THIS PAGE ENTIRELY FOR THIS REPORT
- WILTON - KENDALL - ELROY
- STATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DOWN FOR 1998-1999
- GRADUATION CONGRATULATIONS
IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS IN CONFIGURATION OF EKW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Wed, 21 Apr 1999
by Sandy McAnany
INTRODUCTION
1997 Wisconsin Act 27 created a public school choice program in
Wisconsin, beginning in the 1998-99 school year. This is the first
statewide inter-district public school choice program within Wisconsin.
Under this program, any student in grade kindergarten through twelve may
attend any public school in the state, if space is available, with
limited restrictions. This paper will analyze the effects of school
choice on the Elroy-Kendall-Wilton school district.
REGULATIONS OF SCHOOL CHOICE
School districts do not have to accept a student if he or she is
currently under an expulsion order from the home district. The student
also can be rejected if a disciplinary proceeding is pending that meets
state criterion. Finally, students may be ineligible for school choice
if he or she requires a special education program or related service
that is not available in the nonresident district
Nonresident school districts may consider space available in the
schools or classes in the district before accepting a student. These
criteria must meet statutory requirements and not be arbitrary.
Enrollment projections may also be used by the nonresident school
district. A random method must be used to select the students to be
accepted for open enrollment.
The application period for open enrollment is quite limited. For the
1998-99 school year it was sixteen days in February. Students may
attend a different district every year, and may return to their home
district at any point in time. The parent is responsible for providing
transportation under this program.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
In the first year of school choice, districts could limit transfers out
to 3 percent of their enrollment. Districts still determine their
revenue cap by using the student population on the third Friday of
September plus 20 percent of the summer school full time equivalent
population. All students are counted by their home district for revenue
cap and state aid purposes. Equalization aid is not affected by open
enrollment.
Open enrollment aid payments will be made by DPI to the district of
attendance on behalf of the district of residence for regular education
students, using a portion of the resident district's equalization aid
entitlements. The 1998-99 per pupil amount was $4,551. Payments made
by DPI to a district for open enrollment are recorded as "tuition
revenue." Payments made by DPI on behalf of a district are recorded as
a "Purchased Instructional Service" cost by the district of residence.
Financial impacts have varied across the state from district to
district.
ELROY-KENDALL-WILTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Elroy-Kendall-Wilton (EKW) school district is located in western
Wisconsin. The district is small and agrarian in nature. It is made up
of the city of Elroy (population 1500), the village of Kendall
(population 540), the village of Wilton (population 550), and the
surrounding rural area.
Currently the EKW school district has an enrollment of 901students
served in five buildings. Without open enrollment the student
population would have been 922 students. Three of the buildings
including Royall High School (321 students), Royall Middle School (148
students), Elroy Primary School (236 students) are located within the
city of Elroy. The Kendall Elementary School (94 students) located in
the village of Kendall, six miles from Elroy, and the Wilton Elementary
School (102 students) located in the village of Wilton, sixteen miles
from Elroy, make up the rest of the district. Next year enrollment is
projected to be lower at 882 students because of an additional 19
students who will be taking advantage of open enrollment.
During the 1998-99 school year, two classes in Kendall Elementary were
transferred to Elroy because of the small enrollment. During the
1999-2000 school year, a class in Wilton will be transferred to
Kendall. This has led to decreased morale and some siblings being in
separate schools.
All 7th and 8th grade students were consolidated into the Elroy Middle
School starting in the 1997-1998 school year. At first, parents were
upset about this but now parents are generally satisfied with this
arrangement. Class offerings have improved for this age group, and
students have adjusted well. As enrollment declines, more consolidation
may be necessary.
Open enrollment has had a negative impact on the EKW school district
because of the declining enrollment levels within the district, the
rural environment with fewer resources available, and the small student
population. With less than 1,000 students within the boundaries of the
EKW district, each one has an impact on funding. EKW is able to count
the school choice students in their three-year average for student
population, but loses $4100 per pupil in state aid. The students using
school choice come from each grade so staff cannot be cut to make up the
difference. True expenses do not decrease. Because of state
regulations limiting tax levies, taxes within the district cannot be
raised to make up the aid that is lost.
Actual enrollment with data from the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction was tracked from the 1991-92 school year until the
1998-99 school year. Projected estimates of future population levels
were done twice to obtain a high estimate and the estimate of the lowest
number of students possible within the district. To develop the high
estimate, thirteen additional students were subtracted for each
projected year. For the low estimate, thirty students were subtracted
from enrollment for each projected year through 2003-2004. At this time,
no one can predict accurately which trend will develop.
21 of the 27 families who have used or decided to use school choice were
surveyed by telephone in early March 1999. 19 of the 21 families have a
long-term commitment to school choice and do not plan on returning to
the EKW district in the future. 15 of these families have chosen
Norwalk-Ontario (N-O) as their new district while 6 of the families have
chosen other neighboring districts for their children. All but two of
the families have lived in the EKW district at least five years, while
seven of the families have lived in the EKW district over 30 years.
The complete survey can be found at:-Page-3
The EKW school board should
evaluate whether a goal is to get families using school choice to return
to the district when planning future alternatives. It may be easier to
let the families go and remain focused on reducing use of school choice
in the future.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Schools are important to small communities and the evaluation criteria
used in this policy analysis will be unable to measure the emotions
involved with the situation. If the EKW district wants to have a solid
base for the future, tough choices may need to be made. The resources
available to the district are limited. A quality education must be
provided to the students remaining in the district who have not used
school choice as a method to leave. The EKW district needs to take the
steps needed now to be fiscally sound in the future, even though none of
the alternatives in this study will satisfy each person in the EKW
district. The following criteria will be used to measure each
alternative.
? Costs and benefits of each alternative when data is available: Costs
and benefits for each alternative will be weighed against each other
when actual numbers are unavailable.
? Effectiveness: Will the proposed alternative have the intended effect?
? Adequacy: Does the alternative fully meet stated objectives or
requirements? Each alternative will be weighed against the others for
levels of adequacy.
? Intangible costs: What are the possible intangible costs for each
alternative. Intangible costs of each alternative will be weighed
against the other alternatives.
? Administrative operability: Is the existing administrative system
capable of implementing each alternative? How will opposition of each
alternative within the district be avoided? Can the alternative be
implemented without passing a referendum?
? Institutional commitment/Political viability: Is there a commitment
within the district from the parents and staff that would support each
alternative? What organizational changes will be needed to implement
each alternative?
? Equity: Is each alternative fair to all school district residents? If
not, which parts of the district are burdened by each alternative?
IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives that this paper will evaluate are limited. One expanded
version of each alternative will be listed as a possibility but will not
be evaluated. EKW school board members and staff are encouraged to use
this list as a base to expand upon.
1. Taking no action at this time to address the problem. This is an
alternative that the district has been forced to use for a number of
years because of lack of district wide support for past referendums.
Currently every school in the district needs to be remodeled except for
the elementary school in Elroy. The buildings in the district do not
meet the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. Continuing under
the current status will not require immediate additional bonding for the
district.
2. Passing a building referendum with a new elementary school in Wilton,
an addition onto the elementary school in Elroy, and a new middle/high
school in Kendall. This alternative will keep one school in each
community.
3. Build one consolidated school in Elroy. Separate wings would be
built for the elementary, middle and high school. A referendum would be
needed for this alternative.
4. Remodel the existing middle and high school in Elroy. Remodel the
elementary school in Kendall and add the necessary rooms for Wilton area
students to transfer to this building. The Wilton elementary school
could be torn down or used for other purposes. A referendum would be
needed to approve this option.
5. Allow Wilton to detach from EKW district and join the N-O district.
A referendum would be needed in the EKW district to approve this
alternative. Also, Mr. Szepi, the N-O Superintendent, has stated that a
referendum would have to pass in the N-O district before accepting
Wilton as an addition.
