A lesser of two evils

What sort of school district should eastern Racine county have? A diverse one, with families forced to bus their children up to 2 hours a day? Or one where the child simply attends the closest school to their home? Which is the best environment to learn? After all, the district's prime focus should be education.

Neither of the scenarios are perfect, and the solution just may lie between these philosophies. Having a district where the parents choose (sans waiting lists, lotteries and racial quotas) would be utopia (at least in my eyes). There will always be families that want to send their child close to home, and other families who are willing to send their child to a school across town because of different program offerings.

Why not let the community decide? Competition is what is needed to make our schools thrive, not busing for socio-economic reasons or skin color - but I have come to realize this could only exist in an alternate universe where everyone values education.

So I ask you, which philosophy - neighborhood schools or increased busing for integration - is the lesser of two evils?

Increased busing for integration

In continuation of the complex issues that the RUSD board and administration faces, I will examine the possible ramifications of increased busing - based on the Equity and Access Committees’ recommendation of using both race and socio-economic factors. (As a reminder, the RUSD board will be meeting Thursday evening at 6:00 pm to discuss this and other equity and access issues.)

Increased busing:

1. Promotes diversity.
Diversity should be valued in the classroom. Exposing young minds to other cultures and ideas can only benefit the education “experience”. With that said, is it the role of government to force diversity? Wouldn’t it be easier to gently “nudge” diversity by increasing the number of choice schools? Does an inner-city child only excel when sitting next to a suburban one? Or vice versa?

2. Costs money.
The district, according to the latest figures on the DPI, spends approximately $9.3 million a year on transportation costs. KUSD, our neighbor to the south, spends approximately $5.4 million a year. Each of the school districts have approximately the same number of children, so RUSD spends more than 72% more than Kenosha for transportation. (Kenosha currently does not bus for the purpose of integration, they have neighborhood schools. )Wouldn’t those extra millions be better spent in the classroom? Of course, one cannot really put a price tag on something intangible as diversity. This may be one of the hugest factors in making the tough decisions, as our district is continually strapped for cash.

3. Will alienate/disengage parents.
This is a huge talking point. Many advocates of neighborhood schools claim the reason for low achievement is that the parents of bussed children do not attend school functions, parent-teacher conferences, etc. While this may be true in some circumstances, I find that this is perhaps the most subjective and weak reasoning for neighborhood schools. I would venture a guess that many parents whose children currently attend a school in their neighborhood are not “engaged” and many parents whose children are bussed across town are extremely engaged in their children’s education.

The RUSD board needs to make a decision on what this district will look like, and soon. It will not be an easy task, and some population demographics will be definitely not be happy – but the board needs to weighs the pros and cons of each of the 3 proposed scenarios and make the best fit for the most number of people.

A Return to Neighborhood Schools

There will be much discussion on returning to neighborhood schools; I will examine some predictable arguments against neighborhood schools.

Returning to neighborhood schools:

1. Is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education did not stipulate the school districts needed to bus children across town in order to achieve diversity, it mandated that schools could not bar enrollment based on the child’s ethnicity.

2. Will eliminate the very popular RUSD magnet schools.
This is a real possibility, after all how can the inner city children return to their “neighborhood school” if the school is full of non-neighborhood children. We must remember why the magnet schools were created in the first place – they were created to draw the children from the outlying suburban areas to the inner-city. While some of these magnet schools have become a haven for the upwardly-mobile suburban residents, others like Red Apple Elementary still function like it was intended.

I am obviously biased, but Red Apple is the best example of what is a magnet school should be. There are MANY children from the surrounding neighborhood attending the school, yet there are still families like mine from the suburbs who choose to send their children there. The school is racially diverse (meeting RUSD’s voluntary desegregation policy) and consistently scores above district and state averages on the WCKE. Why is this? I think it is all about expectations. The parents sign a compact before enrolling their children, promising to be part of their child’s learning. The teachers and staff have high expectations for ALL the children, as do the parents. Schools like Red Apple need to be located throughout the district, making integration a more natural phenomenon.

3. Will create an environment of low-performing “minority” schools.
This is also another possibility, but it can be addressed. Julian Thomas, a majority-minority school located in the central city has created an extremely successful environment for these children to learn. It can certainly be replicated throughout the district. The school receives additional funding, the best teachers and has the added benefit of great parental support. I do not believe that inner-city children need to sit next to a suburban one to learn, I think it is (again!) all about expectations. If we think a child will fail; he most likely will. It should have nothing to do with the color of the child’s skin or the size of his parents’ pocketbook.

Just another RUSD study session?

Next Thursday, at 6:00 pm, the RUSD will be holding another special study session at the Administrative Office. According to the agenda from the RUSD website, the long awaited results of the latest community survey will be available. This was the survey done this last fall that asked the residents opinions on such matters on equity and access; this was also the survey where they over-sampled the minority population in order to get back enough results to make it statistically significant. The results of the Edulog (the demographer) study will hopefully be available also - this is the study we were SUPPOSED to see at the end of September!

Without the results of these two studies, any decision on redistricting/bussing would be based on personal preference and not on facts, so I do applaud the board for not acting in haste. With that said, the board does need to act quickly and decide what to do. Simply from the shift in populations over the last 15-20 years, some of our schools are overcrowded and some are woefully underutilized. Administration has given the board until the end of February to come to a decision if any of those proposed changes would take effect for the 2007-2008 school year.

Deciding what our district will look like will not be an easy one; I predict the board will put off the decision until the Supreme Court weighs in on the two most recent cases of equity in our nations’ schools. However, I anticipate many arguments about which “method” is better – neighborhood schools or busing for integration. Which is better? What are the potential downfalls? Over the next few days, I will try to examine some of these issues…

The Weekly Report Card

I am debuting what may be a regular feature today – the Weekly Report Card. The concept is pretty much self-explanatory; I comment on events from the previous week and grade them. My grading scale is completely subjective and self-indulgent…


For some of us, the war in Iraq is not something we think about everyday. We go on with our daily lives, sometimes forgetting those young people who are far away from home trying to make the world a safer place. Sadly, the citizens of Racine County got a reminder this past Sunday. Evan Bixler, a 2003 Park High School graduate, died Sunday while serving his country in Iraq. Rest in peace, Evan.
Weekly Report Grade: A

Governor Doyle was fined $300 for accepting Packer tickets from a lobbyist. This ethical no-no would normally warrant a failing grade, however since all the fines collected from the Ethics board get redistrubuted to the schools, I thought I’d give our governor a passing grade.
Weekly Report Grade: D-


Laquonda Jones was charged Wednesday for first-degree reckless homicide and child abuse for the death of her 8-month old daughter. Apparently, her child “cried too much”; what kind of excuse is that? My daughter cried incessantly and never napped during the day when she was an infant so I know how bad it can be. Dealing with crying babies is no picnic, but taking out your frustrations on a helpless infant is reprehensible. Can she be the first to “fry” when the death penalty is reinstated?
Weekly Report Grade: F

Big Brother is watching...

Last week I installed some cool code from www.StatCounter.com that not only tracks hits but also tracks IP addresses and the path of each visitor to this site, along with a lot of other information! I can see server host names and am able to see which post(s) attract the most visitors. I can also see the referring links! It’s all very cool, and did I mention it was free?

Success in the Central City: Julian Thomas Elementary

On November 7th 2000, the voters of eastern Racine County passed a RUSD referendum to renovate and expand the former Garfield Elementary School. (The school was renamed Julian Thomas Elementary in honor of the late Julian Thomas, a local civil rights leader.) This school was to be the district’s first “neighborhood school” where it only drew the student population from within walking distance of the school – no busing. The board, realizing that the student population of this proposed school would be mostly (86.2%) minority, extended a waiver from the district’s voluntary desegregation policy.

Fast forward a year or so - the newly hired superintendent, Dr. Thomas Hicks, apparently did not like the fact this school (still under construction) was slated to be a walk-in neighborhood school, so the school was then designated a “choice” school. This was done with hope that the strong science program, foreign language, and Suzuki strings would attract non-minority children from outside the neighborhood. At that time, Dr. Hicks, along with many others, seemed to think that economically disadvantaged minority children can only learn if sitting next to a kid from the suburbs.

Ironically, when the school became a “choice school”, many of the applicants were also minorities. When the school opened in 2003, the school population was still 80% minority. As expected, many predicted this school would fail. Even Dr. Hicks had concerns; he spoke at a board meeting expressing his concerns about creating a majority-minority school.

Fast forward a few more years - Dr. Hicks spoke of the successes of Julian Thomas in his 1st Annual State of the District Address on December 14th. Why do I share this story? Is it to try and prove that Dr. Hick’s education plan is a success, or do I have more sinister motives? No not really…I just find it ironic that the school that he did not want to exist is now the school that has become his major talking point.

The successes of Julian Thomas can be attributed to many things, I imagine. Increased parental involvement, a great staff, and additional district resources probably are all factors in the school’s recent achievements.

I find it extremely insulting that our local media has focused solely on Dr. Hick’s comprehensive reform plan (The Quality District Model), as the sole reason for the recent successes at Julian Thomas. It is a slap in the face to the many hard-working parents, teachers, support staff and community members that are working diligently every day making these small victories possible.

Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men…

I was having a Scroogey kind of day today. First my husband decided TODAY was the day he was going to TRY to find his Christmas spirit. Amidst the plethora of unhung Christmas decorations littering my house, and obnoxious jazz Christmas carols blaring in the background (which he doesn’t even like), I escaped to do some tedious errands. First trip, the grocery store – guaranteed to make my foul mood even worse. Soon after I returned home (which now looks like Christmas Town threw up) I received a phone call from my mom asking if I knew where my cell phone was.

It turns out somehow I had lost my phone at Pick N Save, whoever found it turned it in to the service desk, and they went through my address book in the phone trying to locate the rightful owner. My faith in humanity is restored with this simple act of kindness. Hopefully my newfound warm and fuzzy feeling will still be around even after my husband is done decorating our home for the holidays, but I am not counting on it….

More on RUSD off-site meetings....

Must be a slow news day, the Racine Journal Times had a front-page, above-the fold article entitled “Offsite meetings OK for Unified board?” There were some brilliant comments (insert self-deprecating tone) made by a citizen journalist, but all in all, the article was decent and I feel my quotes, although edited, adequately conveyed the message I was trying to make.

From my discussion with the JT reporter yesterday, he admitted that the logistics of having the meeting at the MACTE offices left much to be desired. The conference room was not conducive to discussing school board and administration matters; I wonder if any real progress was made in this uncomfortable and stuffy environment.

I, and many others, encourage the board and administration to keep scheduling these study sessions, and I understand they would like (and need) to do so in a fresh environment that would lend itself to more sharing of ideas.

All I ask is that these meetings, if they must be held off-site, be held in a PUBLIC building with adequate room for both the press and concerned citizens.

My question is this, when is it okay for governmental bodies to meet in a private office building - especially a building that has limited space for the press and concerned citizens? I do not think it is a wise idea – and apparently the state Attorney General’s office agrees.

RUSD Listening Sessions - Part Trois

Tonight the RUSD board members are meeting to study all those hot-topic issues (desegregation, busing, neighborhood schools, etc) – I wish I could have been there to hear what I imagine was some very animated discussion. Hopefully the Journal Times will be covering the meeting. In light of not being able to write about that – I will continue my discussion of the listening session I attended last Friday…

When I entered the board room, another board member was entering the board room from a different door and direction. He took one look at me and my friend, and said something to the effect of “Great, the trouble-makers are here!” All heads turned my way – what a self-conscious way to start my day.

Ask a few pertinent questions, and you’re labeled a “trouble-maker” or worse yet a “barracuda”. That’s OK, because I have a few pet names for some of the board members as well, and they are probably not to be used in mixed company.

Now on to more highlights from the listening session; I will pick up where I left off yesterday:

4. Racine does not need new buildings.

Racine has some very old facilities, some dating back to the 19th century and most of them built in the first half of the last century. While these buildings are old, structurally there are in pretty good shape. The group came to a consensus that with updated HVAC, windows that open, and cabling for the 21st century – these buildings could probably last quite a few more years.

5. The administration and board should not keep asking for additional operating revenue via the now “annual” spring referendum.

Duh, you think???

6. Uniforms, meaning the strict dress code implemented at Gilmore Middle School this year, should be implemented district-wide.

This is also a no-brainer. It will most likely cost the parents less at the back-to-school sales in August and it takes clothes factor out of the school experience. Whether it is a competition between the haves and the have-nots, or dealing with risqué clothing – making all the students dress in a similar style makes sense.

I am sure that there are more highlights from the session, but like yesterday, time constraints plague me.

RUSD Listening Sessions - Part Deux

On Friday morning, I attended one of the RUSD listening sessions; I was hopefully optimistic that it would be a fruitful and interesting way to spend my morning. It was interesting, but how fruitful the meeting remains to be seen – it really all depends on what the board and administration will do with the information gathered at these listening sessions. Although there were a respectful number of attendees at the listening session I attended, many population demographics were not represented.

But even though the attendees did not represent the demographics of eastern Racine County very well, there were many good ideas and interesting observations made; I will try to summarize a few of them here, I will interject my thoughts (in a different color font):

1. RUSD needs smaller class sizes, especially in the primary grades (K-3).

There are many elementary schools in the central city that already have small class sizes due to SAGE and P-5 funding from the federal government. Other schools (like Gifford) are overcrowded due to the fact of the growing population in our western communities. Redistricting will alleviate the worst overcrowding.

2. RUSD needs to return to the Junior High grade configuration: K-6th grade, 7-9 and 10-12th grade.

Immediately after changing the grade configuration in the 1983-1984 school year, the 9th grade failure rate skyrocketed to 40%. This was expected, as 9th graders faced new challenges; it was also expected that this failure rate would level out over time. After 23 years, the district is still faced with a 9th grade failure rate that is not acceptable. Returning to the junior high configuration definitely cannot hurt the already dismal results we are seeing in our high schools and as an added bonus - this will also help reduce the overcrowding at many of our schools.

3. Like Kenosha Unified and MPS, RUSD needs to return to neighborhood schools. This would help engage more families in the educational process and save money on busing.

No one wants to see Brown vs. The Board of Education overturned; returning to neighborhood schools will not bring us back to a new age of segregation. On the surface, returning to neighborhood schools makes sense. Families will not be forced to send their children across town on hour-long bus rides. However, I feel the best answer to promote diversity in our schools lies between these two philosophies. If every school was a “choice” school and drew its potential population from across the district; diversity would happen naturally.

Obviously, after nearly 2 hours of discussion there was many more ideas discussed but the constraints of both time and space do not allow me to examine any more at this time. Perhaps I will revisit this issue in a future post….

Dear Santa...

On Thursday, I attended the Honors Breakfast at Jerstad-Agerholm Middle School (JAMS). I thought I would share with you not my obvious pride with my son, but my impressions of Dr. Citron, the new principal at JAMS.

Dr. Citron, who came to this district from MPS, is definitely what RUSD needs more of in principals – he is a firm disciplinarian, yet he relates to the children extremely well. He seems to have struck the perfect balance needed to run a school full of hormonally unbalanced adolescents.

I think I am going to ask Santa to bring more administrators like Dr. Citron to our district…

RUSD working behind closed doors?

The dynamics of the sometimes tedious RUSD meetings are changing, I think. It seems that the board is doing most of its “real work” behind the scenes at study sessions that are not scheduled at the normal meeting place (Central Office).

While I applaud their efforts to keep the regularly scheduled meeting times brief and focused, I am concerned that there is a public perception that these meetings cannot be attended by the general public. I also fear that the public may perceive that decisions will be made behind closed doors.

I understand that no decisions will be made at these study sessions and the meetings (or study sessions as they are called) can be attended by the general public. While I was assured that members of the public CAN attend these meetings, I was left wondering if the board members would really welcome observers.

There is a meeting scheduled for 12/11/06; based on the agenda, I predict that the discussion should be quite lively. Please make it a point to attend the meeting and hear the discussion on redistricting, because when it finally shows up on a regular agenda, there will be little or no discussion on the matter – only a vote.

Also, please consider attending and posting your comments here on this forum; I will be unable to attend this meeting due to my son's middle school Christmas concert which is scheduled for the same time.

Another delay in redistricting for RUSD?

Yet, another potential delay in redistricting RUSD – yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the integration policies of our public schools. The justices will consider whether race can still be a factor in public school placement.

Their decision, which is expected next spring, will have far-reaching ramifications for our nations’ schools. Currently, RUSD has a voluntary desegregation plan and is seeking to change/update this plan. Will we now have to wait (for the much needed “normal” redistricting) until the high court of the land hands down their decision? Is it unconstitutional to send an inner-city child to a western suburb like Sturtevant to attend school?

And will it change the current practice of choosing who goes to the district’s magnet schools? Currently, there are at least 2 alternative high schools (Walden and The REAL School) which base their decisions on accepting students partly on the basis of the students’ ethnicity.

I value diversity; I think that there is intrinsic value in having a diverse classroom. But it should also be noted that FORCED busing at the elementary level does little, if anything positive for our district. It disenfranchises parents and adds additional costs in busing to an already cash-strapped district. Why not encourage more parents to attend a non-neighborhood school by making every school a CHOICE school? If our magnet schools are so popular (and they are!), why not expand these programs? Busing will still be an issue, but I envision making busing available for economically-disadvantaged families who DECIDE to send their child to a school across town.

It should be noted that by nature of where our middle and high schools are geographically located; our district would NEVER be segregated. The elementary schools might be racially “out of balance” for a time, but overall the district would reflect the diverse population of eastern Racine County. We need to encourage diversity, not force it.

RUSD Listening Sessions

The RUSD board has sent out a call for community input; I have answered their call and am attending one of their Listening Sessions this Friday. It was originally scheduled for December 1st, but with the recent snownami this session was cancelled.

The following is the one question/statement that will spark all discussion at these sessions:

(Please forgive my paraphrasing, I do not have the exact wording!!)

The year is 2015, RUSD is among the top 10 school districts in the country. Please describe the district.

Simple, right? Wrong! I understand that this open-ended statement will spark many interesting and lively debates, but I feel the RUSD board is again trying to redesign the wheel.

We have had numerous surveys, forums, etc in the last 6 years. Overwhelming, the public wishes to return to the Junior High Configuration (K-6, 7-9 and 10-12) and wants to be able to send their child to any school they wish, regardless of the color of their skin or the size of the bank account. They do NOT want their children to be FORCED to ride a bus for 45 minute - 1 hour (one-way!!) to a school out of their neighborhood.

They also want safe schools (duh!!!) and good teachers (double - duh!!!)! How many times do we need to say that?

Will they just keep holding these forums until they get the answer they want? Instead of action, we again are looking to redesign the district "vision"...

Why can't we all just get along?

When I first starting blogging it was definitely a therapeutic tool; I used this forum and others like it to reduce my stress level. Now, it seems that when I read blogs everyone is SOOOO angry. I do not need more anger in my life, hence; I have not been posting as much as I would like.

I enjoy a spirited debate; but why do some feel it is necessary to blast others for their opinions? Is it the anonymous nature of most sites that fuel this anger?

School board members endorse candidate

Remember the furor over the whole right to speech controversy over an unnamed Unified Board member a few months back? We all assumed it was Brian Dey who was taken to task for speaking his mind on blogs like these and conservative talk radio.

We never did find out who was in trouble, the RUSD board cleverly found a way to remove the disciplinary action from the agenda (Thanks Armin, Brian, Julie and Randy!!)

After months of keeping quiet, he is back in the news with his outspoken ways. Now he has brought friends - Brian Dey and fellow board member, Armin Clobes, just publicly announced their endorsement of gubernatorial candidate Mark Green over at RDW. Brian, we welcome you back with open arms and Armin, thanks for taking a stand for what you think is right for the students of this district!

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank them both for standing up for the candidate they believe in and providing the people with honest and intelligent reasons why they are supporting Green.

Some may say that non-partisan elected officials should not publicly endorse a partisan candidate, but I believe it is refreshing and completely relevant!

H/T to RDW

Rambo 101

I recently found out that the school district in Texas that was teaching the students to attack intruders have stopped the controversial training program. Now is a good time for reflection…

Is training middle-school and high school students to thwart an attack from a gun-toting lunatic a good idea or is this just about the dumbest idea since inventing spandex?

A Moral Dilemma?

Okay, I have a question and I am looking for some feedback…

Can a person be both pro-choice and oppose the death penalty? Don’t these beliefs contradict each other?

What do you think?

Must See TV

Televise the RUSD school board meetings? Wish I had thought of that…. Wait, I did. For any of you (especially the board members) who personally know me, you would know this is a recurring (and sometimes annoying) request from me.

We finally got the “board packets”, the informational handouts at the board meeting, available to us online – now please finish the job and start televising the meetings.

I do not believe we need to add staff for this, a remote camera (such as the one used to televise common council meetings for the city) would work nicely. If that is not an option, please consider using volunteer students. They all need community service hours to graduate, how about utilizing some of our own “resources”?

Only 7 more days...

Is anyone else completely and utterly turned off by all the partisan mudslinging? Why can't the candidates focus on the issues?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans, along with those nasty 527's, are to blame for voter apathy. Please DO go out and vote for the very important referenda next Tuesday, but I urge you to consider completely ignoring the heated partisan races of governor and state senate. Neither party or candidate deserve any votes!

If we continue to condone their behavior by voting for them anyway, how will anything ever change?

Mill Rate Myths Part 2

I would like to this opportunity to remind everyone that the RUSD budget has very little to do with the assessed mill rate. Even with a paltry 1% increase in the mill rate, the budget passed last week will increase the tax levy by $62.3 million; the new budget will be in the excess of $271 million and the proposed increases for this school year are again rising faster than the rate of inflation.

Will somebody please look at our “above the norm” expenses such as busing and administrative costs?

RUSD Budget Increases

The RUSD 2006-2007 draft budget is available online today; I thought I would give it a quick glance. One line item really stuck out to me – in the General Management Expenditures (page 32) there is a whopping 935.5% increase in the category “Other”. There is also a notation denoting there was an explanation, so I returned to the beginning of the budget to see the reason for this massive increase.

This is the explanation, in verbatim: “Additional allocation for school training and development per Board policy”.

Are these are the same training sessions that they keep telling us are “corporate funded” and paid for by our “business partners”?

I know in the grand scheme of things, this money is an insignificant part of the overall budget, but it hacks me off to no end when we (the public) are told one thing and they do another. I do not understand how this district can condone this spending when children have to share textbooks and curriculum offerings have been reduced!

Bill McReynolds Balances budget - cuts funding for special ed?

“Unfortunately he balanced the budget on the backs of special needs education kids....but I guess they don’t vote”.

The above comment was recently posted to a Journal-Times weblog in response to an article discussing the proposed Racine County budget – but is this an accurate statement or is just the usual pontificating of the average JT blogger ?

Way back in May 2003, the Racine County Board decided to dissolve the Racine County Children with Disabilities Education Board (RCCDEB) which for decades had provided special educational services to the children who live in the western end of Racine County. The resolution allowed the affected communities time to prepare for providing these services in their respective school districts. As of June 30th of this year, Racine County is officially out of the special education business.

Given the fact that McReynolds was not voted into the County Executive’s office until April 2003, and government bodies are known to move slowly on any kind of legislation, I would venture a guess that McReynolds had very little to do with the initial resolution that was passed a mere month after he took office.

But I have come to expect nothing less from the people of this community - apparently it is completely acceptable to blast someone that is “unpopular” without knowing all the facts.

A question for Bill McReynolds...

This question is for Racine County Executive Bill McReynolds…

Can you please show the RUSD board and administration how to live within their budget? They may need your expertise and experience in maintaining a budget (within levy limits) in a few weeks when they make out their budget!

Truancies down, but is that enough?

The Journal-Times has recently published on an article on the Racine Police Department crackdown of truants; I applaud both the Racine Police Department and RUSD for taking a stand on truancy. I know that in my high school day, I may have returned “late” from an off-campus lunch once or twice but I would not have if there was a chance I would be handcuffed, fined and returned to school!

With that said, I cannot help wonder if forcing the truly habitual truant back to class is the right answer. I really can’t believe I’m about to suggest this, but perhaps the mandatory attendance age should be lowered from 18 to 16. Why should these children, who realistically are probably not going to graduate, be forced to attend school until their 18th birthday? Why not just allow them to drop-out? Wouldn’t it make our schools and classrooms easier to manage?

I wonder if it will affect graduation rates all that much, considering the following information.

This data is from the most recent Manhattan Institute report on our nation’s schools and graduation rates and a report from the internet resource site infoplease.com:

- Iowa has the highest graduation rate (93%) and the compulsory attendance age is 16.
- North Dakota ranks 2nd (88%); their compulsory attendance age is also 16.
- Wisconsin ranks 3rd (85%); compulsory attendance age is 18.
- Nebraska ranks 4th (85%); compulsory attendance age is 16.
- Vermont ranks 5th (84%); their compulsory attendance age is also 16.


So 4 out of 5 of the top graduate-producing states only mandate that a child attend school until their 16th birthday; I think we could cautiously assume that changing the mandatory attendance age would not necessarily make Wisconsin’s graduation rates go down.

Limited access to teaching materials = Poor results

Keeping with my current discussion of the inadequacies of RUSD’s curriculum and textbooks, I thought I would share some other parents’ experiences. Due to last year’s textbook reduction, many classrooms in our district have to share textbooks. In one school’s 9th grade US History class, the books are not allowed to come home since the district could only afford 35 textbooks for the entire school.

What is a parent to do if a child is out for an excused absence but cannot take the book home to complete the missed work? If the learning tools are not available, how can we expect our children to succeed?

One solution would be for the district to purchase textbooks that are available online. I know one of my child’s textbooks is available online. (I wish that all of them were!!) Having an electronic version of the book available could eliminate many of the frustrations parents and teachers face on a daily basis.

Forget the BHAG

Tomorrow evening, the RUSD board and administration will be holding a study session – the topic will be the district’s BHAG. For those not familiar with the RUSD lexicon, BHAG stands for Big Hairy Audacious Goal. While I applaud their efforts at setting goals for our district, I am fearful that any goals they may set Monday evening will not be attainable. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that they change the meeting to discuss what I like to call SHAG – Small Hairless Attainable Goals.

In order to help jumpstart the discussion I suggest one of the following:

SHAG #1 – Have more retreats with the Aspen Group. While our district leaders have exhausted how they feel about trees, the topics of rocks and dirt have yet to be explored.

