Education Blog

2009-03-23T15:40:00.003-05:00

“Something has to be done with those private schools in the state tournament.”

Whenever a private school beats a public school in a WIAA tournament game, this comment is a common refrain from people who feel that public high schools are at a competitive disadvantage in high school sporting events. Like anything, this perspective is rooted in some issues that are real and some that are imagined. This article is an attempt to shed some light on the issue.

The WIAA awards trophies to the first and second place teams at state tournaments. The WIAA sponsors 24 team state tournaments and, with the various divisions in each sport, awards 134 state trophies. In the past 12 months, private schools have won 22% of these state trophies while they make up 14% of the total WIAA membership. So, by the numbers, the athletic success of private schools surpasses their membership. However this disproportionate success is not uniform. In twelve sports (boy’s and girl’s track, girl’s basketball, gymnastics, boy’s and girl’s hockey, boy’s and girl’s swimming, wrestling, boy’s and girl’s cross country, football) private schools did not win any state hardware or less than their total representation in that sport. In four sports, private schools won more than twenty percent but less than half of the state hardware (girl’s volleyball, spring baseball, boy’s golf, and softball). In eight sports, private schools won half or more of the state hardware (girl’s golf, boy’s soccer, girl’s tennis, boy’s volleyball, boy’s basketball, summer baseball, girl’s soccer, boy’s tennis).

It would seem that if something is unfair, it is not unfair across the board. If private schools have an advantage in some sports, clearly public schools have the upper hand in just as many other sports.

Some question why the WIAA ever let private schools in as members. The WIAA had no choice. Two times during the 1990’s the state legislature passed laws which would have required public and private school to compete in the same state-wide league. Each time, Governor Tommy Thompson vetoed the legislation. If the WIAA would not have acted proactively to include private schools, they would have been forced to include them. The prevailing argument is that if a student lives in Wisconsin, they have the right to compete for a state championship at their school.

It has been suggested that divisional placements be adjusted by placing private schools in larger divisions. The numbers above do not break down the success of private schools by division. Private schools do much better in smaller divisions as that is where most are placed. Very few private schools are large enough to be placed in Division I. By moving private schools up to large school divisions, it is argued, more competitive equity would result and things would be fairer. This idea is rooted in a belief that because of the differences between public and private schools’ student populations, and what the needs of these students are, enrollment numbers at public and private high schools are not comparable.

However, this solution would probably create more problems than it would solve. Given Wisconsin’s political climate of requiring public and private schools to co-exist in the same association, any attempt to create a two-tiered system would only create inequity that would lead to litigation and even more tension and bitterness between public and private schools. Additionally, the question could be raised as to whether any school that has continued success in a sport should be moved up a division… or only private schools.

Placing private schools in the same division as the public schools in whose district they are located is another proposed solution. Private school advantage is believed by some to be rooted in the fact that private schools are located in large metropolitan areas that allow them to draw students from a larger population base than public schools. This argument is certainly logical. While this may bring about some equity, fixing one problem creates another. Is it really fair that a private school of 100 students (as several in Milwaukee are) would be required to play Division I schools with enrollments of over 2500? This solution would generate another type of inequity.

Many other states have tried various fixes. These range from simply bumping up private schools one division to complex formulas that are designed to create the fairest placement. Unfortunately, these adjustments have not fixed everything. A closer look at these states would reveal issues that remain unsolved including, in more than one instance, the number of state championships won by private schools actually increasing under this solution.

Recruitment by private schools is seen by some as why private schools enjoy a competitive advantage. Recruiting students for their athletic ability is prohibited by WIAA rules. If a school is recruiting athletes, then the alleged violation should be referred to the WIAA for an investigation. Additionally, with public school open enrollment, some public schools have also been accused of recruiting. However, it is typically not illegal recruiting if a school talks with students within its own system about staying in the system (i.e. Lutheran high schools talking to students in Lutheran elementary schools).

The issue often comes down to programs more than whether the program is public or private. Many examples exist of public school having a long history of success in a given sport. Many private schools have little or no history of success in athletics. We can see this with the success of private schools in soccer and tennis being mirrored by public school dominance in wrestling and swimming.

So where does all this leave us? A quick fix from the WIAA to ensure equity of success across the board in all sports does not seem like it will or even should happen. Some sports will probably continue to be the domain of public schools, while private schools will be more successful in others. Probably the best way to fix the inequity is to do what it takes to get better. Spend more time in the weight room. Run more miles. Shoot more free throws. Hit more balls. If you want to beat the other team, don’t let them outwork you.