6. Encourage state bureaucrats to modify state funding formulas to
reduce the financial impacts of open enrollment. Support could be
solicited across the state for this cause.
EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES
?1) Taking no action is an alternative that the school district has
used for a number of years and could continue into future years on a
short-term basis.
Cost/benefits: Immediate bonding will not be required to take no
action. Long-term costs will continue to rise, but actual amounts are
not known. Craig Hanson, an EKW school board member, has stated in a
report that no matter what happens the district will be broke by 2003,
which will necessitate a referendum to increase the revenue cap for
operating expenses several hundred thousand dollars per year.
Effectiveness: This alternative is ineffective. Taking no action at
this time will not reduce the use of school choice within the district.
Adequacy: This alternative is inadequate. Long-term costs will increase
and the objectives of reducing the use of school choice and increasing
the quality of education within the district will not be met.
Intangible costs: The possibility of lower morale among students and
staff is the main intangible cost of this alternative. The lack of
progress towards a long-term solution for the district will be
frustrating, but this frustration may encourage voters to be more
flexible when future referendums are held.
Administrative operability/Political viability: This alternative can be
continued without major changes in staffing or administration. A
referendum to increase the revenue cap for operating expenses may be
easier to approve without outstanding bonds for remodeling or new
buildings. Residents of the district may not be willing to continue to
wait for improvements to buildings, and will use school choice as their
alternative.
Equity: This alternative is fair geographically to all district
residents, but is not fair to the children within the district who
should be able to get the best education possible.
MISCELLANEOUS:
This option would allow the district to track enrollment
trends, hold an advisory referendum, then take any additional time
necessary to plan the future of the district. Doing minor remodeling
and upgrading to the existing schools, such as cosmetic improvements,
could alter this alternative until a long-term solution is developed.
? (2) Build a new elementary school in Wilton, a new middle/high
school in Kendall and an addition onto the existing elementary school in
Elroy, keeping a school in each community within the district.
Cost/benefits: The most recent cost estimate of this proposal was $10.5
million dollars as of March 1999. This alternative would have higher
operational costs long into the future because of the existence of three
schools.
Effectiveness: Students using school choice may return to the EKW
district under this alternative but there is no guarantee that an
adequate number of students would be enrolled in future years within the
district to fill three schools.
Adequacy: This alternative may not improve the education of EKW students
over the long-term because resources will have to go into buildings and
operating expenses instead of into educational expenses and upgrades of
curriculum. It is adequate but may not be the best alternative when
other criteria are evaluated.
Intangible costs: There would be intangible costs to Elroy families who
would lose the high school within their community and the history that
has gone into the high school.
Administrative operability: This alternative would need a referendum to
develop beyond the planning stage. With the current split within the
district between Elroy, and Kendall and Wilton a referendum may not
pass.
Institutional commitment/Political viability: Some high school staff has
already expressed concerns about this alternative because of lack of
space for some curriculum areas in the proposed high school. Most staff
would be retained under this option. A referendum for this plan would
be hard to pass. Buildings would be built or upgraded but resources in
any district are limited.
Equity: Families in Elroy would pay a higher price for this
alternative. Elroy would lose the high school in their community and
have to pay for a building plan that does not benefit them directly.
Miscellaneous:
EKW was experiencing declining enrollment before school
choice was implemented. If two new schools are built where will the
district obtain the students to keep them filled? A school in each
community may encourage new families to move into the district but this
cannot be accurately predicted. In the long-term, EKW may not be able
to afford to keep a school in each community.
? (3) Another alternative is to build one large consolidated school in
Elroy, with separate wings for the elementary, middle, and senior high
schools.
Cost/benefits: The costs for building one large school will be less than
building two new schools and remodeling one. Long-term costs for
operations and maintenance would be lower for this option that for the
second alternative.
Effectiveness: This option would improve the education of children
within the district and be an effective use of district resources.
Consolidation of services such as special education, speech therapy,
art, and music would be economically beneficial to the district.
Adequacy: Education within the district would be improved but parents,
especially in the Wilton area, may continue to use school choice as an
option for their children. If a consolidated school was built and
parents in the district were generally satisfied, school choice children
may return to the district.
Intangible costs: The costs would be the highest for Wilton and
Kendall. Losing a school in a community has costs that are not easily
measured. Community spirit may be negatively affected.
Administrative operability: A referendum would have to be passed to
implement this option. Fewer staff would be needed for this option
which may be another source of resistance.
Institutional commitment/Political viability: This alternative may be
the most cost effective, but will have the least political acceptability
due to the loss of schools in Wilton and Kendall. A strong commitment
from Elroy area parents and an effort to educate parents about the
benefits of this alternative would be needed to pass any referendum with
this option.
Equity: Wilton and Kendall families would not have a school within their
communities and would have to travel farther for school activities.
Steps could be taken to make this alternative more equal, such as
providing a late bus for after school activities, and organizing car
pooling efforts for any parents within the district with inadequate
transportation to ensure that programs and parent-teacher conferences
would remain an option for every family.
Miscellaneous:
Staffing levels could be adjusted per class depending on
the enrollment of that year.
? (4) An alternative with no new proposed building consists of
remodeling the existing middle and high school in Elroy, remodeling the
elementary school in Kendall to add the necessary rooms for Wilton area
students to transfer in and also to meet ADA standards, and
discontinuing the use of the Wilton school.
Cost/benefits: This alternative would have a lower cost than the second
or third alternatives, but would also have fewer benefits.
Effectiveness: Education for the district children would be improved.
Resources currently used to run the school in Wilton could be redirected
to educational expenses for the schools in Kendall and Elroy.
Adequacy: Education would be improved but the objective of school choice
families returning to the district would not be met. After this
alternative was completed the district would still have older remodeled
buildings.
Intangible costs: Wilton would experience the intangible costs of losing
a school within their community. Other geographical areas within the
district would not experience intangible costs.
Administrative operability: A referendum would need to be passed for
this alternative. If Kendall and Elroy families worked together, there
would be enough votes to overrule Wilton on this issue. Some staffing
levels would be reduced.
Institutional commitment/Political viability: This is an alternative
that could be implemented with careful planning. One downfall for
voters may be the relatively high cost of remodeling versus new
buildings.
Equity: This alternative would have an adverse impact on the Wilton area
of the school district.
Miscellaneous:
The decrease in operating expenses from elimination of
the Wilton school would assist in balancing the costs to the district
for school choice amongst Wilton parents.
? (5) Detaching Wilton from the EKW district, then adding Wilton to
the N-O district is an alternative that is gaining in popularity in
Wilton.
Cost/benefits: Detachment will eliminate one building and between 150
and 200 students which will decrease annual expenditures by over $6,500
for each one of these students. This will add up to approximately
$1,300,000 less that EKW will need to operate each year. The Wilton area
detachment will decrease district income from property taxes by about
$1,700 for each student and will decrease state aid by about $5,700 for
each student, resulting in a $1,480,000 decrease in income annually
Effectiveness: This alternative will not have any positive effects for
the EKW district.
Adequacy: Educational programming needs are not addressed under this
alternative. School choice would be reduced as a concern for the EKW
district because most of these families would now be gone permanently to
the N-O district.
Intangible costs: This alternative has the highest intangible costs.
Elroy and Kendall would be adversely impacted due to the loss of morale,
impacts on state aid, and reduced properties available for property
taxes. There would also be some intangible costs to the families in the
N-O district.
Administrative operability: This alternative would be the hardest to
implement. The EKW district would have to pass a referendum approving
detachment, then the N-O district would have to pass a referendum
approving the addition of Wilton to that district.
Institutional commitment/Political viability: A small core of Wilton
families approves of this alternative, but the district as a whole does
not approve. Staffing would be reduced in the EKW district under this option.
Equity: This alternative would have an adverse impact on Kendall and
Elroy and the families in Wilton who are committed to the district.
Miscellaneous:
A detachment was last successful in 1987 when a township
in northern Wisconsin detached from one district and joined another.
This is not a common occurrence and a lengthy process is involved.
? (6) The final alternative can be used alone, or in combination with
the alternatives listed above. School district employees and residents
could encourage state bureaucrats to modify state funding formulas to
reduce the financial impacts of open enrollment.
Cost/benefits: The costs of this alternative would be limited but the
benefits also could be nonexistent or very limited.
Effectiveness: This alternative will have no immediate effect to reduce
the use of school choice or to improve education within the EKW
district.
Adequacy: If this alternative is used alone, without being combined, it
will be inadequate. EKW district objectives will not be met.
Intangible costs: No intangible costs exist for this alternative.
Administrative operability: School district staff and residents would
need to work together on this alternative to have any effect.
Institutional commitment/Political viability: With the current division
and disagreements within the district, it may be impossible to work
together as a district towards this option.
Equity: This alternative has an equal impact across the district.
Miscellaneous:
Many other districts across the state are facing similar
situations, and if the EKW district collaborated with them, politicians
may listen and address their concerns. Declining enrollment is a
demographic trend that will continue to be a concern.
CONCLUSION
School choice has had an effect on the EKW district, along with
declining enrollment. EKW has or will lose over 40 students through
school choice in the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 school year. Over the last
few years many alternatives have been considered. Each resident within
the district is a stakeholder who will be affected by the choices the
school board makes regarding this issue.
After reviewing this issue and some alternatives, my recommendation to
the EKW School Board is to narrow the options to two and hold a district
wide advisory referendum. Building one consolidated school or
remodeling every school except Wilton, which would be torn down are the
two best alternatives for the district. If the EKW district runs like a
business, a consolidated school in Elroy is the best long-term option.
Unfortunately, a school district is an organization that has to consider
other variables besides costs. I would encourage the school board to
develop a district wide survey before planning any advisory referendum
to ensure that each resident has the chance to offer his or her
opinion. At some time, residents will need to put aside their
differences and focus on what is the best for education within the EKW
district.
Politicians and bureaucrats within the Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction need to be made aware of the concerns of this district
concerning school choice. My final recommendation to the board is to
develop a district wide campaign to contact Governor Thompson, Senator
Moen, the Department of Public Instruction and other appropriate people
to educate them about the effects of school choice within the district
and around the state.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Farris, Bill. Kendall/Wilton elementary school principal. (1999).
Interview by author.
Kendall WI. March 16.
Keenan, Arthur. EKW Superintendent. (1999). Interview by author. Elroy
WI. March 16.
Kirkpatrick, David W. (1999) Special Report: Where School Choice is
already working.
Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. Vol2, No 1, January 15.
Szepi, Alan. N-O Superintendent. (1999). Interview by author. Ontario
WI. March 15.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1999) Charter Schools Web
Page
p>********************************************************
STATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT DOWN FOR 1998-1999
Superintendent, Art Keenan, handed out the following
information at the June 10th meeting in Kendall.
Enrollment in Wisconsin Schools declined in 1998-99 for
the
first time since 1986-87.
Because the school funding formula is linked to enrollment
decrease effects revenues.
Enrollment is also decreasing in private schools.
However, the number of home schooled students are increasing.
During the 1998-99 school year 879,535 students were
enrolled in Wisconsin's 426 public schools, compared with
881,720 in 1997-98. Enrollment numbers should continue
to decrease each year until reaching approximatly 830,000
in 2007-08 according to projections of the National Center
for Educational Statistics.
***************************************************
CONGRATULATIONS TO SANDRA McANANY, NORWALK, WI. UPON HER GRADUATION
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MILWAUKEE
WITH A MASTERS DEGREE
IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Ms. McAnany has contributed articles, letters and surveys to
to this WEB site during the past four months.
Thanks Sandra
and best wishes where ever your degree leads you.
***********************************************
INTERESTING WEB SITES
Angelfire - Free Home Pages
Free Web Building Help
Lycos - Search the Web
CareerPath - Where Employers and Employees Click
Email: solar10a@centuryinter.net