This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
12/12/2017 04:01 PMThe Board of Education (BOE) recently put forward a few options for the future reconfiguration of the Madison Public Schools. With the district contracting down to two elementary schools, 4th graders will be moving up to the middle level. The issue of how to divide grades 4 through 8 at Brown Middle School and Polson Middle School is the current topic of discussion. After previously discussing different models in the abstract, the administration presented the BOE with different cost estimates for two models at the BOE meeting on Dec. 5.
Before presenting the cost estimates, Superintendent of Schools Tom Scarice said that while there are challenges with all options, teaching matters more than what grade is in which school. Scarice said he also believes the best solution was denied at referendum.
“We have considered and neither model is perfect; there are strengths and weaknesses and flaws and tradeoffs,” he said. “In my mind the ship of ideals sailed away when we lost the referendum. That would have been an ideal long-term plan for the district…I hope that the temperature can be turned down a little bit on the stakes here because we will thrive either way.”
Each model comes with two costs Scarice categorized as “musts” and “preferables”—musts include things like one-time moving costs for books and other supplies, and preferables include items that would provide for some bigger adjustments in the move.
The Assumed Model: Brown Holds 4th and 5th Grade, Polson Holds Grades 6 to 8
The assumed model, or what had been assumed while the BOE considered shrinking the elementary schools, involved moving the 4th grade up to Brown and the 6th grade up to Polson. Scarice said there are advantages to this model because a grades 6 to 8 model is fairly common, there are few “one time” moving costs, and there is a central location for grades 6 to 12. In addition, this model provides opportunities to expand theater, arts, and music programs for the 4th grade and keep students who start at Ryerson on the same campus through the 5th grade.
This model also has its challenges with smaller classroom sizes for the 4th and 5th grades due to the current layout of Brown, longer bus runs for younger students, and no room for expansion at Brown due to the building’s footprint. In addition, this model would likely increase the number of school transitions for some of the younger students in the district.
The early costs for the assumed model range from $144,880 to $189,880 depending on a combination of necessary costs and preferable costs.
An Additional Consideration: Polson Holds Grades 4 to 6, Brown Holds 7 to 8
An alternative idea was also placed before the board, which involves grouping grades 4 to 6 at Polson Middle School and grades 7 and 8 at Brown Middle School. This option allows for larger classrooms for the younger grades at Polson, limits transitions for younger students, and puts the younger students in a school that is one level (Brown has two levels). In addition, this model has the chance to group 4th to 6th graders together (students who are more developmentally compatible than 6th to 8th graders, according to Scarice), keep Jeffrey Elementary students on the same compound from grades K to 6, and allows artistic program expansion for the 4th grade.
This model also has its drawbacks as it would split some of the social/emotional service programs between the two middle schools and this program has higher “one time” moving costs as it would require more grades to move.
The early costs for this additional model range from $386,520 to $605,020. The costs on this model are higher because Scarice said this options requires multiple grades to move buildings rather than just 4th and 6th grades.
All of the costs would have to be worked into the operating budget and not the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The only item in the move that can be put in the CIP is the new playground that Scarice said would be required no matter which model is chosen to accommodate the 4th grade. Scarice said administrators are currently working on a playground estimate and should have it by the first of the year.
“By June we will have, with what Colliers helps put together with us, our 10-plus year plan of capital improvements across the whole system,” he said. “We pretty much know all of the projects, what they are working with us to do is sequence and prioritize them…If we can make sure the projects that need to be in CIP are in CIP and they don’t creep into the operating budget, then I am OK with that. What is going to creep into the budget this year is moving costs if we stick with our 2019 closure. Those will be in competition with direct dollars that are in the operating budget.”
Inevitable Changes
Just as a playground is necessary for both models, Scarice said there will be some other changes that will happen after Island Avenue Elementary School is closed.
“No matter what, we are going from 10 administrators at the building level to nine. No matter what, we will follow our class size guidelines and our teachers will still filter into where the classrooms are,” he said, noting that the schools would use the opportunity to eliminate any instances of redundant staff in the system, such as with some support services. “[W]ith the closure of Island, that is where those reductions would be.”
Even with the change in schools, Scarice said he wanted to make it clear this isn’t a glamorous upgrade; the district is just moving furniture and books from one building to another.
Costs
The expense of the project was of some concern to board members, particularly because the costs have to be absorbed into the operating budget and will be in competition with programing dollars, something that would have been avoided with a bonded project.
Board member Matt Parthasarthy said he is concerned that a decision might be made too quickly.
“My initial reaction is that is a lot and you want to default to the cheaper option, but then I think about it and say, ‘Are we rushing to make a decision?’ and if we gave ourselves a little more time, would we be a little more comfortable down the road once we had a vision on cost,” he said. “I feel like the timeline of getting the must-dos is driven by an arbitrary date of trying to get the financials done for the 2019 year and that is based on the Island closure. I feel like we are working backwards from an arbitrary date.”
Scarice acknowledged Parthasarthy’s point, but said if the board’s primary concern is saving money, then a decision should be made sooner rather than later.
“There is no question that with more time we are more thoughtful, we can tend to every detail, and I think that point is a powerful one and well taken,” he said. “The flip side of that argument though is as soon as you close Island there is the financial argument. The sooner you close Island, the closer you are to saving $1 million a year in operating costs. You get to that savings number sooner.”
If the board wants to stay on track to close Island in June 2019, a decision would need to be made soon because the coming fiscal year 2018-’19 budget the board will debate in January will include the budget for June 2019. The board is expected to take a vote on the model at its next meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 19.