I almost missed this little notice, it was tucked away on page 27 of Thursday's Brookfield NOW:

Members of the Elmbrook community are invited to attend a discussion about the effect of state funding on class sizes.

If you are interested, come to the meeting at Brookfield Elementary School, 2530 North Brookfield Road. It is being held in the LGI room from 1:30 to 3pm on Tuesday, Nov. 18th.

Because of our large tax base, Elmbrook schools get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to state aids for our resident students. Late in October, I asked Bob Borch what Elmbrook's per student costs and state aids were. He replied:

Using the budget approved last week and the methodology the district uses for calculating per student cost, the property tax portion of the total per pupil cost of $12,311 would be $10,384, with another portion coming from state aid at $1,161 and the remainder from local and federal sources.

The state contributes more for Chapter 220 and Open enrollment students, however, there is the perception that these students often are more disruptive in the classroom and school. From Brookfield NOW, "Elmbrook receives between $10,000 and $12,000 per Chapter 220 student in state integration aid." I don't have the Open enrollment reimbursement handy, but it is around half that number.

Because costs continue to rise (teacher and administration wage and benefit packages, rising utilities, etc.), I think larger class sizes are coming. I believe many classes at the high school level are in a 18 - 22 student range. But some of our classes, like German 4 for example, are very small because they are more specialized. The school feels they have a responsibility to high school students who already took 3 years of a language and wish to complete their studies by graduation.  

I don't know how many specifics will be discussed on Tuesday, but certainly I will post any new information if I attend the meeting. 

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: 

The Elmbrook School Board will be discussing future Chapter 220 enrollment at their work session on Tuesday, Oct. 28th from 6:00 to 6:55pm at the District Offices.

The actual board meeting begins at 7pm with the 2009-2010 Chapter 220 and Open Enrollment planning topic starting at 8pm. 

Both meetings are open to the public. 

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: 

Please note, for some reason this reposted itself to March 25th. It should be dated and placed March 24th.

This makes the 3rd posting in my series on Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts..." This time we are discussing the science labs, "Science labs will be expanded and made safe for today's academics."

The Vote Yes ad in March 20th BrookfieldNOW follows much the same train of thought. (The same person who made the comment is the treasurer for the Vote Yes group and member of HSST.)

Photos are from Central High School's chemistry room from this year's tour.

I believe the chemistry rooms are currently set up for 24 students using the lab stations, at least that is what I wrote down last year in my tour notes from East.

Principal LaBonte said they had 28 student lab stations at Central this year. Should the referendum pass, they would be adding 2 more.

Regardless of the actual number, the administration thinks adding 2 is necessary. 

When I figured out how many students were in the average class in my last school post, I came up with 25. Out of that 25 student number, at Central, 1.5 were non-resident. At East, 2 out of 25 were non-resident.

Can you see why limiting our non-resident students becomes very important?

I can appreciate that certain improvements could be made to the science rooms. I just don't think we need a referendum to do it.

Photo 2 shows the chemical closet and emergency shower (yellow object on wall between doors).

Last year, after the referendum failed, I had requested a cost estimate for improving the chemistry rooms twice. Here is one of my email questions: "After the referendum, I had requested price information on how much replacing the chemistry labs would be. This would include new cabinets and counter tops, plumbing, gas supply, chemical storage lockers,  proper ventilation exhaust fans in the ceiling as well as vent hoods for chemical mixing.  I have not heard back from you."

My point being, how do you know you cannot afford to improvewhat you have, if you don't know how much the improvements would be? I have not received an answer. I think mainly because they really do not know.

If you look at  Facilities Fact Sheet 20: Science Classrooms Limit Instruction it states that there are a number of problems in the chem. labs: A lack of science-specific ventilation, lack of chemical storage so teachers would not need to transport chemicals via carts down the halls during busy class break times, corroded faucets, etc., and as mentioned on tour, cabinetry and drawers that do not work.

I think any one of these could be addressed without too much trouble. Ventilation? There was a new (2 years old) vent hood at Central for mixing chemicals (3rd picture).

These science rooms are on the top floor, so a ceiling vent exhaust fan could be installed to improve room air quality without too much difficulty.

Lack of chemical storage at East? Yes, that is a problem. But couldn't the teacher transport the needed items for the day to class and keep in a locked cabinet before school started? This would eliminate the cart transportation during class change times.

Corroded faucets and metal surfaces from caustic chemicals? Ever hear of replacing a faucet or surface as needed? We have done ours at our house. Haven't you? 

Actually, chemistry has become rather tame these days because there is so much concern about volatile chemicals and safety. My college student laments they don't use the fun stuff anymore at school in electronics and physics: its too dangerous.

