After a Board meeting tonight I'm figuring out more of how to organize the web tools.
This blog now emails to a Google Group (Palouse Prairie), where you can subscribe. The purpose of the blog is to chronicle Board events in detail. There is also a Board Calendar who's RSS appears on this Blog.
For the less addicted, there is another Google Group (Why Palouse Prairie) which can serve as a newsletter for prospective parents. RSS from that also appears on this page.
Google Docs offers a mechanism for posting and editing documents, but the hosting for PDF files is not yet resolved.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Developing a new web strategy
Ashley and I (Nils) were discussing strategies for managing the web presence of Palouse Prairie. Its a public organization, so why do we not make documents public? Why not post most all our business straight to the web?
So, here is where I'm going with that thinking. Blogger (this blog) permits multiple authors posting, so authorize all the Board. Allow comments from people with Blogger accounts.
We already have a Google Calendar. Use it for Agendas and link to Minutes. The Calendar has an RSS feed.
Google Docs allows collaborative writing, and publishing of documents. I can't recall how well it does RSS, but documents could be mentioned in the blog and published from Docs. Docs does not do a great job of formatting, so when a document gets finalized, it should be run through MSWord, then printed to PDF. Its not clear where to store the resulting file.
The website itself is hosted in Google Pages, but last time I was there, it only allowed one person to edit. This is a real problem, which makes that tool unappealing. Perhpas we can dump Google Pages all together. Blogger and Calendar and Docs might do it.
Finally, I have created a PalousePrairie Google Group. This has the advantage that it can allow people to manage their own subscriptions to email. It can be set up are Announce-only. What I'm doing right now is exploring what happens when the blog is linked to send email to the Group. I suspect it will quarantine this post, but maybe (hope) I can teach Groups to just pass through posts.
So, here is where I'm going with that thinking. Blogger (this blog) permits multiple authors posting, so authorize all the Board. Allow comments from people with Blogger accounts.
We already have a Google Calendar. Use it for Agendas and link to Minutes. The Calendar has an RSS feed.
Google Docs allows collaborative writing, and publishing of documents. I can't recall how well it does RSS, but documents could be mentioned in the blog and published from Docs. Docs does not do a great job of formatting, so when a document gets finalized, it should be run through MSWord, then printed to PDF. Its not clear where to store the resulting file.
The website itself is hosted in Google Pages, but last time I was there, it only allowed one person to edit. This is a real problem, which makes that tool unappealing. Perhpas we can dump Google Pages all together. Blogger and Calendar and Docs might do it.
Finally, I have created a PalousePrairie Google Group. This has the advantage that it can allow people to manage their own subscriptions to email. It can be set up are Announce-only. What I'm doing right now is exploring what happens when the blog is linked to send email to the Group. I suspect it will quarantine this post, but maybe (hope) I can teach Groups to just pass through posts.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Rising Again
In August we reported that Palouse Prairie was at a crossroads and asked for new energy and ideas.
Tonight I'm just back from a meeting with parents and educators interested in providing that energy and taking the reins as a new Board. We have several tasks ahead of us but the goal is still to assemble sound answers to the Idaho Charter School Commission's 3-part question put to us last April: Enrollment, Facility and Budget.
Among the pieces for developing that plan, the experience of this summer convinced me that we need a better communications plan, including more transparency and better ways of reaching and networking with interested supporters.
Look for more of that to unfold
Tonight I'm just back from a meeting with parents and educators interested in providing that energy and taking the reins as a new Board. We have several tasks ahead of us but the goal is still to assemble sound answers to the Idaho Charter School Commission's 3-part question put to us last April: Enrollment, Facility and Budget.
Among the pieces for developing that plan, the experience of this summer convinced me that we need a better communications plan, including more transparency and better ways of reaching and networking with interested supporters.
Look for more of that to unfold
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Palouse Prairie at a Crossroads
Friends and supporters of Palouse Prairie School,
This is a long message, the key question I have for each of you is near the end.
I'm writing to share progress on the project, and because we have reached a crossroads.
As you recall, we got feedback from the Charter Commission on our Charter in April. There were some revisions to the Charter, but more importantly they asked us to address three issues: budget, facility, and enrollment. We now have in hand a contract to lease a facility to be built by Rob Davis next to the current Silos buildings.
