Lack of Community Engagement leads to community EnRAGEment

Deep down inside, even the school board knows they screwed up. Of course they'd never publicly admit that, but secretly they know their actions over the course of the past year meant that they had violated the pooch, so to speak.

One thing Jim Carrel pushed for before he resigned his seat was the development of a special board sub-committee tasked with determining how the board could best win back public support. So the board voted to establish the "Community Engagement Task Force ". They held a bunch of meetings, as board-established task forces are wont to do, and on August 11, 2008, the committee's recommendations were presented to the board.

One key question the task force was charged with was answering the question,

"What can the School Board do to get community input into their work?"

The committee's answer came in the form of three suggestions. Each has been annotated with a simple "Yes/No" to indicate whether any action has been taken to-date.

1.Establish an on-going standing committee
ACTION           RECOMENDATION
NO           Enabled to call a community response team / study circle for use on specific issues
NO           Use same methodology as the community response team for the high school
NO           The community engagement committee will guide and review the implementation of these and future community engagement recommendations

2.Improve Board member accessibility
ACTION? RECOMMENDATION
NO           More face-to-face interaction
NO           “Meet the Board” sessions
NO           Listening sessions (at schools and within community)
NO           Booth at Corn Fest/community events / public venues
NO           Host/attend community/city events
NO           Town Hall Meetings

3.Leverage the Web (it is the future)
ACTION? RECOMMENDATION
NO           Public forum links
NO           On-line bulletin board
NO           On-line comment card
NO           Redesign website
NO           Call-in radio web show
NO           Set up/maintain blog

So....what are we waiting for, board members. Signs suggest that many more community members have become less enthralled with your behaviors and your direction.
What do you have to say for it?

Yellow Cards = Hearing Aid?

In its valiant attempts to engage the community---wait...did we say engage?---we meant ENRAGE the community, the school board decided to include only the statements made by 2 of the 5 community residents who spoke about the board's plan to implement a 4-yr old kindergarten.

When asked by Rick Mealy Monday night for an explanation from the board, Board president Stackhouse turned to his go-to guy, Tim Culver. Follow-up explanations were requested in writing, so that we could be sure we heard precisely what Culver's explanation was for not including comments from 3 residents.

Culver responded,

"The "yellow card" has been in use since before I arrived Sun
Prairie.It is a tool the secretary for the Board uses to capture the
name,address, and topic of public's testimony. It is obviously not a requirement to speak at a Board meeting, but is critical to her recordkeeping. If people speaking do not fill
the card out, the secretary is at times unable to hear the specific information and/or capture the gist of the speaker. "

So...basically, the "yellow cards", which are NOT a requirement of any board policy, act as a hearing aid!!! If the secretary doesn't have the yellow card, she can't hear the speakers????? We couldn't believe Culver's response either...so that's why we wanted to print it VERBATIM.

Wait...it gets better. The logic is just so inane. Couldn't the secretary SEE that 3 other people got up to the microphone? Wouldn't that have triggered her to take notes as she did for the other 2 speakers? Or is she blind as well as hearing challenged? Or did she just think that 3 people got up to the microphone each to stand for 3 minutes of silence? Surely, with all his degrees and education, Dr. Culver is able to make up some reasonably plausible rationale for the slight??? And wait... Not a single board member noticed that the meeting minutes did not actually reflect what transpired? Do they even READ their board packages?


PUUUHHHLEASSSE!!! How dumb does Culver think people are? Paul Keats gets basically tossed by the wayside, but Culver is allowed to remain securely employed after responding like this to a comunity member? Do board members really think that people don't see what's going on? Look, you don't like some of the community that speak up at meetings. We get that. But for a board that prided itself on being a model of decorum , this is purely bad form. It's arrogant...and it does NOT pass the smell test. So now the board feels like it can selectively filter out comments from the public record?

The whole thing is also quite funny, because the STAR reporter sitting WAAAAY in the back of the room seemed to not only hear what was said,m but managed to captured direct quotes. Gina Covelli didn't have one of those magic yellow cards. How did she manage to hear? Does she have one of those magic hearing amplifiers you see advertised on the TV???? Enquiring minds want to know all about Gina's super-hearing powers.

District resident Rick Mealy had one main comment: "Slow
down."His urging was echoed by district resident John Welke."In the past year, several decisions were made that this board and
district rushed into and they've been mistakes," Welke said.
"Slow it down. There's no reason why this can't wait
until next year."

---Sun Prairie STAR 1-15-09

The school board has done nothing after receiving recommendations from its "Community Engagement Task Force" several months back. Perhaps they've abandoned the idea of engaging the community and instead are working on plans to ENRAGE the community.

...and the hits just keep on coming.

---

School Board adopts new slogan???

For years, the back of each school board member's name tag has carried the slogan,
"How does this affect student achievement?"

The intent was to remind board members that their mission was to act in a manner that would always be traceable to a goal of student achievement.

Those days seem to be gone.

Look at what has transpired over the course of only a year. The board has repeatedly said it wants to engage the community...to listen...to hear...to win back the public trust.

But actions speak louder than words. Their words and votes have pretty much said,

Dear community...

You're wrong...to want to retain high school principal Paul Keats
You're wrong...we get to decide whose comments we include in the minutes
You're wrong...we didn't violate open meetings laws (once , twice, ???times)
You're wrong....we're implementing 4K
You're wrong...we didn't violate SAGE rules
You (and the boundary task force) are wrong...our plan was better
You're wrong...our budget numbers are always accurate
You're wrong...we get to have $42 steak dinners

And since the community doesn't seem to get it, rumor has it that a new, more appropriate slogan will be appearing on the backs of school board name tags. In fact, instead of showing their names, board members are going to turn the tags around to remind you, dear community members, of whom is right.

SP-EYE obtained an advance copy of the proposed slogan:

Journalistic Integrity be (expletive deleted)

Sorry, Chris and Gina, but this might be viewed as us taking another "potshot" at you. While you got the BoardDocs issues dead to center, we have a few problems with the article, "SP4K: Finding a 'common ground' with childcare partners".

Clocking in at nearly 2500 words, it was a monster article. But rather than an article based on facts, about 80% of the article consists simply of direct quotes by Marggie Banker, the district's Instructional Program Manager for Resource Development (though the article states her title is, "SPASD 4K Program Manager").

As journalists, you are obligated to be as fair, balanced, and accurate as possible in your reporting. With the exception of editorial commentary, writers must present their stories as accurate accounts of the events without injecting personal beliefs and/or interpretations. We don't think you did that. Sure, there's a quote or two from Wes Korenic (Gingerbread House childcare) as well as one quote each from Ginger Fisher (Director of La Petite Academy), Barb Mulhern (Director of the Sun Prairie Nursery School), and Jill Haglund (early childhood consultant for the Department of Public Instruction)--but overall the article is very clearly a school district sales pitch, with a kumbaya, feel-good style. Additionally, nearly all of Bankers' quotes are preceded by "I think..., I feel..., or I believe...".

Where's the balance of perspectives? Where's the hard data or facts to substantiate statements made? Did you put any time into an independent review of the data available? Three citizens spoke out at the board meeting...but you didn't ask them their thoughts. The article reads like one of the propaganda communiques sent out be the school district.

Let's look at some of the quotes included (all quotes attributed to Marggie Banker):

On the impact of a 4K program on childcare centers:
"I think that's hard to predict right now [the impact on the childcare centers]...,"

"We don't have any research or evidence that brings to bear any grave impact on a business that I'm aware of ..."

On the community desire for a 4K program...
"We knew that our families were hungry for 4-year old learning opportunity here ..."

"I think it was not so much a matter of should we do it; it was a matter of how we do it. "

"We've done some research on how other districts have compensated their childcare partners ..."

On the issue of whether the district will be ready in time for fall 2009...
"We have a phenomenally committed staff, and I think that together, with the childcare providers, we feel like we will be able to work together and find solutions to some of these big questions..."

On whether Model 2 (see below) is still an option...
"We haven't eliminated any possibility. We've just looked at what the best practices and research has said and it has said that the model three community approach works best..."

"We've heard that model two has been the least successful model throughout the state, though it's not off the table really."

"I think all options are on the table. I think that this discourse will be ongoing into the future. And that's the strength of how SPASD operates their program. "

[Pardon the ( SP-EYE) interruption: Hello! The budget process for 2009-10 is quickly gathering steam. In order to implement Model 2, we would have to be getting serious about adding teachers, which would cost a lot more money and was NOT factored into the proposal. The school board voted on the proposal presented. So...why didn't the district be honest and just say that Model 2 is NOT going to be done in Sun Prairie? Because it will NOT be an option.]

On why the HeadStart program was not involved in the proposal...
"Though they were invited to the discussions this fall, I don't think they were ready to go forward as a partner yet..."

"I heard the waiting list was in the forties of families who want access to this program and there are just not enough spaces available..."

---

You THINK...? You FEEL...? You've HEARD...??
Good Lord! Whatever happened to making decisions driven by data? Remember? The district mission statement?
To maximize each student's learning by...using data to drive instructional decision-making;
Refer to the full district vision and mission statement.-

We interrupt this blog post to bring you some actual data:
Ms. Banker said very clearly that, "...research has shown [model 2]to be a weaker approach".

Gee....that's interesting, because the DPI website has a spreadsheet of all the districts in the state that have implemented 4K, and 75% of them are using the Model 2 approach. So...we're saying that 75% of the state has it wrong, and we have it right? Hmmmmm. Note also that the approach we've chosen: about 90% childcare; 10% school exists in only 25 of 329 (7.5%)Wisconsin school districts.

THIS underscores why community members that are awake and Wes Korenic pleaded with the district to SLOW DOWN!

---

Breakdown of 4K program settings in Wisconsin

School only__________________249
School+ChildCare______________25
School+HeadStart+ChildCare____21
Other_________________________12
School+HeadStart______________11
HeadStart+ChildCare____________7
ChildCare only_________________3
HeadStart only_________________1
TOTAL________________________329
---Source: DPI website

---

Although it may look that way, we do not fault Ms. Banker in this process. Unfortunately she was the messenger for the district's message in this article. We're certain that she was simply trying to be good troop.

---

• Model 1 programs are classrooms that are taught by a school district employed teacher, assisted by a school district employed educational assistant, and located in a school district building.

• Model 2 programs are classrooms located in a community agency facility with the children taught by a school district employed teacher and supported by either a school district employee or community agency employed educational assistant.

• Model 3 programs have classrooms located in a community agency facility and taught by a community agency employed educational assistant.

Here we go again! Open Meetings violations?

Bravo, Chris Mertes !

Mertes' column "Our View" in the 1-22-09 edition of the Sun Prairie STAR eloquently underscores the continuing follies of the Sun Prairie school board in upholding Open Meetings laws and also points out some of the flaws of the highly touted "BoardDocs" software that enables them.

At issue here is the fact that the school board failed to post an altered agenda of its Jan. 12 meeting. An amended agenda had been distributed to board members using Board Docs but not to the news media--or the public. The public believed that the board would be discussing donations received to install artificial turf on the new baseball field.

Sin of omission? Or sin of commission...that is the question.

Sun Prairie Star, "Our View" column: Board Locks

"Sun Prairie School Board members need to be vigilant that they do
not violate state law when revising agendas using "Board Docs" or they will lock the public out of their agendas and, thereby, public discussions of issues affecting them. "
----Chris Mertes

Mertes hits the nail right on the head. Of course, that accuracy only comes from lots of practice, and he's had more than enough given the board's propensity for coloring outside the lines. We've been down this road before, His Highness will respond at Monday's board meeting, and the party line will be, "This was merely an 'oops'. There was no intent to circumvent the law." On the other hand, we can only use the, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do..." card so many times. At this point we've turned a lot of cheeks; in fact, it seems that in response to our continual cheek-turning, the board has effectively dropped trou and exposed a whole different set of cheeks to us.

Yes, this was not the most flagrant foul we've seen out of the board. Absolutely, having something on the agenda that was NOT discussed is a far lesser crime than discussing/deciding something that was NOT on the agenda. Then of course we get into the more capital offenses: holding meetings that are not noticed at all...or having off-line discussions via e-mail or phone.

This BoardDocs was not cheap, and right now we've seen how it can be easily used to bypass the system. Sure, in the right hands, this BoardDocs thing may prove to be the greatest thing to come along since Sonic. (dontcha just KNOW that if we get a local Sonic, the district checks payable to it will be absolutely flying out??) But right now, it's just a fancy file server.

So....what's a poor taxpayer to do? If you have the cash, you could file a civil suit against the board. You could also file a complaint with the District Attorney's office. Sadly, however, as much as Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen preaches the importance of Open Meetings laws and transparency of government, the DAs plain and simply always seem to have something larger on their plate than addressing these violations.

"Of course we could go through the myriad steps associated with getting an official from the Attorney General's office or the Dane County District Attorney's Office to make a finding that the board and district violated the law -- but what would be the point? The district and board have demonstrated time and again during the past few years that the law only
suits them when convenient."
---Chris Mertes

Well said, Chris. Keep fighting the good fight. We're five by five.

More info comes in on HS Principal Keats

The information we're receiving is that Paul Keats has indeed turned in his hall pass.

Reports are that Keats was told that (A) he was not guaranteed that the position of principal at the new high school was his, that (B) he'd have to apply for the job, and (C) the he need not apply because he would not get the job.

Reading between the lines, it would appear that Keats was recently informed that his administrative contract as high school principal would not be renewed when it expires June 30, 2009. Subsequently we believe that Mr. Keats turned in his resignation effective immediately.

Assuming this is all accurate, we're wondering why this? why now? Keats may not have been a top shelf administrator, but if the board (Culver) were going to develop a hatchet list and axe some administrators, our thinking i that Keats wouldn't be the community's choice for first neck under the guillotine.

We're just sayin'.

High School Principal Paul Keats...Gone?

The rumor mill is flying. Reports from multiple sources indicate that high school principal Paul Keats has left the building...and will not be returning.

We have not heard anything official from the school district (SURPRISE!) but the district website sure lists a high school principal position open...and we only have one of those. The "opening" date (1-13-09) also coincides with the first reports we heard of this event.

Sun Prairie high school principal job announcement

The position availability is NOW, and will start July 2009...which, of course, nicely coincides with the beginning of a new fiscal year.

We'll keep you posted.

Inside the 4K Decision: Who Said What

We've realized over the last several years is that what this community lacks is the statements leading to a decision. Sure, our local newspaper captures the wonderful soliloquies; but what they DON'T share is that this decision, like many of its kind, came very suddenly and left a lot of concerns and questions on the table. Herein are the captured words that you didn't hear...unless you subscribe to Charter cable, of course. Captured in red are those items that were identified as concerns, yet never addressed by board motion.

We begin as board president Stackhouse opens the agenda item for board discussion. First up is Al Slane.

Al Slane:
"This proposal means a reduction in property taxes. However, moving forward, we need to cover start-up costs. I'd like to see this [program] cover the pool operating costs and [for us to] remove the [recently approved referendum] decision to exceed the revenue cap [for ongoing pool costs]. We need to look at the revenue cap without the 4K program and be sure that we're not raising taxes due to the extra kids."

Terry Shimek:
"I share Al [Slane]'s concerns. I'd like to have for the first 3 years an annual review to ensure that [state aid] revenues meet or exceed the projections. "

Jim McCourt:
"Long overdue. It has worlds of benefits. This is relatively revenue neutral. In fact, since it generates revenue, it's great. "

Caren Diedrich:
" The nutrition aspect is still a question for us. A 1/2 day program starts after breakfast and ends before lunch. Breakfast and lunch still have to be explored. Open enrollment...there are many aspects not in place...parents should look into it. If a child from a district with a 4K program (Marshall) and their parents bring them to daycare in Sun Prairie with its 4K program, can they do that? "

Jill Camber-Davidson:
" I have more questions now than I did [last]Monday. I'm still concerned about staffing with principals and discipline at daycare centers. How can we have authority in a [privately owned] daycare? I don't want to go into this too fast...I don't want to go into this without first working these issues out. [Camber-Davidson listed the following additional concerns]

• Liability & Insurance - I want to see this
• Meal services - questions answered...what are the costs?
• Evaluation - How do we evaluate and catch issue when we don't own [the locations]?
• Childcare Centers - What about child care centers in the community? I don't want to see any going out of business [as a result of this decision]."

Alice Murphy [Assistant District Administrator - Instructional Programs]:
" There are questions for which we haven't thought of answers...yet we are searching for them with our partners [the childcare centers] . We had a discussion regarding the discipline issue today. Evaluation lies with the district...clearly the district is in charge. We're looking at annual contracts...some [communities] do 3-year contracts. I'm relatively reassured... but...no...we need to keep looking at this. "

Terry Shimek:
" Jill...what are you thinking? With the tight timeline [to implement the 4K program] do you want to defer board action tonight? "
[SP-EYE...Are you saying that you support such a vote, Terry...but just aren't bold enough to make it yourself?]

David Stackhouse:
" Should we consider waiting on this until these issues are addressed? "

Tim Culver District Administrator]:
" Transportation is a whole other issue. Issues are going to come up. I'm not sure we'll ever get all the answers. We need to have confidence that the system will allow things to be worked out."
[SP-EYE...gee...no advocating here!]

...and now the board breaks to hear Community input:

Wes Korenic [ Gingerbread House Childcare Administrator]:
" I have many questions that have not been answered. My insurance company has many questions that I cant get answered. I don't know what my costs will be and with this timeframe I feel like I'm going in blind. I contacted centers in Watertown, Stoughton, and Beaver Dam [all of which run 4K programs]. All say they are losing money. They are given $2500 per child and they are losing money. There are enormous volumes of paperwork required. Will I need to hire office help? Do I need to be competitive with wages? I am concerned about displacing teachers or having to cut their hours in order to hire a teacher and put this program in place. "

Korenic went on to indicate her preference that "Model 2" be implemented. Under Model 2, the school district would hire the teachers as their employees and send them out to the childcare centers to implement it.

Sharlot Bogart [ Teddy's Place Childcare Administrator]:
" The only way I feel we can work this out is to move forward. I have 3 teachers now working on their [requisite teaching] degree. With this funding we can pay our staff more."

Alice Murphy [Assistant District Administrator - Instructional Programs]:
[in response to questions from David Stackhouse] " We prefer Models 3 and 1. We will try to place kids where their parents want. Model 2 is not out of the question. "

...and now back to the board for motion and vote:

David Stackhouse:
" Understanding that it took 5 months for this plan does not mean it came suddenly. We've been looking at it [4 K] for 7 years. Our district administration isn't going to do anything without it being a big success. "

Caren Diedrich:
" We have several things in 2 motions: (1) adoption of the 4 K program, (2) approval of the budget and staffing, (3) authorize the district administrator to enter into contracts [with childcare centers], and (4) revise policy JC to cover 4K."

The vote: 6-1 to approve the motion and implement the 4K program, with Camber-Davidson voting against.

---

SP-EYE: Are you seeing "red" after seeing all the red? What kind of board votes to establish this kind of program with so many unanswered question on the table? Al Slane made some great suggestions to use the "profit" from 4K to cover pool costs and also to not exceed the revenue cap as was recently approved by referendum. Too bad nothing came of it. Why wasn't this made as a separate motion or r as an amendment to the motion made?


Does anyone else feel like perhaps the board could have tabled this items for 2 weeks...or even 4 weeks and allow time for district administration to work out some answers? Nope. They voted it and announced it to the public that we're having a 4K program THIS fall. Anyone else seeing the parallels of conducting business like this to the economic collapse?

It is important to point out that we do not believe that Jill Camber-Davidson's vote was in opposition to the CONCEPT of implementing a 4K program. We believe she was correctly voting against implementing the program at this moment in time given the unanswered questions that abound. That's what leaders do...they only support those programs that have been clearly reasoned out. We know...you don't hear it often, so it's hard to recognize it when you do...but that would be a voice of reason you heard.

High School Project Over-budget

Quietly at the Jan 12 FTT meeting, those few in attendance heard that the current projection for the existing high school remodel is over-budget. Of course you won't hear this on-camera at a full school board meeting. That is, of course, until one of our Elite Eight reads this blog and then tries to "spin" its version of things.

Of course, when we were told that the projections were to exceed the budget, we weren't given any indication of HOW MUCH the projections were over-budget. And the announcement was quickly followed up by a statement that the portion of the "Upper Middle School" (8-9) project that was over-budget MAY be offset by any cost-savings from the new high school project.

After a few pointed questions to Michael Huffman, the district's hired construction representative, however, we got the answer: the project is currently projected to be over-budget by between $300,000 and 400,000.

Huffman quickly added that the project hadn't gone out to bid yet, and they are hoping to make up the projected shortfall either there or via adjustments to sitework.

District to purchase more land for the high school site?
The original plan was to connect the existing high school and the new high school via a Marshview Road connection. There has been some difficulty in doing so, however, because the planned access way impacts a wetlands area. Consequently, the District has been quietly working to acquire "2-3 parcels of land".

When this factoid was elicited, Dr. Culver was quick to point out that the original Referendum Question #1 allowed for the purchase of land for the project. Did you miss that when you voted?

Hmmmm...didn't see a line item about the costs of property acquisition in the high school design information. Wonder how that might affect the budget. One also has to wonder (can you hear the legal fees mounting) if purchase of property will have to be approved at an elector's meeting--as is the law--or whether by voting approval of the referendum question, the referendum vote itself constitutes an elector's meeting. Care to guess what the district's position will be?

Referendum Question 1:
Shall there be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $96,000,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new high school for grades 10 through 12 on the district-owned Highway N site; acquiring property adjacent to the Highway N site for additional access, if necessary; and remodeling the
existing high school building into a school for grades 8 and 9?

The Case of the Ludicrous Lunch - Part 2

Oh we KNOW what the board will say...don't we?
Can you hear it now in that tone of voice that grates on you just shy of fingernails on a blackboard:

"The lunch expenses incurred by misters Frei and Keats were in accordance with board policy"

So...what does policy say? Let's first look at District policy DLC and show the board the flaws in their "policy":

The Board shall reimburse staff for actual, necessary and reasonable expenses incurred while on approved school district business.

Was the lunch actual? Sadly, yes.
Necessary? Probably not.
Reasonable? Arguable...although the board will probably publicly say that $15 is reasonable for lunch. Of course this comes from a group many of whom, were part of the $42 per head steak dinner last January.

Daily reimbursements for meals will not exceed $35 in-state and $45 out-of-state.

Someone wishing to abuse this could read this as saying if you're traveling and have lunch (or even breakfast), you can spend up to $35 just for that one meal!!!! We think (hope???) that this was not the board's intent....although the board was encouraged repeatedly to establish PER MEAL allowances such as those that are in place for all state employees. (Hint, Hint).

The State Office of Employee Relations establishes per meal maxima as:
Breakfast $ 8.00 ___($10.00 out-of-state)
Lunch $ 9.00___($10.00 out-of-state)
Dinner $17.00___($20.00 out-of-state)
Pocket Travel Guide 2007-09 (eff. July 1, 2008)

Now these are REASONABLE maxima. And all state employees are subject to these limits. Would state employees like to spend $15 for a lunch? Sure...some of them might. But come on! The majority of NORMAL people do not spend $15 when they go out for lunch during a workday....unless someone else is paying for it of course. Hmmmmmm. We're just sayin'!

The District expects each employee will exercise good judgment regarding expenses and will comply with all Board policies.

Ahhh..."exercise good judgement". Now THAT's not the least bit subjective, is it? Another classic example of making weak policy by including subjectivity...or as we call it..."weasel words". Can your hear Frei and Keats now? "In our good judgement, after the long drive to Sheboygan, we felt that a $15 lunch was in order."

We also love the "The District expects..." intro. Like we "expect" out elected leaders to vote according to what we who elected them want, not what they personally want. Like we "expect" kids to behave on buses. Like we would expect that elected officials would most certainly not be in arrears on something like property taxes. Newsflash, board members: expectations only lead to disappointment.

As a precondition of reimbursement, detailed receipts must be submitted with claims.

Well, now...isn't that special. At least we get to see the documentation. We'll just have to make a public records request to find out what kind of lunch the taxpayers paid for. Inquiring minds want to know.

One last bit of food for thought for you board members. We know you like food...so maybe you'll be interested in some food for thought

The Office of State Employee Relations also makes the following stipulations:

• To be allowed reimbursement for breakfast, the employee must leave home before 6:00 a.m.; lunch, departure must be before 10:30 a.m. and return after 2:30 p.m.; dinner, return must be after 7:00 p.m. These time frames are for employees working standard hours of 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. These time frames may be modified for employees working varied work schedules.
• On any particular day an employee is entitled to reimbursement for two or more consecutive meals, the maximum amount for one or more meals may be exceeded and the employee may claim the actual amount spent for each meal as long as the total amount claimed for the eligible meals is not greater than the combined maximum reimbursement rate for those meals. If meal maximums are not reached on one day, the excess amount does not accrue and cannot be applied to meals on another day

Contracts vary slightly, but most contracts also specify that meals are not reimbursable if travel is within a certain mile radius (25 miles for many) of an employee's "home city". This would be a nice addition to policy, and would prevent many of the meals that taxpayers question.

[SP-EYE: We hate to keep bring this stuff up, but we know that it bugs the heck out of many district residents who just won't speak up to the board. So...if the board won't change it's practices, then we'll just have to keep the pressure on them by highlighting their ridiculous spending and sense of entitlement in a public forum for God and everyone to see. We simply cannot WAIT to see where they'll be dining at the conference coming up and see if they'll surpass last year's folly! ]

Despite board member & community concerns, Board approves 4K

Color us surprised.

The school board in its infinite wisdom that their opinions count more than the public that elected them, rushed to approve (6-1) the kindergarten program for 4 yr olds this fall.

Only board member Jill Camber-Davidson had the chutzpah to voice her concerns and then punctuate them with a "NO" vote.

As has become status quo for relative new-comers Terry Shimek and Al Slane, they both expressed concerns and even suggested some potential conditions for moving forward. But in the end, they did what they always do: vote yes. Neither of them made any attempt to pursue an amendment to the motion to address concerns that voiced by Camber-Davidson, community residents, a child-care center owner and even themselves.

Gentlemen, you both had some great comments and ideas that would go a long way towards "selling" this program to the community. But you have to do more than step up into the pocket. You actually have to throw a pass. You did nothing. You get "A"s for your concerns and suggested improvements, but your final grade is "F" for not following through and doing something about it in the form of an amended motion.

It's this constant smarmy "I have some concerns..." opening statement only to be followed by a "Yes" vote that drives the community crazy. We wonder if they have even the foggiest notion of how silly (not to mention insincere) they sound. They ought to be thankful that they are running unopposed for re-election in April.

If you're going to express concerns about an issue up for vote, then at least grow the anatomical parts necessary to stand up and make an amendment to the motion at hand...or, better yet...simply vote "No". Instead, we have a board full of meek, district-manipulated puppets.

Then there's the other 4 ( Stackhouse, Whalen, McCourt, and Diedrich) who simply want to bow to whatever the district puts forward. Perhaps they're just working on their legacies. Word has it that Stackhouse had been telling people potentially interested in running for the board that 2009 is a great year to run because you could be part of the board that got 4K going in Sun Prairie. How prophetic! Hmmmm...kinda makes you stop and think, doesn't it? If the rumors are accurate, and Stackhouse was encouraging certain individuals to run, could it be that da Prez has some interest in seeing one (or more) of the 3 board members up for re-election unseated? Hmmmm. Stay tuned, Sun Prairie!

Thankfully, Jill Camber-Davidson was bold enough to step out from the flock and speak not just her piece, but also to voice concerns shared by many community members. The district admittedly does not have all the answers. In fact, Dr. Culver even said, "We haven't even discussed transportation issues." Gee...and you don't think transportation will, be an expense??? You can't put a bunch of tiny 4 year olds on a bus with kids up to 12 years old, can you? With all the hijinx reported on the buses, that's not a good plan, is it?

Gingerbread House childcare owner Wes Korenic--who would be a patrner with the district on this venture-- also expressed valid concerns from the perspective of childcare center owners. She di the research by actually contacting centers that were running 4K programs in other districts. Wes very likely did more research on this topic than most of our elected school board members.

Jill Camber-Davidson was the lone school board member to tell the district with her vote that the "SP4K" proposal simply wasn't fleshed out enough to warrant approval at this point. Finally, signs of life from a board member that they listen to logic and reasoning and they will not vote "Yes" simply to show a unified front.

Board members: voting in opposition to a program or policy does not mean you are anti-education. What you have to realize is that your vote has to represent the wishes of the entire community--NOT just district administration or your own personal opinions. Sure there is some community support for a 4K program. But there was some community support for two high schools, too. Unfortunately, that position was not shared by the majority of the community---which is why the idea was rejected by voters.. And if there are more questions than answers, then perhaps it's time to either table the decision or vote "No". At the very least a vote to move forward and continue to resolve questions, but with no guarantee of implementation in the fall of 2009 was in order.

Oh...and board members...those of you that refuse to return phone calls from residents whose opinions you disagree with--and you KNOW who you are: shame on you. Again...you were elected to represent AND LISTEN TO all the community. If you dislike that which comes with the job, then perhaps you oughta step down.

Some Lunch!!!!

Wilbuuurrrrr!


At the January 12, 2009 Finance Committee, two checks came into question. Well...let's be perfectly clear...it wasn't any board member that questioned the checks. As usual, the questions came from a citizen representative.

Upon request, Business Manager Rhonda Page had this to offer as explanation for the expenses,

Check # 91273 Philip Frei meal (lunch) reimbursement for $14.50 on 12/18/08.

Check # 91298 Paul Keats meal (lunch) reimbursement for $15.34 on 12/18/08.

"..when Phil (and Paul) went to visit Sheboygan to see to see their high school gyms, lockers, and fitness center."

Well...that sure is tough business checking out high school gyms and fitness centers. They must have worked themselves up quite an appetite.

Does anyone even KNOW of anywhere in Sheboygan where lunch costs $15???

While the rest of us might occasionally get a $5.00 meal at McDonald's or even one of those $5-8 "quick business lunches", our taxpayer funded administrators are dining high on the hog (sorry, Wilbur!).

The issue of setting maximums for meals has been raised to the school board before...only to fall on deaf ears. They like their fancy lunches and dinners. The board insists that their current policy which limits reimbursement to "reasonable and customary" expenses is sufficient.

Who thinks $15 for lunch ...on the taxpayer...is "reasonable and customary"?

Oh...and the best is yet to come...later this month is the annual school board conference...and once again,m WE are paying to finance virtually the entire school board to attend. Can't wait to see where they go and how much they spend for their annual luxurious steak dinner! Think they can top last year's $42 per person?

What's that you say? The economy is down? Not in Sunny Prairie!

Vote of Confidence? Or is it Resigned Apathy?

Incumbent school board members John Whalen, Terry Shimek, and Al Slane can sleep a little easier: they are running unopposed for their school board seats. Well, at least that's the case unless some unknown challenger rises from the background and chooses to mount a write-in campaign. We don't claim to be city historians, but it seems that 3 board members running without opposition is a fairly unprecedented situation; certainly in recent years. Of course there's nothing left that's "sexy" on the docket. The major decisions have been made. Other than the 4K program, the next significant fiscal event horizon will be when the district comes back to us for an 8th elementary school.

Sadly, we suspect that their egos are telling them that no opposition means abject community support for them. Realistically, however, it may well be just another sign that too many in this community are apathetic about the school board.

Certainly many grumble about property taxes and school board decisions. But very few are sufficiently resolute in their complaints to actually take out and submit nomination papers.

So it seems we have 3 more years of at least two of them. Whoever winds up 3rd in the voting, however, will be awarded only a 1-year term to complete Jim Carrel's term.

A wise man once said that if one wishes to see how good a leader they are, they need only turn around and see exactly who is lined up behind them. We don't see long lines behind any of the current crop of school board members.

SP4K...More Questions Than Answers

Oh...but you can bank on it that the school board will vote 7-0 to approve the new 4-yr old kindergarten at the Monday January 12 meeting. Sure, Caren Diedrich and someone else will likely do their regular on-screen acting where they appear torn by the costs involved in the wake of the national economic gloom. But vote yes they will. All of them. Mmmmm...yes.

We're just wondering how much they've really thought about this proposal rather than just voting yes because they don't have the time or energy to really do the research. If district administration supports it, surely it must be a good thing, right?

Because our elected "leaders" won't ask the tough questions, I guess we have to.

Loss of command & control
4K teachers will be hired by and employees of the partnering childcare centers. Therefore, the school district has no control over the teaching situation. The requirement is that these teachers be duly licensed by DPI. But they also have to meet all other continuing education and training obligations required to maintain the license. Who pays for that? Who's monitoring that?

In addition, these teachers can become ill, be terminated, or resign. Then what happens to the continuity of instructional programs? Will SPASD meet the state mandated instructional hours requirements? Within the district, we have a "substitute" pool from which to draw on. We can just make a call and plug in a substitute teacher. What will the childcare centers do? And how will that be funded?

Employment equity
Will 4K teachers at the childcare centers, as center (vs. district) employees be provided with an equivalent benefit package that teachers WITHIN the district receive? If not...why not? And is there liability in establishing such a differential scale?

What about childcare violations?
With no intent of maligning any of the childcare "partners" for the 4K program proposal, we DO all read the papers and watch the news. We know that many local childcare centers HAVE been assessed fines for violation of state regulations. Does this issue warrant a little further discussion in light of the fact that now our kids will actually be attending these centers for formal education funded by tax dollars? The state has established a website to review the record of childcare centers.

Safety
Our children's safety is of paramount concern...as it should be. But how safe are our kids in a district funded educational offering provided outside the lines of the district's security measures??? We the taxpayers have paid good tax dollars to install cameras and hire employees to be a "first line" of defense in our schools. But these area childcare centers can't be expected to duplicate the district security measures...can they? We all read the newspapers about kids being accidentally released to the wrong people.

Legal liability?
If, God forbid, something happens to one of our kids at one of these centers during kindergarten program hours, who is liable? Just the daycare center....or is the school district liable as well? District Administration is usually very quick to secure a legal opinion on even the most trivial matters (like reviewing the agenda for an annual meeting that never changes). Hopefully this is one issue that has been exhaustively reviewed.

What do you do with 4-yr olds that aren't "ready" for school?
State laws require that any child who turns 4 by September 1 of a given school year MUST be allowed entry into a districts 4K program. We all know kids that aren't yet potty-trained...or still drink from a bottle. And those are just the obvious issues to be concerned with. You think separation anxiety is a problem at 5 yrs old? How about at age 4?

The bottom line is that there ARE a significant number of kids that are NOT ready for school by age 4. What do we do with these kids that MUST be allowed access? How will their presence impede learning of other kids?

Will this increase --or decrease--my childcare costs?
If I'm a parent that would normally leave my child in daycare all-day...and now I can have my child attend state-funded 4-yr KG for 2.5 hours each day.....

Will I have to pay more for this service? Or will I actually be charged LESS in daycare expenses because the school district is funding the 2.5 hr KG segment of my child's normal daycare routine?

Questions vs. Answers
All good questions. Unfortunately we have no answers.
Perhaps one of the elected school board members who claim not to monitor such an offensive blog as this one ---yet who somehow manage to intuitively be aware of posts made here and continually make public responses to them--- will be able to offer the public some good answers to all these questions at the meeting tomorrow, January 12, 2009. Hey...maybe one of them will actually appear to have researched the issue and ask some relevant questions.

Profitting from kindergarteners

That's right...the school board is selling the proposed 4-year old kindergarten program as a slam-dunk because the school district will actually make a profit from it!!!!

Of course, in any transaction, when one party "profits", isn't it typically the case that another party loses? We don't hear this plan being a win-win for all parties involved...do we? So who is being taken advantage of in this situation?

Is it the partnering childcare centers that are being exploited? These businesses will receive (according to the proposal) $3,000 per 4-yr old child in return for providing the teachers and space for educating 4-yr olds according to state curriculum requirements. And those payments will increase 3% per year!!!!!

If the district receive $5-6,000 per enrolled 4-year old and we're only paying the childcare centers $3,000 per kid...that would be a nice profit. And to offer only a 3% increase per year when we know we increase costs by 5-10% routinely is poor form. Heck...district employee salaries alone were increased by 4-5% last year! So that's it childcare centers. You do get a great source of revenue....but only 50-67% of what the district gets. And you only get a fixed increase of 3% per year, while the district knows that its costs increase about double that annually.

Or is it the state and taxpayers that's being exploited? The school board and district administration constantly remind us that school finance funding is "one big pie" and state equalization aids is the way the "pie" is doled out to all districts. If we understand the district correctly, if SPASD will actually receive MORE state aid, then understandably, everyone else receives LESS state aid...right? So we gain by screwing all the other kids in the state, is that it?

Of course, the Democratic controlled state legislature could vote to increase school funding in addition to lifting the QEO...right? Sure...that COULD happen....but what's the likelihood that it WILL happen in the wake of a $5-6 BILLION dollar state budget deficit and an ongoing recession surpassed only by the great depression. In fact, less state revenues might have to mean LESS money for schools...in which case any SPASD budget shortfall would have to be covered by...yup...us...the taxpayers.

You DO NOT know what the next 9 months will entail for this city, this school district, this state or the nation. You cannot guarantee that state aid money that you THINK will be there WILL be there. There our too many unknowns regarding finances and now is not the time to spend money.

So, dear school board members....for once in your collective tenures....perhaps this is the time to say, "Hey...we're really jazzed about the prospect of having 4-yr old kindergarten, but unfortunately the economic prospect of doing so in 2009-10 doesn't look good."

SP4K Program: The Return of Fuzzy Accounting

OK, folks, the proposal for the SP4K (Sun Prairie Four Kids-4 yr kindercare...er kindergarten) program is out on the school district website. Unfortunately, it's difficult to provide a link to it because of the way BoardDocs works. Memo to District: Something to look into. The proposal is listed on Board Docs under the agenda for the Education & Policy committee mtg for January 5th, under Business Items.


This proposal confirms many of our projections, but when the really big question comes up, it actually provides only more questions and no concrete answers. What's the big question? How much is this program going to cost us? Is it 6 coffees? 12? 50? Well it's hard to tell.


The program expenses are listed as dollar costs.
But "revenues" are listed in terms/units of "Revenue Cap increase"
...and that's like saying X minus Y = Grape


More on that in a sec. Two other items of note:

1. While the proposal indicates that DPI start-up funding ($700/child for 1st year programs in in 2008-09), this "revenue" is not included in the balancing attempt.


2. There is a note that funding will have a $603,000 shortfall in 2009-10, but that part of this shortfall would be covered by the $500,000 set aside in the current (08-09) budget for "one-time payments. Hold the phone, Tyrone! The board made it VERY clear that the $500,000 budget "surplus" would be used to offset future costs to start-up the new high school. We were NEVER told it would be used to fund a new program!


But we digress...back to the balance sheet...or lack thereof. Instead of the weird apples and oranges approach, why aren't we going back to basic accounting 10 principles...you know...expenses = X dollars and projected income to offset these expenses are Y dollars. The board/district also need to make every effort to estimate what this all means in terms of projected mill rate increase and then how that translates to property taxes on a typical $200K home.


Frankly, Mr. Shankly, if you look at the way they present the summary of "Net cost/revenue to the district", it appears that after the 1st year, we'll actually be making a profit off of a 4K program!!! Yeah right. If you believe that, there's a call for you from Bernard Madoff regarding a hot investment opportunity he has for you.

Why don't they want to tell us what it costs???


"Revenue Cap increase" is a nebulous thing at best. In addition, the revenue cap is merely the cap for all general fund budget items. This includes State equalized aid (what we get from the state) and Property tax levy (what those of us who pay our property taxes pay out of our pockets). And historically, our "Revenue Cap Limit" per child is just under $10,000. Then you have to bear in mind that roughly one half of that amount is provided through "equalized aid" (i.e., state money). We pay the other 50% through the property tax levy.


That means that we can expect to receive roughly $5,000 per 4K student from the state. Oh yeah...and 4K students only count as 0.5 or 0.6 "FTE pupils"...because they don't attend school full-time. Oh...and one more thing....you have to remember that the pupil count figure for determining state aid is calculated on a 3-year average. That means that for every 100 kids that enroll in the 4K program this year, we essentially get state aid for 33 of them. Then we get aid for 67 of them in Year 2 and the full state aid (at 60%) in the 3rd year.

Our estimate of cost using one approach is:

________________________2009-10 ___2010-11___ 2011-12
Rev. Cap. Increase __ $ 877,124 $ 1,938,551 $ 3,111,357
assume 50%= prop. tax $ 438,562 $ 969,276 $ 1,555,679

Equal.value (+ 3%/yr) $4,039B _______$4,160B _____ $4,285B
mill increase ________$ 0.11 _____$0.23 _____$0.36
Cost per $200K home __$ 22 _______$ 46 ______$ 72


But I'm sure we-simplify things.
One thing that this all seems to indicate....for several years the school board has patted themselves on the back for NOT taxing us right up to the Revenue Cap. The constant reference to the Revenue Cap suggests that from here on in, the board will tax us right up to the revenue limit...or even hold a referendumn to EXCEED the limit.

---

Program Cost Summary from SP4K proposal
"Revenue" Summary from SP4K proposal

The 4K Train Keeps A Rollin'

The 4K train has left the station folks. The cleverly titled program proposal "Sun Prairie Four Kids" will be discussed at the Monday Jan. 5 meeting of the Education & Policy committee. If they vote to forward the proposal on to the school board, that means the program will likely go to the school board for its Jan. 12 meeting. Things have to move quickly if the district wants to begin 4K with the 2009-10 school year. Applications are due July 1, which means the money must be in the school budget plans before then. Budget planning for 2009-10 begins in January/February.

At the December 22, 2008 meeting of the school board's Finance committee, the agenda informational item entitled, 2009-10 Budget Timeline, clearly stated that budgets for programs which included the "4-K Program" were due February 1st.:

The following budgets are due to the Assistant District Administrator of Instructional programs:
• District Testing
• ESL
• K-12 Reading
• Staff Development
• Talented & Gifted
• Summer School
• 4 Year Old Kindergarten
• Virtual School

If you're not following with the rest of the class, that is definitive indication that the district administration plans to implement a 4K program next year.

Do you really think any school board member will vote against such a proposal? Seriously. Our school board is so in lock-step with district administration that when Tim Culver and school board president David Stackhouse lunch together, they leave only a single set of footprints.

The problem with our school board is that not a single one of the seven has sufficient spinal integrity to stand up and say, "You know what? This sounds like a nice program, but I don't think it's right for Sun Prairie". Often they'll start off by saying that they "...have some concerns..." or suggest that a certain program "...means an awful lot of money for taxpayers..." But in the end? They say something like, "I've reconsidered all the information..." and then vote for the program 7-0.

Think it doesn't happen? As an example, several school board members have OFF THE RECORD stated that in retrospect, while the land donated by Veridian was a great opportunity, perhaps the location of Creekside elementary was not in the best interests of the school district at this time. Sure! Would have been nice if these members had spoken so candidly BEFORE the school was constructed! But that's not to be. Human nature is that school board members tend to go with the administrative flow, so to speak.

What is 4-K (4-yr kindergarten)?
If you have trouble googling "4K programs", you may have better luck searching under the umbrella conceptual term of "early childhood education" or "early childhood programs". According to the DPI website, " Early childhood programs prepare youngsters to learn and to successfully transition into school. The programs provide educational and economic benefit regardless of family income, but specifically bridge the effects of poverty [emphasis added] by allowing children from economically disadvantaged families to gain a more equal footing with their peers. Reports also show that young children attending quality early education programs do better in school, and they have fewer referrals for special education. Retention rates are lower, meaning fewer students are held back a grade. Additionally, those who attend quality early childhood programs are more likely to graduate from high school, work, and avoid incarceration.

More from DPI: "Under the grant-funded community approach, school districts form a council or advisory group and collaborate with a Head Start, licensed group-based child care, or preschool center to provide 4K services.
"The community approach model of providing 4K services recognizes the shared responsibility for providing quality early care and education," Burmaster said. "This strategy is growing quickly from just three districts using a community approach in the 2001-02 school year to 89 this year. It makes sense for school districts to partner with their communities to provide vital 4K services to children and their families."

Does 4K really work?
The National Education Association (NEA)says that, "High quality early childhood education represents one of the best investments our country can make. NEA believes it's a common sense investment we can't afford to pass up.

Research shows that providing a high quality education for children before they turn five yields significant long-term benefits.

One well-known study, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, ) [ The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (2005) study examines the lives of 123 African Americans born in poverty and at high risk of failing in school] found that individuals who were enrolled in a quality preschool program ultimately earned up to $2,000 more per month than those who were not. Young people who were in preschool programs are more likely to graduate from high school, to own homes, and have longer marriages.

Who has 4K programs in Wisconsin?
According to DPI, in the 2008-09 school year 4K enrollment included 319 Districts totalling
33,976 students. A spreadsheet on the District's website shows slightly different numbers.

While statewide these numbers mean that about 75% of school districts have some level of a 4K program, Dane County --at least as of 2008-09--seems to buck that trend. As of the current school year, only 5 of 14 Dane County school districts (35%) have a 4K program.

Will more school space be needed?
In a word...maybe. You'll have to see what administration is proposing, but since preference in start-up funding is given to those districts that partner with community groups, such as child care centers, our bet is that the district will propose setting up 4K programs in existing daycare centers.

There is no minimum square foot requirement for any classroom. For safety purposes, the WDOC specifies a maximum of 20 sq.ft. per occupant of open floor space, assuming a self-contained classroom with one exit. This standard does not suggest this is the optimal room size for an education program. In considering space for educational programming, a district may look for guidance to the Head Start and child care requirement of no less than 35 square feet of usable floor space for each child.

What are the eligibility requirements?
Basically, none. As long as a child is 4 years old as of September 1 of a given school year, he/she is eligible to attend a 4K program. No pre-testing is required, and ALL eligible children must be allowed to enroll.

Are there curriculum requirements?
Yes. State statutes, 121.02(1), define subject areas that should be addressed at each grade level. For kindergarten they include:
–reading/language arts-math,
–social studies -science,
–health ed-physical ed
–art -music
–environmental ed-computer literacy

Curriculum can be integrated and developmentally appropriate and not taught by subject area alone. Such a curriculum would incorporate the concepts from the required subject areas.

Are the specials (physical education, art, and music) required?
Yes, the same as for regular kindergarten (5 yrs old):–10% of the instruction year (437 hours) for music, phy. ed., health, science and social studies. These do not need to be taught as separate subjects using a teacher driven curriculum. "Specials" should be integrated within the learning day with children working in two or more areas at a time (i.e. movement and music) using an integrated curriculum.

Are there teacher certification requirements?
Absolutely. Teachers of 4K students must hold a prekindergarten or kindergarten license (#080 prekindergarten; #090 PK-K; #083 PK-3; #100 kindergarten; #103 K-3; #086 PK-6; #106 K-6; #088 PK-8; #108 K-8; 70-777 Regular Education – Early Childhood level; 71-777 Regular Education –Early Childhood-Middle Childhood level; etc.).

Is there a requirement for teacher planning time? Yes, the same as all other teachers per local union contract.

Are there DPI-required pupil-to-student ratios?
No. Unlike SAGE, there are no state regulations directing the teacher-child ratio for 4K. Class size is a local policy determined by the school board. The DPI SUGGESTS considering practices in other programs such as:
- 1:10 with a maximum class size of 20 as defined for quality benchmarks by the National Institute on Early Education Research (NIEER);
- 1:13 with a maximum group size of 24 as required in state child care licensing regulations;
- 1:15 ratio required by the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) class size reduction program and early childhood special education inclusion models; or
-2 teachers working with groups of 16 to 20 as advised by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

How much will starting a 4-K program cost?
According to the DPI, "Districts report setting aside between $4,000 to $10,000 per room for purchasing classroom materials and equipment. The cost of co-locating [meaning partnering with an existing facility like a daycare center]) were less than costs of totally new start-up." Preference for start-up grant money is given to districts that partner with community, such as those that at least partially utilize daycare settings for the 4K program.

Of course, that doesn't include the costs associated with licensed teachers plus their benefits. Sun Prairie currently budgets about $75,000 per teacher, including salary and benefits. A new program also likely means a new $100K club member to coordinate the program. Of course it's possible that some daycare teachers are properly state licensed as certified educators, based on reports of salaries paid to daycare teachers relative to salaries of public school teachers, it would seem that any daycare teachers that are licensed to teach in public schools would probably already be doing so.

How much state aid will we get to offset the cost of starting a 4K program?
If you read the statute ( Statutes, ch. 115) it says that districts CAN receive up to $3000 per child in the 1st year and up to $1500 per child in the 2nd year as "start-up" assistance. Newsflash: CAN and will are often star-crossed lovers. First of all, the state budget for this is exactly $3M per year. That means the funds are split evenly per child of school districts applying. Note, however, that these start-up grants cease to be provided after the first two years of operation.

For the 2008-09 school year 38 districts applied to add 4K programs. They totalled 4297 kids. Divide $3M by 4297 and each district received exactly $698.16 per child to offset start-up costs. Larger districts that added 4K in 2008-09 include: West De Pere (181 kids; $ 126,367 in aid), Janesville (526 kids; $ 367,232 in aid), and Green Bay Area (1,137 kids; 6 $ 793,808 in aid). See the DPI FACTS here

That being said...the game of course would be to apply when the LEAST amount of districts (and least amount of kids) apply. THAT would give a district the best shot at seeing closer to $3,000 per child.

Is any funding available other than start-up costs?
Yes. A district received equivalent state aid funding for 4K enrolled kids very much like we receive state equalization aid for each pupil listed on the infamous "3rd Friday count".

There is a catch though. instead of 1.0 equivalent per enrolled child in grades K-12, for each enrolled child in a 4K program, the district receives either 0.5 or 0.6 "pupil equivalents" in aid as follows:

To receive 0.5 (pupil count equivalents) in membership aide, a district must operate a program a minimum of 437 hours per year (175 days X 2 1/2 hours per day). 87.5 hours (20%) of the 437 hours can be used for outreach activities for the school staff to link to the child’s primary caregivers.

To receive 0.6 (pupil count equivalents) in membership aide, a district must annually provide at least 87.5 hours of outreach activities in addition to the 437 hours of center based programming.

One more thing. The way state equalization aid funding works, pupil counts are calculated as a 3-year average. Therefore if Sun Prairie were to have say 300 kids enrolled in a 4K program on the 3rd Friday count of the 2009-10 school year, only 1/3 of these "new enrollees", or 100, would count towards funding in the 1st year. Thus, assuming no outreach beyond the total 437 instruction hours, the district would receive an additional 0.5 x 100 or 50 pupil equivalents of state aid. We receive roughly $5000 in state equalization aid per pupil. Thus we would receive about $250,000 in year one, $500,000 in year 2, and (assuming a steady 300 kids in 4K) $750,000 in the 3rd and subsequent years. These calculations will surely be "dissed" as erroneous by the school, district/board. Certainly, we may have oversimplified things, but at least we'll give you a far straighter estimate of cost than you'll get from the district or the board.

Will a referendum be required to start-up a 4K program?
No. All a school board has to do is apply to DPI, and budget for it. The public can comment during the annual budget public hearing (usually late May-June of each year) and again at the annual electors meeting in October of each year. Although arguably too late in the process, at least at the annual elector's meeting, all residents can VOTE on the amount of money to allocate to the school budget. For example, if the electors vote at the annual meeting to reduce the school district budget by the same amount as would be required to run the 4K program, arguably, the school board would then have to cut something from the budget. Other than that, all you can do to voice support/opposition is to speak up at school board meetings or contact school board members.

This sounds an awful lot like Head Start
That's because the 4K program is designed to do exactly what the federal Head Start program does.

What's next?
Believe it or not, many studies are now saying that early childhood education should begin at age 3. So a 3K program may not be far behind. We've come along way since we were kids.

---

For more information:
DPI- Economic impacts of a 4K program

DPI- 4yr kindergarten fact sheet

DPI- 4K Questions and Answers

What's in store for 2009??

The high school is under construction
The pool was approved, bringing total construction costs to $100M. ($32M in bonds have been secured to-date
The 7th elementary school (Creekside) is complete (tho it's only half-full, while other schools are at a hair beneath capacity)

So...what's on the school board's docket for 2009?
The annual school board conference will be held in January 2009. Will 2009 be a repeat of the decadence of 2008, when 6 of 7 school board members plus administration spent $42 apiece on a luscious steak dinner? And that doesn't include travel or conference expenses. Or will the board wisely consider the state of the economy and scale back the number of members that attend and perhaps opt for lesser dining fare? Whatever happened to the concept of sending 1-2 members and then those members bringing back and sharing what they learned? Or maybe implement a "you speak/present at the conference and you get to attend" policy?

We shall see what transpires. Our crystal ball shows a few issues that are likely to be the hot button issues to be pushed by the school board this year.

4-yr kindergarten
It's coming folks. Whether you see it as a valuable educational program or glorified tax-funded daycare, the board and administration ARE moving to create a 4-yr kindergarten program. Applications for new fall 2009 programs are due July 1. Stay tuned.


Re-structuring school board committees
This too is more than just conjecture based on school board member comments during open meetings. In a nutshell, all current committees (FTT, Finance, Human Resources, Education & Policy) will be disbanded. In their place, 3 committees will likely be formed. No formal names have been discussed, so let's just call the 3 committees: Planning, Implementation, and Assessment. This wacky scheme was conjured from an article shared by Dr. Culver with the school board. Observations indicate that board member Jim McCourt, in particular, has glommed onto this notion. Essentially each of the three new committees will contain elements of each of the old disbanded committees. Sounds like a nice way of unseating current citizen representatives that the board doesn't care for (yet voted in). You will be hearing more soon.

More land needed?
In case you haven't caught wind yet, there seems to be a wee problem with the plan to connect the new high school with the existing one. The DNR is quietly being made the "bad guy" because they don't like the idea of destroying wetlands for the project. There was at least one closed-door school board session this fall to discuss purchasing some additional land, but no decision was made. Some ancillary discussions during recent board committee meetings suggest that the original plan to purchase some adjacent land "fell through", but another land owner may be being courted. We'll have to be formally informed if anything develops, because any land purchase MUST be approved by electors (that's you if you're over 18 and have lived within the school district for at least 10 days) at a public meeting.

More Administrative Staff?
Just what we need...more members of the $100K club. Yes, we need to improve the diversity of our collective teaching and administrative staff, but do we really need another $100K club addition to the Human Resources "department" to accomplish this???? As is usuallyt the case, the board initially expressed reluctance to approve such a position, but inevitably they vote 7-0 to approve. Stay tuned!

Sometimes they DO get it right

Happy New Year, folks. How about we start the year off with a tale of school success?

Sure, the Sun Prairie Area School District (and school board) always have a new high ticket program or boondoggle up their collective sleeves. And yes, we do think that at times the district and board seem to stand firm with illogical resolve, particularly when their antics are highlighted in nasty webpages that none of them read. But, yes, Virginia, at times they get it right.

SP-EYE has become aware of a situation that recently transpired that you won't read about in the STAR, or hear about at a school board meeting. It's a tale worth telling. No names or identifiers, of course. We may freely out the foibles and faux pas of our elected "leaders" and the $100K club members, but the safety of our kids is not something we trifle with.

This is a story of a young girl of elementary school age in Sun Prairie. New to the area and to her school, of course finding new friends was a priority. Sadly, this innocent girl may have fallen prey to a group of disaffected youths. She started engaging in some self-destructive behaviors to "be" part of her new found "friends". Luckily, she has a loving, involved parent who discovered what was going on. And that's what this story is all about.

The girl's parent went to her child's school to discuss the situation. The school's administration seemed very concerned and motivated to address the situation. Unfortunately, the "friends" somehow became aware that their actions had been discussed, and guess what? This poor girl suddenly became ostracized in her school. We can only surmise how this came to be. We have no facts, but you all know human nature and can make a pretty educated guess as to how the group of "friends" learned that this girl had "narc'd" on them. We also know that kids can be quite cruel.

So...what happens next? The protective parent goes back to the school district and informs that that the situation has deteriorated to the point that something needs to happen. She requests that her child be transferred to another school. DENIED. She cites the "extreme circumstances" portion of the school board's voluntary placement policy. DENIED again.

Now understandably upset, the parent contacts several school board members and appeals to them for help. At least one school board member contacts the school administrator, and following a discussion, reports back to the parent that the administrator "seems to have things under control." Not quite the response she was looking for.

More conversations ensue. Finally--although we don't know how it all happened--- a decision is made to allow the girl to transfer out of her current school.

School board members, Dr. Culver, and administrative staff who had involvement in this: We give you an "A" for outcome. Deservedly so, however, we've got to give you an "F" for the process here. For a group that seems to take great pride in process, your "system" failed a young girl who needed your help, and a parent that trusted that you would use the information she shared with caution.

We applaud your eventual decision, but not the path you took to get there. Perhaps this would be a good situation on which to perform a "post-mortem" analysis and learn from your mistakes. Of course, that will require you to be big enough to agree that you erred and then own it. Food for thought: you've done some good outreach efforts about "gangs". But you need to understand that not all "gangs" deal in drugs or engage in fights. Don't under-estimate the power of "gangs" that aren't likely to be on the police radar screens: groups of disaffected kids that are frequently labelled as "goth" or "emo". They can be equally dangerous.

We're just grateful that the young girl can can a better start and the parent can breathe a sigh of relief. A huge round of applause also goes to the group of parents who support this mother and daughter. Basically they pulled a Michael Jordan and "just did" what was necessary. Something our school district and school board likes to claim that they do.