Comments may be shared by visiting the education blog link on the Brillion School District’s website.

2009-02-05T15:35:00.002-06:00

Consider this column my official non-endorsement for any of the candidates for state superintendent. While not exactly a high profile office, the state superintendent is a non-partisan position established by the state constitution as an independent leader of the Department of Public Instruction. While the state superintendent only request a budget for schools in Wisconsin, their voice helps set the stage for how we fund schools in the state.

School funding in Wisconsin is oftentimes explained as a three legged stool. The system, established in 1993 to control property taxes, is supported by the three principles of revenue caps, two-thirds funding, and the qualified economic offer (QEO). Revenue caps limit how much schools can increase their spending from the previous year. Two-thirds funding is the share of school costs that are funded by the state. The QEO establishes limits to increases in compensation for teachers. Each component supports the others. The combined effect is to limit how much schools can spend (revenue limits) by placing limits on what they have to spend (QEO).

The system, for many reasons, needs fixing and none of the current candidates for state superintendent are offering a viable fix. Their answers and proposals are mired in the political muck of Madison or in trying to appease a viewpoint without looking at the impact of their decision. Of the five candidates for state superintendent, three propose eliminating the QEO with little or no mention of revenue caps or two-thirds funding. These are the candidates attempting to get the backing of the state’s largest teachers union (WEAC). The candidate that WEAC backs almost always gets elected. Two candidates want to keep the QEO to control educational spending. These candidates are courting the anti-tax vote. Several of the candidates are also proposing funding schools with more sales tax and less property tax, a classic shell game for taxpayers. To be fair, one candidate is calling for more teacher pay and more taxes (I just have a hard time taking someone running as a Green Party activist from Madison seriously).

Taking any course is problematic. Scrap the QEO and teacher compensation packages will rise. However, if you keep revenue limits the amount of money you have to spend will not keep pace; resulting in program cutbacks as schools will not have the money to pay as many teachers. Teachers will become better compensated; we will just have fewer of them. Keep the system as is and teacher salaries in Wisconsin will continue to drop, in good and bad economic times, and teacher quality will invariably suffer. This approach also creates a funding disparity that means not every district will get their fair share.

Here is what I think. Let’s make sure our teachers are well paid. Revise the QEO to match the average of inflation so that teachers’ earning power does not drop over the long haul. Let’s adequately fund schools. Allow school boards to set the levy without state imposed controls. If school boards spend too much (levy too much property tax), they can be voted out. If they spend too little (do not have enough programs), the community can respond at the ballot box. Additionally, a base funding amount, set by the state, must be mandated to be spent by local districts, and supported by state funding.

While spending more may be unrealistic, the current proposal to end the QEO while leaving revenue caps requires districts to spend more without allowing them to have any more money to spend. Not a good idea. Likewise, pretending that everything is fine with the financing system only serves to hold down teacher compensation in tough times, like now, AND during the good times, which will come again. Indexing costs to inflation at least allows teachers to be compensated better when the economy is going well and receive lower wages when things are going badly.

I think that everyone in Madison knows everything I have said here. So why do they avoid these common sense approaches? Simply put, they are more focused on political positioning than they are about educating. Perhaps we cannot separate the two. However, if you believe that we are in a time when politics as we know it should change, this is a start. While non-partisan elections are fairly low profile, let’s not let these candidates play to the politics of the past.

2008-12-19T09:08:00.001-06:00

Who is Margaret Spellings? Don’t know? Punch it into Google on your Blackberry. Don’t have a Blackberry? Get one, or something similar… soon.

When looking back over the last fifty years of American History, a common pattern has been to look to schools whenever the nation faces a crisis. Sometimes schools are blamed for the problem. Other times they are looked at as the means to solve the problem. One prominent example of this phenomenon was the response to Sputnik in the late 1950s. Then, large sums of money were put into science education to fix what looked to be a gap between hard-charging, science-crazy Soviet students and students n America who were seen as, well, just ambivalent about it all. Another significant example is when a government report called A Nation at Risk was published. This report blamed lousy K-12 American schools for what was then seen as inevitable economic domination by the Japanese due. The report stated: “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.” These examples were part of a series of events that led to education being seen as a national issue that should be regulated and controlled by the national government. The 2001 law called “No Child Left Behind” laid down sweeping changes of accountability in schools to ensure that students were adequately tested so that all students are learning regardless of their background.

Times seem to be changing. Every indication seems to suggest that education as a national issue is beginning to slip away. Other issues, most notably the war on terror and the economic crises, have pushed the education issue aside. It is also notable that education does not seem to be getting blamed for either global terrorism or the current economic crises. Most of President-elect Obama’s cabinet has been selected, but no announcement, or buzz, about who will head up the Department of Education. Secretary of Veteran’s affairs seems to be more important right now to the president-elect.

The diminished role for education on the national scene is not something that should create a sense of complacency on the part of any of us about education. Education, now as much as any time in our history, is something that we should all regard as something needing urgent attention. Our answers about how to make education more responsive to the needs of society have, for the most part, been more effectively found at the local level. Therefore, the importance of what is going on in your local school is of critical importance.

The irony of education being taken off center stage as a national issue is that it is coming at a time when change in education is coming on a scale not seen in several generations. The reason for the change is in direct response to the economic changes that are sweeping not only the country, but the world. The stark economic reality of today is that the type of workers that our schools were set up to provide in the last century have taken on a diminished role. The role of information technology serves as an example to illustrate this shift. Consider this: A fifteen year old with a Blackberry can access as much information, at the same speed, that the head librarian at Harvard University can. The students of today are tasked with skills that require not the ability to know large amounts of information, but the ability to access and pull together gargantuan amounts of information. In fact, students must be able to access more information than they can conceivably process by themselves. Students must have the skills to work with others to effectively pool the gargantuan amount of information that they each pull together. It is the only way that our workers (students) can outperform the workers in Brazil, Russia, India, or China.

Schools must shift from being places where large amounts of information is learned by students, to places where students learn to effectively use resources and collaborate with other students for innovative solutions to problems. Think about how that works when we have rules in our schools that prohibit students from using cell phones on tests. Think about how that works when we evaluate students with a system (we call it “letter grades”) that was developed almost a century ago. Think about what we reward students for and what we punish them for. Are our most innovative thinkers the ones who the educational system rewards? Do the students who push the limits of conventional wisdom get the most notoriety? What is it that we value in our schools and what is it that we need?

It is not a criticism of Barack Obama to suggest that he will probably not be the one to get the answers to these questions. Reform and changing how we do things that matter must be done ourselves. Brillion does not need to look to Washington DC for help in meeting the needs of the 21st century. Brillion can and will, I believe, look at itself. We have the resources and we have the ability. It is in places like Brillion that our country will develop the tools to be great because that is where we always have.

K-8 Building

2008-11-19T08:05:00.002-06:00

The recent referendum that was voted down by the voters of the district by a count of 2124-612 is a clear message from the public to the school district to go back to the drawing board. While every effort was made by the board to get input from the public prior to putting the question on the ballot, more effort is needed to gain public support behind a solution to the district’s building needs. I see the results of this vote as clear evidence that the system works. The public’s will is driving the outcome of how a public entity, the school district, shall spend taxpayer dollars. Too bad that not all levels of government are this accountable to the taxpayers whose money they spend.

Little disagreement exists about the problems facing the current building. A clear need exists. The issue is about how to solve it. The life cycles of many buildings in Brillion have recently reached a time of need. T & C, Best Advantage Credit Union, and Bellin Health have all decided to abandoned buildings and construct new ones. Endries has completely reorganized their building to meet new needs. Buildings wear out and need to be replaced. Needs change and buildings need to be redone to meet those needs. The K-8 building of the Brillion Public School District is in this position.

The solution proposed on the ballot last week was an attempt to address needs in a long term manner. The history of the district since 1938 has been to address building needs about every ten years. The reason the board and the citizen’s committee recommended pursuing $20 million plus options was to address the existing building needs in a long term manner. While long term solutions save dollars, this approach does have a higher up front cost. Given the current state of the economy, paying up front now to save later has a limited appeal.

A number of options can be pursued to move the issue forward. The list below includes many of the possible options. The list is neither all-inclusive nor certain to contain the best answer. The list is a starting point for options to consider.

1. Go to referendum for a smaller amount of money to fix the building for the short term with the understanding that a larger building project will have to occur in about ten years.

2. Phase in construction of a new building by running referendums every five years until everything is rebuilt.

3. Better communicate the need and proposed solution to the voters and run the same referendum again.

4. Do nothing and hope that the building will do as it stands.

5. Reduce the operating budget by cutting spending on programs and use the money cut to address building needs.

6. Go to referendum to fix the existing building and do not worry about issues regarding use of the building. Make due with the way the building is now and go to referendum for long term fixes without any new construction.