The three issues are really different faces on one problem: the core business challenge of starting and running a school. For purposes of making a budget, the Commission has us use the estimated income of $4400/child enrolled. Bill Rivers and I have worked on the budget multiple times, and with the help of Mary Lang's Moscow Charter School experience. What we find is in agreement with advice we have been given -- to be sustainable a school needs an enrollment of 140 children. That number varies some depending on assumptions like wage levels, cost of facility, or EL consulting contract.
If 140 is a minimum self-sustaining enrollment, the school faces the challenge of how to get there. The Board does not believe that we could credibly expect to enroll 140 kids the first year. Bill and I have each tried opening year numbers ranging from 40 to 75. Most recently we have been focused at 50 in three classrooms on the Silos site.
These small enrollments can be sustained if you add in $150,000/yr Federal start-up grant. This use of "startup" funds to cover operating losses is problematic in that it does not account for how to pay actual startup costs, like buying furniture, etc. It is also problematic to build a budget around funds that have not been secured. We are not sure the Charter Commission will even accept this type of proposal.
The Federal grant runs for three years. Using it as strategy, however, highlights the enrollment side of the problem. If the school starts at 50 children, during the second year in the Silos we could grow to 75 (3 rooms of 25. Not ideal but all the site allows). This is only 1/2 of the numbers needed to be self-sustaining.
If the school continues its third year at the Silos with 75 children, then when the Federal grant ends after year 3, the school will need to close.
If, after two years the school is able to secure and move to a larger facility, enrollment could be larger in year 3. But how much larger? Assume we get 35 more children, making the enrollment 110. That would be a 5 classroom school. For year 4 we'd need to build two more classrooms and add 40 more children. Funding this new facility, and enlarging it is the challenge.
The business to this point will have been losing money, subsidized with Federal grants. If enrollment grows as suggested above, savings each to be used as down payment might be as high as: Year 1- $0; year 2 = $40,000; Year 3 - $80,000 For a total of $120,000. (Speculative, and dependent on good penny pinching).
Because the Board is not confident that this is a responsible strategy without identifying more resources we have decided to not submit a packet to the Charter Commission for the September hearing. Missing this deadline effectively puts the opening date to August 2009.
SUMMARY & CHALLENGE
Assets: A nearly completed charter requiring what we believe to be simple changes and an unsigned lease for a facility at the Silos.
Problem: Grow enrollment fast enough and find a larger facility to keep the school solvent. Find additional cash or donated resources to so the startup grant can be used to fund startup activities.
We need a new vision for how to proceed. It feels like we are close, but the Board is tired and I’m not seeing how to plunge ahead, where to base my faith.
What resource do you have? What insight can you offer?
One answer is you believe this can be done and you are willing to join the Board and figure out how make it happen. We probably need several such volunteers. Another answer is you know a financial "angel" who is willing to make this dream come true. There may be other answers as well.
If there are no significant new developments, the Board intends to disband the Corporation on Sept 30.
Thanks for all your efforts and commitment to this point
Nils for the Board
This is a long message, the key question I have for each of you is near the end.
I'm writing to share progress on the project, and because we have reached a crossroads.
As you recall, we got feedback from the Charter Commission on our Charter in April. There were some revisions to the Charter, but more importantly they asked us to address three issues: budget, facility, and enrollment. We now have in hand a contract to lease a facility to be built by Rob Davis next to the current Silos buildings.
The three issues are really different faces on one problem: the core business challenge of starting and running a school. For purposes of making a budget, the Commission has us use the estimated income of $4400/child enrolled. Bill Rivers and I have worked on the budget multiple times, and with the help of Mary Lang's Moscow Charter School experience. What we find is in agreement with advice we have been given -- to be sustainable a school needs an enrollment of 140 children. That number varies some depending on assumptions like wage levels, cost of facility, or EL consulting contract.
If 140 is a minimum self-sustaining enrollment, the school faces the challenge of how to get there. The Board does not believe that we could credibly expect to enroll 140 kids the first year. Bill and I have each tried opening year numbers ranging from 40 to 75. Most recently we have been focused at 50 in three classrooms on the Silos site.
These small enrollments can be sustained if you add in $150,000/yr Federal start-up grant. This use of "startup" funds to cover operating losses is problematic in that it does not account for how to pay actual startup costs, like buying furniture, etc. It is also problematic to build a budget around funds that have not been secured. We are not sure the Charter Commission will even accept this type of proposal.
