Wednesday, May 20, 2009

A Plea for One High School

I agree. 

The cost of operating one vs. two high schools was never an issue that bore much scrutiny. However, it is obvious that the duplication of personnel at all levels of the system does cost more than under a single high school system. I have estimated that single high school system would operate at about 85 percent of the cost of the two high schools.

   The recent four surveys results as of October 2008 produced mix results on the two vs. one issue. One could have predicted the results of these surveys. The students clearly did not recognize cost factors as much as the teachers and administrators. That is understandable.

   The historical results of one vs. two high schools clearly indicate that from a cost standpoint, the District clearly made a costly decision in the late ’60s.

   I would plead that the School District not make the same decision again. I compliment the board on reviewing this issue again. However, I believe the board should have presented to the public more detail regarding operating cost comparisons of the two different options.

(18) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0714 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. I also agree.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1053 hrs


  2. Having served on the committee that focused on this issue last Summer I can say that, although discussion is healthy, it is actually more cost effective to keep the current setup.  Combining will have no substanial effect on staff.  Its the same amount of students reguardless.  In fact, combining may have a negative effect due to one structure not having the ability to provide a small learning enviorment.  There simply is no compelling reason (smoking gun) to combine.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1149 hrs


  3. So it is the same cost to own two homes as one home?

    Nah.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1305 hrs


  4. Having served on the committee that focused on this issue last Summer I can say that, although discussion is healthy, it is actually more cost effective to keep the current setup.

    That makes zero sense.

    You can argue about quality of education and such… but there is no way it’s more cost effective to run two schools than one.

    Posted by Deibert on May 20, 2009 at 1354 hrs


  5. Well, combining would shorten discussions with out of town guests.

    Me:  And those are the high schools.
    Them:  Schools?
    Me:  Yes.  Two high schools, one building.
    Them:  Why?
    Me:  I don’t know. 
    Them:  That makes no sense.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1441 hrs


  6. One Word:

    Overhead

    And I’m guessing some of that overhead may be on that committee.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1642 hrs


  7. Wendy pointed out the other reaon- to stop being a laughingstock.

    There are other ways to keep the small school feel.  There is the house concept Kennedy in Germantown uses, for example. 

    You don’t need to duplicate administration.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1743 hrs


  8. Speaking of house concept, Niagara Falls High School
    (http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalink/thinking_outside_the_sphere/)

    has 4 “houses”.  Each house has a “House Administrator” & a “Dean of Students”. 

    http://staging.nfschools.wnyric.org/nfhs/site/default.asp

    Each house has 600 students, cost of building was $64 Million.  Wonder how that staffing ratio compares to West Bend?  4 Administrators & 4 Deans/2400 student body

    http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/bts/archives/k-12/01_niagara/overview.asp

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 1806 hrs


  9. Come on people, we are talking about maintaining administrator jobs here. Although it may seem like an abolute waste of money to have two complete sets of Principals, Vice-Principals etc etc, you are only thinking with your wallet. Just because there is zero benifit to “the children” it would be mean spirited to ask for a reduction in any staff, no matter how little it will be missed. When I moved to “The Bend” in 2000, I couldn’t believe the idiocy of this set up. Do I dare hope it will actually happen in my lifetime? I have my doubts. Administation inertia is pervasive.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2009 at 2208 hrs


  10. You can save more than adminstrative costs.  I did a similar study in my school district when we closed an elementary school, and we saved maybe 20 percent of the postions of the closed school.  For example if you have 70 kids at each school taking freshman english, and you want to stay at or under 20 kids per class, you need 4 teachers at each school, yet only 7 at the combined school.  For some lower attended classes, you might combine two classed of 10 and eliminate one of two teachers.  While an elementary school is somewhat different, the theory holds, and might accrue even greater savings at a high school due to the complexities in scheduling.  But there is NEVER a case where that works out to need more teachers at the combined school.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 0041 hrs


  11. When people ask how the West Bend High School is doing, I ask, “Which one?” People then ask,“What do you mean?”  I proceed to explain to them that there are in fact two high schools, East and West, in the same building.  They give me a look of disbelief.  I then have to explain to them why there are two.  They counitnue to wonder why.

    I don’t see any advantages besides maybe letting more kids play a sport.  Even then.  I know that a few sports teams, like some of the freshman teams, are already combined.  Some West kids attend East classes and some East kids attend West classes.  Its already fairly combined anyway, so why not?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1114 hrs


  12. Better yet why not let people pick which school they want to go to?  It is not allowed right now.  Give people a choice.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1254 hrs


  13. My kids aren’t in high school yet so I don’t know exactly how the schools operate, but don’t think Curt’s explanation with teachers would apply. They already combine classes when needed and share teachers in less well attended classes, don’t they? And I would think for one huge high school you could cut some of the admin but not all. With a high school that big, might you still need 2 principals and other office staff? And isn’t some of the admin already combined? Are there 2 offices?
    I think there could be a small savings, but can’t imagine the 85% quoted in the editorial. I’d be curious to see the numbers from the school district. And there would be the upfront one time cost of making the name changes, uniforms, etc.
    For me with kids that are average athletes, I do like the idea of them getting a chance to play when they probably wouldn’t make the team (for the more popular sports) at a huge school. I know that’s not the most important thing in school, but it still has some importance to alot of parents and helps keeps kids busy and active.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1508 hrs


  14. It’s not an 85% savings.  It’s 85% of the current cost, so it’s a 15% savings. 

    The cost savings come marginally from teachers, but most of the cost is from administration and the sports teams.  Two football teams… etc.

    Posted by Owen on May 21, 2009 at 1514 hrs


  15. Yeah, I know- got that. but I still I thought 15% was a pretty big savings for cutting a few admin jobs and coaching positions (which aren’t usually full time jobs to begin with). If it’s accurate I might be in favor of it myself.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1601 hrs


  16. Wouldn’t one large school need 2 principals etc? I know I am going to sound like an old carmudgon, but when I was in high school in the late sixtys in Milwaukee, I went to Custer. Student population over 4400, one principal and two vice-principals, one for administration, one for managing the unruly students. Seemed to work ok back then. Oh and the school only had 10th,11th and 12th grades. If they really are interested in reducing costs, they could find a way. Admittedly a big if.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1715 hrs


  17. Madison high in Milwaukee grad here, same thing 3,300 kids, one principal.  And I guarentee a principal or vice principal at Custer or Madison has a much tougher job than one in West Bend.  (Actually I think the Warden at Waupon has an easier job.)  I think you save 50% on Administration, and sports.  And while you may not save 15% on teachers salaries, you will certainly find some savings there.  I seriously doubt they are pooling all students in all classes, where you would achieve the maximum savings, but lose any semblance of having two schools.  You’ll only achieve the maximum effienciency when “which school you are in” is not a factor of any kind in assigning classes.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1809 hrs


  18. Of course if you think there is some schoolastic benefit to having two schools, and you want to fund two sports teams, there is still no reason why you can cut the duplicate administraion in half.  You certainly only need one principal, one attendance office, etc…  to run a school.  For those of us admin types, school name is just a field to track.  I’ve run the admin functions of businesses flung out accross the country with different business models from one central spot, it certainly would not be a challenge to administrer two entities with the same models running out of the same building.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2009 at 1818 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.