I stumbled on this interesting bit from the Heritage Foundation: Oklahoma: High Marks for Pre-K Spending, Low Marks for Reading Achievement: (My emphasis throughout)

This clearly begs the question: Are all of those kids enrolled in Oklahoma’s prekindergarten program benefiting academically?

 

Since Oklahoma started its universal preschool program in 1998, children have actually experienced declines in their fourth grade reading scores. In fact, Oklahoma was the only state to see a significant score decrease in fourth grade reading since 1992. Last year, Oklahoma spent more than $118 million dollars on preschool, yet children in that state are still below the national average in reading.

 

Since the introduction of universal preschool in Oklahoma, the gap between low-performing students and their peers has not been reduced. The students the program was intended to help have not gained ground.

The actual article from Tulsa, Oklahoma that Heritage cited was headlined: A-plus. That would be A-plus in spending NOT results!

The latest annual survey by the National Institute for Early Education Research shows Oklahoma leading the nation in prekindergarten enrollment.

The State of Preschool 2008 showed Oklahoma in first place with 71 percent of its 4-year-olds enrolled in preschool education. This is not the first time the state has ranked first in this survey.

The survey also found that Oklahoma's preschool program is a high-quality one, meeting nine out of 10 benchmark standards. Oklahoma also was praised for increasing pre-K funding, from $3,635 per-child to $3,966 in 2008. 

The Tulsa paper only extolled the virtue of 4-K enrollment, not achievement. Considering all school districts are probably in the same boat Elmbrook is--needing to watch their spending--does Oklahoma spending $118 million a year on pre-school make sense? (Maybe I should say does it make cents?)

We have actual results to look at; some schools have had 4K for a long time. From Does 4K deserve tax dollars?

As I mentioned last year, I attended 4 year old kindergarten in the Shorewood school system. If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn’t Shorewood’s ACT scores be consistently higher than our [Elmbrook] 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. 

If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn't the students graduating from these institutions be consistently waaaaay ahead of those who don't have 4K?

Links: 

I was hoping to say everything's coming up roses for Rose Fernandez, but it was not to be. With 91% of the vote in, she is stuck at 43% at 11:30pm.

Judge Randy Koschnick did better than I thought, considering most people were not aware of him or the race, and he spent so little money on advertising and his campaign. He is at 41%. (Judge Shirley Abrahamson raised $1.3 million for this campaign.)

But locally, my choices were in the majority: Meg Wartman winning another 3 years with 66% of the vote and Jean Lambert with 59% of the final vote tallies. Congratulations Meg and Jean.

In Elm Grove, the 3 incumbent Village Trustees won; Charles Wickens only received 12% of the vote. Possibly Elm Grove voters didn't know how he could be in two places at once either?

For those of you with an eye on the referendums, West Bend's $41 million referendum failed 53% to 47%, but their $27 million dollar referendum passed, however by a narrow margin. The percentages were even, 50% - 50% of the vote--with only 74 votes separating the yeas from the nays. That has got to hurt! Recount anyone?

Interestingly, it appears that 11,949 people total voted on the $41 mil question, but only 11,868 voted on the $27 mil measure. That is 81 votes less than the first question. Did those 81 voters just not see the second question? I bet if they were against the 2nd referendum they are kicking themselves now! (Remember our referendum last year? 294 voters left that question blank too.)

Cudahy's $3.7 million referendum passed by 85 votes, 52% to 48%, which shows that even in tough times people still will spend if "it's for the kids".

In the more affluent north shore area, which includes some of Glendale, Fox Point, Bayside, and River Hills, Maple Dale's K-8 district passed its $4 million referendum by a healthier margin of 513 votes, 68% to 32%,  Maple Dale's exceed the limit question also passed by 177 votes, 56% to 44%.

Links: 

Last week, the article K4 back on the table in Elmbrook on Brookfieldnow caused quite a stir. The way it was written, it led people to believe that 2 board members who previously voted against 4K were now thinking about it. The article was heavy on the positive effects of 4K on the school budget without much detail regarding the negatives to the taxpayer.

Newspaper reporters frequently misquote or misreport--not necessarily maliciously but because they just don't get the nuance of the situation. The remedy is a correction. Unfortunately, most people who read the original article never see the correction. When an election is just 2 weeks away, a misleading article can be damaging.

When I read the article, I thought the statement regarding Meg Wartman and Glen Allgaier's position did not ring true. So I emailed them and the remaining school board candidates so they could clarify their positions. Meg and Glen's explanations regarding the meeting and revisiting 4K will be at the bottom of this posting.

Here are the candidates' responses to my 2 questions, just as they were sent to me. (I did break up some of the longer responses for easier web reading.): Are you for 4K? Would you vote for 4K as a way to increase Elmbrook's budget revenue knowing it costs the Elmbrook taxpayer more?

I will start with the At Large board position. 

Meg Wartman:

This first response was from my Feb 15th question to her regarding a private pay parent funded 4K program:

"As far as 4K, I would not support any 4K program that was funded using taxpayer dollars.  My expectation would be that the parent would pay the entire tuition amount.

Here is her most recent response to state her position since the article:

 "I have not changed from my past position of the program. I do not believe we should to ask taxpayers to fund a four year old kindergarten program.  If by future consideration the District is willing to look at some sort of option that would allow for a private pay 4K program that could be offered at district buildings then I would be willing to revisit the issue.  However, that discussion would need to occur within a context of our long range financial plan and future facility use.

Charles Wickens:

" Regarding 4K - My position is crystal clear with this. I do not support any tax base increase for 4K.  Also, we do need effective leaderhip to address the issue. In the face of declining student enrollment and a 10M budget deficit - we as a distict are turning way about 350 family's per year ( assuming about 350 enrollments at 5k/year) with no options. I propose that we provide an option to those families that need 4K services by providing leaderhship/curriculum, perhaps space to a private provider - resulting in a pass-through cost, allows the district to capture the family and student with content that will prepare the student for an Elmbrook 5K slot and lastly but not leastly - address this growing need for young working families.

I did ask for a little clarification. "Could you define 'I do not support any tax base increase for 4K'? There is state aid, fed. aid, and Elmbrook property taxes. The district has looked longingly at the additional 4K state aid dollars disregarding the increase to the community member's property tax bills."

"Regarding my approach vs yours ...would love the discussion - possibly come up with a hybrid plan that would actually meet our communities needs. We can't continually stick our heads in the sand and pretent that this will go away.  I want to bring clarity to this issue which has been lacking in past discussions.

"To be clear - our programs need to compete at the 5K - 12th grade level.  I do not support an increase to the community member property tax bill to support a 4K program.

 "The state is totally confused with the 4k issue -- i.e. funding and aid etc.  Again - lack of clarity. The state needs a best practice to feed from...Elmbrook could provide this.

"Our state leaderhsip has failed young working families too long -- time for Elmbrook to provide the leadership and roadmap to the state by addressing this issue without imposing a tax burden to the community.

In another email from Wickens yesterday:

"1) I believe that Elmbrook should compete at the 5k-12th grade level

"2) I do not support a property tax based 4k program - i.e. no tax burden

"3) I do believe we need to address the issue.  We have approximately 350 children come into our 5K programs annually.   Today, we don't have any option for those families (as many as 350) for 4K. I believe that this is unacceptable. I support an option that will allow parents to enroll in a private 4k program that has Elmbrook approved curriculum, leadership in terms of delivery and performance criteria.  Those parents would engage in these Elmbrook 4K approved programs and pay for them as a direct payment.  This would give our parents an option and prepare their child nicely for an Elmbrook 5K program.  Win/Win.

The Area 4 position.

Jean Lambert:

"I am happy to provide you with my position on 4K.

 

"Since the Elmbrook School District 4K pilot program a number of years ago, I have been opposed to taxpayer-funded preschool. I firmly believe that the School Board and Administration are stewards of the finite pool of district resources. We must assure that these resources are dedicated to optimal student learning. Research shows the educational benefits of 4K accrue to disadvantaged children - very few live within our district; the main advantage cited for 4K in the suburbs is that of socialization. Many 4 year olds in the district - including my own -  have been socialized in private 4K programs, at the family's expense.

 

"With the many revenue challenges that face us in the coming years, I believe it is unconscionable to impose yet another tax increase on the citizens of this community for programming that will deliver socialization benefits that should rightfully be funded by the families of preschool children. Some argue that children who begin 4K in a private/parochial setting never return to the public school setting. However, I'm told that the Elmbrook School District ratio of public/private enrollment has maintained at a steady rate of approximately 70/30%, in spite of the lack of availability of publicly funded 4K.

 

"Some advocate 4K as a solution to declining enrollment: add ~300 more students via 4K, fill up the empty classrooms, and add significant revenue to the budget. They're forgetting that those revenues are a direct result of increased taxation at both the state and local level. Whether it's state or local taxation, taxpayers are funding preschool.

 

"I do wholeheartedly support partnerships between the district and local private preschool programs, with Elmbrook School District collaborating on the curriculum to ensure a smooth transition to the 5K program offered by the District. Tuition for this 4K option would be privately funded by families participating in the program. 

Donald Moore:

"I haven't made up my mind regarding 4K and I am still open to arguments. Not having been involved in the initial board decisions much of the information I've received in the past two months has been piecemeal and not authoritative. I understand the arguments for both sides of the issue.  When 4K comes up again I will closely examine both sides and make my decision on what I think is best for our young students and the community."

Now for the clarification on what occured at the school board meeting. First from Meg Wartman:

"I appreciate your following up and verifying the statement.  I made no comment on revisiting 4K other than to state that it was too late in the year to look at offering 4K in 2009 - 2010 (something Mr. Ziegler had hoped the district would take a look at) and facilitate the discussion.  If the BrookfieldNow reporter felt there was an openness to a 4K discussion I believe it was to allow simply for that, a discussion.  I think it is important to explain that board protocol would allow any board member to ask that an item be on a future agenda for discussion.

"I did not interpret Glen's comments to be pro 4K.  I believe he directly stated that he held the same reservations about the program that he had held when the board voted in 2007.  Overall there was a certain politeness in listening to a fellow board member's concern and willingness to allow the board member his 'day in court'.

"Mr. Ziegler was certainly more direct in his comments and was clearly asking the board to consider reinstating 4K as soon as possible.

Her comments did ring true to what I have heard each board member express in the past. She sent this additional email after she watched the cable broadcast:

"I still cannot understand how the BrookfieldNow reporter interpreted any of my comments to be pro-4K or even showing any interest in pursuing the program further.  The board members that spoke in response to Mr. Ziegler's request clearly indicated that they did not feel their positions had changed.  However, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Ziegler made a formal request that 4K be a topic of discussion at a future board meeting and such requests have always been honored by the board.

And lastly, board member Glen Allgaier's stance on 4K (He is not running for the board at this time, but was misrepresented in the article):

"I do not support 4K because (a)  It offers no clear educational benefits and (b)  the cost would require increased property taxes.  There are some members of the Board who still would like to see 4K and who felt that, given our financial needs, we should consider all options.  I would anticipate such a discussion will only increase public awareness regarding the 4K issues and why the Board voted to not continue it.

Brookfieldnow did post an update on that K4 article:

Board member Meg Wartman said the program could not be implemented so quickly. In a later statement, she said she believes the board is still opposed to K4, though some members may be willing to discuss the issue.

"I am not supportive of revisiting 4K at this time," she said.

So there you have it--the ins and outs of who is for 4K and who is not. I hope this shed some light on this very important issue. Remember, while 4K would increase the dollar amount the school district had at their disposal, it does it at taxpayer expense! It also will eventually lead to more building referendums to increase the size of the elementary schools. I am glad some of the candidates understand the ramifications of 4K's impact on Elmbrook resident's property tax bills!

The election is Tuesday, April 7th. We not only vote for 2 candidates for school board, but also for Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction and Supreme Court Justice. Elm Grove residents vote for 3 Village Trustees.

UPDATE: Rose Fernandez will be interviewed on WVCY TV 30 tonight at 7:30pm.

Links: 

I am still wondering about this: How can a person be in 2 places at once? The only one I know of who ever did that was Superman! And even he could not maintain all his super powers when he split himself in two. He was weaker when split apart.

Candidate Charles Wickens is running for both the Elmbrook School Board AND Elm Grove Trustee. That in itself would make me raise an eyebrow. (I used to have an alderman who ran for 3 offices at once.) But the situation is even more puzzling than with my ambitious former alderman, because the meeting days and times conflict with the Elmbrook and Elm Grove positions. Surely I must be mistaken?

At first I thought Wickens ran for both offices thinking he might not make it through the Elmbrook primary. But he is still on the April 7th ballot for both positions.  In an email, he did offer to meet with me to discuss his candidacy. I declined--I only have so much free time.  In my email reply, I asked "Could you clear something up though? Are you still running for Village Trustee?" That was on March 19th. I did not hear back.

I stopped in Elm Grove's Village Hall to verify when the Trustees met. The woman at the desk said, the 4th Tuesday. I questioned her about how could Charles Wickens run for both offices when the meetings conflict? She was just as fuzzy as I was on how that could work.

I really had a hard time believing that the meeting times conflicted, since I hadn't heard anyone really mention it. So when I came home, I looked online. Sure enough, Elmbrook's meetings conflict; the Trustees meet on the 4th Tuesday, at 7:30pm.

Elmbrook School Board meetings have been on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday's of the month. Sometimes a work session beginning at 6pm precedes the meeting time. During the summer, they meet once a month, on the 4th Tuesday only.

Now if you check with the Village of Elm Grove for their Village Trustee meeting schedule, you see that they also meet on the 4th Tuesday of the month.

Lest you think a candidate would be running for both positions for the money, I don't believe that is the motivation. The Village Trustees serve voluntarily.

Sometimes people do run for local office if they have political ambitions though. Local office is a great place to learn the legislative process. It also helps build name recognition. Sometimes local office gives a board member, trustee, or alderman a little local clout. You know, the schmooze factor. This is especially valuable if the public servant also owns their own business--it gives them a broader pool of contacts. I don't know Wickens' motivation for running for both positions.

The Elmbrook School Board does not pay much--it's under $4,000/year. Although I don't think money should be the motivator for public service, I do think there should be appropriate financial compensation for time served.  A good board member spends time preparing and researching issues for board and committee meetings. Sometimes they field concerned citizen phone calls and emails. If the member is female, family dinner may be rushed or take-out is the solution. Sometimes baby sitters are needed if a spouse is not available. Being a board member disrupts family life. The family sacrifices when a parent is on the board; they should be compensated. "A workman is worthy of his hire."

I really don't see how Mr. Wickens can do both jobs.  I think it is disrespectful of the voters and office to seek both positions if all meeting cannot be attended. Maybe someone will ask him about the conflict tonight at the Elmbrook School Board Candidate Forum?

I wish we had a larger field of candidates to choose from but we don't. It is up to you, the voter, to discern which candidate would serve us better.

If I find out anything more about the time conflict, I will post it. My next task is to clarify the candidates' positions on 4K!

UPDATE: Well, that was fast. Before I posted , I emailed Charles Wickens again 10:57am:

I am posting on the time conflict between Elmbrook and Elm Grove meeting times.

I am also going to post before the election on each candidates 4K position. Are you for 4K? Would you vote for 4K as a way to increase Elmbrook's budget revenue knowing it costs the Elmbrook taxpayer more?

I would be happy to post your explanation.

His reply at 11:26am:

Thank you for your note.  I am aware of the conflict that occurs on Tuesday nights between the Elmbrook and Elm Grove meetings. This problem as plagued the Elm Grove leaderhip too long and it needs to be resolved.  It is unacceptable that Elm Grove leadership does not attend Elmbrook board meetings!  Elm Grove needs to have representation and voice at the Elmbrook meetings and both Board Presidents need to get together and fix this uneccessary conflict!  I will continue to make sure that this issue is resolved. Low hanging fruit.

You can decide it that satisfies the conflict. It still does not for me. In Kyle World, I would first run for Village Board and try to change the meeting time if I believed that strongly that Village Trustees should attend both meetings.  Then I would run for school board in a later election if I felt compelled to do both. Even if meeting times did not conflict, there might be times when there was a conflict of interest between school district and village business. (Example: Sometimes a school district sells or purchases land from the city/village. How can you represent both parties?)

Links: 

Yes, this week is a busy one. Tonight, Tuesday night, the Elmbrook School board decides on Pilgrim Park Middle School's HVAC replacement. Will they opt to include air conditioning?

I won't be there tonight, because I am heading out to Concordia University to hear Dr. Gary Locklair speak at the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee meeting. His "Teach the Controversy, Creation and Evolution" lecture starts at 7:30pm, Tuesday, March 24th.

Wednesday, March 25th, is the Public Hearing on Gov. Doyle's budget, at State Fair Park, at the Tommy Thompson Youth Center behind the Petit Ice Center on 84th Street. The hearing is during working hours--10am - 4pm. If a worker really wants to attend, they must take time off of work! (The crowd might not be as friendly as anticipated if unemployed workers attend?) There is an online  Comment Form if you wish to weigh in but cannot attend.

A mini Milwaukee Tea Party is brewing prior to the hearing at 9am. Marv Munyon, founder of Wisconsin Capitol Watch, will be discussing the Doyle budget and joining the party.  

Wednesday evening, March 25th, there will be an Elm Grove Village Trustee Candidate Reception and Forum at the Elm Grove Village Hall. The reception begins at 5:30pm with the forum/debate running from 7 - 9pm. Municipal water is an issue on Elm Grove residents' minds. If you live in Elm Grove, attend and get to know the candidates: Charles Wickens, David Cook, Andrew Azpell, John Nelson and Christine Torkelson. Village residents vote for 3 out of the field of 5 candidates.

On Thursday, March 26th at 7pm, there is another Elmbrook School Board Candidate Forum at the School District administrative offices at 13780 Hope Street. At Large Candidates Meg Wartman and Charles Wickens and Area 4 Candidates Jean Lambert and Donald Moore will be answering your questions. Remember, all Elmbrook residents vote for both candidates regardless of what part of the district they live in.

What is on Friday? I think that needs to be a day off!  You could gather a few non-perishable food items and toiletries for the Boy Scout Food Drive pick up on Saturday, March 28th. Leave your donation bag by your front door by 9am.

Saturday, March 28th, Town Hall meeting with Congressman Sensenbrenner and State Rep. Leah Vukmir at the Wauwatosa Library (North Ave and 76th St.) at 9am. I understand attendance is up at these Town Halls. That is good news; people need to be more involved in government. Speaking of involvement, I wonder if State Senator Jim Sullivan will attend?

Links: 

We are told Elmbrook's Pilgrim Park Middle School is in need of a new heating system. The board has been discussing this replacement for about a year. Bids are starting to come in now. The big question is: do we add air conditioning or not to the new system? They might decide that question tomorrow at the March 24th board meeting.

Installing air conditioning is expensive in an institutional setting. To prevent sweating or condensation on the supply lines requires insulating the cold supply piping. The insulation is needed to prevent mold from growing inside the walls. Air conditioning also adds more operation costs, both in water use and electricity consumption.

President Obama is adamant about adding a Cap and Trade tax system to our energy industry. That means if your present electricity supply comes from coal fired power plants (the type that produce more CO2), these power plants  must pay a carbon tax or purchase a carbon credit from a nuclear power plant that does produce green power. These credit costs or taxes will be passed onto the consumer. That is US! Wisconsin's power plants are mostly coal fired, non-green, carbon producer types; Illinois has more green or nuclear powered plants. So Wisconsin consumers will be paying carbon credit taxes to Illinois' nuclear power plants! Bottom line, we pay more for our electricity.

It is estimated that Cap and Trade will add between $1,500 to $3,000 a year to a residential user's costs. Some experts speculate it could be more. Imagine the expense to an institutional user such as a school system? According to Elmbrook's 2008-09 budget figures, Pilgrim Park's proposed electric estimate was $60,103 for the year. I'm thinking that adding a Cap and Trade "tax" might result in an additional $40,000 to $60,000 to that budget figure for present usage.

Do we really want to increase Elmbrook's electricity consumption by adding air conditioning? 

Remember, the Elmbrook School District is looking for places to save $1.5 - $2 million dollars a year. Some saving ideas mentioned were to increase class sizes, close a school, add back 4K, etc.