The Federal grant runs for three years. Using it as strategy, however, highlights the enrollment side of the problem. If the school starts at 50 children, during the second year in the Silos we could grow to 75 (3 rooms of 25. Not ideal but all the site allows). This is only 1/2 of the numbers needed to be self-sustaining.
If the school continues its third year at the Silos with 75 children, then when the Federal grant ends after year 3, the school will need to close.
If, after two years the school is able to secure and move to a larger facility, enrollment could be larger in year 3. But how much larger? Assume we get 35 more children, making the enrollment 110. That would be a 5 classroom school. For year 4 we'd need to build two more classrooms and add 40 more children. Funding this new facility, and enlarging it is the challenge.
The business to this point will have been losing money, subsidized with Federal grants. If enrollment grows as suggested above, savings each to be used as down payment might be as high as: Year 1- $0; year 2 = $40,000; Year 3 - $80,000 For a total of $120,000. (Speculative, and dependent on good penny pinching).
Because the Board is not confident that this is a responsible strategy without identifying more resources we have decided to not submit a packet to the Charter Commission for the September hearing. Missing this deadline effectively puts the opening date to August 2009.
SUMMARY & CHALLENGE
Assets: A nearly completed charter requiring what we believe to be simple changes and an unsigned lease for a facility at the Silos.
Problem: Grow enrollment fast enough and find a larger facility to keep the school solvent. Find additional cash or donated resources to so the startup grant can be used to fund startup activities.
We need a new vision for how to proceed. It feels like we are close, but the Board is tired and I’m not seeing how to plunge ahead, where to base my faith.
What resource do you have? What insight can you offer?
One answer is you believe this can be done and you are willing to join the Board and figure out how make it happen. We probably need several such volunteers. Another answer is you know a financial "angel" who is willing to make this dream come true. There may be other answers as well.
If there are no significant new developments, the Board intends to disband the Corporation on Sept 30.
Thanks for all your efforts and commitment to this point
Nils for the Board
Monday, April 16, 2007
Parent Visit to a EL school
Parents Nancy Wilder, Lahde Forbes, and Dwena Nosebar along with PPS Board Chair Nils Peterson visited Summit School in Spokane Valley on Friday April 13. It was a lucky day, we saw the school in action and met with ELS School Designer Lorri Edwards, who is the designer assigned to Palouse Prairie School.
A request for each of the parents was that they write a reflection on what impressed them about the visit. These will be collected on a new feature in the Palouse Prairie website called WhyPalousePrairie. That page will be a place for voices of parents and community members to explain what they see at EL schools and/or how they see EL meeting the learning needs of their specific child.
A request for each of the parents was that they write a reflection on what impressed them about the visit. These will be collected on a new feature in the Palouse Prairie website called WhyPalousePrairie. That page will be a place for voices of parents and community members to explain what they see at EL schools and/or how they see EL meeting the learning needs of their specific child.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Launching the Campaign for students and site
Palouse Prairie Charter School seeks students, site
Proposed school has first hearing before Idaho Public Charter School Commission
By Kate Baldwin, Daily News staff writer
Monday, April 9, 2007 - Page Updated at 12:00:00 AM
The Palouse Prairie Charter School is looking for students and a building before its second hearing with the Idaho Public Charter School Commission, which is set for May 24.
"What we are setting out to do is to find 140 kids and a facility by May 24," said Nils Peterson, who serves as the proposed charter school's board chairman.
Peterson compared these requirements for getting a charter to the classic chicken-and-egg problem.
"Without a chicken, it's hard to do some of these things," he said. "The commission is very clear: 'You get the egg and we'll give you the chicken.' "
Peterson was one of four board members and other supporters who attended the April 5 hearing in Boise. They presented their proposal and answered questions from the commission and its staff.
"I was encouraged by how positive they were," Peterson said.
He said three members of the commission already had had positive experiences with the proposed school's Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound model of learning, "so they were supportive of the model we were choosing."
The commission did raise concerns about the school's plans for transpor tation and its ability to find an external academic auditor.
Peterson said these solutions are quite easy. The proposed school would use a group called the Idaho Charter School Network to perform the academic audit. Meanwhile, Moscow School District Superintendent Candis Donicht offered the transportation solution. Peterson said Donicht gave her assurances at the meeting that the charter school will be able to contract with the district for those services.