7. Wait a few years before doing anything and hope that everything will hold until a solution is arrived at after additional consideration.

The board of education will be looking at these issues and determine a course of action to address building needs. Many of the solution have known costs. Some of these solutions have price tags that would have to be determined.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. The process for schools to address their building needs is unlike that of any other branch of government. New buildings for schools must be put to a direct vote. The process definitely opens educators and school boards to criticism. However, the process is democracy to the core. And, to me, that makes the process as it should be. It is not educators or boards of education making decisions, it is the people.

Questions and Answers about the November Referendum

2008-10-14T11:36:00.001-05:00

Questions from Referendum Meetings:

How does the school know how old the current systems are? (heating, plumbing, wiring…)
As part of a lengthy facility study done by the school district, the original blueprints for the buildings were reviewed and used to determine ages of buildings and much of the mechanical infrastructure. In the cases where no blueprints were available, the age of equipment was determined by consultants in various fields by running serial and/or vendor numbers through the data bases of companies that manufactured the original equipment.

Why is this school not efficient for the grade school?
The efficiency issues are due both to the mechanical age of the building and the uses of the building. The current 1988 building has a large multi-purpose room that is not useable in the current K-8 configuration as well as many needs that exist today that were not around in 1988 (i.e. special education requirements and computer/technology’s role in education). The efficiency shortfalls of the 1988 building are more operational in nature than mechanical.

What are the energy needs (cost) of the current building?
The costs in the area of energy are very volatile so the numbers can vary tremendously. Our best estimate is that for the 08-09 school year the building will use about $100,000 in heating fuel, and $80,000 in electrical costs, and $9,000 in water and sewer.

Are the gym and cafeteria included in the square footage number?
The total square footage of the new building is about 150,000 square feet and the existing building has about 170,000 square feet. Cafeteria and gym space are included in that number.

Why did you enlarge the parking lot in the front of school so much? Would not that space be better used as a green space?
The total parking capacity was kept the same as it is now. Additional parking spaces were added in the front to accommodate the increase in parents dropping off their students off at school. Oftentimes parents do not just drop off their children, but park and walk their children into the school.

Is the new school going to be as spread out as the old school?
The new plans are not as spread out but they do sprawl across the site. The layout is designed to optimize natural lighting for children during the school day. Additionally, the layout makes it easier to observe students throughout the day by increasing sight lines along fewer hallways.

Why did the parent drop-off and bus pick-up locations change from years ago?
The drop off of by busses went to the back as that activity does not require proximity to the office. Additionally, the front drop off was originally designed before the elementary school was built and the elementary school office is located on the front side of the building which more parents need access to. Having parents park on the East side of the building allows for parents to enter the building and go directly to the office.

Will geothermal heating be considered for the new building?
An energy study was commissioned for the new building and has recommendations on utilizing geothermal and other “green” activity to make the building less reliant on fossil fuels.

Why did the district decide to keep the same location for a new building?
The school board and the citizens committee had a strong sentiment that the elementary school needs to remain downtown and not be moved to another location. The decision was based on the belief that the community has a strong tie to the current site and that the district should maintain a tie to downtown.

How will you have school if you have to tear down a building and build a new one on the same site?
A phase in plan has been developed to allow for this process to happen. The entire project is estimated to last about 30 months.

Will the cost of the building be sufficient due to it taking 30 months to build?
The district will have a budget to operate when given authority by the taxpayers to move forward. It is expected that building costs will probably be dropping in the coming months, but, the district will have to work within the budget parameters it has set.

Did the district try to save some of the newer additions?
Several options were looked at and priced out to save current parts of the building. While material costs could be saved by utilizing the exiting building, these savings were offset by the labor costs required to undertake the extensive remodeling that would be needed to ensure code compliance and building designs for the building. Many scenarios saving the buildings cost more than razing them for these reasons.

Did the district prioritize needs instead of just throwing everything together to be addressed at one time?
Yes, the district and the citizens committee in particular, looked at all the needs and did prioritize them. Along with the basic mechanical needs, building security, educational uses, and operating efficiencies were deemed to be critically important. Items like comfort and aesthetics were deemed not important. Many items are important for student needs and are difficult to tease out from each other. For example, an operable heating system is on par with roofs. A plumbing system that is consistently functional and a building designed for optimal school security are both important factors to consider. The building being designed is not based on luxury but is based on the basic functional needs of our current K-8 system with an attempt to be focused on the future.