Last summer, board member Gary Jones suggested that if the district was looking for places to save money, they might consider NOT adding air conditioning to the High Schools. I don't think that statement was prompted by Cap and Trade but just the cost of installing and running air conditioning with the typical electric rate increases. (Add Cap and Trade taxes to those yearly rate increases and air conditioning is really a budget buster.)  Here are my notes on what Gary Jones spoke about at that board meeting--my emphasis:

At some point, I'm going to recommend we not even think about putting in air conditioning in these buildings (high schools). I know we said we would, I think it would be easier to renege on that promise now and say we're not going to be able to afford to run it, even if we put it in there. We're not going to have the money to turn that air conditioning on once we've got it. I think we need to think about that and make that decision now before we spend $2 million.

(Meg said something about how they discussed that during the facility schematic planning stage, then Gary spoke again.)

I'm willing to suggest that I'm willing to lose, and I suspect I will...I won't ever say I told you so when 2 years from now we can't turn them on because we can't afford the utility rates. Dave Ross mentioned doubling gas prices for next winter. He didn't mention electricity rates doubling, but why wouldn't they? 

I think Gary Jones is right, and his cost concerns were before the added possible expense of Cap and Trade taxes.

In your family's budget, if you are looking at your spending and need to make $1,500 to $2,000 in cuts, is it wise to take on another new expense? Or, do you keep costs down by trying to be as efficient as possible within your present expenditures?

I try to stick within my present budget footprint: No free puppies, no free installation of Cable or Satellite TV, no new magazine subscriptions, no book of the month club, etc. All of these items might be nice, but they all require additional spending to maintain. Since I did not have them before, I reason I won't miss them too much by not considering them now.

Yes, we do have air conditioning at home, but we are using it less and less because of our high WE Energies bills. The operating costs go up every year, even though we have reduced consumption. (We now save our air conditioning use for those unbearable, sultry, summer days of July and August.)

If you had the choice of having your Elmbrook student have a larger class size to save money or endure a few warm days of school at the beginning or end of the school year, wouldn't the few days of unpleasantness be better than a year of crowding? Besides, if a classroom is particularly warm, adding exhaust fans, ceiling fans, or windows that open well are lower cost alternatives to energy hogging air conditioning. (Scheduling fewer early release days during the year would shorten up the school schedule, thus avoiding warmer temperature days of late August and early June.)

Let the board know what your thoughts are on air conditioning in general and Pilgrim Park in specific. You can contact the entire board by emailing to feedback@elmbrookschools.org

UPDATE: I emailed Cindy Frey, Elmbrook's Communications Assistant, " I understand that no action was taken on Pilgrim regarding HVAC replacement. Do you have any details from the minutes?" She replied, " Yes, there was no action taken on Pilgrim regarding HVAC replacement. The board has requested additional information." So for the time being, the measure is on hold.   

Links: 

People are still talking about that New Berlin young man at Eisenhower High School, who passed himself off as a teen girl on the internet and then blackmailed his fellow male student respondents for homosexual "favors". It is shocking indeed for many adults--especially if they are older.

For now I won't talk about what would possess a teen to send nude photos to someone of the opposite (or same sex) in the first place. That is bizarre enough. But even more difficult to understand are the 31 heterosexual young men, who got caught in this perverted scam, who rather carry out a homosexual's wishes than fess up to being duped into sending a nude picture.

Maybe it is because I recently spent 3 days (about 10 hours) looking over Elmbrook's HGD materials that I am looking at this incident a little differently. I am looking at it from the perspective of what is being taught to our children from Kindergarten on to 10th grade--the last year of sex-ed instruction.

I do not know what is being taught in New Berlin, but I believe most programs, unless they are from a Christian curriculum company or a company that stresses abstinence, will follow the same track.

First the successes: (This is from the curriculum's perspective, not mine.)

In Kindergarten there was a book all about families. It compared traditional families and non-traditional families. Yes, it included the "family" that had 2 mommies and another with 2 daddies. It also gave examples from the animal kingdom: Lions have one daddy and many mommies. 

Yes, that is what I want my child to learn. (Sarcastically said) That a human family is nothing more than a different kind of animal family! (There was no mention how many animal parents eat their young.)

The underlying message is that homosexuality is OK, right? It is just a different kind of choice. 

As the children get older, the emphasis is said to be abstinence is best, but it really is pregnancy and disease prevention is best.  Do what you want, just don't get caught.

Homosexual sex would not lead to pregnancy, so would that be deemed a success? I don't know if the boys used safe sex* practices, so we don't know if we can call that aspect a success or failure.

The failures--really

From Kindergarten on, the message for abuse is, it is not your fault.  If something seems wrong or makes you uncomfortable, tell a teacher, trusted adult or your parent. (I am OK with this, but I would reverse the order.) I would think what the perpetrator was asking of the 31 victims made them feel uncomfortable or seemed wrong. Obviously, this message fell on deaf ears on both counts.

Rather than these embarrassed young men going to a parent, teacher, or even a friend, they resorted to the only solution they could come up with: give in to the blackmailer's demands. (But keep in mind, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, according to their HGD instruction, they just need to do it safely.) Of course most heterosexual young men wouldn't want that homosexual label to stick, but since the activity was done in secret, it did not count. 

That leads me to the area lacking in our HGD materials: the emotional scars of sexual activity (not the physical consequences of catching a STD or becoming pregnant--they discuss that), but the damage to the psyche of engaging in pre-marital sex. I did not see much discussed on this subject in the HGD materials.  These young men thought they had figured out a workaround to their transgression. They will carry the emotional scars for life.

Another failure: The death of modesty

Has HGD made children today so comfortable with their nakedness, in the context of sex, that they see nothing wrong with taking a nude picture of themselves, much less sending it to a stranger?

The discussion of HGD in many of the grades is co-ed. Sensitive subjects are discussed in mixed groups. Videos and DVDs that include interviews with older teen adults and young adults talking about their sexual mistakes in their adolescent years are designed to be viewed in co-ed settings.

I believe this leads to destroying sexual modesty. 

Last failure: Inability to come up with another solution.

What I cannot figure out is why the victims did not turn the table on the perpetrator.  If sending nude photos is such a prevalent practice, why wouldn't the victim just spread the word that "the girl" was really a gay guy! You know, smear him. Tell your good buddies about it and act outraged that the girl was really a gay guy and smear him--maybe not for being gay because that is just an alternate life style choice, but for false advertising?

Parents, I ask you to really consider what is being taught to your kids when in school. You can opt out. You can elect to select your own sex ed program that fits your world view and teach it yourself or find an online program. You get to decide.

JSOnline articles on the New Berlin story 

F.Y.I. The West Bend Library has a gay themed young adult section for grades 6 - 12 called "Out of the Closet." In time, will anything shock us? (I noticed this link on Mark Belling's site.)

UPDATE: Area residents from the West Bend, Germantown, Hartford, Slinger & Kewaskum area (their tax dollars support West Bend's library) are meeting at the West Bend Community Memorial Library, 630 Poplar St., in West Bend, on March 2, 7pm Tuesday evening, to discuss the gay book section of the library. For more information see: West Bend Library issue with GAY books for CHILDREN moves to Board. Contact: wissupwisconsin@gmail.com

*There is no such thing as safe sex since it uses the same method as the least effective measure in preventing pregnancy-- considering viruses and bacilli are much smaller than a sperm cell.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

See UPDATE at bottom of post.

Last night the Elmbrook School Board unanimously approved annexing the area in question from the City and Town of Brookfield. (No big surprise there.)

But it is not a done deal...yet. Since Waukesha denied the request and Elmbrook approved, the measure now goes before the Department of Public Instruction. (Waukesha does not want to lose the state aid money from this area; Elmbrook would like that state aid money.)

It appears our board based their decision on the fact that the district would take in more money through the combined property taxes on 116 homes than they spend on the 30 estimated new students.  (Per home property value estimates averaged $380,000 something. I think that is high.)

I don't understand how they figured there would only be 30 new students from an area of 116 homes, considering 15 are now in Waukesha's public schools and another 30 are currently open enrolled. (SEE UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF POST) Even more children live in the neighborhood but attend private schools. I think the potential number of students is much higher. I think more students = more cost to Elmbrook taxpayers. Elmbrook looks at it as more students = more state aid in their budget.

This petitioning area is an older neighborhood, much like mine. Our home was built in 1942. The majority of homes on my street were built from the 1950s to 1960s. In the 23 years we have been here on Kinsey Park, our street has gone from a few children to its present 15. We are a renewing neighborhood and growing in population. I suspect this is true of the petitioning neighborhood too.

I can accept the idea that the actual City of Brookfield students should be added--just for consistency.  For that matter, for consistency, why do we still have New Berlin students in Elmbrook? That decision was made years ago when the closest neighborhood school, Linfield, was virtually across the street on Greenfield Ave. But Lindfield School was closed years ago, and the New Berlin students must be bussed over to Swanson on Calhoun Rd. Their actual New Berlin neighborhood school would be much closer on Sunnyslope Rd., a few blocks south of Greenfield Ave.

The idea that we should add more neighborhoods on the premise that it helps our tax base escapes me. With that logic, why not annex all of the Town, or all of Waukesha?

If I hear more, I will try to update.

UPDATE: According to the Brookfieldnow watch, it seems there would be more than just 30 students coming to Elmbrook. School Board approves petition for Waukesha residents to join district: (My emphasis)

Should the residents be successful in their effort, the financial ramifications for Elmbrook and its taxpayers are uncertain. Expanding the district's tax base could mean lower taxes for all residents, and adding resident students could mean extra state aid.

However, according to numbers presented by the residents, most of their children attend private schools. Still, many parents at the hearing were quick to promise School Board members that they would transfer their students to Elmbrook if given the option. Some of the students already attend Elmbrook through Open Enrollment.

Remember, the more students from an area, the more it costs to educate them / per taxpaying household. Example: If you had a neighborhood of 100 homes and only 10 students, you would have 100 homes paying property taxes to Elmbrook to support 10 students. (The homes pay taxes for the entire district, but this would be a way to judge the impact of a new area on the budget.) If in that same 100 home area you had really 50 new students, do you see how admitting that area is not a money maker but a money taker? (For Elmbrook's budget)

This is the breakdown the board was given for the area: 19 Open Enrollment students currently in Elmbrook, 21 Private/Parochial, 10* Waukesha Public Schools. If we add in some of those Private/Parochail students, as the parents promised, we are over the 30 student estimate.

*The Journal Sentinel stated there were 15 Waukesha Public School students.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

Tonight the Elmbrook School Board will hear a presentation on the petition from 65 households "FOR DETACHMENT FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WAUKESHA TO ELMBROOK SCHOOL DISTRICT"

These homes are primarily located in an area just west of Brookfield Road, across from Wisconsin Hills Middle School. (If you look on page 7 of the paperwork included in the petition link, you will see the map showing the shaded area in the Town of Brookfield. I believe only Brandywine Ln. and Rivendell Dr. are part of the City of Brookfield.)

The petition hearing for Waukesha is really just a formality, because there was a problem with the way the petition was crafted. According to the Journal Sentinel, "...the petitions are defective because the residents didn't present his district with the entire value of the geographic area that they want detached." Only the petitioners property values were included, but there are 116 homes in the area in question.

The reasons for petitioning Elmbrook to join our district were weak, in my opinion. Here is the rationale:

Ron Stadler, the lawyer representing the petitioners living near the intersection of Blue Mound and Brookfield roads, said his clients want their children to be able to go to school with their neighbors in the Elmbrook district.

"The sense of community is the overriding factor," Stadler said. He added that most of the homes were built in the 1950s and the residents went to Waukesha schools because Elmbrook didn't exist yet.

 

Regardless of where the boundary is, there will always be neighboring children who don't attend the same school. (If we admit these petitioners, what about their neighbors to the west?) Does this mean that if your neighbor homeschools or attends a private school, your children won't play with them when at home? It must, according to the petitioners. It is not true in my neighborhood where children from parochial schools play with Elmbrook students.

The other reason was even more ridiculous, "that most of the homes were built in the 1950s and residents went to Waukesha schools because Elmbrook didn't exist yet."

True, many of the homes are older. But I would wager the original owners no longer live in those homes and even if they did, they certainly would not still have school age children!

The present owners in the petition area purchased or built those homes KNOWING that they would not be part of the Elmbrook School District. Yet, they somehow believe they should be absolved of any personal responsibility.

"We are broken, our whole subdivision is broken," I heard one woman tearfully say today in a news clip after Waukesha denied their request.

 

She made it seem that Waukesha was being heartless in denying their request. But she was the one who chose that particular home, knowing it was NOT part of Elmbrook.

In addition, not all of the residents in the area want to leave, according to Jim Haessly, Waukesha's assistant superintendent.

Haessly and Gray said they've heard from people in the same area who don't want to detach from Waukesha. [Petitions came from 65 of 116 homes.]

"Fifteen kids in our public schools live in this section," Haessly said. "Thirty are already open-enrolled, and many others attend private schools. You don't always know what's motivating them to do this."

 

Of course knowing that you purchased a home outside of the Elmbrook School District doesn't always serve as a deterrent to admission into Elmbrook. Weston Hills, a newer, upscale subdivision in the Town of Brookfield, did finally prevail in their 4th attempt to gain entrance to Elmbrook. They are the only subdivision to have "won the right to leave the district." 

As much as we are told "It's about the kids" when it comes to education, seceeding is really all about the money! Waukesha is not about to lose the approximate $40,000 to $50,000 from state aids or these homes' tax base by letting these residents go. Unlike Weston Hills, most of these homes are not the McMansion type, that carry with them a juicy property tax base or whose owners have more political clout.

If this is a moot point, why bother discussing not doing it? Because I think it is good to nip certain ideas in the bud. Just bringing a subject up before the board sometimes gives it legs. This is one idea I don't want to march forward.

Contact the board if this is of concern to you.

More reading, Fairly Conservative: Who wants into the Elmbrook School District? (Included the Elmbrook Agenda Item, petition, and maps.)

Links: 

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

Election results: I am pleased my 2 Elmbrook picks topped the primary totals and Rose Fernandez made it to the April election. 

Elmbrook School Board (93% of vote counted) At Large: Meg Wartman - 55%, Charles Wickens - 26%  Area 4: Jean Lambert - 53%, Donald Moore - 29%

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: (94% of vote counted) Tony Evers 35%, Rose Fernandez 31%

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

OK, I am going to whine a little here. And yes, I know it is all my fault. I just spent a few hours writing about the reasons I was NOT going to vote for Katie Lemcke for the At Large seat or Barry Wightman for Area 4.

I also included some of the reasons I am voting FOR Meg Wartman, At Large, and FOR Jean Lambert, Area 4 in the Primary. I had some pros and cons for all the candidates based on the forum, BrookfieldNow voters guide and article, and Freeman.

I was putting in the final links to the Brookfieldnow articles and clicked the insert button to create the link and the whole posting disappeared into cyberspace. No way to retrieve. (Oh for auto save or a brain that would remember to click save and continue writing from time to time!) Argh.

Every resident in the Elmbrook School District votes for all of the candidates, regardless of which area you live in: we all vote for the At Large and Area 4 board seats. No candidate ever embodies every position a voter espouses; a primary is largely a process of elimination. Here is mine.

The At Large race:

Suffice it to say, I am NOT voting for Katie Lemcke--At Large, because of her strong support for 4K. She has every right to run for the board to promote 4K, I am just not in favor of it.

I believe adopting 4K again will lead to more referendums to add the necessary classroom space 4K demands to our elementary schools. (Remember, the trial program needed 2 community sites.) 4K would put an end to any discussion of consolidating schools and also necessitate adding more teachers (wages and benefits account for 83% of the total budget).

I thought Katie Lemcke made a rather ironic statement in the Freeman about candidates without children in the district running for the board. "District residents who are retired or don't have children in the schools because they are in private schools or have graduated, sometimes have one agenda and that is saving money."

Not all of our current board and candidates have children in the district. Considering all of the current board members and the candidates running, except Wickens (his answer was vague regarding his support) all said they were in favor of the high school referendum--spending money--I don't see that having children in Elmbrook Schools is a litmus test for candidates. Plus, doesn't Katie have her own agenda? Pro 4K?

Since all of the residents in the Elmbrook School District pay for our schools through their property taxes, I think it is entirely appropriate to have a mix of residents on the board: those with and those without children in the district. 

Wouldn't it refreshing if the parents of Elmbrook students were a little more grateful or considerate of the taxpayers who finance their child's education? After all, some taxpayers have never had a child in the district.  Taxpayers pay about $10,000 in average yearly cost/Elmbrook student for a student's 13 years of schooling = about $130,000 in tax dollars support/student. That is sizable. Ms. Lemcke wishes to add around $5,000 to that total by bringing back 4K during an era of necessary budget trimming.

I am wary of Charles Wickens for At Large. He is already the President of the American Liver Foundation, and in addition to running for Elmbrook's School Board, he is also running for Elm Grove Village Trustee. I think that is spreading oneself a little thin. Board members must attend board meetings, committee meetings and hopefully do research. Although his answer was vague on the voter's guide regarding 4K, he stated at the Forum that his daughter attended and benefited from 4K. She is now grown and is a  4K  (I do not know if it is 4 or 5 year old) kindergarten teacher. On a more positive side, Wickens answered the raising the revenue cap question, "Our district needs to be redefined in terms of programs and delivery. More tax dollars feeding into the existing system is not the answer."

Meg Wartman--At Large, has spoken and voted against 4K in the past. Her position remains the same. She "would not support any 4K program that was funded using taxpayer dollars." I am pretty sure of what I am getting with her; I am voting for Meg Wartman in the primary.

The Area 4 race:

Barry Wightman--Area 4, though engaging, seemed a little too laid back and impulsive in his answers during the forum. One example: He was too eager to bring in open enrollment and chapter 220 students. We have the talent to teach all kids. We aught to do it; it's a revenue positive thing. Let's do it. I would have voted for 143! (The board recently voted to open 74 seats.) I think we need a more analytical approach to some of these difficult questions. He was against a referendum to expand the revenue cap, however.

Don Moore revealed that he learned about the vacancy for Area 4 from Steve Schwei last summer. Moore sees the most important issues for Elmbrook as: the physical plant, operations, and community involvement. While those areas are important, I think they are not the most important. Since wages and benefits make up 83% of the budget, addressing the wage and benefits area will yield the largest monetary savings, which is important to a district needing to trim $2.2 million each year.

Area 4: Jean Lambert's Masters Degree in Business Administration and degree in Nursing seems to be a good fit for the board. She currently is the Project Manager for Froedrert Hospital. Her medical background should prove invaluable when discussing health care benefits for the teachers and administration. Her business degree and analytical mind should help weigh the pros and cons of the issues. Jean Lambert will get my vote on Tuesday.

So, this Tuesday, Feb. 17th, I am voting FOR Rose Fernandez for State Superintendent of Public Education, FOR Meg Wartman for At Large Elmbrook School Board, and FOR Jean Lambert for Area 4 Elmbrook School Board.

Depending on who makes it through the primary, I may have to be flexible on April 7th.

Look into these candidates for yourself. Read the voters guide interviews. Watch the cable broadcast of the forum if you can, and then go vote on Tuesday!

Rose Fernandez was interviewed on Jay Weber's show this morning in the Hour 2 Part 2 7:30 - 8am segment (Feb 16). 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki McKenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, The Heritage Foundation, CNS News

I did make it to the Elmbrook School Board candidate forum last night, but I was about 3 minutes late.  There were about 30 people in the audience, 2 of which were board members Bob Zieggler and Tom Gehl. (There may have been others present, but I did not see them.)

As I found a seat, a woman was already speaking at a podium. (I later found out she was Dorothy Smaglick, the President of the Elmbrook Education Foundation and is part of the Parent Leadership Council, the sponsor of the forum). I thought the speaker was a candidate giving her opening statement. As she spoke, I found she was reading a statement for candidate Katie Lemcke, who could not be at the forum. Dorothy Smaglick was explaining something about a planned family activity conflicting with the forum time, and so she [Katie Lemcke] could not attend. There was some mention of meeting with some Disney characters? Did I hear that right? You will have to watch the cable broadcast to hear the explanation.

Part of Katie Lemke's statement went something like this:

I stand in firm support of 4K. By not having 4K... ....threatens our enrollment. Students enrolled elsewhere tend to stay there through high school. [I'll be a] voice for families and taxpayers.

I have to see if I can find my notes from the school board meeting back in fall of 2007. I believe Katie spoke during the public forum time in favor of 4K.

The other 5 candidates were in attendance. Barry Wightman certainly was the most entertaining!

I will try to go through my notes and post the highlights later today. My opinions were not changed by going to the forum, but hearing the candidates positions and approach to the district's problems did help me confirm my opinions. 

