What Aren't We Hearing About Safety at Sun Prairie High?

How many times do we have to ask ourselves the question, "What ELSE aren't they [district admin/school board] telling us?"

A kind citizen shared the information at right with us, which was obtained from the Police Dept. It shows-- for the past 5 years-- the number of calls logged by the police to go to either Sun Prairie High or the SOAR building (Alternative Learning Center).

What we do not know at this point is the reasons for these calls (i.e., how many calls are for lock-outs, etc,). But we should be getting this information later this week.

Note the reduced call volume during the summer months, when theoretically, only summer school would be in session. No matter how you slice it, 100+ calls in a month is significant. Assuming about 20 school days per month, that translates to as many as 5-6 calls per school day. Those numbers suggest that mayoral challenger Hariah Hutkowski is correct about the need for a greater police presence at the high school.

Anybody wonder why the school board hasn't cared to share this with the public? Or are they even aware?

$600,000 in city inspection fees?

...for the high school and 8/9 construction project?
You've got to be kidding...right? Isn't that a fee on top of a tax?

...and so begins this current chapter of our continuing saga of school board and school district administration nightmares.

It all begins with Check# 92711 to SUN PRAIRIE CITY OF , in the amount of $75,000.00 for "HS 8/9 RENOVATION PERMIT"

More information was requested of this check at the school board's Finance Committee meeting this past Monday night. In response the committee was told by the Business Office:

"The question asked - what is the basis upon how the city charges for permits? The response is the permit cost for renovation is $6 for every $1,000 of construction. "

Board member Terry Shimek then asked of Phil Frei, Deputy District Administrator and head of the Business Office, "So...how much total are we paying the city in permit fees? What do we get in return for these fees? and Have we asked the City about waiving some of these fees?"

Mr. Frei responded that since the construction was roughly $100M, at $6/$1000, the permits would cost the district $600,000. In response to the question about what we get in return for the fees, Mr. Frei simply stated that he wasn't sure...likely someone comes out to inspect a couple of times during the project. As far as inquiring about waiving part of the fees [in light of the fact that the project is for SCHOOLs], Mr. Frei indicated that there had been some discussions in the past, but the City would not consier it.

So, if you're with us so far, what we have is essentially testimony at a public meeting that the City is charging the taxpayers $600,000 out of the $100M [for which we will be taxed already] to come out and "inspect the project a couple of times". Simple math says $600,000 over a 2 -year project equals $300K per year. Wouldn't that cover the cost of the entire salary and fringes for a building inspector 3-4 times over???

Your school board voted to approve the checks and neither the board nor administration seemed inclined to pursue the matter further. Thankfully, two CITIZENS [including John Welke, who is vying for a school board seat as a write-in candidate] felt that follow-up was in order. These two citizens independently made a formal inquiry to both incumbent Mayor Joe Chase and alderman Hariah Hutkowski [who is also challenging for the Mayoral position] to verify the facts that were provided at the Finance meeting and ask follow-up questions as needed.

What these CITIZENS found was:
The permit fees are NOT $600,000, as presented by Mr. Frei. In fact, the $75,000 permit fee is the total for the 8/9 construction ($12.5M). A separate charge of $150,454.80 has already been assessed and paid for the new high school construction ($70M). A 3rd permit fee for a separate $318K portion of the new high school job required a permit fee of $1,910, which has also been paid.

So...as is typically the case, there's one side, the other side, and the truth lies somewhere in between. By looking at FACTS, we can see where the truth lies. Note that Mr. Frei was partly correct--the permit charge for the 8/9 construction and the small job both come to $6 per $1000 of construction cost. The new high school, however, was charged at a rate of a shade more than $2 per $1000 of construction. Oh, do we love inconsistency. So, for now, the two citizens have asked followup questions of the Mayor and Mr. Hutkowski to ask why the two different costing mechanisms? How does the permit fee for a job that is 1/6 of the cost of the new high school get to be 3 times more expensive???

Take a look at the Building Permit Receipts below. The "Electrical fee" for the new high school is charged "per square foot" for a fee of $7,891.20, while the "Electrical fee" for the 8/9 modifications to the existing high school is charged "by value" for a fee of $18,750. How does this make sense? We're sure that politicians can try to rationalize just about anything...but come on! This is for a school for our kids. Certainly the city could limit the charges to an amount that allows it to recoup the costs it incurs; haven't we been taxed enough?

Then, while you let that idea krausen a bit, ask yourself THESE questions:

• Why did we get inaccurate information from school district administration?
  
• Why didn't Mr. Frei pull out these permit receipts in response to the check question?
  
• Why didn't the school board direct administration to pursue this matter further?
  
• Why will school board members defend sea bass dinners and KitKat bars for employees ad nauseam, yet completely ignore matters such as these?
  
• Isn't this sort of thing what we are paying Huffman Facility Development $7,300 PER MONTH to review and address as the "construction manager" for these projects? [See Check #92830 to HUFFMAN FACILITY DEVELOPMENT INC amount $7,300.00 HS CONSTRUCTION MGMT (and this is a monthly charge).]

SP-EYE: So, Mr. Mertes...do you still believe that, [the school board incumbents have]" done nothing within the past year to warrant being cast off of the school board... "? Or, perhaps we should phrase it THIS way: What have the incumbents done to merit REMAINING on the board?
Of course, Mertes goes on to say, "If this is an ideas campaign, then Welke's opponents have him beat... " and "...Welke has demonstrated his ability to research issues and has actually presented situation reports to the board on various subject matters and we believe he also would be a competent board member." Hedging your bets, Chris??

These questions are why we feel that change is in order on our school board.
Check out the ordinances related to building permit costs

Gimme a break...

...gimme a break
Break me off a piece
of that Kit Kat® bar!
(that Human resources sends to all district employees on their birthdays...along with a card)

$72 of taxpayer monies for "3 months worth of birthday KitKat bars".
Let us say that again...for the record...

$72 of taxpayer monies for "3 months worth of birthday KitKat bars".
...and neither district administration nor school board members see a problem with it. In fact, when the expense was questioned (by citizen representative Rick Mealy) at the school board's Finance Committee meeting this past Monday, Tim Culver rolled his eyes and shook his head in disgust/amazement (so much for decorum!). Finance Committee chair Jim McCourt's reaction was to try to stop Mealy from asking all the questions that he wished to ask.


Check# 92821
Amount: $72.00
For: HR KIT KAT BARS FOR BDAY CARDS
Business Office response to check question: The HR department sends each employee a birthday card and along with the card they get a candy bar. This expense was authorized by Annette Mikula.

At what point, exactly, did the public school system cease to be a GOVERNMENT operation and magically transform into a private sector business enterprise? We all are aghast when we hear about the bonuses paid to AIG executives with bailout money, but we rush to defend the purchase of KitKat bars for public employees? The concept is the same...the only difference is the dollar value of the misappropriation.

It's not unlike the old joke that goes something like:

"Would you_____ for $100?"
[Absolutely not!]
"Would _____ for $1,000,000?
[Well......maybe...wait...what do you think I am...a ____?]
"Oh, we've already established THAT. We're just negotiating the price".

Most of us (including district admin and school board members we bet) also get a little ticked off when they hear about the crazy per diems that state legislators get...but still we have school board members having sea bass and steak & shrimp dinners without batting an eye.

If the state gave ITS employees a birthday card and a KitKat bar, the general public would be outraged. And that's why the only acknowledgement state employees get on their birthdays are those presented/shared by co-workers. And you know what? That's OK. So WHY does the school district believe it should be above the standards of the rest of state government?

Do you get a feeling that there's a sense of entitlement? They always respond to these complaints with the "It's only $72" argument, or "It's a small price to pay (from a $65M budget) to buy some employee morale"? Regardless of how you frame it, folks, it's illogical rationalization. And where does it end? When one of these people's child pockets a candy bar from the local store without paying for it, do they shrug it off with a comment of "It's just one small candy bar from a HUGE business". No...I don't think so. It's a fine line, people, and once you cross it, it gets easier to cross it again...and again.

You want to improve employee morale? Then try listening to your employees instead of squelching their input or making them fearful of providing candid feedback. If you think for one minute that a lousy KitKat bar makes the SPASD "Employer of the Year"...then you are seriously out of touch with both your employees and the community. You want to show people they are valued? To recognize them on their birthday? Then how about a personal call or e-mail from Dr. Culver? Or Annette Mikula. Or the school board. That would be FREE and far more meanigful than a KitKat bar...especially if the employee is diabetic or has celiac disease.

It's NOT about the dollar value. It's about doing what's RIGHT.
and NOT DOING what is inappropriate.
It's about ACCOUNTABILITY.

...and we'll continue to have these problems until we get a school board that makes accountability and fiduciary responsibility it's prime objective.

Believe us... the people who complain about these expenditures at school board meetings hate to have to do it far more than you all hate to hear it. It's loathesome. If it's "only $72", then isn't it worth cutting the expense so that you won't get beat up on it at every meeting? Because, if you think the complaints are going to stop, you're very, very wrong. You want members of the public to speak at meetings to praise what you've done? Then do something worthy of praise.

Everyone gets a KitKat bar on their birthday. That's special. Meanwhile yet another fight erupted at the high school this past week. Hey! Maybe if we give these kids a KitKat bar, they'll stop fighting!

"Stuck With You" Too: The Conclusion, at the school board April 13, 2009

Question: Who would spend $10,000 when a little more than $5,000 is sufficient?

Hint: Nope...the answer isn't AIG, or even the US Government either.

Answer: Why the school board and school district administration, of course! ...or it certainly seems that we are hurtling towards that reality.

An Open Records request aimed at getting to the bottom of what exactly the district (and board)--in their inimitable style---aren't telling us about the decision (which has reportedly already been made behind closed doors and the coaches informed) yielded the following e-mail response from Dr. Culver

Discussion held in closed session was about performance evaluation data of public employees and also preliminary consideration of potential layoffs (employment status) of employees. The School Board's consideration of the decision to keep or not keep the co-head coach position will be on the April 13 regular school board agenda; as will the final list of employee layoffs.

The stipends are as follows: Mr. Boos - $5,220; Mr. Swanson - $4,698

Sincerely,

Tim Culver

Note how Dr. Culver worded what the school board will be deliberating" whether to keep or not keep". As many of you (hopefully) know by now, the school board takes action only on a recommendation from administration (you know...their employEE). Dr. Culver's e-mail suggests that no recommendation has been made....something that NEVER happens. Administration always makes a recommendation ...and (as you hopefully know) in about 99.9% of the cases, the school board members vote unanimously to uphold the district's recommendation.

We'll know more when we obtain the rest of the materials requested next week...so stay tuned.

In the meantime, sit back with your favorite adult beverage and ponder these questions:

• Why on earth do we need TWO head coaches for a boys varsity basketball team of about 14 student athletes?
• Does that mean we should have (and pay) about 6-8 head coaches for football?

Kinda sounds like someone stepped firmly into something soft, mushy, and aromatic-- with both feet--- doesn't it? And no matter how hard they try, they can't seem to wipe off the offending dookie. Someone screwed up royally, and guess who pays for it, taxpayers?

What AREN'T the rest of the district's kids going to be able to have for their education because we need to spend an extra $5,000 per year on TWO head coaches?

Here We Go Again! Co-Head Coaches To Remain!

WTF?????!!!!
You've GOT to be kidding me...right? Well...check the calendar boys and girls...April Fools is a week away yet.

The public got blindsided last night as 6 parents spoke to the school board last night expressing outrage that the district had already committed to continuing the co-head coach experiment for the boys varsity basketball team. Why had no one heard of this? Well the board and the district consummated the sordid deal within the confines of their private little haven, the closed session meeting on March 9, 2009:

School Board Minutes, March 9, 2009
11. Closed Session
11.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of January 27, 2009; review performance evaluations of and consider employment of a public employee; consider the possible discipline of a public employee; and discussion and action on preliminary staff layoffs [Wis. Stats. 91.85(1)(b), (c) & (f)].

It was moved by John Whalen and seconded by Terry Shimek TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ACITON ON CLOSED MINUTES (3) OF JANUARY 27, 2009; REVIEW PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF AND CONSIDER EMPLOYMENT OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE; CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE DISCIPLINE OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE; AND DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON PRELIMINARY STAFF LAYOFFS [WIS. STATS. 91.85(1)(b), (c) & (f)].

The result of the vote was: UnanimousYea: Jill Camber-Davidson, Caren Diedrich, Jim McCourt, Terry Shimek, AlSlane, David Stackhouse, John Whalen

THEN they met again last night....yep...under closed session again. Like they would want the public to catch wind of round 2 of this ludicrous affair.

Meeting: 03/23/2009 REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised) 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 300 E. Main St., Sun Prairie. Chair: David Stackhouse Category:
11. Closed Session Agenda Type: Action Agenda Item Content
Action Agenda Details Motion:TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ACTION ON CLOSED SESSION MINUTES OF MARCH 9, 2009; REVIEW PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND CONSIDER EMPLOYMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES; AND DEVELOP NEGOTIATIONS PARAMETERS WITH THE SPEA [WIS. STATS. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

Motion By:John Whalen Second:Jill Camber-Davidson
Action: Unanimous
Voting Record (7-0) Jill Camber-Davidson Yea Caren Diedrich Yea Jim McCourt Yea Terry Shimek Yea Al Slane Yea David Stackhouse Yea John Whalen Yea

Let's rewind the clock to August 27, 2007 when the school board first took action. As SP-EYE reported:

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/08/co-bball-head-coaches-it-will-be-school.html

"Caren Diedrich most eloquently framed her concern that co-head coaches was not a viable solution when she asked board president David Stackhouse how he would feel if he were suddenly forced to be co-president with Mary Ellen Havel-Lang. Caren...that comment was a 3-pointer with nothing but net!"

The STAR covered this issue in August 2007, when the board and administration first developed their ingenious (??!??) solution of BOTH head coaches after they got caught with their pants down:

STAR 8-7-08 on co-head coaches

At that meeting, Board member Caren Diedrich said,

" Diedrich reminded community members present at the meeting that the decision came from a signed settlement of a level three grievance between the district and teachers' union. The district could choose to renegotiate the settlement, but if they backed out of the settlement, the district could end up in court with a litigation on their hands.

"I agree with a lot of what you said, but I'm not going to re-open this can of worms for a situation that hopefully will resolve itself in a year," Diedrich said. "I think there comes a time and a place where we have to carry on." "

The co-head coach position description was finalized and again discussed as a ONE-YEAR SOLUTION as described in the August 14, 2008 edition of the STAR:

Sun Prairie STAR article 8-14-08

[School board President David] Stackhouse said he didn't want any other coaches now approaching him and stating that because the sport may have 80 players they should be eligible for a co-head coach because of the number of players and because a job description existed for it. He therefore amended the job description to be specific to the boys varsity basketball program, even though Culver explained it would only be for one year per the agreement between the board and the Sun Prairie Education
Association.

---

Admittedly, detailed facts have yet to emerge, but early reports are that Mr. McClowry made his decision before interviewing any of the basketball team members. Despite the logic that a whole host of questions could be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of dual head coaches, it is reported that McClowry sent a survey consisting of ONE question to his players: "Did you receive more one-on-one attention by virtue of having two head coaches?"

Never mind the donuts, 220 Kit Kat bars[more later], and sea bass...this community is now paying TWO head coach salaries! How much sense does co-head coaches make for a team of 14 players? If it were so good an idea...don't you think Phil Jackson, Coach K, or Bobby Knight would have had co-head coaches? Yeah...RIGHT!

Once again, the school district chooses a ridiculous option after having their hand slapped for doing something inappropriate. And the school board ...that WE ...the community elected to represent us...sits idly by supporting administration.

Stand by for updates as we get them....

Mayoral Debate Extends to High School Security Concerns

Sun Prairie mayoral debate extends to school security
From the Sun Prairie STAR, 3-19-09:

Sun Prairie Mayor Joe Chase and Hariah Hutkowski, the District 1 Alderman vying to replace Chase and become the city's next mayor, faced off in a televised debate on Friday, March 13.

The candidates also discussed their different approaches to school safety. Chase said the school board and administration should address school safety, while Hutkowski said the mayor should take leadership.

"I think the high school has the responsibility to provide a safe and secure place for those students and they have security people on staff but ask the students and they'll tell you those security people don't do anything," Chase said. "We do have a police officer liaison up there to take care of criminal activity. I don't want to see any more officers up there taking care of criminal activity. I think it's the school's responsibility."

But Hutkowski said the number of calls from the high school to the police department is increasing, posing concern about the current system's effectiveness. "This is indicative of a trend we are seeing in our high school and as mayor I hope to reverse that trend by adding resources upon request," Hutkowski said. "It's all taxpayer dollars and we're trying to keep our kids safe whether it's out of the city's pocket or out of the school district's pocket. It needs to get taken care of. We need to see some leadership to reverse this trend."

What do YOU think, people? More police in the schools? Is it really the mayor's place to "police" schools, as challenger Hutkowski opines? Or is Mayor Chase's belief that the responsibility for school safety lies with district administration best for Sun Prairie?

Certainly---although the school board and district do not like to air their dirty laundry--- expulsions are on the rise, and most of these are related to violent behavior within the school. That is a fact.

One interesting side note from a fiscal perspective is the ramifications of the city (vs. the school district) bearing the cost for more police presence at the high school. Barring any "chargebacks"...this could be a way for the school district to obtain security without having to count the expenses against the revenue cap. That would sure buy a lot of steak dinners for the school board!

In the end, does it really matter whether the city pays (and taxes residents) for school security or whether the school district does the spending and taxing? Certainly it would be passing on expenses, which would mean that more state aid and property tax revenues could directly fund education. We don't profess to have the answers [Hey! THIS would be a good occasion to get a legal opinion!!!] , but strategically speaking this is just the kind of ball-playing we usually see from the district...manipulating the system to get what they want.

On the other side of the coin, the school district covers more than just Sun Prairie city residents, so if the city bears the tax burden, then residents of other municipalities in the district get to share in the security without the added tax burden. Is that an equitable approach?

If you ask us, Mayor Joe hit this one out of the park. The issue of safety in our schools has to be dealt with by district administration--in consultation with the students, the parents, and the community, of course. We HAVE a police liaison in the high school already, and the police can always be called if their is an incident. With the increase in burglaries, shootings, and even drugs, our police force needs to be on the streets where they are visible as a deterrent.

One last point to consider on the issue is something that came up during the Diversity Issues meeting last Thursday night. Several panel members encouraged the district to hire security personnel that mirror the diversity of the community and the high school. That's likely something that is more realistically possible through an outside security firm rather than our own police force. These security personnel are there to be eyes and ears on alert for developing, smoldering tensions. If they can connect with the students, they have a better chance of achieving success. Sometimes a badge and a gun discourage connectedness.

Sun Prairie is not alone in this issue:
New York City
The [New York] city police department says the plan is part of an effort to get back to community policing; some worry armed police should not be part of the regular school day.

Seattle, WA


On-line debate

Diversity: "We Don't Even Know What We Don't Know"

"We Don't Even Know What We Don't Know"...that basically sums up Thursday night's special school board work/study session on diversity issues.

But let's also note for the record that those of you who missed Thursday night's session missed what attendees virtually unanimously believe was the best meeting of the Sun Prairie school board ever to be convened. It's really unfortunate that the STAR couldn't be there to capture the session.

So...why do we feel that this was the most successful meeting ever by the Sun Prairie school board? Because--for once-- it was not about the board members. Instead of prattling on about what amazes them about this and that, instead they were a captive audience. And they LISTENED TO instead of talking at the community. Let's have a round of applause for something long lacking from our school board!

The discussion of diversity issues had a rather inauspicious beginning as Dr. Culver noted (and took responsibility for) that the seating arrangements had select community members (mostly district employees) that live and breathe cultural diversity sitting on opposite sides of the table from the decidedly white, upper middle class, school board and district administration. What a way to frame an issue and foreshadow the discussion to come.

Perceptions: the Sun Prairie school district community (collectively) is obliviously racist.
OK...that sounds harsh...and we don't mean to raise hackles....but if that is the perception out there, then we DO have a problem. And you should know by now that SP-EYE is not inclined to sugar-coat things. We give it to you straight between the eyes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but despite being viewed as a harsh word, people use "racist" to mean a variety of things. To some people the term racist only applies to people who knowingly advocate that another race is inferior. To others, everyone is racist to some degree because no one is capable of eliminating all bias. And it's not always bias that is at the root...sometimes it's fear of the unknown or simply being ill at ease with others that are "different" than what looks back at you from the other side of the mirror.

We added the modifier "obliviously" because most people will tend to argue that they themselves "haven't a racist bone in their body". We've all met an individual or two who is quick to point out that their "good friend/colleague/neighbor/co-worker is [Black/African American/Latino/Asian]. If that's all it takes to be a card-carrying demagogue of diversity, then we wouldn't even need to talk about this issue.

But we digress. We wanted to put that out there because that's the perception out there. And when 1 out of 4 district residents is non-white...then we need to get serious about coming to grips with diversity.

Unintentional Segregation
One of the community members who "schooled" the board on diversity issues Thursday night bravely talked about how some people have such inner fear for their own safety and security that they tend to stay within their own (sub) community. This essentially becomes self-imposed segregation.