SHAG #2 – Hire more consultants to “clear the path of any obstacles that may impede progress”.

SHAG #3 – Come up with a new excuse on why our children’s test scores are still so far below their peers from across the state.

Imagine the increased self-esteem our board and administration would feel if they could just successfully reach one goal – that would be, in the words of Austin Powers, “completely shag-a-delic, baby”!

RUSD curriculum sucks - most RUSD teachers do not!

Before I continue my tirade about the sub-standard curriculum RUSD is using at the middle school level, I like to take this opportunity to state this is no reflection on the staff at my son’s middle school. They did not choose the curriculum, and I do not have a “beef” with any of his teachers, especially his “core” teachers.

One of his core teachers (the one he has for 3 subjects) has done everything in her power to make my son’s transition into the “real world” much easier. She is very open to discussing him and often communicates with me outside of her “normal” working time.

I only wish every teacher in RUSD was as dedicated as she …

RUSD Curriculum - Part 1

One of the reasons my oldest child is having a hard time adapting to middle school, I believe, is getting used to the curriculum used at his school. You see, he has always been at the one of the district’s magnet schools where the standard curriculum is enriched with outside activities. Those supplementary activities explored the concepts taught above and beyond what was covered in the classroom text.

He is no longer at a magnet school, and is using the districts standard curriculum. Now I see the curriculum for what is really is; social engineering. Most of the tests, quizzes, and assignments are very subjective. There are many questions on how they feel and what their opinion is on certain subjects. While I assured him that his thoughts cannot be graded, I am really not too sure why questions like this are included.

I understand that these kind of subjective assignments should be (and are!) included in language writing assignments, but I feel they have no place in subjects like math, science or geography. Unfortunately, these subjective questions are included in these subjects.

And to top it off, the textbooks are lacking in basic facts – but that is another story for another time.

I'm back (again)!

I know it has been a while since I posted anything, and I apologize. This last month has very hectic in our household. The new school year has proven to be more challenging for my oldest and any “free” time I may have is devoted to trying to keep him on track academically. Middle school is a whole new experience for us….

I will be posting a series of entries (over the next week or so) revolving around the textbooks and curriculum RUSD is currently using. I believe I may have discovered why RUSD students continually score below their contemporaries in other neighboring districts.

Please check back soon…

Technology may save my sanity

My son, while very intelligent, is a little disorganized and a huge procrastinator; the first few weeks of school is usually a nightmare trying to get him to remember to bring his homework home. This year started out no different, but I have a sneaky suspicion this may soon all change. One of his 6th grade teachers (who he has for 3 classes) posts all of her assignments on www.schoolnotes.com, an educational website.

All I have to do is enter the school’s zip-code, find her name, and click to find out what assignments are due and when. This may prove to be very useful tool for a parent with a child like mine. There is even a link for his science book, which we can view online. Very cool, indeed! But best of all, there is a link to email the teacher with any questions.

If any of you happen to be a teacher, I would highly suggest registering at this website and posting your lesson plans. You’d be doing the parents of your students the biggest favor in the world!

The Wednesday Funnies

Park is good at more than football

How about those Park champions? No, I am not talking about the 2005-2006 Park High football team – I am referring to the Park academic champions below!

I found this on the RUSD website; it is from the September issue of Pathways, the district’s publication. What frustrates me is that while many people know that Park took the WIAA title; few realize this school (and others) has more to offer than success on the playing field.

With all due respect, these students were briefly recognized at a school board meeting and there was probably some mention of it in the Journal Times A+ section, but how many people read that section?

Don’t these champions at least deserve a little more recognition?

Kenosha eclipses Racine, again

I’m about to stray into foreign territory…. Normally I usually only chime in on education issues, but I feel compelled to comment on one of the Journal Time’s “top stories” – the one about the new dinosaur museum in Kenosha.

Being the recovering liberal that I am, I love all the “quality of life” amenities communities offer its residents – schools, museums, libraries, parks, etc. I think these amenities are vital for any community to thrive. I even try to think “regionally”; what is good for Milwaukee or Kenosha is also good for the greater Racine area.

What irks me, though, is that it seems that every other community is moving light-years ahead of the greater Racine area. It seems that Racine (and the surrounding villages) is doing everything in their power to keep us in the post union-job-leaving hell that Racine has become.

There are too many whiners and too many people with agendas. No one seems to act or think regionally. We have seen, just recently, the City of Racine knuckling down on Harborfest by increasing their fees , a non-profit organization that provides scholarships to the youth of the area and donates money to other organizations that do much for the community. We have also seen the city crack down and limit the business endeavors of the private citizen who almost-single handedly cleaned up the crack-infested hangout at North Beach.

These “jewels” may soon go the way of the union-jobs of the 60’s if the officials aren’t careful. Why is it so hard to do anything new (and cool) in this town? What is Kenosha doing that we are not? Do we really just want to sit around and remember the “good old days” and bitch about the well-paying union jobs that are gone? Or do we want to look forward and develop our “diamond in the rough” community?

The Racine area, along with its citizens, has a lot of untapped potential. Why are our local governments trying to hold us back?

Who (or what) is Ruby Payne?

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has a piece on the notable changes taking place this year at RUSD. Most “notable” to me is that the elementary and middle school teachers are attending Ruby Payne training to deal with children in poverty. Since this was the first time I actually heard it referred to by name (the administration briefly outlined it a recent board meeting and simply referred to it as one of the “tools” that will be used), I thought I would Google it and try to find out more about it.

I am continually outraged by the community (and some members of the board) that insist our low district achievement is because we have many children in poverty. This is completely baseless and racist; as if only white suburban children can learn. I have said (again and again) that it boils down to expectation. If you expect a child will fail; he/she most likely will. I understand that educating a child from the inner city will probably be much different than one from Caledonia or Mt. Pleasant, so I am cautiously optimistic that paying for this Ruby Payne training will be money well spent.

Unified rocks!

I received bus information for my children a week or so ago, and both the middle school and the elementary busses were on time this morning. Hardly notable, except this is the first time it has happened in 3 years. In past years, my children have not had transportation until the 1st or 2nd week of October. I take back everything bad I have ever said about RUSD; RUSD rocks! :)

Looking to the past

I found this while surfing the other day; it is a journal with photos written by Mark Hertzberg, photojournalist with the Journal Times. It documents the good ol’ days of Racine Unified (pre-Hicks era) when they used to go to referendum every spring for money (wait, that hasn’t changed).

But was has changed it the way our local businesses view our schools; there was once a time that our business community did not look too highly on our school system. The following excerpt shows how volatile the situation was back in 1999 when RUSD was seeking a $12M referendum:

The president of SC Johnson Wax threw gallons of gasoline on a simmering fire a month ago when he made major speech to the chamber of commerce saying he would reluctantly vote against the proposal because he thought it would be just throwing more money into a bottomless pit.

Which is worse, having the local business community not supporting the schools or having these businesses controlling our schools?

You tell me…

The truth behind the lies

Every time the administrators of RUSD release test scores, we are subjected to the same excuses over and over as why our test scores are below the state average.

One of the most popular excuses is this:

The district test scores are below average because of the low-income and inner city students and the challenges of teaching them; many of these students are also minorities.

I am offended by this allegation. I think it is extremely racist to suggest that only white suburban children can learn. But I digress, this post will not be about the minority children of RUSD - it will be about the white children.

I have been told again and again, that the white children of this district are doing very well. I understand that this may be a matter of perception, but I find it disturbing that only 68% of our WHITE 10th graders can read at a 10th grade level!! This does not suggest to me that the white children are doing “very well” at all.

So the next time someone tries to blame the district's poor results on those disadvantaged minority children, try to keep in mind this following thought:

The districts results are bad because our current (and past) administration is under serving ALL of the children in this district, not just the children of color.

Linking with the community

As implausible as it sounds, I think the City of Racine officials could teach the administration in RUSD a thing or two about “linking” with the community.

According to a recent Journal Times article, the mayor and aldermen (alderpeople?) are holding public listening sessions regarding the upcoming budget process. City revenues are expected to grow by $1MM and the mayor has directed all the departments to keep their spending at 2006 levels so it would seem the city will have “extra money” to spend. The listening sessions are to assist city officials “determine what the public thinks are the priorities and what departments and programs should receive this additional funding.”

While I know that RUSD will never hold a listening session for public input on how to spend “extra money”, they should be holding listening sessions to help educate the public on their budget process and explain which program/services/positions cannot be cut and why. They might even discover that some community members have money-saving ideas that had not been explored by administration, the board or their team of consultants.

Linking with the community has never been one of this administration’s strengths, and it is definitely time for that to change.

Unified goes portable

So, the latest solution to solve the RUSD building crisis is to lease a couple of portable trailers. The need for the trailers was facilitated by the expansion of all day regular kindergarten and 4 year kindergarten. I think that leasing these “trailers” is a great short-term solution. With that said, I do question why now?

We have been told for years that our high schools are dangerously overcrowded and that the district should consider returning to the junior high configuration (K-6, 7-9 and 10-12), but that it could not be done because of space constraints. Why is it okay to lease portable classrooms to expand preschool, but not to alleviate the overcrowding where the district is losing the most students?

I have a funny feeling the decision has nothing with student engagement, but everything to do with the extra educational tax dollars these 4 and 5 year olds will bring to the coffers of RUSD.

Divided We Stand, United We Fall

Recently, our local paper published 2 separate commentaries from RUSD board members. One of the commentaries was written by Dey and Bangs, the other piece was written by Kutz, Carlsen, Baumgardt, Nielsen and Warner. For any one familiar with the politics of Racine’s educational system, it would not be surprising to learn these commentaries are of opposing views. There is one side satisfied with the performance of the district (the conformists), while the other side (the dissenters) are questioning the practices and results of the current administration.

Dey and Bangs are considered, by some of the local citizens of Racine, harbingers of evil because of their public dissent. But isn’t dissent a good thing? Without dissent or questioning, will the truth ever be revealed? Consider some of our history’s more famous dissenters: Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. What would our world be like without people like them?

Challengers of the status quo create change; conformists only follow others and silence themselves.

Differences in opinion

"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283


I ran across the quote on the web while doing reseach for a class project. It reminded me of important dissenting opinions are; perhaps this could be the topic of the next "Kumbaya" session the RUSD board has with the Aspen Group.

Customer service falls short in our schools

Facts taken from Racine Unified’s Annual Report; these are the overall results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey given to the parents of children enrolled in RUSD:


- 88% of elementary schools are performing at or above minimum expectations

- 46% of middle schools are performing at or above minimum expectations

- 44% of high schools are performing at or above minimum expectations


This data should be of no surprise to any parent of a RUSD student. For the most part, we are all quite satisfied with the elementary schools in the district. We love the teachers, the building administrators and staff! Our elementary schools clearly work, why don’t the middle and high schools yield the same results?

I’m sure there are many mitigating circumstances, but I would guess one of the biggest reasons why our middle and high schools do not function as well as the elementary schools is the fact we have too many children in these buildings for those schools to function effectively.

Putting 2200-2300 students in a building designed for 1400 is a recipe for disaster, yet we have dealt with this major overcrowding since the 1983-1984 school year (the year we moved 9th grade to HS).

Everyone knows the simplest solution would be to move the 9th graders back to junior high, which in turn would push the 6th graders back to elementary. Of course this move would entail building new elementary schools, but elementary schools are relatively inexpensive to build (compared with high schools). While I do not believe the public would support another referendum for operational expenses, I think a capital referendum to build new schools would pass overwhelmingly.

But do we have any action on this? No, the board and administration have decided to defer the decision to reconfigure the grades (again!!). Maybe if they spent less time talking about trees, they could focus on some real improvements for the district.

Good news from RUSD

Finally, some good news to come out of RUSD; Gilmore Middle School is implementing a rather strict dress code starting this fall. Of course the irony of it is that the good idea did not come from Central Office, a consultant, or one of our many “business partners”, but from the school’s principal.

If the dress code is a success, and I certainly hope it will be, I certainly hope we will see more principals taking a leadership role and less interference from Central Office!

The Edu-Speak Lexicon

A tip of the hat to Denis of Free Racine, who recently highlighted the absurdity of the language currently used by the Educrats of our school system; for the uninitiated, his piece is NOT an exaggeration, this is truly how they talk.

In the same vein, I will attempt to help the “ignorant” who do not understand Edu-Speak and publish a lexicon of sorts. Hopefully Mr. Racine Report Card and others will read this and keep it as a handy resource…

External Stakeholders – Parents and other tax-paying members of the community.

Internal Stakeholder – Teachers, staff and students of the school district.

Industry Standard Interface Evaluation Techniques – An example of this would be the test commonly known as MAP (Measure of Academic Progress). This test is widely used by school districts all over the country because it gives them nearly instant data, unlike the WCKE, which the results are not available for months. See systematic internal progress monitoring.

Primary Service Provider – Teacher

Random Implementation of Strategies – Currently this is the excuse of why Continuous Progress is not working in our elementary schools. In other words, it’s the teachers’ fault.

Systematic internal progress monitoring - Testing done throughout the year.

Transparent Benchmarks – Publicly stating the goals of the district.

Hopefully, this will help the “Edu-Speak challenged” understand if they should find themselves at a board meeting or presentation by Hicks and Co. Check back for more soon as I continue my quest to “break the code” of Edu-Speak.

A Tale of Two Districts

In today’s The Journal-Times, there was a sort of point/counterpoint discussion of the recent RUSD annual report in the Opinion-Commentary section of the paper. The “pro-RUSD” side consisted of Kutz, Carlsen, Baumgardt, Nielsen and Warner; the other side was represented by Dey (the once lone maverick) and Bangs, who once was a very public supporter of RUSD’s administration. These separate commentaries paint two very different pictures of our district.

Frankly, I think any public commentary of the issues is beneficial to all. It promotes (hopefully) honest discussions of the very real problems our district faces. However, I do have concerns that this extremely public airing of ideas will have possible negative ramifications of the district and for its board, especially considering its recent track record. I suspect these separate commentaries were written shortly after Monday’s contentious meeting; the meeting included (yet another!!) very awkward and heated exchange between Bangs and Carlsen.

I found the “pro-RUSD” commentary ironic in their statement stating “…it is our individual differences that can make us effective in guiding our public schools” .This is a very different message than the one a few weeks ago when a board member was going to be disciplined in closed session for “expressing his individual differences”.

I also found it somewhat amusing that this same group is now claiming that the “annual report” was never intended to be comprehensive study of the district. Only last week the school board president publicly stated the report will give the “board and community the data and tools to measure whether progress was being made and what steps were being taken to reach the district's objectives.” It certainly sounds (to me at least) that she and the other board members were expecting a “comprehensive report”; they even invited all the local elected leaders in for a special presentation (which included food and drink for all!!).

I cannot help feeling that if this is the “line in the sand” Kutz expected the annual report to be, it is no wonder that our district has not kept pace with the other districts in the state.

Tidbits from Monday – Part 2

One of the last things on Monday’s agenda was the approval of the minutes from the executive session of both the April 3rd and April 10th board meetings. Normally these minutes are approved without any discussion, but not Monday evening.

It would seem that no one actually took the minutes from those meetings (but did take notes). It was also explained at the meeting, by Dr. Hicks, that notes are not necessarily the same as minutes…

Now our administration is retroactively trying to “cover it’s a** and manufacture minutes from a meeting 4 months ago. Both Hicks and our financial consultant thought that this might actually fly.

After many questions and concerns about open meeting violations, missing information from the “minutes” of the meeting, our board actually did do the right thing and did NOT approve the minutes.

What was missing from the minutes, you might ask - all the discussion of the controversial “Betsy Kipper clause”; the clause that allows the REA president to be compensated from the district while performing union duties.

But what the takes the cake though is the arrogance of Hicks and Co, as proven in the following statement from the April 3rd document:

Dr. Hicks reviewed the bargaining authority granted by the Board and explained that a tentative agreement had been reached with the teachers’ contingent on the Board acceptance of Dr. Hicks’ interpretation of bargaining authority.

What concerns me about the preceding statement is:

1. Dr. Hicks came to a tentative agreement with the REA even though it seemed that the board had not yet accepted Dr. Hicks’s “interpretation of bargaining authority”.

2. If there truly was a tentative agreement, should they (the board and administration) be meeting in closed session and discussing it? It would seem that once a tentative agreement is signed, all discussions should be done in an open session. I was told (by reliable sources) that this is the law. Do we have any legal experts that would like to weigh in?

For some reason, I feel this issue will rear its ugly head again...

Tidbits from Monday's RUSD meeting - Part 1

Tidbits from Monday’s board meeting:

1. It has not been formally announced, but the district is moving to a cluster management style. The district will be divided into 3 (geographical?) clusters and there will be 3 area superintendents: Dr. Martinez, Dr. Laing and a yet to be announced 3rd superintendent. Hopefully this will be formally announced with all the supporting details soon.

2. Russ Carlsen and Randy Bangs just don’t play together well in the sandbox. We were subjected to yet another childish and boorish outburst from Dr. Carlsen simply because he did not like what Randy had to say….

3. We have a new administrator; Dr. Betty Webb. She comes to the district from the Panasonic Foundation. While normally I am suspect of hiring former consultants, I really have a good feeling about this one. She is on loan to the district for a few months, but if tonight was any indication of how effective she could be, I hope the administration does every thing in its collective power to hire her on permanently. She is passionate about education, very articulate and seems to have the know-how to actually get things done. The one fear I have is that the idea she implements will work, and Dr. Hicks will get all the credit.

New poll may suggest our nation's schools are not working

- 75% of Americans can identify 2 out of the 7 dwarfs from Disney’s dwarfs from Disney’s Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs

- 25% of Americans can name 2 out of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Scary statistic, isn’t it?. There are even more frightening facts that came out of a poll administered by Zogby International that was released earlier this week.

It would seem that our nation’s public educational system is not working, wouldn’t you say?

Rate the RUSD school board

The following is the opening paragraph of GP-3 found in the RUSD Board’s Governance Policy handbook:


The job of the Board is to represent the citizens and to lead the Racine Unified School District by determining and demanding appropriate and excellent organizational performance.

I am quick to blame administration for most of RUSD’s ills, since their new governing style leaves the board out of most of the decision-making, but the board (collectively) is responsible for demanding excellence.

Are they (our current board members) doing a good job? Are they any in particular that do a better job than others? Which ones, and why?

Consider this your assignment; rate the effectiveness of our school board or post whatever you feel…

(Remember, I do allow anonymous comments, so feel free to let loose!)

The latest (?) wrinkle in RUSD's new Wellness Policy

The Journal Times recently reported that the proposed soda ban, part of the district’s new Wellness Policy, is placed on hold due to an outstanding 10-year contract with Pepsi.

What the news article failed to mention is that there is a federal mandate that all schools must have written wellness policies in place by July 1st of this year.I guess the decision to still sell soda in the vending machines must be okay, even with the federal mandates.

The federal mandates states all school districts must have a written wellness policy, but does that mean we have to follow those written policies?

It would appear, by the decision of RUSD to keep selling soda in the vending machines, that it must be enough to simply have a policy ( even if the policy is not enforced)!

Energy Education Inc (yes, another consultant!)

I promised last week to weigh in on the proposed Energy Education Inc contract. For the uninitiated, Energy Education Inc is a consulting group out of Texas that has made a proposal to RUSD that will help cut our energy expenses. Actually the proposed deal is not a bad one; we will be (unfortuntately) adding 2 more administrative positions and paying a hefty consulting fee but the savings in energy costs ARE guaranteed.

For example, the 1st year projected savings will be approximately $700,000; after paying the 2 Energy Manager salaries (2 positions @ approx $75-80K) and the consulting fee of $170K, we would still net about $300,000 in savings. In the unlikely event that our savings did not cover our expenses, Energy Education would pay us the difference. It does sound like a win/win situation, so why should I have a problem with it?

I have a problem with how the deal was made, not the deal itself…

First off, according to Mr. Alioto, the consultant acting as our COO, Energy Education Inc contacted US (not the other way around). If this is true (and I would imagine that it is, since he said this in an open meeting last Monday), why are we paying Mr. Alioto and company a bonus on the projected savings? It’s not like they discovered the savings, or even sought out the expertise of Energy Education, Inc.

Secondly, when the information was presented to administration last spring, Frank Johnson (former legal counsel to RUSD) noted that because it was an energy contract, there are laws that state that the deal has to bid out in an open bidding process. This is, of course, after the fact. I imagine there was some dissent because the district sought another legal opinion. There was finally a decision to bid the job out.

It was explained to me that RUSD sent an RFP to companies that deal with energy saving at the “facility” level, Energy Education deals with energy savings at the “people” level (which is what the Finance team is urging the district to do).To no one’s surprise, Energy Education Inc came through as the desired vendor.

Somewhere, sometime, and some how this administration needs to learn to do their homework and research before (and not after) making a commitment (even a tentative one).

How long will we continue to let decisions be made without any real financial analysis?

The seeds of change need to be sown

I know I’ve been neglecting this site – but I do have an excuse. I have been out of town pretty much continually since the 3rd week of July. When I am home, there are too many tasks to accomplish before leaving again. I have to admit though, even if I had been home I don’t know if I would be posting anyway; my heart just isn’t into criticizing Unified anymore. It has become too easy and not much “fun” at all.

Maybe it’s a temporary phenomenon, but kicking an organization when they are already down just seems plain mean. Maybe I liked it better when I was in the minority and most everyone else thought RUSD was on the right track…I think it’s kind of like having a favorite underground band, and then having that band make it to the mainstream.

Unlike some other critics of RUSD, I really do want to see them succeed but I know that will not happen anytime soon. I believe RUSD is simply spinning it proverbial wheels, and will not make any kind of true progress until there is a complete change in administration. We need to completely deconstruct the district and start over!

We cannot and will not change for the better when just about every decision that is made is lining the pocket of some consultant.

We need to plant the seeds of change now....

Too much news and so little time...

There has been a bit of news regarding the lastest RUSD snafus. It seems that these stories always hit when I am the on vacation, or unavailable (due to school commitments).

I promise to weigh in on the recent RUSD topics soon:

1. Proposed Energy Education Inc. contract

2. Pepsi contract

3. Delayed redistricting plan

Unified fails to plan adequately (again!)

According to the DPI website, there is at least a 2 year time-frame on opening a charter school. Why then did the administration of RUSD think they could start the proposed charter school, in the abandoned Caddy Vista elementary building, in less than 6 months?

Is it any wonder that Bright Horizons backed out of the deal?

It would seem that this proposed early childhood center, operated by non-Unified personnel, may have been the nudge RUSD needed. I was intrigued by the partnership of government and private business. I know this program could have failed miserably, but we will never know now.

Perhaps the next time Unified gets a good idea (like changing the start times for our middle and high schools or contracting out for services), they will do a little research and planning beforehand and make sure they are compliant with the law.

After all, isn’t that what we are paying them for?

At least we ain't Chicago...

The decisions of the administration of RUSD may be questionable at times, but at least they do not require blind students to take Driver’s Ed! Passing a driver education course is a requirement for graduation in Chicago’s public schools, and although parents of blind students can request a variance in their children’s schedules, this is a little known option and is rarely used. And I thought our school system was in trouble…

Bright Horizons backs out...

It was announced today that Bright Horizons will be backing out of its proposed partnership with Racine Unified. Bright Horizons, a nationally known and accredited early childhood educational institution, was recommended to run a preschool/daycare operation at the site of the former Caddy Vista elementary school.

It would seem that the REA (and others) were not happy with the outsourcing project. I don’t really blame Bright Horizons for backing out; what company in their right mind would want RUSD as a client? Oh yeah, that would be the Public Business Consulting Group, the consulting group that handles RUSD’s financial operations.

Ironically (?), this same group originally gave thought to submitting their own plan for the Caddy Vista site, but did not do so to avoid concerns about conflicts of interest.

Why do I feel that this is not a dead issue?

RUSD officials urge partnership with Bright Horizons

Racine Unified will be offering a combination day-care/preschool at a former RUSD elementary school, Caddy Vista, and will be outsourcing the operations of the early childhood education center. It turns out there was only one legitimate bid for the outsourcing of the Caddy Vista early childhood project – Bright Horizons.

Bright Horizons is a nationally accredited institution with centers all over the country; and the Racine area is home to one of them. The SC Johnson daycare facility (located near Armstrong Park) is one of those facilities. I am certainly not suggesting any corruption; I am simply stunned by the coincidence. It seems that our “business” relationship with SC Johnson (and others in RAMAC) is becoming more and more layered by the minute.

Have school districts found a way around those pesky revenue caps?

Will RUSD soon be on this list?

While I was reading the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recent article detailing the exponential rising of tax levies for Wisconsin school districts’ Community Service Funds, I could not help wondering how long it will take before this phenomena affects the residents served by RUSD.

Recently (this past spring) , RUSD created a Community Service Fund; this was explained away to the public as a revenue enhancement for the district. The Racine JT has already reported that the newly established fund (which does not have a revenue cap) could pay for the Lighted Schoolhouse program.

I am not arguing that such programs are not beneficial to the community, I am just wondering if this is not a back-door way of raising taxes. There may not be a need to cut any outrageous spending, district personnel will just move certain expenses from the operating fund to one (like the Community Service Fund) which does not have a revenue cap!

RUSD board meeting documents not very enlightening

In reviewing the agenda for this evening’s RUSD regularly scheduled meeting, I found it interesting that neither the PDF file of the board packet materials nor any addendums contained any mention of the details of item 11b, the awarding of the Caddy Vista outsourcing project.

As you may recall, RUSD may be reopening Caddy Vista to serve as location for its expanded 4-year-old kindergarten program. This location would also have before and after-school daycare (available for an additional fee). Unified will be outsourcing the operation of this to a private business, so I am interested in any details of this new government-private business relationship.

However, there are numerous pages in the board packet materials addressing how RUSD is doing making “good” global citizens out of our children and ensuring that they are developing a “strong sense of self-worth”. I, for one, am glad that the board and administration have decided to work in an open environment and post their meeting materials online (insert sarcastic tone here).

I missed this meeting , but will talk with friends that did attend and post any information (if necessary) later...

Is Universal Preschool the Answer?

The debate continues on who should be responsible for preschool – should it be the parents’ responsibility or should the burden fall on the already overtaxed taxpayer? As you are aware, RUSD is expanding their 4-year-old kindergarten (preschool) program this fall.

RUSD does not currently have the space to provide preschool, so it is partnering with other early childhood centers and “leasing” space. Now we find that the Early Childhood Educational Lab at Gateway will be another RUSD 4-year-old kindergarten site. Since Gateway is also funded by tax dollars, isn’t this a case of one taxing authority (RUSD) subsidizing another taxing authority (Gateway)? Just thinking out loud, but will the portion of our property tax that funds Gateway go down or is this what I will call “double dipping”?

The program is not new; preschool has been provided to the children that would benefit the most for years. Instead of just creating more space for the neediest and most vulnerable children of our community; RUSD has made it possible for ALL children to enjoy “free” preschool. I am not stating that early childhood education is not crucial to future success in school; I know that it is. But creating yet another entitlement program for middle class families that can afford “traditional” preschool is not the answer. Our educational system is already strapped for cash and is extremely dysfunctional, why add more fuel to the fire? I think that RUSD needs to fix K-12 education before tackling any new educational initiatives.

Preschool, or 4-year-old kindergarten, is not "free". It is paid for by local and state tax dollars; there may not any out of pocket expenses for the parents, but it is hardly “free”! Remember the old phrase “There is no such thing as a free lunch?”

Free speech lives on in RUSD

After the two articles included on the JT website today, I expected to see Brent Killackey at the RUSD board meeting tonight if only to provide some additional information to his original story, Unified board targets member. Imagine my surprise to find a completely empty media table in the Central Office conference room. Come on JT, isn’t it your responsibility to report?

To summarize tonight’s meeting, Julie McKenna made a motion to completely REMOVE this item from the agenda. This motion passed 5-3. The board members that passed Julie’s motion were: A. Clobes, B. Dey, R. Bangs, J. McKenna and D. Nielsen. The board members who voted against the motion and (keeping the agenda as written) were: S. Kutz, R. Carlsen and T. Baumgardt.

Also worthy of mentioning are the plethora of referrals that came at the end of the meeting. In order for an issue to be addressed at future meetings, a referral must be made first; some of the referrals I found very interesting:

Don Nielsen made a referral to get the Attorney General’s legal opinion on the ethical and legal use of electronic communication (email, blogs, etc.)

Brian Dey made a referral for an update on the “Betsy Kippers” clause. You might remember this as a source of contention for many when the REA contracts were ratified earlier this spring. The clause allows the REA president to perform union activities (for up to 179 days) on taxpayer dollars (where the REA will subsidize a substitute teacher at a much lower rate of pay)

A. Clobes made a referral for administration to study the legal ramifications of Caledonia forming their own school district. This referral is similar to the one Brian Dey made at the last meeting when he asked the CEO to prepare a financial impact statement regarding the same issue.

And finally, the board voted to adopt the changes in the Governance Policy. Guess what item was pulled out? Drum roll, please……. GP-11! GP-11 is the Process for Addressing Board Member Violations. It would seem that many want this issue reevaluated; I think that is a very good idea. Don’t you??

Should RUSD prepare for a secession?

Rumor has it that a certain rabble-rousing school board member made a very interesting referral at the end of the June 26th board meeting. He asked for an initial impact statement from administration outlining the impact Caledonia seceding would have on the district.

What do you think the chances of Dr. Hicks actually doing this? It is my guess roughly
1:1,000,000…

I think that this will need to be addressed soon; should RUSD deal with it now or wait for later?

Do the district administrators deserve a bonus?

Excuse me for the belated breakdown of the recent Journal Times article, but I was out of town and have been busy trying to catch up with all the news. However, I do want to chime in and voice my opinion on the latest district decision to give the administrators a one time 2% raise in pay.

According to the JT article,” the one-time payment is identical to a provision in the teachers' contract for 2005-06.” However, as I understand it, the provision in the teachers’ contract was based on the fact that they had previously given back 2 days of pay in a previous contract cycle in order to balance the budget.

As one board member pointed out administration did not give up two days pay, so why the bonus? The office and maintenance workers took a pay freeze; shouldn’t the administrators do the same?

D.A. refuses to file charges against Education Racine, Inc.

RealDebate over at RDW has an interesting piece on how the Racine County District Attorney refused to file charges against Education Racine, Inc; this organization openly and blatantly violated Wisconsin campaign laws. As you might recall, Education Racine Inc is an umbrella organization of RAMAC and is responsible for sending out numerous mailings advocating for the passing of the June 6th RUSD operations referendum.

This is the same District Attorney who refused to file charges after similar circumstances occurred in the April 4th school board elections. If we cannot make the highest ranking law enforcement officer hold law-breakers accountable for their actions, how can expect any more from the other local officials?

Can the RUSD officials be any more arrogant?

Here we go again, it was reported recently that the administrators are planning a retreat at the very posh Lake Lawn Resort, which is located in Delavan. This annual event was cancelled in 2005, with former RUSD spokesperson Linda Flashinski stating "It's important that we be sensitive to the fiscal concerns in our district. We have a spending freeze on, and we are looking at every expenditure very carefully in these tight budget times."

The April 2005 article also stated that no tax dollars were to be used to fund the retreat, even though later in the article it was mentioned that the district accounting practices would not be able to show this directly. Stepien explained this further by stating “That fund consists of 25 percent district money earmarked for staff development and 75 percent funding from outside sources - federal and state grants, special education funds for staff development and corporate donations”. It is my belief, that ANY staff development funds should NOT be used for events at golf resorts.

Now, we find that the event was not canceled, but merely postponed to this summer, with district officials citing losing the $18,000 deposit as a reason for not canceling the retreat.
This is the same annual event that a principal was raiding the school’s fundraising accounts to purchase door prizes for the administrative retreat. A day or two at a resort isn’t enough; they have to have door prizes too?

Ironically, questioning the 2003 $36,000 payment to Lake Lawn Lodge is what brought me and others to address the school board the first time. My neighbor drew the short straw and made a very eloquent case on why spending $36,000 for an administrative retreat is not the appropriate use of tax dollars in light of the district thinking about closing schools (Olympia Brown, Wind Point and Winslow were on the short list of schools to be closed at that time). Her passionate plea brought everyone to their feet in applause.

This annual event was almost canceled in 2004, but they did not, which caused more uproar in the people who were paying attention. Finally, in 2005 this event was canceled. It is my belief that it was canceled because more people started to realize what is actually going on in this district. Now in 2006, the retreat is back on…

Do our district officials really think that this is “water under the bridge”? (they seem to be very fond of this phrase, by the way)

And if the event is truly corporate sponsored, why should it matter if we “lose” the $18,000 cancellation fee? Tell me that our business partners (SC Johnson, Modine, Twin Disc and other members of RAMAC) cannot afford a combined loss of $18,000? Can you say “tax write-off”, anyone? Our CEO’s arrogance is beginning to show again, the question is what are we (or the board) going to do about it?

The Making of an Obsession – Part 1 of 17

Well, my pity party is over – I would like to thank all of you who came. Back to the issues that mean the most to mothers across the country – crafts (insert sarcasm here). In honor of our nation’s birthday, I thought I’d pass along a crafting idea that the whole family can do together. Here is the link to a patriotic wind chime you can make with your children. For those of you who do not want to channel Martha, I thought I would provide a brief (?) history of how Brenda became ‘obsessed’ with the underbelly of RUSD.

As mentioned earlier, I was happily ignorant until about 5 years ago when I started hearing grumblings about the new teaching strategy, Continuous Progress, and the highly paid consultants that were bringing it to our district. When I pressed RUSD staff for more information, I was given the name of the head consultant – Dr. John “Jack” Champlin. Once I verified he was indeed highly paid (by looking at 6 months worth of RUSD payment vouchers; thanks again Armin and Mike for telling me this information was available for free at the library), I did a quick Google search to find more about Dr. Champlin and his staff.

What I discovered was disturbing to say the least. The very same Dr. Champlin that was directing our reform process was once the superintendent of the Johnson City (NY) district where his reform measures were considered controversial and critics of the plan correctly forecasted that the plan would “be remembered as a failed experiment.”

In the May 1999 edition of the Education Reporter, there is a story detailing the demise of Champlin’s OBE reform plan and why it failed to raise test scores as promised.
The similarities between Johnson City and Racine are astounding:

“Veteran teachers and administrators told horror stories of how he ruthlessly brushed aside anyone and anything standing in his way”

Many teachers and principals feel the same way; Continuous Progress (same plan, new name) has been shoved down the throats of our educational professionals.

He blamed its failure on the loss of will to "sustain significant change."

Dr. Hicks, our own superintendent, is now blaming the teachers for the lack of improvement in our test scores.

I challenge each and every one of you to spend a little time on the internet and find out a little more of Outcome-Based Education, and then ask yourself this question – “Is this really the best approach for all of our children?” Remember, the acronyms keep changing as each approach is deemed a failure. What was Mastery Learning (ML) is now Continuous Progress, and we still have 3rd graders that can’t spell ‘was’ and 4th graders reading at 1st grade level. No wonder we haven’t seen the promised test results, we have 4th graders who have never seen 4th grade material in the classroom.

"Good Night, and Good Luck"

For those of my 6 readers that look for me on the Journal Times blogs, I am giving it up. After rereading the comments on the Hicks contract extension posting, I have decided that most of the bloggers on that site are much to willing to stoop to personal attacks and refuse to debate an issue reasonably. I do not wish to trade barbs with people of that ilk; I want to debate the issues honestly and fairly. I also realize I am definitely not alone; Denis Navatril, Eric Marcus and Fred (especially in the last couple days) have all been victims of similar abuse. Actually, I should feel somewhat honored to be is such esteemed company.

I am thinking of giving up this blog too, since I am not sure if it has done any good except providing me with some much needed (and free) therapy. Or maybe I’ll just focus on the “hard-hitting” issues in Racine, such as what is the best park or how to create an Easter wreath with the leftover egg cartons (this is possible, by the way, my 9 year old and I have done it).

I know this though; the citizens of Racine (and I am including some board members) are completely apathetic to what is going on in our schools. As you may be aware, I am a mother of 2 but this IS not about them or how RUSD has ruined them. My children do very well (with no thanks to RUSD) because they are extremely intelligent; I would dare say they would do well even in a worse environment. But many children are not blessed with their natural abilities, and are struggling.

My passion is for them and for the community I call home. How much longer will I have to continue watching our schools suffer academically and from the continual mismanagement of educational dollars? Doesn’t anybody realize how schools affect a community? When will the rest of the public wake up?

I’m still not sure if I will continue this blogging thing; just in case this is my last post I want to say to everyone in Racine – “Good Night, and Good Luck”.

Mr. Racine's Report Card Speaks

(Note: Brenda is aware that I am writing this, but does not know the content. She will be reading it here for the first time.)

Now you guys have gone and done it. Brenda is threatening to pack it in. I’m sure there is a collective sigh of relief from a group of you out there who think she is some crackpot with wild ideas. I would just like you to know that Brenda has devoted a lot of time (with my blessing) to learning as much as she can about our district. Consequently, she has a more thorough knowledge of things going on in this district than, arguably, all of you, and probably most of the board members too.

She is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, and does not put out her opinions without much fact finding and thought. Her opinions are also not set in stone. If someone can INTELLIGENTLY argue with her, and back it up with some actual facts, she is not above rethinking an issue. Although I don’t believe anyone has done it yet. When ignorant people attack her personally, instead of her ideas (as has happened a lot recently on the JT blogs), she gets hurt. She is not an animal. She is… a human being. She realizes that those people need to just be ignored, but that is sometimes easier said than done.

She has been at this for going on about 5 years now. It started when our then 1st grader’s teacher was telling us about the new CP program at a parent/teacher conference. The teacher, by the way, thought it was stupid. Brenda did a few Google searches, and found out what a horrible failure Dr. Hicks’ new QDM had been in other school districts. She did also find examples of where it worked, but not in a district so big and diverse. It should be noted also that the district that Dr. Hicks came from, abandoned this program after he left, I believe.

It was then that Brenda started attending board meetings, and talking to board members. One of them told her that she should go to the library and look at the vouchers, which she did. It has just snowballed from there. Its funny how the more you look, the more you find.

Although the blogging is new, her interest in the schools is not. For the guy who said that she needed therapy, blogging IS her therapy. Without it, she would probably explode. It is funny seeing the speculation out there on why she does what she does. Is it so hard to believe that she is just a concerned parent? All parents should be so concerned.

I guess I should wrap this up. So, Brenda is very discouraged about the general public’s apathy toward our schools, the Superintendent’s apparent (to her) corruption, the gutless (my word, not hers) board that lets him get away with it, and the abuse she is taking for trying to make a difference. She is threatening to say, “F*** it! Nobody else cares, why should I?” I personally don’t think she can do it, but you never know. I would hate to see her stop, it would be a tremendous waste.

I apologize for the length (never thought I would say that), but I thought you, her readers, should know a little background. Maybe I can convince her to give you a more thorough history in the future.

Thanks for your time.

Is $304,000 RUSD Consultant Bonus Justfied?

RealDebate over at RDW has an interesting piece on the $304,000 bonus paid to the consultant group acting as the RUSD financial team. Sadly, this will probably go unnoticed in the mainstream media and if it does actually get some press time, the focus won’t be on the issues but on who brought this to the public’s attention.

As some would say, “we get what we deserve”. Again, tell me why questioning the corruption of local governments is obsessive?

I have arrived...

I have arrived! Finally, my first cyber stalkers! Based on the comments on a recent Journal Times blog , it has come to the public’s attention that I:

1. Am a bad mother.
2. Suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
3. Have a cut and paste website (???)
4. Must be a fired RUSD teacher.
5. Bitter.
6. Full of hate.

Since this has all been uncovered, I feel I must admit there is more. I also:

1. Torture small animals.
2. Hate America.
3. Listen to Yanni.
4. Steal candy from babies.

Whew, I feel better now… Confession really is good for the soul.

Continuous Progress Teaching Strategy Addressed - Finally!

Finally, some press time for my favorite RUSD topic – Continuous Progress .Once upon a time, I was a clueless (but satisfied!!!) parent of a child enrolled in RUSD. Then one day at a teacher conference, my child’s 1st grade teacher told me about the new teaching strategy, Continuous Progress (CP), where children are separated by ability level. While I sat there absorbing the information, I thought to myself “How is this any different than the strategy being used now?” You see, my child’s school was already separating the children by ability level so I assumed there would not be any difference. I DID NOT realize that this practice had been abandoned at most of the RUSD elementary schools. As a child, my elementary school (Olympia Brown) did the same; I still want to know when this common practice of teaching to the lowest common denominator became the fashion.

However, as this teacher became to explain the intricacies of CP, I began to get more and more concerned. The new strategy would break my son’s reading class into 2 small groups (10 – 15 kids). One group would be advanced readers, and the other group would be remedial or somewhere in between. The teacher would teach one group and the other group would work “independently”; after 15 minutes or so, the groups would switch. This process repeats itself for 90 to 120 minutes daily. It is what I like to call “short attention span education”. I still do not see how a 6 or 7 year-old child can study independently for any length of time. The children not being taught are not allowed to ask questions while the other group is being instructed. How many teachable moments are being lost on a daily basis if a child cannot ask a question?

There are many reasons I do not like CP, but separating them by level is not one of them. With that said, I think if the groups were formed into 3 larger groups (advanced, proficient and remedial) the process would be implemented more efficiently; with all these multiple groups in the same room, classroom time is utterly chaotic. There are too many needs and not enough resources to go around.

Continous Progress involves Mastery Learning. This is another one of those concepts that sound great in theory, but in reality it can be damaging when done wrong. Using the current strategy, a child cannot advance to the next level until he/she has mastered the material. However, VERY LITTLE OR NOTHING is being done for the child who is far behind. Right now we have 4th graders reading at a 1st grade level and getting A’s on their report card because he reads very well at the 1st grade level. There are few programs left, such as Title I, that address these problems; those programs were severely reduced when CP was introduced because it was believed there would not be necessary.

Now reading recovery programs have had to be EXPANDED at the middle school level to meet the needs of the children who did not quite “get it” in elementary school. Is this really what we want for our children and our community? RUSD is not fiscally or educationally sound; tell me again why keeping RUSD would be a good thing….

Can Caledonia's Tax Base Support Its Own Schools?

Can the tax base in Caledonia support its own school district? That is the question for many as the debate over Caledonia seceding from RUSD continues. Without knowing what kind of start-up costs Caledonia would be responsible for, it is difficult to project. It’s not as if information like this is available on the DPI website. However, I think we could start by looking at Caledonia’s current school taxes and seeing what sort of projected revenue a new district could expect to receive.

In the last tax year (2005), Caledonia paid RUSD $13,180,483.70 which was collected via property taxes. As you are probably aware, local property tax revenue is 1/3 of the school funding formula and state aid covers the other 2/3. This formula is adjusted for many different variables (poverty, special education, busing, etc) but is a good starting point. I will be using this formula because I think that Caledonia is an “average” community; we do not have the poverty of the urban areas nor do we have the large property tax base of communities like Whitefish Bay or Mequon.

$13,180,483.70 = Local Property Taxes (1/3)
$26,360,967.40 = State Education Taxes (2/3)
$39,541,451.10 = Total Revenue

3200 = Total Number of students

$39,541,451.10 / 3200 = $12, 356.70

Total revenue per student = $12,356.70

It is interesting to me that the revenue per student is almost identical to RUSD’s current revenue per student. I realize that there will be “double-secret” start up costs that will be discovered in the Village’s fact finding mission. I hope the first fact they verify is the “building” factor. It is my understanding (by speaking with people who attempted this a few years ago) that since all Unified’s buildings are paid for and Caledonia is no longer a township (which did not have the same legal rights as a village or city) that the buildings that currently lie within the village’s borders will come with secession.

However, I still think that it’s reassuring that with our current tax base, we most likely pay enough to support a future district by my (admittedly rough) estimation.