After the forum I spoke with a few acquaintances in the audience. One was not aware that all of Elmbrook School District voters vote on ALL the candidates regarless of which area you live in. In other words, even if you do not live in Area 4, you still vote for Jean Lambert, Donald Moore, or Barry Wightman in the primary on Feb. 17. So you need to pay attention to their positions as well as the At-Large members'. 

Links: 

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

A reader forwarded me the following announcement from the Elmbrook School District regarding the coming candidate forum. (Parents of Elmbrook School students receive these monthly events notices, but residents without children in the district do not.)

Last year, I attended the forum even though each candidate ran unopposed. I found it was still an good opportunity to get a feel for the candidates. This year we have three candidates running for each open seat. The forum on Thursday should help you to get a better idea of where each stands on the issues facing the Elmbrook School District, such as how to solve the challenge of increasing costs without increasing taxes. The primary is coming up fast: Feb. 17th.

You may submit a question by emailing Dorothy Smaglick, dsmaglick@aol.com   

Board of Education Candidate Forum to be Held

Candidates for the Elmbrook Board of Education seats up for election in April will participate in a candidate forum on Thursday, Feb. 5 at 7:00 p.m., at the Elmbrook Schools Central Administrative Office, 13780 Hope Street, Brookfield. The forum will be sponsored by the Elmbrook Parent Leadership Council.
 
Six individuals have declared candidacy for two seats (one at-large seat and one Area IV seat.)  Because more than two candidates are currently running for each seat, a primary election will be held Tuesday, Feb.17 to determine who will advance to the election on Tuesday, April 7. At-large seat candidates are Katie Lemcke, Meg Wartman (incumbent), and Charles D. Wickens.  Area IV seat candidates are Jean Lambert, Donald J. Moore, and Barry M. Wightman.
 
During the forum each candidate will present opening and closing comments, answers to predetermined questions from a moderator, and answers to questions from the audience.  Elmbrook residents interested in submitting questions may send them to Elmbrook Parent Leadership Council representative Dorothy Smaglick, dsmaglick@aol.com . The forum will be taped and broadcast on the district's Time Warner Cable channels 13 and 96.

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

Links: 

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

It must have been quite the meeting last Tuesday. At least two difficult subjects were discussed by the Elmbrook School Board: scaling back benefits and closing schools. (Wish I had cable TV.)

But discuss them, we must. The harsh reality is that we cannot continue with business as usual and keep the budget in line with revenue caps and sanity. Since most of the school budget goes toward salaries and benefits, closing a school makes sense. In Elmbrook, salary/benefit costs are currently 83.5% of the budget, the remaining 16.5% goes toward items like text books, facility improvements, and utilities.

At a meeting last November on class sizes and how it relates to budget, "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%." Closing a school eliminates some of the administrative and support staff salary and benefits costs, which account for the lion's share of the budget.

As for the possible school closings, even before the new Dixon and Brookfield El were built, we have had excess capacity--especially since enrollments are declining. Excess capacity has been a topic of discussion ever since we moved here in 1986. Remember there were 4 failed building referendums before Swanson's reopening/addition referendum of 1996, which greatly expanded Swanson's previous size. Declining enrollment was a topic of discussion during those 1991 - 1996 referendum requests.

Hillside elementary and Tonawanda are the two likely candidates for closing, if we just consider enrollment numbers and capacity. I noted the excess capacity during the Swanson Swap era in 2004. It is unlikely Tonawanda will ever be closed, however, because it is Elm Grove's only school.

The district administration office building on Hope Street (a former school) and Fairview South are two likely candidates for closing and possible sell off. Both buildings are in need of repair. Fairview is in much worse condition, I believe. 

Would it be practical to move the Fairview students and administration to the two smaller elementary schools? Considering Tonawanda is most likely off the table, moving Fairview to Hillside is the more promising scenario. Leaving the administrative offices on Hope Street rather than putting on an addition to an existing school probably makes the most sense. (They should fix those leaking valves/pipes in the ceilings though.)

A reader sent me this link to the Waukesha Freeman article, Elmbrook looks at closing some schools District needs to cut nearly $10 million in next 5 years:  

BROOKFIELD - Elmbrook School District officials talked Tuesday about possibly consolidating its six elementary schools to deal with the task of cutting $10 million from its budget in the next five years.

According to a memo that was issued by Elmbrook Superintendent Matt Gibson and reviewed at Tuesday's school board work session, the district has 13 facilities. Gibson proposes looking at the feasibility of consolidating district buildings over the next five years.

...In an interview Thursday, Gibson said while the board has begun to explore its options, it's simply that, an exploration, because the district has five years to make cost-saving decisions.

School consolidation is something that should have been discussed, in my opinion, years ago, before we overbuilt Swanson, Brookfield El, Dixon, and now the 2 high schools. I am glad the administration and board are at least openly talking about this unpopular subject now.

When making your school board member choices this February and April, make sure you know where your candidate stands on school consolidation, salary and benefit packages, 4K, and referendums for raising the revenue cap. These will be the $??Million dollar questions facing future board members.

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: 

In an effort to reduce our utility bill, I have been belt tightening at our house thermostat wise but enjoying it less.  (I'm miserable!) I set our thermostat is set at 68 during the day and 50 - 55 at night. Heat vents to the living and dining rooms are closed unless we are using those rooms. For someone (me) who is always cold, even in the summertime, this is a sacrifice. So when I read that Elmbrook was saving money because of their new energy sleuth, the article caught my eye.  

I am all for energy savings--that is why I am trying to conserve at home. However, my efforts are not paying off in the way I expected. Although I am using about 9% less natural gas and electricity, my utility bill is nearly identical to last year's for the same number of days and same average daily temperature of 29 degrees*.

But to save 66% in natural gas usage at Dixon, a new school--presumably with newer, more efficient boilers--I have to wonder what their thermostats were set at during the day, and did they ever turn them down when the building wasn't occupied? The article only mentioned,

So far, the biggest energy savings have come from tightening up heating and cooling schedules in district buildings. Henderson, Ross and the maintenance staff at each of the district’s 13 facilities worked together to re-write automated schedules that regulate building temperatures.

I obtained a district memo dated Oct. 29, 2007 regarding the newer heating/cooling standards. It was from Director of Facilities Management Dave Ross to the Facility [building] Managers and listed the proposed temperatures for the district.

The article stated "Elmbrook has curbed district-wide natural gas consumption by an estimated 30 percent since June 2007..." Since the majority of gas use is for heating, the memo would represent the new temperature guidelines for the heating season those energy savings were based on. There was no mention of nighttime or unoccupied setbacks. All temperatures are in degrees Fahrenheit:

• Kindergarten 72
  
• Elementary Classroom 71
• Secondary Classrooms 70
• Gyms/Corridors/Cafeteria 68
• Shops 68
• Restrooms 68
• Administrative Offices 71
• Pool Water Temperature 80
• Mechanically Cooled Areas 75 [Air conditioned] 

Some school districts and public buildings are not heating to this extent, sticking instead to the 68 degrees Fahrenheit guideline reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter era. Considering students and teachers are sitting instead of being active, I don't think anything lower than 68 is an option--70 is more reasonable.

Elmbrook already reduced its natural gas consumption by 30% district-wide, the article stated. That made me wonder what the daytime temperatures were prior to 2007-08. At least they are on the right track now. 

Sometimes energy management requires a specific person to investigate; the inspection audits are time consuming. Energy Manager Jim Henderson knows there are more savings to be found. Electricity and lighting seem to be the next target. The article mentioned that energy saving suggestions have come "from staff, students and district residents."

My suggestion would be to look at Dixon Elementary School's water consumption and sewer bill. I stumbled on something puzzling in looking at the budget figures, when I dug out some of my archived Elmbrook budget reports.

I was checking to see if Dixon stood out compared to the other schools in natural gas usage. It did a little bit, considering Dixon and Brookfield El are similarly sized (I'm thinking), and the same age. Brookfield El had budgeted $1,315 less than Dixon for natural gas. Actually, Brookfield El had more students. It was a 22 section school vs. Dixon, a 19.5 section school during the 2007-08 school year. (That means there were more occupied classrooms at Brookfield El than Dixon, which I would interpret as more heated space.)

Then I noticed the proposed water and sewer expenditure amounts: $3,370 for Brookfield El and $8,807 for Dixon. For comparison, Swanson, which has 28 sections (8.5 more than Dixon), had only $4,265 budgeted for the same services. There are many possible scenarios for this usage.

Was Dixon discharging too much heated boiler water in 2007-08, which would account for higher natural gas consumption too? (If so, boiler treatment chemical usage would also be up.) Maybe Dixon had some leaking hot water faucets? That would increase gas and water use. Maybe it was a combination of those problems? It is possible that the changes they made to save 66% in natural gas use also reduced their water consumption.

I am not privy to the actual dollar amounts used, the figures were the proposed budgeted amounts. Anyway, water use is probably another place the district could save some money on at all the schools, especially Dixon.

I wish Energy Manager Jim Henderson and Director Dave Ross well in their energy savings quest. After all, wasted energy dollars are wasted taxpayer dollars...

Utilities cost Elmbrook about $1.6 million annually. Henderson said some experts estimate as much as a third of energy used by school districts is wasted or inefficiently consumed.

Dave Ross, district director of facilities management, said wasted energy represents lost educational funding.

“Our resources are supposed to go toward educating kids, not toward utilities,” Ross said.

P.S. Yesterday, it was announced that Facility Director Dave Ross is leaving Elmbrook this March "for a similar position with the West Bend School District." 

*If my next utility bill does not show better savings, I am returning to my energy policy of last year: Start the day at 68 degrees and when I notice I am too cold, live it up and boost to 69 or 70! 

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: 

School districts probably like free publicity but not in this way.  Last night I saw footage of Brookfield East's parking lot on the evening news. Reason? Pot found in student cars at East, Central. The search was actually done on Monday. The 2 students involved were given a 5 day suspension for their "first-time possession on school grounds" offense. (Don't know if that means they had other offenses, just not connected with school?)

What I found remarkable was that the find was made by drug sniffing dogs outside in the cold!

The Community Watch piece stated the searches used 4 dogs with handlers and took 40 minutes to check the buildings and parking lots. That doesn't seem very long considering the number of cars and amount of hallways. Possibly they had some specific locations in mind to search? 

The school district has a drug free stance. They promote the DARE program for instructing children to just say NO to drugs. Dr. Gibson was quoted, "In order to maintain drug-free schools we will periodically conduct preventive drug searches, whether or not reasonable suspicion exists."

There is no hedging on this issue. No if you are going to use drugs, at least do it as safely as possible, as there is with the sex-ed Human Growth and Development curriculum.

Today, by the way, is the last chance you will have to look at the HG&D materials at the administrative offices from 8:30am to 4pm at 13780 Hope Street (a few blocks north of Capitol Drive and just east of Lilly Road).

The HGD committee will be meeting tomorrow evening and making their recommendations to the Board of Education. Melanie Stewart, the Director of Assessment and Student Learning emailed me that, "Additional time for reviews is likely a recommendation that will be made." She also urged that input comment sheets be submitted.

If you would like additional HGD review time, give Dr. Stewart a call at 262-781-3030, ext. 1112, or email at stewartm@elmbrookschools.org

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: 

Wednesday, Jan. 14th, 8:30am to 4pm, is the last official day for interested Elmbrook residents to review the Human Growth & Development sex-ed materials. The HGD committee meets this Thursday to discuss the review comment forms. If you have looked at the sex ed materials, make sure your comments are submitted to Elmbrook's school offices by noon, Thursday, Jan. 15.

I was at the district office to look through the curriculum again yesterday. That makes about 7 hours for me. I started at the kindergarten level last week and so far have only gotten to the middle school materials. Even spending that amount of time, I have not seen everything covered in the classes. I realize I need more time.

Parents have been stopping in. One man came yesterday asking where he could pick up the class materials for his wife. After we (the 5 of us in the room) informed him there was no take home packet, he said his wife would come Wednesday.

I have been told there are over 188 hours of classroom instruction to be reviewed but far less time was offered to look through the curriculum. Plus, it takes time to look through something you are not familiar with.

Elmbrook's HGD program is said to be abstinence based. So far, I have not seen much evidence of this emphasis. I strongly encourage you to take a look for yourself--especially if you have children in the middle school and high school.

I realize the HGD committee must move on so the board can vote on the curriculum toward the end of the month, but considering the bins of materials are just sitting on tables in the board room, with no interaction between office staff and the viewers, I see little reason to limit reviewing time at this point. With additional review time, at least you could read through and watch what the board will be approving or rejecting.

Contact Director of Learning Melanie Stewart at 262-781-3030, extension 1112 or email her, stewartm@elmbrookschools.org to request more time.

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

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: 

What if you went to the bond market and no one wanted to buy yours? What would you do? Well, not wanting to face that dilemma, the Elmbrook School district stayed home. They are "postponing $31 million worth of borrowing for construction [referendum] projects, citing an unfavorable bond market."

This is the second time they have put it off. Who can blame them? Investors aren't exactly champing at the bit, at the terms Elmbrook figured on, to buy up $31 million worth of debt. CNI's Amy Hetzner reported, Elmbrook again delays bond issue:

The district had delayed in October borrowing the second half of its $62.2 million high school renovation project, authorized by voters in a referendum last year. The district had planned to proceed on Tuesday to invite bids for a 20-year loan, Elmbrook Assistant Superintendent Robert Borch said.

But that doesn't appear like it will happen.

"We're concerned that we will have insufficient bidders and that those bidders ... will be at rates that will be unacceptable to what we have budgeted," Borch said.

The next opportunity for peddling our $31 million bond is Feb 10th. Will market conditions improve by then or will our little piggy still have none? (OK, half) If so, is it time to prioritize the referendum project the best we can within the $31 million we do have?

Stay tuned!

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: 

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: