Sun 28-Oct-2001 Oshkosh Northwestern
Supporting public schools is a natural reflex for most people because it is understood that the quality of local education is a foundation of the community - perhaps the single most important. One of the strongest assets of the Oshkosh community is the quality of public schools.
One of the most significant powers granted to local school boards is the ability to bring an issue directly to the community in a referendum. Historically, Oshkosh school boards have used this power rarely but diligently. The track record of community support for recent referendums is a proud accomplishment.
The Northwestern was proud to support the 1995 referendum that led to the construction of Carl Traeger School and improvements to several others and we helped champion a new Jefferson Elementary School in 1998.
We have stood against measures that have needlessly strayed from needs into wants, such as the Merrill School overhaul in 1998. That opposition did not stem from a desire not to improve schools, but to carefully weigh and consider improvements so as to not break the bond and trust between the school system and the community.
Today we find ourselves in the unwanted position of urging voters to reject the district¹s two question referendum Nov. 6. It includes spending $12.8 million on a new Sunset Elementary School and additions to four other schools and a second question that allows the district to exceed state revenue caps to maintain the facilities.
The danger the school district faces is the outright rejection of school projects by voters without considering the merits with such a deeply flawed proposal. In the long run, that harms public education more than the temporary set back of a defeated referendum.We support the replacement of Sunset school. School officials should come back to the community this spring with Sunset as a single question on the ballot as a more affordable and prudent expenditure.
Supporting the Nov. 6 referendum would mean tacitly supporting and turning a blind eye to a number of critical procedural and public policy missteps by school officials we cannot in good conscience overlook.
We have a number of reservations about this referendum, including
The placement of the referendum on the ballot in an off-year November election, a strategy designed to hold down voter turnout so supporters with a vested interest in the issue can pass the measure.
The dollar amount which must be weighed against an economy that was already sputtering before Sept. 11 and, according to most economists, is in a full-fledged recession. In addition, both the city of Oshkosh and Winnebago County are mulling budgets with double-digit tax rate increases. Many people simply cannot afford such successive substantial tax increases.
A process to develop the ballot package that was unrepresentative and ultimately spawned a small committee that blatantly violated state open meetings laws with a secret vote resulting in an investigation by Winnebago County District Attorney Joseph Paulus and a strong opinion from State Attorney General James Doyle that the committee vote and meetings were illegal.The public was shut out of a significant portion of the process.
Community support for the referendum is tepid at best, foreshadowed by the school board¹s 4 to 3 split in placing the issue before voters in the first place. Moreover, some of the board members who voted in favor of the referendum acknowledged the package is not the strongest or most favorable, but they felt an obligation to the committees to let the public decide. Passive rubber stamping is not our definition of leadership.
The lack of an overall plan and set of priorities for the public school system ‹ a deficiency made clear by this referendum¹s poor conception and execution. All-day kindergarten and SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education) programs were approved and implemented without proper planning and forethought about the ultimate cost and benefit to the community.
We will devote next week¹s editorials to expanding on our reservations about the Nov. 6 school referendum.
Finally, we encourage school officials to come back with a winning plan in April for replacing Sunset School. To make that positive development happen, we first have to reject this flawed two-question referendum on Nov. 6.
© Copyright 2001, The Northwestern. All Rights Reserved.
Sun 28-Oct-2001 Oshosh Northwestern Editorial
Although we don’t expect the Oshkosh school board to be clairvoyant, there were plenty of signs this summer that the local economy was starting to slow down, mimicking the national trend.
The economic uncertainty of the times — with people trying to cope with layoffs and concerned about job security — make the $12.8 million bonding issue poorly considered.
Adding to the poor timing of the referendum is the tax levy increases that are being proposed by city and county government. They will combine to give the property taxpayer a significant jolt and will probably make some residents on fixed incomes unable to maintain their homes.
The school district has shown little regard for the cumulative tax impact the referendum will have. In fact, the portion of the referendum that calls for exceeding operational revenue caps by $350,000 over the next six years is an ominous foot in the door for future referen-ums.
School administrators constantly point out that the referendum responds to the needs of the district’s patrons who are asking for all-day kindergarten and smaller class sizes.
The problem with that reasoning is the school district’s definition of their patrons is too narrow. The district’s patrons are not limited to families with children who attend the schools.
The district’s patrons are everyone who pays taxes to support the schools. The size and magnitude of the referendum does not accurately reflect the consideration that is due to the tax paying community.
In this economy, in this tax climate, a $12.8 million referendum is ill advised when many of the needs of the district could be met with a plan that would less costly. The school board needs to go back to the drawing board and create a less costly plan. The taxpayers deserve to see such a plan.
The district claims it doesn’t have a backup plan if the referendum fails. Out of consideration for the taxpayers, they should.
© Copyright 2001, The Northwestern. All Rights Reserved.
Mon 29-Oct-2001
There is no polite way to say it: The timing of the $12.8 million school bonding referendum stinks.
The Nov. 6 election is likely to be the most non-representative vote in the city’s history. There are no national elections, no state elections and no local elections that would attract voters to the polls.
One conclusion you can draw by the timing of the election is that the proponents of the plan wanted to stack the deck in favor of a "yes" vote. Each school that stands to benefit from the referendum will have friends and families headed for the polls.
Even if you buy the explanation that a November vote was necessary to accommodate construction schedules and thus insure a favorable occupancy date, we still have a feeling the school board and administration would not be bothered by a low voter turnout, made up of referendum advocates, since there is no organized opposition.
The inherent unfairness of a Nov. 6 election is that a few people with a vested interest will determine the outcome, thus calling the credibility of the election into question.
A more viable alternative would be to have an April election when a slate of city council, school and county supervisor offices will be contested.
With school board candidates seeking election, the referendum would undergo a more robust public debate than has been possible up to now. An April election would be more representative of the community’s attitude of the referendum.
© Copyright 2001, The Northwestern. All Rights Reserved.
Wed 31-Oct-2001
The first sign the Oshkosh school district’s Nov. 6 referendum was heading off course came more than two years ago when a committee of 100 was commissioned to look into forecasted enrollment disparities at the city’s two high schools.
Not only was the size of the committee so bulky as to grind down any fruitful work, when the process eventually worked down to a smaller group, there were grave violations of the state’s open meetings law. That was the conclusion of both the Winnebago County District Attorney and the State Attorney General on a case brought by The Northwestern.
And when it came time for this committee to cast secret votes, it was full of people with a vested interest in the outcome, such as the former principal of one of the school’s slated for an upgrade. What happened to the high school issue, you might ask?
Well, as far as we can tell it was set aside because of the passionate feelings and an unspoken hope that the construction of a new north side elementary school — Sunset — would seed enough new growth on that part of town to equalize the enrollments of Oshkosh West and North high schools.
New construction and bonding for the improvements is an old strategy. It doesn’t seem the district’s process allows for a new or bold solution to the problem. Indeed, it appears the committees embarked on the path of least resistance that winds up costing taxpayers the most.
The two question referendum includes: Question 1: $12.8 million for a new Sunset Elementary and additions to Lakeside, Oaklawn, Oakwood and Washington elementary schools and Question 2: allowing the district to exceed state revenue caps for $350,000 a year for the next six years by $350,000 to pay the additional operational and maintenance costs for the new and expanded facilities.
A smaller referendum, one perhaps that includes a new Sunset but also uses some space at existing buildings is a more viable option for a community with several sizeable tax increases shortly on the horizon.
Good, diligent people contributed to the committees, but the folks closest and most passionate about issues, especially parents with children in school, cannot always take an unprejudiced and dispassionate view on issues.
We wouldn’t expect parents to do anything less, but a school district operating in a tough fiscal environment needs to do more to encourage new thinking on old problems.
The process could not even produce anything resembling a clear majority on the school board. The construction question squeaked by a 4-to-3 vote.
Now the board wants the public to buy a plan it is not even entirely sold on. No thanks. We urge voters to reject both questions Nov. 6.
© Copyright 2001, The Northwestern. All Rights Reserved.
Thurs 1-Nov-2001
Two programs are driving the need for additional space in the Oshkosh school system: all-day kindergarten and SAGE (Student Achievement Guarantee in Education.)
SAGE is a state program designed to improve performance in low-income schools by lowering class sizes. Overall, the district has lowered class sizes across the board in its schools during the past two years.
In addition, the district is in the process of implementing all-day kindergarten across the district and eliminating half-day kindergarten. Automatically, that doubles the amount of space needed for kindergarten.
Even if you fully accept that all-day kindergarten and K to 3 SAGE are programs Oshkosh schools should have implemented, there is the question of how these programs were implemented and what type of cost/benefit analysis was conducted.
This referendum shows us that the policies were implemented with the best of intentions without much regard for the practical question of how the programs would fit into existing facilities and how much it would cost if space was not available in the district.
Those questions should have been asked and answered at the beginning, not more than two years later in the form of a two-question referendum.
The Nov. 6 referendum includes: Question 1: $12.8 million for a new Sunset Elementary School and additions to Lakeside, Oaklawn, Oakwood and Washington elementary schools, and Question 2: allowing the district to exceed state revenue caps for $350,000 a year for the next six years to pay the additional operational and maintenance costs for the new and expanded facilities.
Turning down this referendum puts the community in the awkward position of rejecting a plan to implement these programs equally throughout Oshkosh. That’s a tough position to take, but we believe it is necessary to force the school board to set better priorities.
Tomorrow we’ll talk about how putting a referendum on the April ballot to replace Sunset should be the first priority the board sets.
But first the community needs to reject both referendum questions to put the district back on a clearer path of quality and affordable education.
© Copyright 2001, The Northwestern. All Rights Reserved.
Sun 4-Nov-2001
‘October suprise’ another reason to vote ‘no’ Nov. 6
We’ve taken the unprecedented step of spending the last week talking about why we do not support the school district’s Nov. 6 referendum because we think it is important to make a strong, detailed and compelling case to reject the measure.
It is a case we’ve made with reluctance and apprehension.
Investing in public schools is more often than not a winning proposition for the community. The quality of local education is a foundation of the community — perhaps the single most important. One of the strongest assets of the Oshkosh community is the quality of public schools.
Supporting the Nov. 6 referendum would mean tacitly supporting and turning a blind eye to a number of critical procedural and public policy missteps by school officials we cannot in good conscience overlook.
Therefore, we urge voters to reject the referendum. We support replacing Sunset Elementary School on the April ballot and urge the school board to bring back that question this spring.
The referendum includes two questions. The first seeks approval for spending $12.8 million on a new Sunset and additions to four other schools. The second question asks to exceed state revenue caps by $350,000 a year for the next six years to maintain the facilities.
This week alone we’ve seen more good reasons to reject this measure akin to an "October surprise." Because we were surprised, as we suspect many in the community were, to learn that the state will be paying a meager share of the cost of this referendum if passed.
The state pays for two-thirds the cost of K-12 education and one of the chief arguments of referendum proponents is that Oshkosh is wise to act quickly because state officials are considering scaling back the amount the state kicks in for building referendums.
Well, one piece of information school officials were not so quick to publicize is that the state will fund only about 8 percent of this project, leaving local property tax payers to shoulder 92 percent of the burden. That’s a far cry from two-thirds and speaks to how up-front school officials are with the facts.
Moreover, we have a number of reservations about this referendum, including
Finally, we encourage school officials to come back with a winning plan in April for replacing Sunset School. To make that positive development happen, we first have to reject this flawed two-question referendum on Nov. 6.
© Copyright 2001, The Northwestern. All Rights Reserved.