Update on K-3

Last night's BOE meeting offered no clarification of what K-3, 4-8 is or how it would affect Oshkosh. No questions were answered per se. What did happen was that the BOE opened up the options for the architects working with team 6. No longer will they be held to the single parameter of configuring our buildings to the K-3, 4-8 model. Instead, they are allowed to go through our buildings and determine the best use for them academically and for efficiency. I am not a fan of K-3, but bravo for that decision.

I presented Dr. Heilmann with quite a stack of research on grade configurations (about two reams of paper printed on both sides). Three articles were in support of K-3 with two of them actually supporting a K-3 core group within a K-5 or K-8 school. That might be something to consider as the practice of having the K-3 teachers working closely together has several academic advantages with no expense of reconfiguring buildings.

Each BOE member got the information burned on a CD in case they might be interested. Other than the three articles on K-3, I gave them about 100 articles (including studies, meta-studies, reports, and case studies) that supported stronger middle school initiatives and K-5 or K-8 grade configurations. Even the Rand Report the K-3,4-8 committee used to support K-3, actually recommends K-8. Bottom line is that grade configurations have little impact on anything. That being said, why change grade configuration at considerable taxpayer expense if there is no measurable benefit to anyone? How about the fact that we have some excellent and successful neighborhood schools that will either cease to exist or cease to exist as we know them and in the way that made them successful.

At the end of the lengthy discussion, Bowen, Kavanaugh, Weinsheim, and McDermott still supported K-3, 4-8; Becker still outright opposed it; and Traska and Schneider were seriously questioned, if not opposed, the configuration change.

I would like to see public forums that explain to this community what is going to happen with K-3,4-8 configuration. People got upset over a simple (okay, not so simple) boundary change. The new grade configuration means that many K-3 students within walking distance of their schools will now have to be bussed to a different location. Same for many 4-5 students. For instance, I live in the Traeger attendance area. Under the new configuration K-3 students currently within walking distance of the school would be bussed to Oakwood. Some of Traeger's K-3 will go to Shapiro. My kids walk to school in 15 to 20 minutes. If I drive them, it is five to seven minutes depending on traffic and weather. I cannot imagine how long of a bus ride they would have being on the outside fringes of the Oakwood area. That will be the same for several school attendance areas. Reality is that every attendance area will change with the new configuration, some possibly more than once as the plan is implemented and construction takes place.

What about the crossing guards? Under the current agreement with the city, crossing guards are only provided to elementary schools. 4-8 would not qualify for crossing guards. What is the plan if the city sees the tax dollars they can save by cutting those "extra" guards?

And how about that collaboration time? After three years of lost instructional time for the benefit of the teachers, there are little hints that collaboration between buildings is not happening because of the staggered bell schedules. How are third grade teachers going to collaborate with fourth grade teachers to ensure a smooth transition for our 9-year-olds with the staggered schedule? (K-8 models would fix the problem, but we won't go into that.)

Our new Business Manager did mention the need for focus groups to make sure voters know what they are voting for or against. That is a very good suggestion. As I pointed out in the public forum and Mr. Traska also mentioned, there are many parts to this plan and a voter only has to dislike one part to vote against the whole thing. If there is anything the voter does not understand completely or the information about it is too confusing, odds are the vote will be "No." Worse case scenario, people won't vote at all.

I am hopeful in the decision to allow the architects to look at our buildings and develop the best possible plan, and not be tied to one option that may be a little too rich for our community. I am keeping an open mind about K-3, to a point. I currently do not agree with it at all. However, if presented with information that it is the best and most efficient option for our community, I will reconsider my opinion.