Cabinetry that has doors and drawers that don't work? Well, if the maintenance staff was directed to stop responding to repair orders over 5 years ago in anticipation of the referendum, I guess that is a problem now. But they could have been repaired before they became such a problem. One solution now would be to install a new lab station or two and use the removed one for parts to repair the remainders?

Another issue raised in that fact sheet were AP classes. AP classes are often very small, yet command a classroom for an entire school period. If AP classes are driving the space issue, perhaps we should consider running them at a different time of day? Maybe extend the school day for AP so they can use labs longer? Maybe combine them at one school? Most students have their own cars (very few upper class men use the school bus system). It is a whole other topic that needs looking into. 

Please note that there is a LCD projector in the classroom in the 3rd photo. 

Next, I'll be working on the BIG issue for this referendum, and that of course is the amount of money being spent on sports. (Think 1.4 acres of new gym related facilities at east.) Stay tuned!

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add athletic facilities? 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

HSST Meeting Minutes 

Cost Breakdowns of Type of Work (cost per square footage)

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: click on that subject heading.

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

Former 2007 Referendum Facilities Facts Sheets (Still a good read)

The countdown continues: Just 8 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

OR, WHY LIMITING NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS IS VERY IMPORTANT

This is the 2nd in my series on Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts" regarding the referendum.

Following the order of the HSST member's comments, she notes that "libraries will be expanded for the academic need (currently students can't get into the libraries to do research if a class is using the space)."

Now the first question I am asking myself is, what classes are the libraries being used for on a daily basis that prohibit a student from quietly searching the shelves or using a library computer?  A regular class size ranges from 18 to 30 students for the most part. Fact Sheet 19 from last year shows a photo of East's library. In a note to the side it states:

In modern libraries entire classes are brought in to conduct web-based literary and scientific research...Often two classes are being taught computer-based research simultaneously. In Elmbrook, this space is not separated from the traditional study areas...

Notice, it says "Often two classes". If you click the Fact Sheet 19 link, you see a color photo of East's library. I counted 50 computer stations in that sea of desks (there might be more beyond what the photo shows). Depending on the class size, even if there were those 2 classes in there "often" times, the student count would be 36 - 60.  It still seems a student or two extra could be accommodated to quietly do their own research.

Is the library space conflict a result of lack of planning on the teachers part?  If separate areas are desired, could they use those office cube walls that businesses use for privacy?

My second question is, what is a student doing roaming about during school hours anyway? It has been a while since I was in high school. Are students free to roam about when not in a class? If they are, Central students could go to the Brookfield Library if they are permitted to leave campus.  

But my questions aside, this points to how the non-resident student population causes problems for our own resident students.

If space is at such a premium that it is driving this referendum, shouldn't we really analyze what our schools would look like without the extra non-resident students before we build?

UPDATE: I am not sure what the high school's current enrollments are. I arrived just a few minutes late for the Central Tour this year and Principal LaBonte had already given that statistic. (I forgot to ask later.) According to the district website, Central is at 1,425, and East is now at 1,361 total students*, with 220 of those 2,792 combined students being non-residents. 

Cindy Kilkenny's Fairly Conservative estimates the high schools to be close to 1,400 each this year. 

Looking through a number of articles and other sources though suggests Central and East enrollments to be around 1,350 for this current year, according to a Dec. 2007 Freeman article, Board: With new facilities, more students could enroll:

Board members found issue with the prediction of 1,150 students total attending each high school, which is about 200 less than currently taking classes at the district high schools.

The 1,350 number is off by 11 at East, but it sounds too low for Central. If anyone knows the exact numbers at Central, please comment.  

Regardless of the current enrollments, the 1,150 recommended student total for each high school came from the HSST team, a Journal article stated. And the HSST is a: 

...board-commissioned group -- consisting of four residents who voted against the April referendum and three who voted in favor -- [they] recommended a $61.2 million plan to accommodate about 1,150 students who live in the district, based on projections of declining enrollment.

Districts weighing costs, benefits, is another article that speaks to the issue of fewer non resident students: 

Elmbrook's situation emanated from a task force crafting a second referendum to renovate and expand Brookfield Central and East high schools.

Task force members pushed to tie the buildings' planned capacity to resident-only enrollment projections. The School Board added back a little space, but not as much as the plan rejected in last spring's referendum would have provided. And it tightened its formula to decide how many open enrollment students to accept. Its total open enrollment population - which has grown steadily since 1998, from 19 students to 441 this year - could slightly decline next fall for the first time.

So if our non-resident student numbers could decline next year, and our resident student numbers are decreasing each year because of declining enrollments, we should be gaining extra space every year. Extra space in the library should become less of an issue then too IF we hold back on the non-resident student numbers.