The commission also set the date for the proposed Palouse Prairie Charter School to return, but did not make a final decision on its petition.
"We didn't expect a final answer," Peterson said. "The commission sent us back to work on two things."
The commission wanted to know if the Moscow community was big enough to support two charter schools and if a facility could be found that will get zoning approval.
"In Moscow, there is the complicating factor that you can't put a school anywhere without a (conditional use permit)," he said.
Peterson said the proposed school's board is brainstorming solutions for these two issues. There already are about 90 students on the list of interested families, so establishing a solid plan for a facility likely will be the bigger challenge.
There are many ideas out there. Peterson said the school could be housed in a shared public building, in a mobile unit on a vacant lot, or even in a mall.
"We'll be appealing to the community," Peterson said.
He said there are plans to grow support through a number of upcoming events like spring tours of other expeditionary learning schools on Friday and May 4, and a workshop on understanding student portfolios on May 26. There also is a tentative community meeting scheduled for May 31 in the 1912 Center in Moscow.
Board members previously have funded the school's start-up costs out of their own pockets.
"We're at the point where we need to raise funds," Peterson said.
He said the proposed charter school is operating in "year zero" because there will be many costs before the doors can open. The pieces needed for this phase range from hiring a director and teachers to buying furniture and supplies.
Peterson said once the charter is approved, it can receive an advance from the state. That money would come out of its first year's budget.
"If we spend the advance, we'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul," he said.
Peterson said the proposed school is ready for any help to step forward, through donations or other support.
"We need some kind of an angel," he said.
* More information on the school and the upcoming tours, workshops, and community meeting can be found at palouseprairieschool.org. Interested parties also can call Jessica Rivers at (208) 858-2025 to sign up for these activities.
QUICKREAD
* WHAT HAPPENED: The proposed Palouse Prairie Charter School presented its petition for permission to operate to the Idaho Public Charter School Commission.
* WHAT IT MEANS: The commission advised the proposed school on its concerns for a building, whether enough students are available and other technical needs. The commission also set a date for the proposed school's board members to return with a plan for addressing these issues.
* WHAT HAPPENS NEXT: The proposed charter school will return to the commission on May 24 for its second hearing.
* WHY YOU SHOULD CARE: The school is projected to open in August 2008 with approximately 125 students. It would serve students in kindergarten through sixth grade, with the goal of growing to serve students in seventh and eighth grades. The school follows the Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound model of learning, which focuses on academic content and real-world projects.
Kate Baldwin can be reached at (208) 882-5561, ext. 239, or by e-mail at kbaldwin@dnews.com.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Palouse Prairie Expedition to the ICSC
Palouse Prairie School had its day in the sun with the Idaho Charter School Commission (April 5). Commission staff had provided comments on the petition prior to the hearing. The comments were clear and the Palouse Prairie Board was able to address many of them prior to the hearing. Several Commissioners expressed awareness and appreciation of the Expeditionary Learning model chosen by Palouse Prairie. Commissioners focused on two questions critical to the success of the school:
1) Is Moscow large enough to support two charter schools? Can Palouse Prairie School raise enough enrollment to be successful?
2) Can Palouse Prairie School solve its facilities problem, which consists of two elements – locating/funding an adequate facility and getting past the City of Moscow Conditional Use Permit process. The first element of that problem is fiscal, the second potentially political.
These two issues can be seen as facets of the third concern of the Commission – budgetary soundness. Enrollment is the key driver of state financial support to the school and facilities are one of the major costs (following teacher salaries).
Another topic discussed at the hearing was transportation to school and Expedition-related travel. Palouse Prairie School appreciates the willingness of Candis Donicht, superintendent of Moscow Schools, to contract to provide yellow busses. Bussing is connected to the facilities issue. The District busses students to hubs where they transfer and complete their journey to school. If PPS were to locate a school far from a hub, there would be considerable travel time from hub to school, which would impact length of the PPS school day and push it below state minimums.
Discussion of these and other topics will appear shortly in the audio transcript of the meeting on the Commission website http://www.chartercommission.id.gov/meetings.asp.
The Commission deferred a decision on the Palouse Prairie Charter until its May 24 meeting and invited PPS to come back with answers to those key questions. Knowing that it was not possible to solve the facilities problem (especially since it requires hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment) the Commission indicated various ways PPS might demonstrate having a grip on the problem that could lead to a successful solution.
Returning from Boise, the Board of Palouse Prairie School is launching a twin initiative to address the Commission’s concerns: a campaign to find 140 children and a facility.
“We are Crew, not Passengers” is the motto of Expeditionary Learning. Palouse Prairie School will use that motto to guide its approach to these challenges. The first step is to recruit a crew – families of 140 or more children who are interested in attending the school. We will not only ask families if they are interested in attending, but ask them to say “Why,” in terms of their child’s needs and their beliefs about how PPSEL will be organized to meet those needs. Those “Whys” will be shared within the community to help inform others. That crew will not be able to sit by and wait for a school. Their ideas, energy and voice will also be needed to find a creative solution to the facilities problem.
Two broad directions to solving the facilities problem need to be explored: within the City and outside it. Solutions within the City are preferable for many reasons, including walking to school and access to community resources, but sites outside city limits may not have the same political/ zoning problems, and hence be more expedient and convincing to the Commissioners.
In terms of facilities themselves, two solutions need to be examined – existing buildings (with attendant remodeling issues) and green field sites (with attendant issues of using modular buildings for expedience).
This gives us a 2x2 matrix to explore: in and outside the City, existing buildings and green fields. It should be fairly easy to explore on of the cells (existing buildings outside the City), the other three will require more effort, which probably needs to start with zoning code research and learning the rules governing where a school can be sited.
1) Is Moscow large enough to support two charter schools? Can Palouse Prairie School raise enough enrollment to be successful?
2) Can Palouse Prairie School solve its facilities problem, which consists of two elements – locating/funding an adequate facility and getting past the City of Moscow Conditional Use Permit process. The first element of that problem is fiscal, the second potentially political.
These two issues can be seen as facets of the third concern of the Commission – budgetary soundness. Enrollment is the key driver of state financial support to the school and facilities are one of the major costs (following teacher salaries).
Another topic discussed at the hearing was transportation to school and Expedition-related travel. Palouse Prairie School appreciates the willingness of Candis Donicht, superintendent of Moscow Schools, to contract to provide yellow busses. Bussing is connected to the facilities issue. The District busses students to hubs where they transfer and complete their journey to school. If PPS were to locate a school far from a hub, there would be considerable travel time from hub to school, which would impact length of the PPS school day and push it below state minimums.
Discussion of these and other topics will appear shortly in the audio transcript of the meeting on the Commission website http://www.chartercommission.id.gov/meetings.asp.
The Commission deferred a decision on the Palouse Prairie Charter until its May 24 meeting and invited PPS to come back with answers to those key questions. Knowing that it was not possible to solve the facilities problem (especially since it requires hearings before the Zoning Board of Adjustment) the Commission indicated various ways PPS might demonstrate having a grip on the problem that could lead to a successful solution.
Returning from Boise, the Board of Palouse Prairie School is launching a twin initiative to address the Commission’s concerns: a campaign to find 140 children and a facility.
“We are Crew, not Passengers” is the motto of Expeditionary Learning. Palouse Prairie School will use that motto to guide its approach to these challenges. The first step is to recruit a crew – families of 140 or more children who are interested in attending the school. We will not only ask families if they are interested in attending, but ask them to say “Why,” in terms of their child’s needs and their beliefs about how PPSEL will be organized to meet those needs. Those “Whys” will be shared within the community to help inform others. That crew will not be able to sit by and wait for a school. Their ideas, energy and voice will also be needed to find a creative solution to the facilities problem.
Two broad directions to solving the facilities problem need to be explored: within the City and outside it. Solutions within the City are preferable for many reasons, including walking to school and access to community resources, but sites outside city limits may not have the same political/ zoning problems, and hence be more expedient and convincing to the Commissioners.
In terms of facilities themselves, two solutions need to be examined – existing buildings (with attendant remodeling issues) and green field sites (with attendant issues of using modular buildings for expedience).
This gives us a 2x2 matrix to explore: in and outside the City, existing buildings and green fields. It should be fairly easy to explore on of the cells (existing buildings outside the City), the other three will require more effort, which probably needs to start with zoning code research and learning the rules governing where a school can be sited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)