What will the district do if this referendum does not pass?
When the results of the referendum are known the board will meet to decide how best to move forward to ensure that taxpayer dollars are utilized in as efficient a manner as possible to meet the needs of the district.

What percent is funded by the state?
Approximately 39% of the money spent on this project by local property taxpayers will be aided back to the taxpayers by the state.

Is the state aide guaranteed and where does the state aide come from?
The state aid is determined by state statute. The state aid comes from the state treasury and goes back to taxpayers in the form of tax credits on property tax bills or in the form of increased state aid to schools in the form of equalization aid that drops the total school property tax levy.

What impact will the current economic crises of the nation have on the referendum?
The referendum is a significant commitment on behalf of the community. The state of the economy will not change the commitment. The economy could be doing well at the time of a referendum vote and then things could go poorly in the economy and when the first tax bills come due (typically about a year will pass between the two events) things could be tough. Or, the economy could be doing poorly and when the first tax bill comes due things could be turned around. It is nearly impossible to time a referendum with the stock market or credit markets. At this time, building cost are expected to go down and municipal bond rates are also lower than expected due to the state of the economy.

Does the school budget for maintenance needs?
The schools total maintenance budget is about $150,000 on maintenance every year. This number does not include personnel costs of our custodial employees. Additionally, the way school finance works is that school district budgets are primary about program costs. In other words, the way the state has set up school finance rules since 1993 has required schools to use their budgets to run math classes, band, and science but not to address large scale building needs. The rules of the game require schools to go to the voter for approval to spend money on any significant building project.

Why did the district not budget better to ensure proper maintenance of the school so it does not need to be replaced?
The district has maintained the facility well. It is not lack of maintenance that has caused the need for a new building. Buildings wear out and their parts get old and need to be replaced. Many of the components of the building have outlived their life expectancy and need to be replaced. The current building needs are not a result of any poor long term spending choices. The need for a referendum is a result of how funding for schools works in Wisconsin.

How is the school going to furnish the school?
Most of the existing furnishings will be reused in a new building.

What options will be on the referendum?
The ballot question will read ” BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of the Brillion Public School District, Calumet, Manitowoc and Brown Counties, Wisconsin, that there shall be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $23,690,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new K-8 elementary school and demolishing and removing the existing elementary school and maintenance facility; constructing replacement maintenance facilities; and making improvements at the elementary school site including asphalt improvements.”
Voters will have the choice of voting yes or no on that question.

I would like to see the school for myself. When can I take a tour?
The remaining tours are on October 17, 20,23, 27 and November 3 at 5:30 starting at the middle school library. The final informational meeting will be on October 27th at 7:00pm in the middle school library.