Central's non-resident student population this year: Open enrollment - 64, Chapter 220 - "about 2 dozen" Principal LaBonte stated during our tour. Total non-resident students at Central = "about" 88. A reader commented that the Annual Report stated non-resident high school students = 220. Possibly Central is a bit more than 2 doz? (I will update this if I get an answer.)

East's non-resident student population this year: Open enrollment - 71, Chapter 220 - 47. Total non-resident students at East = 118.  

How does this impact the class sizes?

I will take East, because the numbers are known as of today. Divide the total enrollment, 1,361 by 4 grade levels = 340.25 students per grade level. Divide that 340.25 by 25 students, the average class size? = 14 (13.61) separate classes of 25 students each.

Divide the total 118 non-resident students by 4 grade levels = 30 (29.5) non-resident students / grade level. Divide that 30 students / grade level by the 14 separate classes = 2 (2.10) non-resident students per average class.

Of course the grades are not evenly distributed and the non-residents are not even through the grades either. But, you can see that non-residents do add 2 extras for some classes.

In some classes this is not a problem, but in others it is.

If the problem with the library is that we don't have room for that student who comes in from time to time to do independent research, eliminating 4 unnecessary students from those 2 classes using the library becomes important. 

As with most "problems" driving this referendum, I think there could be ways to work them out within the system...if the school district would want to.

* The actual enrollment number changes throughout the school year as students move in and out of the district. East's numbers were obtained today.

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add athletic facilities? 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

HSST Meeting Minutes 

Cost Breakdowns of Type of Work (cost per square footage)

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: click on that subject heading.

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

Former 2007 Referendum Facilities Facts Sheets (Still a good read)

The countdown continues: Just 8 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

As a Brookfieldnow blogger, I am told I cannot edit anyone's comments. I must either present them as they are sent to me or choose not to post them if I feel they aren't appropriate. But last Thursday, my blog on Open Enrollment,  Please Elmbrook, fewer open enrollment students, not more was edited and put into the Brookfieldnow printed paper.

Now, I can certainly understand that print space is limited while web space is not. I also know I am never a woman of few words. But by editing that posting, the paper eliminated my acknowledgment of the board's efforts to lower the number of open enrollment students by almost 50%. Of course if you only read the print version you would not know that; the editing changed the intent of my posting.

The good news is that the board did vote last night to hold the open enrollment numbers to 46 students next year, and the Schwei/Sylla sibling clause exception was rejected on legal grounds.

There are board members who think Open Enrollment is a money maker and others who question its financial merits. Certainly this is an issue that needs looking into, especially in light of the coming high school referendum.

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7, Fairlyconservative

When I read the Community Watch posting, Board considers change in Open Enrollment* headline, I thought, at last they are starting to "get it".  (*Sorry, this is not a perm. link)

I thought the posting was going to state that the board would be reducing the number of non-resident students. I was half right, but the posting was not exactly what I expected.

Certain board members, Sylla and Schwei, are actually proposing that the number of non-resident students increase instead of decrease!  Elmbrook's current policy is to give preference to Open Enrollment students' siblings but not to guarantee siblings a place in Elmbrook schools if no open seats exist.

According to the posting, "Cheri Sylla said the lack of open seats hurts some nonresident families who have sent all of their children to Elmbrook high schools." 

I have to ask, what about the hurt to Elmbrook taxpayers? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers must pay the difference between the state reimbursement of about $5,500*/Open Enrollment student and the real cost per student in the Elmbrook School District of about $13,000! That means for each Open Enrollment student, Elmbrook taxpayers must kick in around $7,500. (*The exact reimbursement figure of $5,435 for 2005 was supplied to me by Bob Borch last spring.) And let's not forget that one of the reasons we are looking at a high school referendum is because of "crowding".

Steve Schwei, always one eager to increase enrollments at any cost to Elmbrook taxpayers--even if that means building more schools, dismissed the effect of Cheri's request.  Not because there are not many siblings who would want to attend Elmbrook schools, but because "most siblings enter during elementary school". Most siblings are already IN OUR SYSTEM!

Thankfully, not all of our board is supporting this change. Board President Meg Wartman seemed wary of making a change that could increase the crowding at the high school level.

Tom Gehl did not support the sibling guaranteed enrollment. Patrick Murphy and Glen Allgaier wondered about the expense of making this change and the crowding issue. 

The exact number of proposed Open Enrollment students would be 46 for this year. The posting stated this was a "downward trend". According to some correspondence with Bob Borch from 2007, the figure from 2006 was 80 new students.

Keep in mind that 46 is not the total number of Open Enrollment nonresident students in Elmbrook, it is just the additional new students for the year. The total number of nonresident Open Enrollment students in 2007 was 430. (FYI we also had and additional 294 nonresident Chapter 220 students last year too.) 

The whole nonresident student issue is a very important one to the Elmbrook School District and the Elmbrook taxpayers. A total of around 720 non Elmbrook School District students is not to be dismissed lightly. These students crowd our schools and use our support services. Student population is one of the driving forces for our high school needs.

Contact the board and let them know how you feel about nonresident students in Elmbrook. They could vote on this Jan. 22.

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7

According to the Elmbrook LINK, “There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools.”

I heard that only 30% of the households in the district have school age children. Of that potential pool of students, 25% of them DO NOT attend Elmbrook schools. (This 25% either attend private or other district schools or are homeschooled. If taxes keep rising, it will be more difficult for parents to choose any option other than Elmbrook schools.)

Elmbrook has about 7,000 students in the system now or 75% of the total school age population. I figured that meant the remaining 25% of non-attendees would number about 2333. Elmbrook wants them all to come into the fold.

What is the reasoning behind Elmbrook recruiting each and every one of these potential students? Is it because we think we do such an outstanding job of educating them? Not according to The LINK. It went on to state that we need the higher enrollment totals to add to our numbers, which boosts our state revenue cap. That means we get more money from the state the higher our enrollments are. It is to avoid $1.5M yearly budget shortfalls.

If you recall, that was one of the reasons the majority of the board implemented our 4K program. Elmbrook wanted those new students to give the budget a boost.

So how much do we get for this lucrative business of enrolling a student in our system?

In 2004-05, Elmbrook received $1,701 per full time student. The state average was $5,500. There are some other Federal and Local revenue gains, but seeing as the total cost paid by property tax (us) was $9,480/student ($5,339 above state average) I fail to see how recruiting extra students helps us. (The total cost per student that year was $12,768, which was $1,724 above state average.)

What about those open enrollment transfer students from other school districts or the Chapter 220 students? The district always makes it seem like those students are money makers. In 2005 we had 397 open enrollment students and 317 Chapter 220. How much money does our district receive for these “money maker” students?

Open enrollment students gave us $5,500/student, but the total cost per student is $12,768. That is a $7,268 shortfall the taxpayers must make up*. (There may be some other funding here, but it would not be that much.)

Chapter 220 students bring a better dowry. We receive about $10,000/Chapter 220 student. Remember though, these students tend to be heavy users of special services such as social workers and vice principals for discipline issues. Taxpayers still must make up for the $2,768 shortfall between reimbursement and actual per student cost.

Much like the shop-a-holic racking up credit card debt to gain the free points or offers on their credit card, this kind of enrollment does not make any sense to me. Enrolling a student to gain $1,701, $5,500, or even $10,000 when the actual cost is $12,768 is purely Lucy Ricardo math. (I don’t mean to be picking on Lucy today, but it follows the same logic.)

Now let’s discuss the real cost of recruiting every last student we possibly can from within or without the district.

We have this unprecedented $108.8 million dollar referendum before us. One of the main reasons for it is that the district tells us we are short of classroom space—even though enrollments are declining. Current high school enrollment is 1,413 at Central, and 1,391 at East. (Projections show this number will decrease about 10% by 2011.)
In 2005, JSOnline reported, “At Wednesday's meeting, committee members expressed concerns that continuing to allow an unlimited number of non-resident students into the district would crowd the new high schools.
‘Then we would have to look at whether we need to build bigger high schools to accommodate all the open enrollment students,’ board member Steve Schwei said.”

The total non resident number of students this year is 724. 724? That is more than Swanson or Brookfield El’s maximum capacity. It is also greater than 10% of our own resident student enrollment.

Translating that to the high schools, in a ratio of high school enrollment compared to total enrollment, I estimated that non-resident high school students number about 265. Dividing that between Central and East, and you have 135 for Central and 130 at East. Divide that by 4 grade levels, and it comes to 30 - 34 students per grade level. 30 – 34 students = one classroom (at least).

Some English classes are at 30 students; the chemistry lab had 24 desks and lab stations. If you have a class full every hour, you also need a TEACHER for these students, EVERY HOUR. One reason we are short of classroom space at the high school level is that we have these non resident students. How many excess teachers do we have because of non-resident student enrollments?

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

I don’t think that is the districts main reason for recruitment. I think it is more the Lucy Ricardo math factor. They just see what they are getting and forget what it costs. Of course it is easier for them to ignore costs when it is not coming out of their pocket.

IT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

*2008 note: The Non-resident student cost is still not known. Much depends on if there was a true vacancy or if that student's presence required splitting the class into two new classes.