Restructuring Update

Last night was a combined ASC/CRT meeting to discuss the Attendance Committee's recommendation that will go before the BOE. Bottom line is that the hawk-like area identified as option E (currently part of Oakwood and Franklin) would go to Roosevelt, Merrill, and North with part of the current Roosevelt area going to Tipler and West after the K-3, 4-8 reorganization.

A question I asked and did not get a clear answer yet, but is supposed to be addressed in the BOE workshop, is how a proposed new north side school will affect that boundary change. Currently OASD owns property on Ryf Road, however, that may not be the location of the new school. Ideas have been floated that the new school should be closer to town to save on transportation and to fill the gap left by closing Oaklawn. One specific idea I have heard is to sell Ryf Road and purchase property closer to the Vinland Road area. If that is the case, the newly identified boundary area could potentially be bussing through that attendance area to get to the targeted attendance area. The potential is also there for moving the identified children from Roosevelt to the new school to maintain contiguous boundaries. Ultimately, I believe the potential for multiple moves for the identified boundary area needs to be addressed. To this point, the Attendance Area plan addresses short term needs, but does not seem to go the full ten years or provide a jumping off point for the next ten years.

Another question I asked related to the difference between two of the attendance areas. Option E and F are virtually identical except that a small area of the current Oakwood attendance area, namely Oakwood Circle, is excluded from the recommended option E. The reason Shelly Muza gave for excluding Oakwood Circle is that the number of children would be too great and an addition would become necessary to Roosevelt. So to decrease the number of children to fit the current building, Oakwood Circle was excluded.

An attendance team member had additionally proposed an option I that would have turned Oakwood into a K-8 that would feed to North in its entirety. That option, according to Muza, was immediately eliminated because it was not a K-3, 4-8 option. I guess that makes K-3, 4-8 an all or nothing proposition, no mixing and matching to the needs of a diverse community. Or should I say, all or all proposition as K-3, 4-8 can, and probably will be done with or without a referendum and definitely with or without community involvement, comment, or support.

I did ask about one of the focus questions the committee was working from: "Are there any factors that were not considered when this area was proposed that should now be considered and, if so, could another attendance area better address these factors?"

My question was, since the schools north of the Fox River are many and virtually on top of each other, has the district considered closing off parts of one or more of the buildings and either using them for storage or repurposing. An example I used since Phil Marshall was present was if we closed a few classrooms in E. Cook and move Oshkosh East to those rooms. This would reduce the capacity of the building allowing us to redraw the boundaries such that a school would not end up outside its attendance area. It also saves us on leasing space for East and brings it closer to North where the students would have easier access to district resources. E. Cook was just an example, don't panic.

Some background on this: Dr. Heilmann stated some time ago and confirmed again last night that when he tried to fill the schools from East to West in concentric circles, Jefferson ended up outside its own attendance area. I wonder if this scenario was redrawn with the new school factored in and if there was a change in where Jefferson ended up.

My question had to do with reducing the number of seats in the underutilized schools north of the river, so that boundaries could be drawn to relieve pressure on the west side without a school ending up located outside its attendance area. Another element that could be added to relieve overcrowding in schools west of 41, would be to close Lakeside, it already has an offer from the Town of Blackwolf for Right of First Refusal, and use the revenue to fix up and expand Green Meadow. Then move the Oakwood boundary up, the Traeger boundary up, and put more kids in Green Meadow from Traeger. Keep in mind, not all of the Lakeside kids would end up at Green Meadow as some live closer to other schools. Of course this would go against the apparent trend to bring everything into or closer to the city limits and away from the townships.

The answer to my question of an alternative was no, they had not thought of that. They also didn't seem to think it would work though I think it takes more than a cursory glance with biased eyes to really know.

This idea isn't out of the blue. There are districts around the country that are experiencing a decline in enrollment and find themselves with buildings too large to operate efficiently. Because no one can predict if and when enrollment will increase and construction is getting more and more expensive, those districts are closing parts of their buildings to reduce their capacities. Some are outright razing classrooms and using the space for outdoor classrooms and additional playground space. Some use the closed space for storage, and some repurpose for offices, community rooms, and other uses. If enrollment increases, the classrooms are reclaimed (if they weren't razed, of course). If enrollment does not increase, or decreases further, the space is not wasted and may allow another building that would need a tremendous amount of repair or operating dollars to be closed and still leave room for growth in the future. Regardless, school districts have bought themselves time to evaluate enrollment predictions before doing something as drastic as selling off buildings only to experience an unpredicted surge in enrollment and ending up with overcrowded classrooms.