Education Building Needs

2008-08-06T10:16:00.000-05:00

This week’s article is the second of a two-part discussion regarding the district’s referendum vote in November. Last week’s article gave an overview of the structural and mechanical needs of the building. This week’s article will focus on the need for design changes in the building.
The current building is being used for many purposes it was never designed for. While the original use and design of current space typically made sense at the time the construction was done, the building’s use has evolved and the space design has not changed to meet current needs. A few examples illustrate this point:
The current kindergarten classrooms are not in proximity to many of the other areas of the building used. For a group of kindergarten student to get to the cafeteria they must traverse two flights of stairs and six hallways to get to the cafeteria – a significant feat for a group of twenty five-year-old children. Getting to the gym requires going up one flight of stairs and down three hallways. When the 1988 building was built, both the gym and cafeteria were across the hallway from the kindergarten classrooms. However, the building’s total use has made the current set-up less efficient.
The middle school classrooms use space that was designed as a high school in 1968. The needs of middle school students in 2008 are very different from those of high school students in 1968.
The current kitchen requires students to go through the food preparation area and right next to a dishwasher to get their food. This is no longer an acceptable practice. Although, I am not sure why it ever was.
The school now has state- mandated occupational therapy and physical therapy for students that meet certain criteria. These services are currently being offered in the kitchens of the 1988 building. In 1988, we did not really have OT and PT in schools.
Three rooms are now used for computer labs. We did not have computer labs in 1988, 1968, or 1958 – the year each building was built that has a lab.
Seven classrooms are used for special education students and services. Most of the current building was built before we even had special education requirements.
Many other examples exist. The point is that the building’s use has been adapted to current needs and is not designed around a master plan to meet current needs.
Security is another area that the current building falls short on. This is evident in a couple of areas.
None of the current entrances are monitored. To get in the building you can simply walk in. Having visitors to the school come through an entrance that is monitored is a basic security issue. Fortunately, the likelihood of an intruder who intends kids harm is highly unlikely and explains why it did not enter into the original design of the building. However, school violence is on our minds now and designing a school for security is something to strongly consider.
The current PA system is poorly designed and needs replacement. The current building offices do not have access to building all-calls – this can only be done at the district office. At one time the district office was the primary office for the building. Additionally, the PA system is very old and needs to be updated to a more user-friendly digital system. This is not a small project, as it requires a completely new system to be installed throughout the building.
The delivery system for food service and packages is not in a monitored area. All food must go down an elevator and to hallways to get to a kitchen. A loading dock to the kitchen would be more efficient and would aid in security by limiting who has access to the building.
Another significant area to address is ensuring that our space allows for our staff to effectively work together. This concept may not seem like a big idea. However, upon closer look it is critical if we are to optimally utilize the people we have working with our children. Organizing space to ensure that teachers will be able to effectively work together to help students learn can be done in a properly design building.. While looking at what a building costs can be significant, it pales in comparison to what we spend on our people throughout the life of that building. Our cooks, aides, custodians, and secretaries, along with our teachers, need to be able to effectively communicate with one another to ensure that our efforts are targeted for what is best for kids.
The current kitchen and lunchroom is not conducive to student use. While the current set-up has worked for many years, a number of issues have rendered the current space unfit for our students. The students must go through the food preparation area to be served. For many reasons, safety and cleanliness among them, this is not a good idea. The kitchen needs to be remodeled to be more efficient and conducive to its current use.
The cafeteria is not an optimal place for student dining. It is in a basement, without any natural light, is crowded, and is loud when over 300 elementary students are packed in it. Take my word for it; it is not where you would like to have lunch every day. If you do not want to take my word for it, please call us and we can show you what it is like during a school day.
The current cafeteria is also not conducive to community use. The layout of the building could better serve the community if the cafeteria had proximity to an entrance and, possibly, the gymnasium. An improved floor plan would serve our community and students better by offering a more useable space with better accessibility and an environment that is more amenable to being used.
A final area of need is to create a building that is “green.” Having a municipal building that is energy efficient and makes use of technology to be environmentally friendly was a concern of the citizens group that studied the building facility. As has been explained previously, the current building is not energy friendly. Insulation, heating efficiency, and windows are but a few areas where the current building is woefully inadequate. Creating a building that is less dependent upon fossil fuels and uses fewer resources to operate benefits the budget in the short run and has a positive ecological impact in the long run.
The articles this week and last week have spelled out the primary facility needs of the school district. Hopefully, it is clear why the buildings are in need of a major upgrade. Unfortunately the cost of that upgrade will be significant. There is no way to sugar coat the fact that this project is going to cost a lot of money. The citizen’s committee and the board are coming up with a plan that will not only meet current needs, but also serve the community long into the future. Hopefully, we can break the trend of adding on every ten years and come up with long-term solution that will be the most cost effective for taxpayers. As we put together the plan, a sincere and significant effort will be made by the district to go out in the community and present the plan and answer all your questions. This referendum is a significant local project and the community has the right to know what is going on and be offered every opportunity to better understand how and why the solution proposed is seen as the best idea.
I look forward to speaking with many of you in the next few months. Comments on this article may be made on the district’s website by clicking on the educational blog link on the homepage.

Mechanical Building Needs

2008-08-06T10:05:00.001-05:00

The time for consideration of a referendum for school facilities is upon us again. A look at the history of Brillion schools indicates that consideration of a referendum to address building needs in the school happens about every ten years. Significant building projects or referendums in Brillion have occurred in the following years: 1938, 1954, 1959, 1968, 1972, 1978, 1988 and 1999. Considering needs in 2008 is in keeping with a pattern that has developed for at least 70 years.

I would assume that any taxpayer of the district would look at referendum request based on what the needs of the district are and does the referendum request meet those needs. Through the work of many people the referendum to be considered does both. The article this week is a two part piece that will address what the needs of the district are. This week I will address the physical needs of the current building. Next week’s article will address the issue of space needs of the building.

Plumbing
A mixture of inefficiency and outdated fixtures and piping characterize the building. A review by mechanical engineer indicated many of the pumps and valves have outlived their life expectancy and should be replaced. Additionally, updating the valves and fixtures will increase efficiency as the newer styles could reduce water usage in many areas by over fifty percent.

HVAC needs
The current heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system is outdated and inefficient. The two boilers heating the building are between 52 and 48 years old and are designed to operate for 40 years. While the boilers do work, they operate at about 70% efficiency whereas new sealed combustion boilers operate at about 95% efficiency. The ventilation systems that supply heat and some air conditioning to the building are between 40 and 54 years old and have an intended service life of between 20 to 25 years. These will all need to be replaced within the next few years as they are currently failing and repair is difficult due to parts availability. The controls that operate much of the building are pneumatic and leak considerable volumes of air due to age. Replacing the pneumatic valves with digital control will increase their efficiency and allow for better climate control in the building.

Electrical
The specifics of the electrical needs are very technical. However, as with other areas, many of the components of this system are outdated and inefficient. The switchboards, transformers, generators, wiring, conductors, light fixtures, voice and data systems need replacement and upgrading throughout the building to increase efficiencies and effectiveness.

General Construction
While many components of the building are structurally sound, staying in the current building requires some construction upgrades. While it is abated and safe, asbestos removal is needed through many parts of the building, primarily within floor tiles and pipe insulation. Again, this is not any type of danger to anyone; it just needs to be addressed when looking at the context of other needs. Roofing and window surveys done for the building revealed a need to replace the roofs on the 1988 and 1968 additions. Windows in many parts of the building are single pane and need to be replaced for energy efficiency and comfort. The elevators in the building do not meet current accessibility requirements and should be replaced.

The results of a complete facility study completed in September of 2007 recommend complete or selective replacement of many of the components above. Unfortunately, as anyone who has had the fun or home remodeling know very well, replacing some parts causes a need to replace others. Demolition can often have a domino effect and the cost can continue to soar.

Next weeks article will address the issue of space needs. While I have offered a sketch of the mechanical needs, another very significant issue is what the needs are for those who use the building. The current building consists of a series of seven additions added on to a core building between 1938 and 1988. That core building was razed about 20 years ago. While each of these additions made sense when they were built, the current result does not comprise a whole that meets the educational and safety needs of a grades 4K-8 building in 2008.

If you would like any further information please call or e-mail the district office and we can share more information with you. Please feel free to also set up a tour of the building and we would be more than happy to show you what we have. You can also comment on this article at the educational blog on the district’s web site.

WKCE Scores

2008-06-27T09:16:00.074-05:00

The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE) is given to students throughout the state every November. The results are made public the following May. The scores for Brillion students reveal some strong areas of achievement and also provide data that the district uses to monitor and adjust instruction. Students are tested in reading and math in grades 3-8 and grade 10. Students are also tested in social studies, science, and language arts in grades 4, 8, and 10. The chart below indicates the percentage of students in each grade that tested proficient in each of the subject areas listed. Also listed are the state average for each area. Please click here to view the chart. ( You will need Adobe Reader to view this table. Click here if you do not have Adobe Reader.)

Areas of note would include:

Of the 23 areas tested, Brillion had a higher percentage of students proficient than the state average in 19 areas
In math and reading the district exceeded the state average in 12 of the 14 tests 8th grade language arts was, by far, the lowest subject are of proficiency, in spite of reading and writing proficiency being above the state average.
The district met every benchmarks set by the federal No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB) 90 percent of all students tested in Mathematics were proficient, the highest of any subject area. Brillion High School scores were in the top 1/3rd of all high schools in the state. No cumulative data is available for middle and elementary school.
According to annually escalating requirement standards established by the federal government, Brillion will be considered a failing school in 2014, as will every single district in the state of Wisconsin

Anyone can access the complete result by going to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s website at www.dpi.state.wi.us/sig/index.html. This site can take you through all the scores for every district in the state. Included are sub scores for certain types of demographic sub-groups including students with disabilities, students sorted by economic status, and gender.

I must offer some editorial comment on this matter as well. Probably the best analogy I can use to describe these tests is that of the place of a snapshot in a photo album. The district takes these tests seriously and when our students do poorly, we look to fix things to get better scores. However, these tests are only one of several assessments and data sources that we use to assess student learning. As the test scores represent students on one day of the year, it serves our students best to utilize multiple source of assessment to ensure student learning and student growth. While student learning can and is measured on the WKCE test, it is not the only measure that can be used, nor should be used.

Additionally, obsessing over scores on one test can lead to an overriding focus on ensuring performance on one test and one test only. Obviously, the language arts scores in 8th grade need our attention. However, if over 90 percent of your students are doing well on a test it probably is not the best use of resources to obsess about getting to 100. This is not to say the other 10 percent should be ignored, but rather it may be more beneficial for the student to look at a broader array of assessments and learning data.

The district must also keep up the scores while ensuring that the skills of creativity, innovation, and collaboration are being fostered across the curriculum. Hopefully, we are all past the days of the fill-in-the blank drilling paradigm of learning. While objective, norm-referenced test scores serve the necessary function of ensuring students in schools are learning, we fall short if we end there. Education has a much greater responsibility to the students it serves and to the world we send those students into.

As an added feature to these articles, I have added a blog on the district website for you to offer your thoughts on these topics. You will find this article and the blogging at the district’s website, http://www.brillion.k12.wi.us/, click on “the Education Blog” link on the home page.

21st Century Skills

2008-06-27T09:13:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I get tired of always having to persuade my children to do what is best for them. Actually, I often lose patience and do not even go the persuasion route. I just try to tell my kids what to do and hope that I will get some sort of compliance. I often fail. I tell my kids to brush their teeth, eat their peas, and to put on a jacket when it is cold out. My results all too often are lectures from the dental hygienist, pockets of vegetables, and shorts in early April. Sometimes I do try to persuade. However that usually ends up as some sort of clumsy bribery where we trade a trip to Dairy Queen for getting clean clothes in drawers and dirty ones out from under the bed. Doing something just because someone said to do it seems to be a lost practice. I am convinced that the generation growing up today will not do what they are told to do just because someone tells them to do it. They must be convinced, cajoled, or coerced. Whether that has been the case with every generation or not, I do not know. However, I believe this disposition of our youth is our own creation. I also believe it is a part of what makes us American. And, I believe this disposition is a very good thing.

Today a worry exists that China and India are rising economies that will soon overtake the United States. An opinion currently exists that the root of these countries’ strengths lie in their ability to educate large numbers of young people who are disciplined and excel at sequential linear thinking. Meanwhile, their argument goes, American schools are turning out children who are rather disorderly, sometimes rebellious, and lack basic logical reasoning skills. While their logic may reflect the outcome of asking a typical adolescent to do the dishes, it also reflects a hidden strength of American culture. The basis of that strength is our ability to think outside the box by focusing creative and innovative solutions to problems. For just about everything, we seem to ask “Why?” or “Why not?” When we do this with a group of people working together, good things can happen. This collaboration and creative thinking form the innovative spirit that makes us great. While India and China are bigger than the United States, their size and educational system may not be the long-term threat that is currently being talked up.

We are coming to a time where the linear skills that these countries are perceived to excel at can be outsourced at costs that American workers cannot match. These skills, that were the focus of educational systems in the 20th century, can now be shipped overseas. However, the skills of the 21st century are not the same as those of the 20th. What passed as a “good education” in the 20th century is insufficient today. Preparing students for the 21st century requires an emphasis on innovation and creative thinking. People skilled at designing, problem solving, and empathy will be the most valued employees in the future.

These skills can be messy to develop. These are not skills that can be easily tested, measured, and drilled into students. These are the skills that point to the need for education and not just schooling. Clearly, the skills that make us great must be developed by the whole community and reflect the emphasis of our culture.

This point of emphasis indicates that we must look at our schools beyond scores on tests (although we need to do that as well). We must also hold schools accountable for how the creative spirit of our children is being fostered. Paul Houston emphasizes that we are able to see this spirit by looking at traditional academic disciplines in a new light. No longer does social studies become memorizing names and dates but becomes about understanding the human condition. Literature will go beyond naming characters and reciting plot lines and instead emphasize how we can understand ourselves. Mathematics will not be about mastering rules and memorizing multiplication tables but will develop an appreciation for the allure of solving a problem. Science will not be learning formulas and the periodic table, instead students will see it as exploring the mysteries of the universe. We also must focus on the arts to support this innovative spirit by emphasizing the creative emotion the arts foster.

The issue is not so much about measuring up to China and India on test scores in math or in engineering degrees. The issue is about how our culture measured up to what we need to do to be great in the future. While it would be nice if our children just did the dishes and their math homework every day without being asked. Perhaps it is worth considering that having our children question why they have to do things is an insight into an attitude of innovation. Asking “why?” is on the same path as asking “why not?’ Fostering an innovative spirit may seem more daunting then imposing a culture of compliance. However, a rebellious spirit may be just what we need. Even if your child does not take your word for it that not brushing his teeth for two days is just gross.