|
January 11, 2006Rationale for Removing School Closings from ConsiderationMessage from the East Attendance Area Task Force regarding rationale for Removing School Closings from Consideration. It reflects contributions from several Task Force members. This is another reason to be impressed by the hardwork of both the East and West/Memorial Task Forces. Rationale for Removing School Closings from Consideration: 1. While very accurate at the district level, enrollment projections are less precise at the individual school level. 2. If we assume some reliability, the LaFollette attendance area is likely to be over capacity in 5 years. Leaving space available in East area schools will allow for potential boundary changes that will delay the need for another school on the far east side-Sprecher area-for the foreseeable future. 3. There is research suggesting children in poverty may benefit from small school size, in addition to small class size. The East attendance area has some of the smallest capacity schools in the district; it also has the highest concentration of children in poverty. In addition to strong leadership, smaller class sizes in the East area are contributing to the decrease in the achievement gap among students and across schools. 4. Elementary school aged children in the East attendance area, while attending schools with the highest level of low income enrollment, benefit from the fewest number of children being bused and lowest distance busing rates. The advantage this presents children and their families is better access to, and opportunity to become involved in, a neighborhood school. 5. Excess space in the East area schools can be, and is being, used efficiently as numerous district-wide programs are housed in East area schools. Placing programs within East area schools is a better way to continue to meet the unique needs of students in the East attendance area. 6. The financial benefits of closing a school are not worth the costs of disrupting the education of children attending that neighborhood school. Madison schools that have been closed in the East area have all been re-opened. 7. District wide, the problem of over-crowding in West/Memorial area schools bears much greater weight and urgency; further, changes on the East side would have no direct or real effect on the problems faced by these attendance areas. Solutions to the East attendance area and the West/Memorial attendance areas are not linked fiscally nor should they be practically linked. The issues, compositions, needs and realities are very different for the two attendance areas and each deserve due, deliberate and unique consideration and resolution. 8. Renovations, investments in the School Improvement Process (SIP), great parental and neighborhood support…these kinds of things are considered to have much more value than what would be gained by closing a neighborhood school. The East attendance area has greater poverty because proportionally more families who lack economic resources live in the attendance area. Communities in this area benefit from having neighborhood schools where families and children are more likely to connect with one another at school and as a result are more likely to be connected to their neighbors and neighborhoods. This is a critical resource in more economically fragile communities. What benefits schools, benefits communities and what benefits communities, benefits schools. 9. The impact of central East attendance area in-fill development project, such as Voight Farms, Union Corners, and Don Miller lot development are unknown. These projects are different than the existing downtown projects in that they will have a mix of housing and retail and will include dwelling sizes and prices to better accommodate families 10. We do not see the school closing option as viable, cost-effective or real long-range solution to best meet the educational needs of children in the East High School attendance area. Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas |