Stop Making Sense II - The Principals

So...the Administration kind of opened the door for comparisons when they recently spent $9,000 to do a job study (read: How do we get these people more money?) for Administration Support staff. As part of that study, as directed by none other than Tim Culver, of course, 11 school districts were chosen as "comparable" to Sun Prairie. Thus...we have our basis.

So...how do we compare? We looked at a number of positions to see how we stack up. Particularly in tight times, it IS important to see the lay of the land. We only wish that either (A) the school board had directed Administration to provide them with similar data, or (B) the board members did this work themselves. Neither is going to happen. Also...as a side note...no $9,000 was needed...this data is readily available from the DPI website. Yes, the consultant did a little bit more in-depth work, but did we really need all that? As always, YOU be the judge.

All data is 2008-09 salary data reported to DPI.

High school principals: Average salary = $105,222. Range = $92,000 to $114,000. Sun Prairie pays its principal the 3rd most. Note: new principal Lisa Heipl's salary for 2009-10 is $110,000.

Middle school principals: Average salary = $96,705. Range = $85,000 to $109,000. Sun Prairie pays its two principals more than any other district in the comparison.
Elementary school principals: Average salary = $88,908. Range = $70,000 to $110,000. One of Sun Prairie's principals, as a former District Office administrator, is paid in the top 5. Should this salary be frozen?


Average Elementary school salaries
Beloit $79,256
Fond du Lac $84,881
Oregon $85,762
DeForest $86,638
Middleton-CP $86,859
Elmbrook $90,964
SunPrairie $92,018
Waunakee $94,416
Mukwonago $98,520
Verona $99,977
WestBend $101,019

Remember as well that the board approves only the compensation "package" dollar amount. Tim Culver (at least for now) holds the purse strings in terms of doling the raises out. Raises are tied to scores on evaluations (which we know are subjective). So Culver gets to reward his pets...and penalize those that don't march properly. Dontcha think that the board should request to see and approve or modify any raises at an open meeting??? Maybe that would stop those crazy $5.00 per hour raises!!!

Stop Making Sense pt 1

"As we get older
and stop making sense... "
--the Talking Heads

Yep...the administration (some anyway) are getting older....and some would say they have stopped making sense as well.

What is wrong with the system when Tim Culver...or any district administrator makes more than the Governor....more then the head of the Department of Public Instruction himself!!!! That's the head of every school district in the state...the Super SUPREME Nintendo! But Culver earns more. There's something wrong with that, people. And it is our elected officials, the school board, who are the only ones who can stop the madness and start making sense. We're not saying these jobs aren't valuable. We're just saying that there's a reasonable salary line that needs to be established for these positions....and we may have crossed it.

We offer the following salary comparions, from verifiable sources. You decide....is there something wrong with this picture?

2008 Salary data (updated April 2009) obtained via Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel Watchdog Reports - state employees pay

Tim Culver SPASD District Administrator... $145,886^*
Michael Morgan___Secretary, State DOA......$142,109
Jim Doyle___Governor.......................$141,821
J.B. Van Hollen___Attorney General.........$137,622
Matt Frank___Secretary, State DNR..........$135,064
Tony Evers___Secretary, State DPI..........$132,809
Barabara Lawton___Lt. Governor.............$ 74,892
* includes $425/month "stipend"

Comparing other "high paid" occupations¹ to our District Administration
Surgeons......................... $218,610
Dentists, General............... $158,340
Phil Frei Business Manager, ADA $117,484
Lawyers ........................$110,700
Lisa Dawes Director of Spec. Ed. $109,586
Pharmacists....................... $109,350
Annette Mikula HR Manager .......$107,869
Alice Murphy Dir. of Instruction $107,621

¹ Source: US Department of Labor Statistics (Wisconsin) - May 2008

The only occupations paid better than Phil Frei are like surgeons (not just doctors) and dentisits?? He makes more than the average (notoriously overpaid) LAWYER? You gotta be kidding us!

The director of HR and Director of Instruction make a hair less than pharmacists--whose drug interaction knowledge (or lack thereof) could cost lives?

So the administrators want applause for being so kind as to "give up" 0.7% of their 4.5% "compensation package increases" to which they are entitled? What is the sound of one hand clapping?
N

Correction! Admin is "entitled" to a 4.5% increase

As predicted, the school board packages are out...and guess what? Admin compensation for 2009-10 is indeed on the agenda!

Read it and weep

The Situation Report clarifies that the school board (in their eminent wisdom) voted to approve an increase of 4.5% for 2009-10 in May 2008.

Our apologies for the confusion. But....the landscape has not necessarily changed.

Just as the governor "took back" contractually agreed upon salary increases for state workers, and forced unpaid furlough days over the next 2 years, so too can the school board--the EMPLOYER-- decide that similar actions are in order "...in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle...". Why not furlough some of these high-priced Administrators over the summer months? Or even for a number of days during the year--as was done for state employees.
[ OK...you want 3.8% raise...fine...but we're going to furlough you each for 10 days without pay.]

The bottom line is that a contract is a contract until it is changed....whether forcibly or voluntarily.

Of course...it would take a school board equipped with a set of stones to actually do something that favors the taxpayers instead of the Administration---their EMPLOYEEs.

We DO appreciate the willingness of the %100K club and other Administrators to reduce their "entitlement". We just don't quite think it hits the mark.

====================================

HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS:
On May 27, 2008 the School Board adopted changes to the Administrative Contractual Benefits and Evaluation Plan that included, among other things, a total compensation package increase (salaries and benefits combined)for the 2009-2010 fiscal year in an amount equivalent to that provided to members of the Sun Prairie Education association during the 2008-2009 school year. This was a 4.5% total package increase. This was in compliance with Wis. Stat. 118.245, Limitation on salary and fringe benefit costs for professional employees. Another change was that administrators would pay for an increasing percentage of their health care premiums.

The administrative team appreciates the support of the School Board and this attempt to keep pace with other licensed employees. However, the administrative team felt that in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle, it would be best to ask the School Board to reduce the salary and benefits package from what teachers received last year to what teachers received for 2009-2010: a 3.8% total salary and benefit package.

Administrative representatives (Ms. Smojver, Mr. Widiker, Mr. Luessman, and Mr. Frei) met with members of the School Board (Mr. Whalen, Mr. Shimek, and Ms. Diedrich) on July 1, 2009, to confer on this requested reduction.

The Board’s representatives unanimously passed a motion that appears as the recommendation to the school board. (Motion by Whalen, second by Shimek)

3.8% Across the Board RAISES!

Have our school board members been living in some remote hideaway with no access to the TV, radio, Internet or newspapers?

Must be...because while the rest of us....you know the ones that foot the bill for the expenses THEY approve....are struggling in this recession, they are on a spending spree.

Local 60 (support staff) are stuck with the 3.25% increase they negotiated last year. The board gave the teachers union a 3.8% "package" increase. Now mind you, if ANYONE deserves a raise, even in tight times, its the folks who are actually doing the educating. That being said, these ARE tight times, and no better reason could be given for negotiating a wage freeze. But...water over the dam, that contract has been settled.

Next up, however, are the Administrative Support Team, the Administration, and Dr. Culver. The Admin Support raises got tabled Monday night, so more on that later. In the meantime, we hear things. We understand that at last week's Negotiation meeting-- though details are sketchy and suggest no vote was taken--- Phil Frei was said to indicate something along the lines of: [Admin] is entitled to a 4.5% increase (as teachers got last year]...but...given the economy...we'll take 3.8%.

Gee? You'll "take" 3.8%? Well isn't THAT taking one on the chin for the team???

So...we're expecting that sometime tomorrow, when the school board agenda comes out for Monday's meeting, you'll see a quiet little item regarding contracts for Administration. Our sources indicate that the 3.8% is a done deal. Want to know what 3.8% means??? Another $110,000 to the taxpayers. Phil Frei will tell you that that means another couple of cents on your property tax...so how can you disagree?

Time to take stand folks. If you don't think it makes logical fiscal sense to be tossing around 3.8% raises when jobs and wages are being cut all around, then:

1. CALL your school board members.
2. E-mail your school board members
3. Come to the meeting Monday July 13 and TELL them.


Tell them, "NO More". Not until this economy changes.

What does 3.8% look like?
The chart below compares last year to what a 3.8% increase would look like. Yes...one administrator has retired. And yes, Paul Keats will not be with us. We know that. But you should at least know how things will look for others.

And we have a question....since the principal of Creekside is so much more highly paid than other elementary principals (because they were formally a top shelf Administrator)...shouldn't their salary be frozen anyway???????

And let's not forget that Culver gets $425/month in addition to his salary...pin money so to speak. Why do some folks get less benefit $? Several are opting out of health insurance because they have coverage from a significant other. And for that they get $300/month cash that isn't included here.

CLICK THE CHART FOR A LARGER VIEW---if you dare

0.800 Batting Average going into the All-Star Break

We're heading into the All-Star Break ans SP-EYE is carrying a blistering 0.800 batting average.

Back in January, we predicted the following school board actions:


N Buy more land
................................ After an extended process (and lots of legal fees) the board quietly purchased additional land for the high school construction project. Did anyone know that?

N Spend more money
................................. It's what they do best. We've added a new program (4K), paid more to scrap security guards in favor of the " feel good style" Youth Advocates.

N Increase Admin Staffing
................................. The board approved a new administrative position for HR...they just haven't hired someone yet. The picture is even worse if you look at all the Admin Support staff. From the 2007-08 to the 2008-09 school year, the Admin positions increased from 21 to 23. Salary and fringe benefit costs increased 13% to just shy of $3,000,000. Wonder how high that will go in '09-10?

N Vote to start a 4K Program
.................................. Despite concern from one of their own (Jill Camber-Davidson) and a decision from one of the largest (if not the largest) daycare center in the city (Gingerbread) to NOT participate, it was full speed ahead. Everyone says that it's a "good program" to help kids prepare for school. What they don't tell you is that all research has been geared towards using 4K and the Headstart program to help jumpstart the educational learning of socioeconomically disadvantaged kids. How many of those will be in the 4K program? Hmmm they're not talking that one up. Wonder why? If raises for Admin approach 5% for 2009-10, we could also have 2 or more new members of the $100K club, bringing the total of this elite group to 11!

s Re-structure Board Committees
....................................This is the only one that has yet to come to fruition, yet Al Slane and Jim McCourt (accidentally) discuss it in conversation as if it's a done deal. Hmmmm....wonder why they haven't pushed this one through yet. Perhaps someone actually read the article from Tim Culver that started this bonfire and decided it was not what it was chalked up to be? Come on now! SP-EYE's looking to bat 1.000!

Is the Perfect Storm on the Horizon?

Are we headed for the ‘Perfect Storm'? For those of you who have been paying attention to the District’s operations for the last few years it is all starting to add up to the "Perfect Storm"…financial storm that is! For those that haven’t been paying attention let us bring you up to speed on the districts financial commitments that are about to come to roost.

$115M in Construction
The School District is in the middle of the construction of the new High School (including a pool) and renovation of the current high school into an 8/9 school the total of which will cost the taxpayers about $100,000,000. We opened Creekside elementary last fall (~ $15M), and there’s already talk about an EIGHTH elementary school (although Creekside is barely at 50% capacity). There are already reports (they ALWAYS hold this stuff close to the vest) that the “contingency” portion of the construction budget has been exhausted…and we’re over a year away from opening! Remember that 2/3 of the money was borrowed THIS year...which means we'll see it in the upcoming budget. That means this years' property taxes 0

The new 4K Program will COST us
4 year old kindergarten will begin this Fall and, despite hopes that the district will MAKE money off of the additional kids down the road, this first year will result in a DEBIT of about $140,000 based on projections. Of course this all assumes that we reach an enrollment of at least 350 kids and aid to districts remains as projected last winter (NOT!!). District officials will quickly try to point out that in years 2 and 3 the 4K program will generate income but have no assurances from DPI that the funding will be at the same level or at all as it has in the past. In fact, start up funding was cut this year for the first time since the program started.

Recessionary Unemployment and Wage Cuts
Regional unemployment is hovering around 10% and workers throughout the community are having to take unpaid furloughs and pay cuts while teachers, who we support and believe should have fair and reasonable compensation packages, are getting about a 7% pay RAISE over the next two years based on their recently approved contract. For the next budget year, that contract will cost taxpayers an additional $2,000,000.

More raises...while others see furloughs and pay cuts
At the 7/13/09 school board meeting, we expect the board to approve pay raises to Administration Support staff that represent a 3.8% “total package” increase. Remember that teachers got the same 3.8% “ total package “ increase, but the salary portion of that calls for raises of 4.2% THIS year. Next up will be district administrators themselves…you know…the $100K club. Past practice is to give Administrators what teachers got in the prior contract…which was over 4%! 4.2% of $100K means an increase of at least $4200 for each of them. Will YOU be getting a $4,200 raise this fall? Lastly District ADMINISTRATOR (Super Nintendo) Tim Culver will also get a nice pay raise to augment his current salary of $145,000…just you wait and see. Do the math. What’s 4% of 145,000?

Devaluation of Property

Sure...we love it when our assessments go down...well...kinda sorta. But when EVERYONE's property valuation decreases, as is happening right now, then the tax base shrinks. That means that everyone will have to pay a higher share of property taxes to cover the cost of running the school district and all its increased spending. Yes...we have the new Target....but is it enough? It's a concept that can be somewhat simplified. If the total value (called the "equalized value") of all the property in the district is $1,000,000 (It was more like $3.2B last year), and the school district budget increases to $100,000 (the TOTAL budget is more like $110M), then the school district mill rate (cost per $1,000 of home value) is $100. No if that equalized value shrinks to $900,000, the mill rate rises to $111 ( [100K/900K] X 1000 ).

We hear the City Council talking about holding the line on the mill rate. Heard any talk like that from the school board? Didn't think so.

Slowing Growth
Growth in the school district appears to be as shriveled and dried up as....well....let's avoid that analogy and just say that it's no longer on 'roids. If the school year started tomorrow the district would have an enrollment loss of about 82 students at elementary school level alone over last years Third Friday Count. And say...has as anyone noticed the number of new and existing homes on the market?

Enrollment growth is the lifeblood of a school district. Why WOULDN'T Dr. Tim be crowing about these precious "kids"? They pay his ginormous salary! "The kids" are valued at about $10,000 each when it comes to state aid. An enrollment loss of 82 kids at the elementary school level would result in a loss of State funding to the tune of about $900,000! (In all fairness there is typically a surge of enrollments in August which will fill in some of those losses but will it be enough to get the same level of funding as last year, only time will tell.)

Unprecedented DPI Cuts to State Aid
The Wisconsin DPI has indicated that they will be cutting aid to school by 3.5% each of the next two years. It is a little unclear now where those cuts may come from but rest assured they will come. But if you read the State Journal, today’s edition has an article about Madison taking a 15% cut in state aid. Remember? Madison? A special part of the budget that called for them to only get a maximum 10% cut?
We have YET to see even a HINT of a budget from the school board. A public hearing is usually held in late May or early June. There is discussion about a possible public hearing on the proposed budget—which no one has yet seen—on July 20 or 22.

---

Admittedly, some of this stuff is difficult to predict but the conditions of reduced funding and increased spending are in place and we seem to be headed for the ‘Perfect Storm’! That right folks, WE will be left holding the bag when it comes time to pay for these commitments made by the District Administration and the School Board. So when the storm gets here you know who you can thank…”Supernintendoadmistratorsupreme” and the school board members who for some reason couldn’t see this one coming.
[SP-EYE-there have been a handful of instances of board members showing restraint by voting against a costly item like Jill Camber-Davidson-4K and Al Slane with the teachers contract but they are too few to mention and in the end were passed with a majority vote.]

If the storm never gets here that’s fine, we can admit that our prediction was wrong. Just like the weatherman's predictions, conditions may be ripe for severe storms that never develop. All we are really saying is that, during these financial times, a hint of fiscal conservatism would be nice. Let’s be conservative and error on the side of, as 2009 School Board Candidate John Welke first put it, “being good stewards of the tax payers dollars.”

No matter what happens, a tsunami, thunderstorm, light rain or sunny weather we are confident of one thing. School Board Member Jim ‘Sea Bass’ McCourt will be belly up to the nicest restaurant available at next year’s WASB Conference eyeing up high end entrée’s you and I will have to pay for. After all, even though he lives in a home valued at more than $400K, he has earned it by way of time spent at school board meetings and via all of the community engagement activities he is involved in as a board member and community engagement committee president…at least in his mind, he has!

N

Slippin' It Past the Goalie Pt. 2: Admin Support Raises

Remember last summer when Admin tried to slip one by the goalie and give the Business Services position a $5.00 PER HOUR raise? And the school board was caught flatfooted (ex Prez Stackhouse> "I didn't see anything about a $5.00 per hour raise...")? So the board -- in their infinite wisdom, reduced the raise to only (ONLY!!!!) $2.50 PER HOUR? And then...they agreed to conduct a job survey (which...ahem.. cost us $9,000)?

Fast forward to Monday night's HR committee meeting, because it all comes together when they unveil their new plan for Administrative Support pay raises. The plan...which they have NOT shared as yet...calls for raising the pay grid maximums an AVERAGE of 10.6%. But there's a "lot of spread"...meaning some will increase far MORE than 10.6%!!!!! NEWSFLASH, sportsfans.....if the UPPER end is raised by an average of 10.6%...then so is the LOWER end!!! That's how these grids work.

Yep...you heard it right....pay RAISES. State workers took a 5% cut. Dane County workers are taking a 5% cut. And just this past week, the city of Fitchburg announced plans to furlough employees....or face cuts.

Isn't it grand to live in a bubble in Sun Prairie where the recession has no impact on you at all....if you work for the school district, that is. Family Circle even lists Sun Prairie as one of the nation's top 10 places for families to live. Yup...except the senior members of those families, the ones living on Social Security or retirement investments, will have to live elsewhere and just come to visit.

Had enough yet? Then speak your piece Monday night July 6th. Otherwise it will be rubber stamped by the board on July 13th.

Meeting: 07/06/2009 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE,
5:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.
Chair: Caren Diedrich

Report prepared by: Tim Culver, District Administrator & Annette Mikula, Executive Director of Human Resources
HISTORY/SITUATION/RELATED ACTIONS: On August 11, 2008 the School Board authorized an Administrative Support Staff Group Classification and Compensation Study to be done. The study used objective job evaluation to establish internal consistency; strategic market data to pay fairly in your employment markets.

It recognized the diversity of jobs and required levels of knowledge, skills, and abilities. The study also provided plan implementation that will be useful (and which is appropriately flexible) for many years. Charles Carlson presented the findings to the Administrative Support Group on June 30, 2009 which included a new salary schedule structure.

The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.

RECOMMENDATION:
1. Management Team recommends adoption of the new pay plan.
[SP-EYE- But of course they do! ]
2. Management Team recommends that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase which is $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.
[SP-EYE- But they're not saying whhat it is for 2010-11, now are they? ]

Read the Sales Pitch on the Job Compensation Survey

See the CURRENT payscale...how much will these increase?

---

Despite Statewide Budget Slashing, Board Approves 7.0% Increases

As expected, the School Board voted to approve the contract agreement with its teachers this past Monday. Only board member Al Slane was either brave enough or honest enough to vote "NO".

The STAR attributes the following summation to Phil Frei,deputy district administrator of business operations: "The SPEA ratified the contract on June 12 with "overwhelming support," [Sheeee--aaahhh! From the "Color Me Surprised" Department: Like who would have voted AGAINST such a deal!]

The 3.8 percent increase is not a straight raise on salary, said McCourt. "The first year it will be the salary, because the health care costs are staying down," McCourt added. "But those are expected to go up in 2010. When you look at the total package it gets a little deceiving."
[Hmmm..."deceiving"...interesting choice of words. Actually, the raise for 2009-10 is 4.2%. And 2.8% for 2010-11. Let's not forget that state workers are getting -2% for 2009-10 and 0%--or LESS--for 2010-11. And Dane County workers are taking a pay cut. Raise your hand if you're getting a 7.0% raise over the next 2 years. Yep...about what we thought. ]

A plea for common sense from District resident and former school board member Roger Fetterly ferll on deaf ears (except for Slane). Perhaps luckily, Terry Shimek abstained from the vote since his wife is a teacher for the district.

"I think you should be aware that the state of Wisconsin is in real financial crisis," said district resident Roger Fetterly. Fetterly urged the board to not approve the contract at the June 20 meeting, but table it until the state financial situation was known.
"Employment is hovering at 10 percent. And you're going to give 3.8 increases here," Fetterly said. "That's a real poke in the eye with a sharp stick for the taxpayer to watch you people throw out that money. In spite of dire financial crisis, you're going to give 3.8 increases. This proposed contract is grossly irresponsible. The state has not finalized their budget. What you should do is table it until you find out what your financial situation is."
-the Sun Prairie STAR 6-25-09

So....state and Dane County employees will see %5 cut in pay. Many local folks have been laid off. But Sun Prairie teachers will see a 7% INCREASE to their pay over the next 2 years. Let's tune in to the newswires and see how our school board stacks up in handling the budget problems against those districts whose vision of reality is less distorted:

MEQUON-THIENSVILLE 2-17-09
District faces $450,000 in cuts for next budget
Elimination of energy education contract, 3 1/2 positions possible

In order to cover the projected $450,000 shortfall in the projected 2009-10 budget, Means said, one high school position and two paraprofessional positions would be eliminated, along with an energy education program contract and the half-time position that oversees the contract. Flow-through grants for special education would be used to offset some special education costs.

In addition, the district would offer 20 Open Enrollment seats at the high school.
Means said as long as the Open Enrollment students are taking open seats in classrooms, there would be no additional cost to the district and their enrollment would bring revenue, $6,800 per pupil, into the district. The cost spent per pupil in Mequon-Thiensville is more than $11,000, he said.



JANESVILLE 4-1-09
Among the budget-balancing ideas thrown out at the Janesville School Board's study session Tuesday:
-- Restructure the administration of athletics.
-- Eliminate the elementary school track meet, saving $13,900.
-- Find space in school buildings the district owns to house one of the district's charter schools.
-- Have central-office administrators who are licensed to teach fill in for absent teachers. Each day of substitute teaching by the 21 administrators would save about $2,100.
-- Use the "fund balance"...
-- Cutting the position of coordinator of the 4-year-old kindergarten program.



WISCONSIN RAPIDS 6-3-09
In an effort to avoid more drastic cuts that could affect class sizes and student learning, the Wisconsin Rapids School Board will see if its employee groups will give up wages to balance next year's budget.
District leaders are trying to make about $500,000 in additional cuts for 2009-10, because the current state budget proposal includes a 2.5 percent reduction in state aid to schools. The School Board already approved about $1.8 million in cuts on May 11
On Tuesday, the board empowered Superintendent Bob Crist to contact each of the district's unions to see if members would agree to eliminate pay for one holiday next school year.


WATERTOWN 6-5-09
"Our best estimate right now is that we will need to slash another $300,000 to $350,000 before the start of the next school year,"

"This will be in addition to the several hundred thousand dollars in reductions we made to the district budget earlier this spring."
...the district is waiting to receive the legislative language that will be written to define what the Joint Finance Committee's decision will mean to the district and what budget cuts the district will have to make.
Over the next several weeks the district will continue contract negotiations and determine where the additional cuts will need to be made.

OSHKOSH 6-11-09
The Oshkosh Area School District could close an elementary school and further reduce staffing levels to offset millions of dollars in lost state aid next school year.


RHINELANDER 6-16-09
...voted to eliminate Rhinelander High School’s forensics program and the freshman B and sophomore basketball teams, but it left a motion to eliminate the RHS swimming program and mothball the pool without a vote.

...likely have to make between $300,000 and $500,000 of additional cuts for next year
In order to meet those figures, the board would likely have to approve additional big ticket item cuts that could involve cutting athletic programs, reducing custodian coverage, reducing paraprofessional staff and/or closing the pool.

...the district has also considered re-configuring its schools in a way that would allow it to maintain fewer buildings

2008-09 Expulsions Still at Double Digit Levels

In a follow-up to our summary last year, when we reported that 16 successful expulsion hearings had been conducted during the 2007-08 school year [Hmmm. The board /district was "successful" in expelling the students, but can expulsion really mean anyone was successful????] is that even the right word???) , SP-EYE recently learned that 13 expulsion hearings were conducted this past school year. All 13 studented were expelled. That's down 3 from 2007-08, but still more than three (3) times the number of expulsions in prior years.

Here are the numbers:
p 13 expulsion hearings were held between the start of the school year and June 1st, 2009.
p The School Board issued expulsion orders for all 13 students that were recommended.
p Expulsions by grade levels:

• 8th ... 1
• 9th... 8
• 10th ... 3
• 11th ... 1

- The primary reason(s) for initiating expulsion:

6 for Repeated Misconduct/ Fighting

4 for Sale/Purchase of an illegal drug

2 for Bomb Threat

1 for Possession of knife

What happens to students that are expelled?
Good question. We asked Dr. Culver, and he responded as follows.

When students are expelled, educational services are terminated for the term of the expulsion unless (a) the student has a disability under IDEA [i.e. special education IEP] or (b) the School Board orders services to be provided during the term of the expulsion. In these cases Student Service provides a tutor several hours a week who meets with the student away from a school site.

How much does this tutoring cost the district?
In 2007-2008 three students with IEPs were expelled. The services cost for all three students was $6355. In 2008-2009 two students with IEPs were expelled and two students had services ordered by the School Board until they were permitted to apply for reinstatement. The services cost for all four students was $6355. These amounts are budgeted for in the Student Service budget under Home Bound Instruction. [ Fund 10-610-110-173000-000 for regular education students ; Fund 27-610-110-156210-011 for special education students]

Home Bound Instruction covers a wide variety of situations where services have to be provided due to various circumstances, most frequently a health or disability issue; but expulsions are also included here. In most cases (in fact all 13 this year) the School Board permits a student to apply for early reinstatement after a period of time that varies from weeks to semesters to years, depending on many factors [as per Board Procedure JG-R Considering Student Expulsions] . Before reinstatement is permitted, a number of conditions are imposed by the School Board that must be met by the student and parents. Conditions are ordered in place that must be met after a student is reinstated, as well. If these ongoing conditions are not met the students is removed for the original term of the expulsion. It is very individualized to the student, his or her parents, and the nature of the violation.

N

Celebrity Resemblance Time Again!

We know we haven't even finished with the school board members, but this one was too much to hold back. Thanks go out to one of our unsung community members (you know, Monte...part of the "WE") for calling our attention to the incredible resemblance between Assistant District Administrator Phil Frei and actor Corey Feldman.

Feldman is perhaps best known for his early work, including roles in the movies, "The Goonies", "Stand By Me", and "The Lost Boys" while also providing the voice of Donatello in the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" movie.

Slane & Camber-Davidson get Dunked for Scholarships

Kudos to school board members Al Slane and Jill Camber-Davidson for volunteering themselves for the Cannery Square Block Party Dunk Tank Scholarship Fundraiser held yesterday June 20th. Camber-Davidson actually volunteered for TWO shifts!

What makes both their volunteer efforts ext ra special is that both these board members also pledged to personally match any funds received during their time in the dunk tank? Now that's what we call community engagement. Putting yourself "out there" to the community. What a great way to work WITH the community towards a great goal: scholarships.

All board members were contacted and invited to volunteer for the dunk tank. We understand that board president John Whalen was out of town for another event. As for Diedrich, Shimek, and Stackhouse. Unknown.

Where was Mr. Community Engagement?
So...where was Jim McCourt, Mr. Community Engagement himself? Well, there were numerous reported sightings of McCourt lurking at the Block Party. So he was most certainly in attendance, but too big to volunteer for the dunk tank and such a good cause? We're betting a whole lot of scholarship money would have been earned if Mr. McCourt had stepped up.

2009-11 Teacher Contract Details; Board Votes on Monday

On Monday June 22, the agreement between SPEA (teachers union) and the school district comes before the school board for a final vote. That vote is likely a formality. And with only several days to see the parameters, it is unlikely any residents have =even looked at the contract, let alone will come out and address it.

Links to Contract Agreement and Costing Details

A review of the contract details yields the following key points :

• Teachers receive a 7.0% increase over the 2-year deal. A 4.2% salary increase for 2009-10, and a 2.8% increase for 2010-11.


• The average salary per teacher raises 7% from $47,469 to $50,840.


• Retiring teachers gain a "golden parachute": a $6,000 (maximum) lump sum payment for those that, prior to October 15, 2009, declare retirement at the end of the 2009-10 school year.


• An increase upon receiving a PI-34 license.


• No increase in the percentage cost of health and dental insurance paid by teachers. This contract caps teacher share of health insurance costs at $400 per year for a family and $150 per year for an individual. The school district covers $14,223 per family and $5,472 for a single plan. Note also that the employee can cuts its costs in half ($200 and $75 per year) if they agree to participate in a Health Risk Assessment (paid for bu the district). For reference, the average state worker pays over $1,000 per year towards their health insurance costs and the Governor has indicated that they will pay a larger share in 2009-11 contracts.

Questions you might be asking:

(Q) Hey! How come this contract calls for a 4.2% salary increase in 2009-10, but the "QEO" only calls it a 2.80% raise?
[A] Good eyes! That's because, for QEO consideration purposes. both the salary and the fringe benefit increases are calculated as a percentage of the TOTAL compensation package.

(Q) So is that why the fringe benefit percentage increase is so much different than that calculated for the QEO basis?
[A] Absolutely! In fact, the difference is far more pronounced (3.24% vs. 1.0% for the QEO) because everything is calculated on a "total package basis".

(Q) Could you explain this total package basis one more time? It seems important.
[A] For the QEO, it IS important (of course it appears that the QEO officially dies sometime between July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010). Increases have to be assesses relative to the TOTAL cost of salary and benefits. In the SPASD, fringe benefit costs represent about 44% (on average) of salary costs. Do a little math, and that means that salary costs are about 2.25 times that of fringes. That means that the "pie" often referred to by the school board is one that is cut into 3.25 pieces, with one slice (~ 30%) being fringes and 2.25 slices (~ 70% of the pie) representing salary.
This explains why an overall salary increase of 4.2%---when expressed in terms of the QEO-- is called a 2.8% increase. Similarly, a 3.25% increase in benefits--in QEO terms--represents only a 1.0% increase.

(Q) Does this contract represent a "QEO offer"?
[A] Technically, yes, it appears to meet the minimal requirements to avoid arbitration.

The $2,964,930 question
Because that's what this contract costs the district (and taxpayers) over the next 2 years, a 7.75% increase over 2008-09 costs.

Will the school board approve this contract? Sheee-ahhhh! 3 board members (McCourt, Stackhouse, and Diedrich) negotiated it. All they need is one more. So, of course they will. Note that Terry Shimek should (and likely will) abstain from the vote because his wife is a teacher.

The school board will approve the contract of course, but perhaps Terry Shimek's comments at a recent Finance Committee meeting are most appropriate here. We lack an exact quote, but Shimek commented that this is one year when the district should pursue a sub-QEO offer.

We appreciate Mr. Shimek's candor in that remark. Yes, the downside of making a sub-QEO offer would be that binding arbitration would likely ensue. Would the arbitration cost us? Sure. But we think the chances are good, given the economic climate

Should the school board approve this contract? Now THAT is the gorilla in the room, isn't it?

Do we support teachers? Absolutely? Do we LIKE this agreement? No. Why? For a handful of reasons.

(1) It raises the teacher base (minimally), but does nothing to stop long-tenured (off the grid and far down the salary "lane" ) from taking up most of the increase. Remember: 4.2% of $30,000 means that newer teachers will only see $1,260 next year, or about $850 after taxes. Those making $60,000 or more will get $2,520, or more. Something has to be done about accelerating increases early in a teacher's career and then slowing the percentage down later in their tenure. Some may not like this concept, but all will agree that giving a $6,000 increase (4.2%) to someone that already is making over $145,000 (Hint. Hint.) is ludicrous. Who's hurting these days? The ones making the big money? Or is it the ones making $30K? Bottom line: an entry level teacher gets a $423 increase (1.32%) in 2009-10 and a $99 (0.32%) increase in 2010-11. We hear all this talk about wanting to attract and retain good teachers. 1.39% and 0.32% increases aren't going to attract good teachers. Sure...once you GET them....if they stay 20 years, this contract could be very lucrative. But you can't retain what you don't have.

(2) People are losing jobs left and right. Those that don't lose their job are accepting pay CUTS. State employees are being furloughed 8 days in each of the next 2 years. That equates to a 3% salary REDUCTION. In addition, they losing a 2% raise which was already provided in the LAST contract. That's a 5% salary reduction. How does THAT compare to a 7% INCREASE?

(3) The state budget also cuts aids to schools by 3.5%. Sure, the QEO is being repealed, but the revenue caps are NOT. That means school districts will have to pay for this by cutting programs...not raising property taxes. Repealing the QEO is not a solution. It's only PART of a solution to fundinging our schools. And it should have been retained until a complete solution could have been identified.

(4) This contract was settled too early. How many other school districts have negotiated contracts? Nearly all are waiting to see the final state budget. In addition, by jumping early, we lack the vision of what stances other school districts are taking in their negotiations.

---

Dear Teachers:
SP-EYE DOES value what you do. We would love to support this contract for you. Unfortunately it comes at a time when everyone else is losing ground. Can you rationally step back and say, when everyone else is seeing cuts, that you--more than any other profession---deserve a 7% raise over two years and not pay a penny more for your benefits?

We understand that this agreement is actually very good for you, and in your place, we would want it as well. Sometimes, however, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You can hate on SP-EYE if you like, but we're just sayin' what everyone else is thinking. We're just upfront enough to say it.

--SPN

School Board Committee Vacancies Announced

The School Board is looking for a few engaged community residents to join one of the board committees. A total of 5 "seats" are open. Serving on a committee is a way of giving back to the community, while also presenting an opportunity to learn the innerworkings of the school board.

Please give some serious thought to applying for a committee slot. You don't need to be an expert on the committee's business...just be willing to learn. It's your opportunity to have your voice heard without fearing the dreaded 3-minute timer.

Link to School Board Committee Application info

[The School Board is] currently seeking individuals to fill the following Citizen Representatives for School Board Committees positions.

Application Deadline: Friday, July 10, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.

Facilities, Technology & Transportation: 2 vacancies – 1-year and 2-year appointments1 vacancy is for August 1, 2009 – July 31, 2011. 1 vacancy is for August 1, 2009 – July 31, 2010. The Facilities, Technology and Transportation Committee reviews maintenance and construction projects, bus routes and transportation program, and district technology plans. Committee meets the second Monday of each month.

Finance: 1 vacancy - 2-year appointment (August 1, 2009 – July 31, 2011). The Finance Committee reviews budget, investment portfolios, bids obtained by the school district, and purchases. Responsible for long-range financial planning. Committee meets the second and fourth Mondays of each month.

Education & Policy: 1 vacancy - 2-year appointment (August 1, 2009 – July 31, 2011). The Education and Policy Committee reviews curricular and instructional programs and services offered to students. Responsible for long-range educational planning. Committee meets the first Monday of each month.

Human Resources: 1 vacancy - 2-year appointment (August 1, 2009 – July 31, 2011). The Human Resources Committee reviews new staffing recommendations and makes recommendations to the Board on human resource matters, excluding bargaining unit negotiations. Committee meets the first Monday of each month.

Scratch One Off the List

The lowest hanging fruit just moved a lot higher up the tree. It sure looks plump and juicy, but it wont be pluckable. We will all have to just sit here and salivate. Much like the "poison pill" the Jets put in the Brett Favre contract last year (making it impossible to trade him to the ViQueens), EEI put a heckuva poison pill in the contract our beloved school board approved back in December 2005 (on a 4-2-1 vote, with Jim Gibbs and Caren Diedrich voting NO).

Board member Al Slane, and chair of the FTT, recently blew the dust off the contract after all the hub was recently bubbed. It seems that the contract states that if the district terminates the contract at anytime in the 4th year (into which we are halfway), the "termination fee" is $86,400. Since we only owe about 6 payments of $9,000/month ($54,000), it costs more to cut it than to keep it!

Things that make you go "hmmm":
(1) Why does someone put a contract termination fee equal to about 80% of the annual fee into a contract? Who does that?
(2) Who would enter into such an agreement? Isn't the termination fee like a some giant red herring that leaps up, tail-smacks you in the face, and says " By the end of year 1, you guys are gonna figure out that you could have done this on your own for free. We still want our $432,000, though, so it is what it is."

By the way (which happens to be a fine new tune from Theory of a Deadman), David Stackhouse is the only remaining boardmember who actually voted on this contract. Let's make that little factoid, Things that Make You Go "Hmmm" number (3).

So...nevermind, folks, we stand corrected. We are stuck with the energy management contract.

Just to make the record clear, with all the buildings we now have and the cost of energy, SP-EYE believes hiring an Energy Manager was a good decision. We think Greg Klaas has done a fine job of educating district staff on how much money can be saved --or should we say "costs avoided"---if the staff work collectively on strict adherence to some common sense practices. While many facets of the energy conservation program may seem like "no-brainers", it's often easier said than done when dealing with 11 school buildings and over 800 staff.

We appreciate Al Slane making the effort to look into this rather than blowing us off as has been done for the past 3 years.

N

Top 10 Low Hanging Fruit

...Ripe to be Cut..... from the Budget.

Didja hear the one about the economy being in rough shape? Assuming you haven't had your head buried in the sand for the last year, then you know it's going to take 3-5 years for our economy (and investments) to return to the Summer 2008 levels. The governor is making an unprecedented cut of 3.5% to school aids. It's time to get serious about cutting the pork out of the school district budget. There's so much pork in there that it's under investigation as the source of the swine flu. You just KNOW there's pork in there when Phil Frei's battle cry for every new program idea is "I can find the money [in the budget] for that".

We've railed --on deaf ears--against needless expenditures like birthday KitKat bars, memorial flowers, and lunch subs/pizza on the taxpayers dime for some time now. The initial response we get from the board (Dr. Culver says his piece wordlessly through clear body language), is "It's such a small amount!". Yeah? Maybe the amounts are small...but they are quickly adding up. Next year, for the first time in memory, individual school miscellaneous budgets are being CUT (about 5-6%) by the district. NOW we are reducing monies available for direct educational benefit of the kids. So NOW we want to reiterate our objections. Cutting out the KitKats, flowers, and pizza should be done before any cuts are made that directly affect education! But that will only happen if the community speaks up. So...e-mail or call school board members and tell them that the kids need to come first. They may not listen, but they'll get the message.

We're not saying that, conceptually speaking, each and every one of the following expenses is inherently wrong. Some most certainly are. For the others, our question is this: are these expenses providing us equivalent (or better) value in return for the cost?

10. Here's a novel thought...maybe we could actually watch the books instead of rubber stamping all expenditures. Does anyone else care if the administration cries "You're micro-managing!"? Is ANYONE really watching the books?

9. There's no place in a public school budget for Flowers/Memorials, KitKats, and luxury lunches. You want these "niceties? Then get a job in the private sector. A word of warning though...even the private sector is cutting these luxuries these days. Read further. Can you stomach more waste?

8. Stop sending a gaggle of school board members to the annual WASB conference when 1-2 could go and share key information with the full board upon return. Better yet...go for the day only! 6 or 7 board members times 2-3 nights stay each at a swanky hotel x 2 nights of ridiculous dinner costs = TOO MUCH! Remember...this is where that wonderful BoardDocs idea came from..

7. Stamp out sea bass (and other exotic fare) dinners for school board members. This sense of entitlement needs to be stomped like a plump cockroach. What's worse is that some school board members are meekly working to correct the others, and they STILL do it! They need to eat like they were paying for it out of their own pockets. And if they can STILL afford it, then are they really representative of our community? 2009 Expenses. 2008 expenses.

6. Stop running to the $250/hr lawyers unnecessarily! Do we really need to consult an attorney over whether to release the resumes and applications of candidates for a vacant school board seat? For the release of names and e-mail addresses of citizens serving on a committee? To determine if something is a violation of open meetings laws? Read further.

5. Eliminate hotel stays for local competitions. 10 miles away? 2 days before the competition even begins. Doesn't make any sense at all. Read further.

4. Completely overhaul the district check review procedure (which doesn't even exist in policy)! You can question a check, but you can't deny payment. Then what's the point?
Read further. Read even more.

3. Require Demand at least 3 bids for (future) architect contracts. NO bidding required on the $100M HS project, 15M Creekside or $14M Horizon projects. How much could we have saved? We'll never know-except that it would have been millions. Read further. Read even more.

2. Eliminate the (High School) Construction Manager @ $7,300 per month. Read more. The original intent was that this position would "pay for itself" through cost savings earned by the district through their management of the construction. What have we ever seen for this job for Creekside? The only "savings" we had was through applying referendum interest income against costs.

1. Cut the power to the energy management contract @ $9,000/month. Ok, so we "avoided a lot of costs" by learning how to turn off lights in empty rooms and set back thermostats at night. For $324,000? Yikes. We're willing to bet that that advice was available somewhere for free. And you know what? There's this thing called the point of diminishing returns. Read more

Wrecker alert!!! There are those (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that will declare this post a prima facie example of "wrecking". In anticipation, we ask the simple question: How does asking for fiscal accountability equate to "wrecking"?

SP-EYE offers these very simple, sensible suggestions in the interest of helping to build a great, cost-effective, educational Xanadu for the students of Sun Prairie. We want to be part of the solution! We want to be at least the "E" in team. But...but...we can't be part of the solution--part of the team--if you won't let us. You can't chastise us for not being part of the team if you won't pick us!

N

Teachers and Administration Agree on a new Contract

It was due for a final ratification vote yesterday, but all indications pointed to this being a done deal. Sources tell us that the contract package calls for a 3.8% total package increase. Remember sports fans...that means a combined increase of salary and benefits.

One big part of the contract reportedly calls for a "golden parachute" incentive for retirement. We hear that there will be a one-time $6,000 incentive to announce retirement by early October (right around the time the final budget is prepared). It's no secret that over 80% of the school district budget is tied to salaries and benefits; and there are a lot of long-tenured educators in the district that earn a nice salary.

While there may be some outrage in this economy to offer "bonuses" to retirement, SP-EYE sees this as a good mechanism to clear some high salaries off the books and replace them with those lower on the salary grid. In fact, it actually creates jobs, which is needed to jump-start the economy.

The practice of offering golden parachutes makes good fiscal sense as long as it results in a net savings to the district. We're not sure whether this idea originated from administration or chief SPEA negotiator Janice Mertes. Regardless, it's a jointly shared vision now and needs only to be ratified. Kudos to both sides for working towards fiscal sensibility. We only wish the state would have the same sense.

Hit and Run Wreckings Reported

In his blog this week, Dr. Culver made yet another (yawn) reference to his favorite poem called "Builders and Wreckers". He's becoming a bit of a one trick pony, dontcha think? Surely with all his learning, he's gotta have more than just this one parable...right?

"...brought to mind one of my favorite poems, “Builders and Wreckers.” (There are lots of copies around the net, here’s where I first came across it: Poem Link ) The gist of the poem's metaphor is that to build anything… a bridge, a person, a classroom, an organization, a community…takes a great deal of skill
and care over a period of time. To tear things down … a bridge, a person, a classroom, an organization, a community…takes little skill, attention, or time, just an orientation towards negativity and destructive “hit and run” actions. "

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
For someone who insinuates---but will never unequivocally declare--that resources such as SP-EYE fall into the "Wreckers" category, he sure does like to follow our lead!

• Dr. Culver gets a blog ...who would have thought for someone non-tech savvy?
• He uses the very SAME blog server as SP-EYE!
• His early posts seem to be praising the very staffers he once tossed under the bus (as reported here). Co-inky-dink?
• Have you noticed board agendas have quietly begun to respond to issues raised on this site?

We're flattered, Dr. Culver.

Drinking the Kool-Aid
Culver states that these "wreckers" are oriented towards negativity. Some could argue that Culver's positive switch is permanently stuck in 5th gear--at least in public. Is too much of EITHER a good thing? You can paint a house, put up a nice picket fence and a flower garden. It sure may look purty on the outside. But if years worth of garbage and dirty laundry are just piled up and squirreled away on the inside, malodorous aromas linger to the extent that it's preferable to be outside than in. You can't do any real entertaining --or educating--until the laundry is aired and cleaned.

Dr. FeelGood's miracle tonic never works. You've seen the movies and old TV reruns. These elixirs can seem intoxicating....but that's only because they contain alcohol. And we know that alcohol impairs judgement, don't we? We need more people to just say "NO" to the Kool Aid and demand quality education based on a foundation of fiscal responsibility. Culver can rail all he wants about wreckers, but his own concept of "builders" is predicated upon making use of ALL the skills available ...not just skills of those that have sipped the Kool-Aid and blindly follow the march of administration. The majority of this community is far too educated to fall for that new age, "I'm OK; You're OK" happy crappy. The real world has a nasty set of choppers, and isn't afraid to bite.

You see anyone running?
Hit and run actions? SP-EYE has been calling out acts of fiscal irresponsibility for two years. Culver knows that, so we're not sure why he suggested anyone was running away. We'll continue to be here, so long as the KoolAid continues to be served. We can't cross that line into become a really great school district until the laundry has been laundered and the smell is gone. Eventually Culver and his bosses will realize that we're both trying to build the same sand castle. That's OK. Patience is a virtue they say.

What kind of building is this?
Getting back to Culver's favorite fable...we need to ask a few questions:

• What kind of building is accomplished by alleging that citizens with legitimate concerns have "ulterior motives" ?
• What kind of engineering is shored up with $40 dinners?
• Instead of open public dialog (without a 3-minute restriction), what kind of building is built with Culver getting the last word from the board table?
• Why is it that if you ask probing questions based on fact, you get labeled a "wrecker"?
• What construction foreman is successful when he continually throws his own crew under the bus?

Food For Thought
Culver likes his story about builders and wreckers. That's nice. There are also a million of 'em out there. In fact...if you want to make a point, someone likely already has. There's a classic parable, fable, proverb, or quotation for every imaginable situation. We leave you with a few we like. Perhaps we'll see some counter-action to them in a future InspirED post.

If you can't convince them, confuse them.
— President Harry S Truman
The well fed does not understand the lean.
— Irish Proverb
The need to be right all the time is the biggest bar to new ideas.
— Edward de Bono
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
— Aldous Huxley
The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor man perfected without trials.
— Chinese Proverb

And last, but not least, we offer "the rest of the story" of Culver's Builders and Wreckers poem. He leaves this part out, so we thought we'd share it.

Of course it’s wise and necessary to challenge assumptions, test theories and predict problems, but that should be the beginning not an end.

Who said anything about this being the end? We don't see any Rubenesque ladies breaking into song. N

What a wordle week it was

source: Wordle.net

You likely have seen these in places like the Wisconsin State Journal. Wordle is a toy for generating “word clouds” from text that you provide. The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text.

Enjoy.

N

No Free Education in Sun Prairie????

The more we thought about that proposed definition of "residency", the more we felt that enough had not been said.

residency - defined in Policy JEC, School Admissions, as the physical location (address) at which a child is an inhabitant for at least 50% of the time, provided the child is not an inhabitant at the address solely for the purpose of participating in free education from the District or to alter his/her attendance boundary in the District.
source: Planning for New School Boundaries: Proposed Definition of Terms

We think we understand what the district is attempting to say...but does the district understand the way this can be interpreted? It can be argued that this "definition" suggests that someone cannot be an inhabitant of an address solely to obtain a free education from the District.

Hold on there! A document on the DPI website, entitled"Offering Educational Opportunities to Expelled Students in Wisconsin " clearly states:

Free public education is an individual’s right and the state’s responsibility. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is translated into more than 300 languages and dialects. Article 26 includes:

“Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.”

In 1954, a Supreme Court landmark decision established the opportunity to attend schooling on equal terms as a basic right. Chief Justice Warren provided the rationale for the decision, “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if…denied the opportunity of an education.”

This is what happens when you try to apply too many bandages to cover a gaping wound....icky stuff seeps through. Wethinks that a re-think is in order.
N

Stacking the Deck in Advance of Future Boundary Wars?

Quietly, tomorrow's School Board FTT Committee meeting has an agenda item entitled "Boundary Definition". This seemingly innocuous agenda item packs a powerful punch if you look closely at how the board (administration?) has creatively defined terms to suit their purposes.

Remember how the board got all starry-eyed and weepy when it talked about "neighborhood" schools? How Smith's Crossing was the perfect place for elementary # 7 (Creekside) because it offered the opportunity for a "neighborhood" school?

Poof! Gone. In this little "dictionary", the district suddenly reverses course and defines "neighborhood" school as, "

"Neighborhood school: the school that is located within the boundaries of the attendance area in which a student resides. An imprecise term ..."

Circle logic! The board will define the boundaries which define the neighborhood schools. Then, if the schoolboard boundaries change (as they do)...whoooooops! Now you have a new neighborhood school. Problem solved.

What's really nice is that it actually can read OK...until those with experience realize that any assumption that "attendance areas" make logical or cartographical sense is just plain wrong. Remember "the finger" the board offered to the community in March 2008?

And that's how they can rationalize that students living in Bristol, who are geographically closer to and who only get to wave at the kids who attend both Bird and Northside --many of which may be actual "neighbors"--, as they ride the bus past BOTH those schools, are assigned Westside elementary as their "neighborhood" school. Granted they live waaaay to far to "hang out" with their friends within that "neighborhood" school.

FTT meeting 6-8-09 6:15 pm

Check out the definitions
We particularly love the clever insertion of the word "ideal" in these definitions. "Ideal" is defined as: something that exists only in the imagination: To achieve the ideal is almost hopeless.

Some of the definitions of note:

Proposed Definition of Terms

I. Terms used in Board Policy JC, School Attendance Areas (K-8).

C. assigned school - the school in which a student is required to enroll because his or her legal residence is within the boundaries of the attendance area of the school.
D. reassigned - changes in the assigned school due to one of the four policy-permitted exceptions to school assignment.
[SP-EYE: so your "neighborhood school is your "assigned" school" unless it is re-assigned". Classic.]
E. enrollment balance - the ideal of creating the greatest amount of equality between class sizes at a grade level across all schools. Because children do not enroll in equal numbers in each grade level from year to year and from attendance area to attendance area, this is a challenging ideal to fully realize. The policy defines three factors (space availability, class size and transportation) that can be used to try to achieve balance.

J. residency [SP-EYE: This should really be renamed "the Welke clause", as it only came into play because John Welke was concerned enough about keeping his youngest child together for ONE YEAR with his older sister that he found a creative way to do so.] - defined in Policy JEC, School Admissions, as the physical location (address) at which a child is an inhabitant for at least 50% of the time, provided the child is not an inhabitant at the address solely for the purpose of participating in free education from the District or to alter his/her attendance boundary in the District. A business address, post office box or sham residence does not constitute residency. In the event the District learns that a child’s place of residency is different than the information provided to the District, the District may charge tuition in accordance with state law, adjust the child’s school of attendance, or take other action authorized by state law.
[SP-EYE] "Free" education? Hello! Isn't public education supposed to be "free"? Look...whether a kid goes to school A or school B, if it's a public school, there is no charge. So is the real issue here about educating the kids? Or getting state dollars for every possible kid we can??? ]


II. Terms used as part of the "Criteria for Analyzing Potential Boundary Changes" created in 2000-2001.

A. neighborhood - the geographic area assigned to a particular school. An average person, when asked what their "neighborhood" is, might respond with the name of a sub-division, geographic region, street, or landmark. Because of the widespread varied use and potential for misunderstanding, and because it is not district policy, this word should likely not be used.
B. neighborhood school - the school that is located within the boundaries of the attendance area in which a student resides. An imprecise term for the reasons discussed above.
C. greater good - a judgment that one decision or action better serves the broad public interests of education when compared to special interests or individuals desires. Differing priorities and values will result in differing judgments and therefore the potential for conflict is high. The School Board makes the final decision on such matters.

III. Additional Terms suggested for Definition at the Community Engagement Task Force review of the boundary change process on March 5, 2009

A. school equity - the ideal of being just and fair (in contrast to equality which is the ideal of being the same). To illustrate: If school A has a larger percentage of low income students than school B, equity means school A might have Title 1 or SAGE staffing and resources that school B does not have. Unlike the ideal of ‘greater good,’ various federal laws (e.g., I.D.E.A.), state laws (e.g., SAGE) and district policies (e.g., Policy IGBA) regulate application of this concept. However, like the ideal of ‘greater good,’ differing priorities and values will result in differing interpretation of equity and therefore the potential for conflict is high. The School Board is charged with making final decisions on such matters, in accordance with laws and policies.
[SP-EYE- This one is especially interesting. Remember all that talk about achieving soicio-economic balance...like Royal Oaks has 10% economically disadvantaged students while Westside has over 40%? Well this cool little definition allows the district to maintain the "inequity" because Westside is a SAGE school. "It's OK if that school is overloaded with economically disadvantaged kids because we run SAGE there." Great...what about kids in grades 4 and 5?]

F. regular instruction classrooms - classrooms sized, designed, and intended for the typical, regular education class. This contrasts with special use classrooms e.g., science labs, music rooms, book rooms, special education rooms, etc. This can get a bit confusing because some schools choose to use currently unoccupied regular instruction classrooms for other purposes (e.g., ESL instruction or computer labs) on a temporary basis until enrollment grows enough to re-claim those classrooms for their designed purpose.

[SP-EYE- Say what? This came about because Bird school was so overcrowded that the principal authorized use of "special" classrooms as actually classrooms. So there are no "special classrooms. So...we're waiting for MORE enrollment before these will ever be used as special classrooms? Who comes up with this stuff? ]

N

Bursting the Bubble?

A wise man once said that it's a good exercise to look backwards once in awhile and see where you've been. Kinda makes you take stock of how you got to where you are. We were so interested in the numbers that were presented at Thursday's Diversity meeting that we couldn't resist takin' 'em back and playing with 'em a bit.

The Sun Prairie Area School District relies heavily on projections made by the the University of Wisconsin's Applied Population Lab (UW-APL). Projections are great, but they are exactly that....projections. At some point, coming up with these numbers has to involve what some scientists refer to as the "WAG Technique"...you know...as in Wild Ass Guess. Of course, any projection is based on assumptions, and as long as those assumptions ring true, the projections can be fairly valid.

So let's take a trip down memory lane....

The District's Strategic Plan of 2004 (fueled by UW-APL 2003 data)

The APL projections for 2008-09 made 5 years earlier were eerily accurate. In 2003, the APL projected 2972 [K-5] elementary students (actual was 2924); 1401 [6-7-8] Middle School students (actual = 1372); and 1807 [9-12] High School students (actual = 1807). Remember, though, that 71 high school students are situated in the Alternate Learning Center. That means only 1635 are actually in the high school.

Unfortunately, that's about where accuracy gets off the bus. The 5-year projection for High School enrollment (Gr 9-12) beyond 2008-09 was for 2288 students. To reach that level of enrollment, we'd have to experience sustained growth of 5% enrollment increases over each of the next 5 years.

The total district enrollment projection for 2012 (3 years from now) was 7604 students. And that was before adding in the 4K, which wasn't part of the plan back then. Our 2009 K-12 enrollment was 6103. That would mean an increase of 500 students per year to reach that projection.

It would seem that the economy and the bursting of the housing bubble may have been nature's way of putting its foot on the growth brake. Yet another reason to view projections with caution. Projections do NOT (CANNOT) consider the effects of things like 100-year flooding, major economic collapses, or unprecedented state budget shortfalls.

Where does our growth come from?

General consensus is that most of our enrollment growth comes from births. That's why Phil Frei focuses heavily on kindergarten enrollment numbers. It makes a lot of sense, particularly when you consider the high school. Kids don't get born at age 14-18. So the only way we increase high school grade level enrollment is through a net INFLUX into the district. To reach the kind of growth they projected in 2004, we'd have to add 25-30 kids at EACH grade level for each of the next five years. That would mean a LOT of families moving into the district with high school age students, and NONE moving OUT of the district.

Another way to look at projections is to view them in terms of class size. This year, district wide, we AVERAGED about 470 kids per grade level, with a low of 430 (grade 11...hmmmm) and a high of 512 grade 2). Remember we built the new 10-12 high school with a capacity of 2000 students. Divide 2000 by 3 grade levels and you get 667 students per grade. That represents a whopping 42% increase over the average grade enrollment today. THAT is why most of the community felt that ONE high school was plenty.

October 2006 APL projections

During the first referendum attempt for the high school, APL was called upon again. These 2-year projections for 2008-09 were 1718 (high school) 1412 (middle school) and 3059 (elementary). Again, you see the focus for long-term enrollment growth is on the elementary school aged kids.

Their projections for 8 years from now (2016-17) were 2722 in grades 9-12 (680 per grade); 1927 for grades 6-8 (642 per grade); and 3499 for grades K-5 (583 per grade). Seems inverted, doesn't it? Those projections would suggest that growth is declining from that point on. This suggests that the growth "bubble" is really at this year's 4th graders, with class size (growth) tailing off steadily from that point.

Referendum Flyer November 2007

This infomercial scared the beejeezus out of people with projections of 2700 High School (9-12, we hope) students within 8 years of now (2017). Do the math folks, that translates to a graduating class size of 700 students. Hell we haven't even hot 500 yet, and the closest we get by juts advancing forward our current students is 512 based on this year's 2nd graders. For reference, this year's grade 12 is 467 (just about average) while next year's falls to 430.

Projecting it forward

We'll catch grief for this, but a simplistic (yes, perhaps overly so) projection can be made by using a simple technique of "projecting forward" current grade levels to see how things play out. Is it exact. No way. What it does not consider is births (or call them future kindergartners), although we've read that birth rates have declined significantly in recent years. This "projecting it forward". It just looks at current students. It assumes (quite simply) that a net zero students either enter or leave the district. That being said, you can do the math on how much net 'growth" would be required to reach enrollment of any particular level.

A few Words on Grade Progression Ratios

The APL calculates what it terms "grade projection ratios" which essentially represent projected changes in grade level enrollment from year to year. One last little mystery to solve. Astute observers will note a sudden increase in enroillment at Grade 9 (1.18, or 18% over 8th grade). This actually represents students coming into the public school from private or parochial schools, such as Sacred Hearts, which only gextends through 8th grade. You might also note a DECREASE at grades 10 and 11. Does this decrease relate to dropouts? We're not sure, but like many other things, the district doesn't offer any commentary on these little questions.

Take a look at the two graphs below. They are scaled identically. The first is OUR simplistic projection by simply advancing grade level enrollments forward. The second is the projection from the APL associated with the November 2007 referendum information. Both plots are ONLY fro the "new" high school, i.e., grades 10-12. Note the much steeper growth projected by the APL. That was before the economy and housing market hit the skids. Remember...the school was built to hold 2000. The bubble seems to appear at grade 2 enrollment. After that, has the bubble been burst? Will we face declining enrollment?

N

Open Enrollment- a Closer Look

A special thanks to one of the "WE" for putting this together.

The Wisconsin State Journal recently put togetheran article, that appeared on the front page regarding Open Enrollments in Madison Area schools(Open enrollment numbers for all Dane County school districts). For those who don’t know what Open Enrollment is and its effects on a school district, we can help. Open enrollment is when a student applies to attend a school in a different school district than where they live.

This is done for a variety of reasons; but the focus of the article was the Madison Area School District and their increase in Open Enrollment requests. The report suggests that the primary reason that students open enroll OUT of the school district where they live is because their home district is not meeting their needs and they are dissatisfied. From our experience the report is dead on with this assessment.

So what is the big deal with kids leaving a school district via Open Enrollment? First, when a student leaves the district for another district that student takes with them the funding that is provided by the State to the district to pay for their education. It’s a loss of revenue to the tune of roughly $10,000 per year/per student! Second, if a school district has a high number of students leaving under open enrollment it may be a sign of some problem in the district that is causing the students' parents to seek a different school somewhere else.
[SP-EYE: Anyone ever catch that short-lived Animal Planet series about an ER doctor specializing in snakebite victims? His tag line was "time is tissue". With open enrollments, the tag line is "losing kids is losing money"]

Back to the Madison Metropolitan School District. They are so concerned that their Open Enrollments out of the district are increasing they decided to survey the parents their reason behind the decision. What a novel idea! It seems like MMSD is saying, “Let’s see what’s going on to see if there is something we can do better or if it is just a trend that is beyond our control.”

So where does the SPASD fall compared to area school. The article places SPASD second in terms of net efflux from the district. The only difference here is that Sun Prairie seems to just accept the fact that there are some dissatisfied students and parents that are looking in other places for their needs. Unfortunately with the outward movement of these students so goes the money.

I’m sure the district will spin this as something that is inevitable [SP-EYE: We're taking bets that Dr. Culver will offer a spinning rebuttal in his District Super Adminisintendentrator comments at the June 8 school board meeting. Odds are 7-2, any takers?] and that there are students coming into the district under open enrollment that offsets the net loss. That might be true to a certain extent but wouldn’t it seem prudent to do as the MMSD did and survey the parents of students open enrolling out of the school district to see if there is some common thread or reason why they are leaving the district? Perhaps there is something that could be done to minimize or reduce the movement of students out of the district? I guess we will never know because the School Board and district Administration have talked about surveying these families for the last two years but it is nothing more that lip service to those who express concern over this issue.

The taxpayers of this district should demand that the school board, our elected officials, should require that the district survey the parents of students that have open enrolled out of the district over the last three years to see why they are doing so. Further the DO should be contacting the parents who have pulled their students from the SPASD and are now enrolled in private schools (another way the district loses state funding).

Unfortunately we think the issue comes back to the old adage, “Don’t ask a question if you really don’t want to know the answer.” After all what do you think the parents would say in their survey response that left the school district after the latest boundary change? We are pretty sure we have an idea and it is nothing that is too favorable of the school district. Our take on this is that while the district has a tremendous pool of teachers and support staff most residents are dissatisfied with the get-what-we-want-at-all-costs administration and spend-happy school board.

So it goes with SPASD, highlight and embellish the positive things in the district and bury the negative. If you are concerned over lost revenue and increasing taxes please contact all of the school board members and request that they have the school district do a detailed and meaningful survey of parents who open enroll their children out of the district and address the things in their control to stop the bleeding and the exodus of students from the district.
To contact the school board with your thoughts on this issue use the e-mail links provide in the menubar on the right.

N

Diversity Dialog...and the children shall lead

Last night, the school board held a long awaited follow-up to the inaugural meeting on dealing with diversity issues in the district. This time, district leaders recruited school kids within the district to have a group discussion regarding diversity issues within the district.

Let's get the not-so-good out of the way first. The location, the Patrick Marsh Middle School library is not exactly well-suited for a meeting of this type. The arrangement of available tables felt awkward. Participants could not easily see or communicate with each other. We like the idea of getting the public out to see the schools, but surely a better location within the school was a possibility...like perhaps a roundtable setting in the cafeteria, gym, or auditorium?

The other unfortunate aspect was that by breaking the entire group up into four separate groups (in four separate rooms) provided observers (like us) with only 25% of the input from the kids. Once re-convened, the summaries of the group discussions were presented by school board members or district staff. We would have appreciated experiencing more of the actual discussion from the kids. As with some reality TV, the raw footage often provides far more valuable insight than the director's final cut.

The rest was all good. Perhaps what was most enjoyable was again having the school board be seen and not heard. We think this opportunity to be the audience rather than the talking heads at the head table is a constructive exercise for them in obtaining a better understanding of how those few dedicated observers (you know, the constituency) of the school board feel. This was the kids' show, after all. And they had a lot of great things to share.

The 5 Discussion Questions
1. What does diversity mean in terms of schools?

Every year on the student surveys of 6th, 8th, and 10th graders we ask this question: "Regardless of any differences, students in this school treat each other with respect." The average scores (on a scale of 5 with 5 meaning
'strongly agree' and 1 being 'strongly disagree') have been:

2006 = 2.5; 2007=2.6; 2008=2.8

2. These are low scores, meaning about half the students taking the survey don't agree with this statement. It has been the most disagreed with question of all on the survey and the scores go down as students get older. Why do you think this is so?

3. The scores have been improving steadily. Can you think of any thing that may be helping improve this in your school?

4. This past year have you experienced any challenge, barrier, or problem because you may be different in some way from most other students? If yes, please describe the experience. If no, explain why you think this may be.

5. If you could ask the people in charge of your school to do just one thing to make things better, in terms of diversity, what would that be?

What was most poignant was listening to the students relate their specific experiences. Two girls were each chastised by others for joining a particular (different in each case) club. Another was subjected to clearly racial (whether with or without malice of intent) comments about features. Without question, these experiences are hurtful, to say the least. We have largely become an insensitive people. On the positive side, it was heartening to hear (and believe) that each of these kids has taken the inappropriate comments and behaviors in stride. It seems that they refuse to let those things keep them from their dreams and personal goals. Those seemingly small, yet powerful captured moments, coming from the students, for us anyways, are so much more valuable than the trite anecdotes served up by district super adminisintendentrator Tim Culver.

Perhaps as an appropriate conclusion to the meeting, one of the student participants asked innocently if "this was it", clearly wondering if anything else was in store, or was the night's discussion the beginning, middle, and end of the diversity discussion. We're right with you, young lady. The school board continues to have a problem with making the public--and even the students--aware of what they are trying to accomplish (for any particular issue): what are the goals/objectives, what is the process, what is the timetable, when will we know what you decided?

A New Title for Tim?

Has anyone else noticed the (not so)subtle change in terminology being bandied about? How Dr. Culver, with increasing frequency, refers to himself as the "Superintendent" rather than the District Administrator? In his recent blogpost, InspirED, which might be appropriately subtitled, "Diatribes from Dr. FeelGood" Culver even asks "What does a Superintendent Do"? Who cares? Because Sun Prairie doesn't have one of those....we have a "District Administrator.

Ok...so many of you might ask...what's the big deal? What's in a word? A title? OK...maybe nothing. Of course, maybe you could pose the same question to Trainer McCarthy, (retired) Mentor Madden, or Counselor Bellichick. To these guys, the title swap MIGHT make a difference. You see...if you look up "coach" in your thesaurus du jour, you'll find those three optional equivalents. We're thinking that these guys, and the football world at large, might have a teensy weensy problem with the switch.

But the issue goes beyond titles. Why is Dr. Culver passively (and publicly we might add) advocating for the change in title? In fact, since the two titles are (arguably) interchangeable, why would he even be working towards a change? What does it matter? And why doesn't the school board...HIS collective BOSS...politely tell him to stop confusing the people by switching terms.

Does Culver realize (or care) how much it would cost to change every one of the plethora of policies that routinely contain the term "District Administrator"? EVERY policy change (even such subtle word changes) must go through the school board...you know...HIS BOSSES. What about the cost of producing new letterheads, publications, business cards? Here's a good one...what about his (legal) CONTRACT? Contractually speaking, the "district administrator"...not the "superintendent" is the responsible party for the district. We're not suggesting Culver is looking for a way out, but as someone who spends a lot of time consulting lawyers, he surely must understand that such subtle nuances can become major issues in court. [Your honor, this contract says that the 'District Administrator' is responsible for _____. My client is the 'Superintendent', not the 'District Administrator', so this contract provision is not applicable to him.]

Newsflash, Dr. C...we know you don't feel it due to the plushy cushion afforded by your $150K salary and "stipends", but the rest of the world is facing a nearly unprecedented economic crisis. People are being laid off, state workers are getting salary reductions instead of increases (but you'll be getting about a 4-5% INCREASE, won't you?), and even education funding has been cut. But you seem to need a new title?

So...in our eyes...it comes down to a simple question: isn't this just a "me" thing for the good doctor? For someone who likes to talk a good game of "team", it sure looks like some self-serving interests have ditched the letters "a" and "t" and reversed the others to successfully come up with the "me" in team. If it's NOT just a "me" thing. Then we suggest you stop confusing people and stick with the title you have.

Perhaps a little less focus on trying to subtly (or not) suggest to the board that you're looking for a new title, and invest that energy and effort into improving things within the district. You know... diversity issues, expulsions, violence, test scores, scholarships, budgeting?

N

Point - CounterPoint: The Spinning Wheel

Can't you just hear Chevy Chase?

The AntiBlog got updated today.....and [surprise, surprise] Dr. Culver has got his spin mojo working in overtime. It's clear our coverage of the recent Journal article on scholarships caused him a little acid reflux. It should have. Unfortunately, a couple of Tums ain't gonna kill this fire.

We like Dr. Culver's iceberg analogy. And he's right...there's far more to an iceberg underneath what appears on the surface. But it's not the surface part that sunk the Titanic...it's what lay below the surface.

Here, in short order, are the "below the surface" parts of the iceberg which even Dr. Culver's "spin" can't cover:

1. Culver makes it sound like Sun Prairie is the only school for which "all" scholarship monies were not accurately tabulated. Do you really think that the other school districts don't have similar "scholarships" that didn't fit a definition or the reporter's request? No fair trying to pump up your flattened tire. The reporter asked the same questions of every district. That's called a level playiing field.

2. The good doctor also starts digressing into community giving not related to scholarships. Hold on, Dr. C! The article was about scholarships...period. So you need to limit your spinning to scholarships. The ole' sleight of hand may work on a few citizens, but not those that are listening. You can't waive the shiny apple in one hand to the crowd when we're talking about oranges.

3. Then he starts trying to talk about scholarships from universities that aren't counted. Again...need we remind you that Sun Prairie kids aren't the only kids receiving scholarships from universities etc. Come on! All this spinning is making us dizzy! We're feeling a technicolor yawn coming on. Hey...Mr. McCourt likes seafood....well...he's about to SEE FOOD. The article was about LOCAL scholarships, Dr. C.

4. Culver re-tallies the numbers and miraculously comes up with over DOUBLE the scholarship money that was reported to the Journal. Isn't that another way of him saying Lisa Bollinger didn't get it right? Sorry, Lisa, sadly you just became the latest bus victim. Yup... you done got
BUSSED BY ADMIN! We'll add you to the t-shirt list. Now do the other districts get to re-tally THEIR numbers?

5. Even with Culver's quick re-calculations of numbers, Sun Prairie still stands as follows compared to other communities reviewed:
---Total Scholarship $: Rank = 8th of 16 district
---Scholarship $/graduate: Rank = 14th of 16 districts
---Scholarships % of Class Receiving at least one: Rank = 14th of 16 districts

We STILL don't look good compared to the other districts. You want to compare some other parameter? Then we suggest you make your request to the reporter. But careful what you ask for. It's like the old legal adage...Don't ask a question unless you are sure you know the answer.

Dr. Culver...you can spin a salad as much as you like, but it's still salad.
Please note, this is NOT and was not ever intended to be an indictment of local businesses. It's simply information. The Journal reported it and we thought it was interesting. Make of it what you will. There are some that feel that given the high taxes and economy, businesses are strapped for further giving.

As a former board member was wont to say, "It is what it is". Or wasn't there something about lipstick and a pig?

N