 40 percent with single teacher classrooms.  If these statistics are valid, then New Richmond should investigate this method of teaching.

Discussion

As a non-educator, I see four advantages to team teaching:  1) A new or problem teacher can be mentored by the others to bring him/her up to speed, 2) Problem areas can be observed by more than one teacher in a dynamic situation, discussed and corrected, 3) a substitute teacher can be guided by the other two leading to less disruption, and 4) team teaching will be observed by students who will see the benefits of it for use in employment when required.  

How about team teaching acceptance by teachers?  Bjorum pointed to the open folding walls and noted that they could have been closed by the teachers had they not wanted this method of teaching.  If this method is to be tried in New Richmond, it should be a management decision.

Single-track scheduling would not be necessary with a new 600 student school, but trying it would give experience as to acceptance by parents and teachers and expose any problems for correction.

Recommendations

Build a new 600, K-6 student elementary school on and adjacent to the East Elementary property.  The building should be built with folding walls for team teaching with storage capacity and compatibility for four-track year-round scheduling.

Open the new school with single track year-round schedule

Open the new school with team teaching.

Finance the new school with a referendum for this building only.

Consider a steel building which would be idea with folding walls.  



060423
          

School Board needs to communicate

It looks like the New Richmond School Board is perplexed on how to respond to information on the blogs.  Blogs are fast and react quickly to newsworthy events.  They truly become the voice of the people and can turn a wannabe reporter into a reporter, editor, and publisher all in one on his own internet blog.  

The problem is that blogs becomes self-edited by the originator.  Information floats out there in cyberspace and the information is either not checked or could be false.  The speed and volume of the information makes it doubly difficult for the school board to react to allegedly false information.

The New Richmond Board wants to act in unison with one voice.  A case in point was Bill Brennan’s letter some weeks ago criticizing the board’s handling of the school superintendent and a construction contract.   It took the board several weeks to answer his charges by discussing it in a regular meeting, and then the letter was signed “New Richmond School Board.”  The implication is that the response was a unanimous decision instead of the five to two vote.  

The board has to get over the idea that it must act in unison.  The Supreme Court lays down the law of the land in five to four split decisions with minority reports written by the dissenters.  The same goes for legislators who make law by spirited debate and split votes.

The board feels it must make a response by preparing a letter by committee and duly voting upon it in open session.  It’s time some leadership is shown and individual members came forward and respond to letters-to-the-editor and blog information immediately.  There is no reason board members can not show their leadership ability and carry meeting debate into the news media.

Then there are closed sessions.  The multiplicity of closed sessions removes the public even further from debates on the issues.  How does the public evaluate individual members’ performance?  Are their arguments logical?  Do they understand the issues?

Take land acquisition: the only argument I’ve heard for going into closed session is to prevent competitors from outbidding.  The public needs to know about location, the pros and cons of its desirability compared to other options, and price.  Any board member who thinks the owner is not looking into fair market value is not thinking.  When a referendum fails, the board is perplexed that the public didn’t get the necessary information to vote for it.  Well duhh.

The New Richmond School Board has the resources to put out information in a timely fashion through the school website.  The October 17th meeting minutes were published a month later in the News.  By then it’s old news.   It could have been published several days after the meeting on the school website.

The problem is that meeting minutes have to be approved by the board which is done at their next regular meeting, then satisfy the News’ deadline.  Why not publish a draft on the website with a disclaimer that it is not official.  The official newspaper version can be published later.   If there is a will, there is a way.  One thing about the unofficial meeting minutes is that the superfluous stuff can be left out.  Who cares who voted to approve the agenda, approve the previous minutes, approve the hiring of teachers, or voted to go into executive session—give highlights only.  

On second thought, the public would be more inclined to read the unofficial minutes if they were printed in the newspaper.  

Bill Brennan’s letters did more to flush out debate by school board members than could possibly be spread by five or six persons in the audience during the board’s regular meetings.  Lester Jones or other board member could easily publish a rejoinder disputing any inaccurate or controversial information that gets into print or on the blog.  We all know that one board member does not represent the official position of the school board as a whole.

The school board had better improve its communications ability and reduce closed sessions before any future referendums or face another defeat.  

Sincerely,


Bob Ziller, 1231 172nd Ave., New Richmond, 715-246-6237,  051224                            

Teacher's Union afraid of voters

New president wants to kill TABOR before it reaches referendum
MADISON – Kill the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) before the voters have a chance to vote on it.Because the voters want it. If it gets to them, it’s going to become law. So stop it before anyone has a chance to vote. That’s official policy of AFT-Wisconsin (the American Federation of Teachers), now that their new president, Andy Gussert, has taken over. In an interview with WisPolitics, Gussert was asked whether he and other TABOR opponents will be able to “kill it in the state Senate.”Gussert’s answer: “I hope so. … We want to kill it legislatively.”“It’s obvious why spending interests would want to kill TABOR before it gets to the voters,” said Rep. Frank Lasee (R-Bellevue), author of TABOR. “Poll after poll shows large majorities of Wisconsin voters favor constitutional limits on taxes and spending. If TABOR gets to the voters, it will pass. It will become law.”“They’re afraid of that,” Lasee said. “Afraid their gravy train might stop.”In the interview, Gussert also suggested that, once educated on TABOR, people won’t support it.“If that’s the case, why not just let it get to referendum?” Lasee asked. “Why not let the people vote it down?”“Because they know the people won’t vote it down, because they’re wrong about TABOR,” Lasee said.Lasee pointed out Gussert’s statement that “It’s bad for economic development. It’s bad for business.”“Colorado’s economy is one of the fastest-growing in the nation,” Lasee said. “In every measure: population, personal income, gross state product, new business startups, job creation. Colorado is a leader. Their economy has taken off since their voters passed TABOR into law.”“Andy either doesn’t know the facts, or he does, and knows he has to lie about them,” Lasee said. “But this much is clear: AFT and other government unions don’t want to give voters the chance to limit how much taxes and government spending grow. They want a government without limits.”

Single Sex Schools

This just into my computer from Scott Jensen, 98th district state assemblyman.  It’s school related and is evidence that our legislators are beginning to get involved in educational improvements.

National Attention for Single Sex Schools and Classes
I'm pleased to report that my bill to give public school districts the option of offering single sex schools and classes is not only moving through the State Legislature, it is also garnering national attention.
On Monday, November 28th, CBS News interviewed me about my single sex schools and classes bill, and the story ran three days later on CBS's The Early Show. The following day a member of the Florida legislature who had seen my interview contacted my office and asked if he could use my bill as the model for a similar bill to be introduced in Florida.
Not only is this idea attracting attention nationally, research on the topic continues to demonstrate that single sex schools and classes benefit both boys and girls. In September, 2005, the United States Department of Education Issued a 128 page report entitled "Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review." Although it's written in "government speak," the report states that "the preponderance of studies in areas such as academic accomplishment (both concurrent and long term) and adaptation or socioemotonal development (both concurrent and long term) yields results lending support to single sex schooling."
Translation: an independent review by scientists in the federal government of 88 research studies on single sex schools and classes finds they can provide short and long term benefits for both genders.
I will keep you updated as this innovative bill continues its journey through the legislature.