Ask yourselves, people...and be honest--at least with yourself--if YOU were suddenly thrust into a community where YOUR ethinicty was the minority...how would you feel? A little afraid, perhaps? Ill at ease? It's a little Pollyannaish to sit back , cross your arms and say that Sun Prairie is this wonderful, welcoming, open arms community. The reality is that it is not--not as a whole anyway. And until we understand that reality, we are not going to begin making strides to make the changes needed to tear down barriers and take the fear away. Certainly there ARE those individuals and groups that truly embrace diversity and are "color-blind". But that is generally the exception, not the rule.

Another brave parent talked about the mis-perception that all "people of color" are globally impoverished, under-educated , and their kids are "problems". This woman went on to explain that she and her husband are both engineers with Master's degrees and their kids are very intelligent. They may struggle with our language, but "We give you good kids", she proclaimed. And she's right. We cannot allow ourselves to stereotype.

It would take far too much space to cover everything we learned Thursday night, but some of the most critical insights and observations shared are presented below:

• Staff and administration need to become culturally competent.
• Compassion is critical.
• We don't know what we don't know.
• Until you hire teachers that truly understand cultural diversity, the problems associated with diversity in schools won't go away.
• We need to create an atmosphere of hope in our schools.
• How many decades are you from having minority coaches if you hire coaches from your [existing] teaching staff?
• We know kids don't feel safe at the high school...but we need a gauge of why that is.
• Consider hiring African American or Hispanic security personnel for the high school.
• [We] keep saying "Latino/Black/Asian" but we need to understand that there is diversity even within these generic classifications. For example, Hmong culture is very different than Chinese culture.
• You not only need to recruit minority teachers but you also need to talk to and deal with existing teachers.
• We have teachers that don't understand the need for diversity.
• You need to get out into the community. Until you see the culture, you won't begin to understand why someone driving an Escalade has kids on free/reduced lunch.
• We don't have cross-cultural training in the district.
• We are all adults here...what we need is to hear from the children...hear what they think/feel.
• Suggest we embrace the diversity that exists within our district.
• Take the school to the community...have a community lunch or night with the school board.
• I keep hearing students express feelings of a lack of respect..."No one listens to me".
• Teachers--go to your students if you see them [while out in the community, e.g, shopping]. They would love to introduce you to their parents.
• We hear from students that the perception is that Sun Prairie is racist...that the district is racist.
• Some feel that we need to hire the most qualified candidate...not just to get diversity on staff. But this [approach] just keeps the flames fueled.

SP-EYE wants to express sincere gratitude to the following community members for their willingness to sit at the table, share their insights, and help guide us to embrace diversity rather than shrinking back from it.

Amy Immeckus - Bird Elementary, English as a 2nd language (ESL) teacher
Katrina Krych - Westside Elementary, Social worker and Special Ed. Program manager
Harold Rayford - Pastor, Faith Hope and Love Family Church
Pa Thao - SPHS, Bilingual Assistant
Rainey Briggs - PVMS teacher and parent of Horizon student
Xue Vang - Northside Elementary, Bilingual Assistant
Patricia Ruiz - Creekside Elementary, Welcome Center and parent of SPHS student
Donna Mackey - Long time community member, leader of "Circle of Voices" program in 4 schools
Maria Balacarcel-Lopez - Westside Elementary, Bilingual Assistant and parent of PVMS student
Bethany Lopez - Westside Elementary, English as a 2nd language (ESL) teacher

Letters...we get letters!

Dear SP-EYE,

I was wondering if it would be possible for you to post on your website the instructions for voting for a write in candidate? I am a somewhat visual person, so anything with pictures would be great. Since this is not an every day occurrence, write in's, a few instructions might prove beneficial to me and others in our community who follow the news on your website. Thank you.

Loyal Reader
Sun Prairie

---

Dear Loyal Reader...

Thanks for asking. A lot of folks have been asking this same question, so it's a good one to get out there.

Step 1 is easy (but most important)...simply connect the "arrow" next to one of the two blank lines that have "(write-in") at the end of them.

Step 2 is (potentially) the hard part....knowing the name of the candidate you wish to "write-in". Historically there are always a few votes for "Mickey Mouse" or "Donald Duck". It's best to know the correct spelling of the name of the individual you wish to write-in.

Rest assured, however, that the law clearly says that as long as the INTENT of voter is clear, the vote should be properly counted for a given write-in candidate. Therefore, if John Doe is running as a write-in candidate,

• writing "John Doe" would be best


• writing "Doe" or "J. Doe" should be sufficient to declare the voter's intent.


• writing simply "John" is ill advised, since an argument could be made that it is unclear which John the voter intended.

Remember: At most you can only connect THREE arrows for the 2009 school board election!



A good resource that explains the process for counting (or not) write-in votes:
"Counting Votes" (State Elections Board publication)

School Board Candidates Respond to SP-EYE Questions

Just as the STAR and the League of Women Voters have their questions of school board candidates, so did SP-EYE. We asked a couple of questions of all candidates. For incumbents, who usually have a competitive advantage simply by virtue of being incumbent, we asked a couple of introspective questions ...sort of a way of offering a self-grading of their performance to-date.

Only 3 of the 4 candidates responded. To be fair, the candidates are presented in alphabetical order.

The questions we posed were:

1. Mr. Welke has pledged to donate all of his 2009 calendar year school board stipend (2/3 of a full year), after taxes, to all the local PTOs, divided equally. If elected to more than a 1 year term, he has pledged to donate 1/2 of his future stipend (after taxes) back to the PTOs. Will you agree to this pledge as well? Yes or no. If no, please explain your position.


2. Please identify 4 or 5 basic elements that serve as the foundation for your platform should you be (re-)elected.


3. The economy is in an unprecedented state. Taxpayers--and therefore school districts-- have to tighten their belts. Please describe things that you have done while on the board and things that you pledge to do going forward that highlights your position on the fiscal responsibility spectrum.


4. (for incumbents) What have you done well as a board member? What will you
   do differently if re-elected?


5. Please tell us what makes you a candidate that deserves to be (re-)elected.


6. Is there anything else you'd like to share with the community?

---

Terry Shimek (incumbent)
Question 1: Would you "give back" 1/2 of your school board stipend?
No. My family's current annual contribution to the Sun Prairie Schools and individual students exceeds the stipend. As a teacher, my wife's out of pocket contributions are in excess of $250 annually. We provide support through fund raising activities for a number of the music, sports, and other extracurricular programs. We further support certain organizations that provide annual scholarships to high school students. Family members also provide significant volunteer time to the district. I support Mr. Welke's pledge; however my wife and I prefer to direct our contributions in a more personal manner.

Question 2: Identify 4 or 5 basic elements that serve as the foundation for your platform should you be (re-)elected.
I do not have an agenda. My goals are simple:
Do what is best for the education of our children.
Do my best to meet the diverse needs and expectations of the School District Community.
Understand that compromise is sometimes necessary.
Strive to obtain as much input as possible from the community.

Question 3: What have you done as a board member or going forward that highlights your position on the fiscal responsibility spectrum?
The School Board makes decisions as a group and supports those decisions as a group. It would not be proper to either expound upon or criticize the actions taken by the Board over the past ten months. The Board must balance the interests of all stakeholders. I hope that our actions have properly reflected this balance of interests.

Clearly the economy is going to factor into future decisions by the Board, belt tightening will be necessary. It is my hope that suggestions will come from all of the stakeholders, the Board will also have to review State and Federal Funding sources, and appropriate budget decisions will have to be made. There are a number of areas that the district can look at to reduce costs, however these should only be brought forth in the appropriate forum where the pros and cons can be discussed in a fair and open manner.

Question 4: (incumbents)What have you done well as a board member? What will you do differently if re-elected?
I have fairly represented the interests of all of the stakeholders. Due to conflicting interests, it is not possible for everyone to be pleased about every Board decision. In those situations, you hope that the decision represents a reasonable compromise. I seek to engage as many people as possible in discussions about district issues. I attend as many school activities as possible, at all levels, grade, middle, and high school. I meet regularly with the school community organizations, teachers, and administrators. All of this is to better understand what the community expects from our schools.

Going forward, I want to stress the need for more community engagement. The message has to get out that the community can call, email, or stop and talk to Board members at any time. The Board has received recommendations from the Community Engagement Taskforce to improve communications; it is my hope that we will implement a number of these recommendations.

Question 5: What makes you a candidate that deserves to be (re-)elected?
I am one of the few Board members that has had children at all levels, with the resulting participation in a majority of the activities that the District offers. When parents talk about IEP’s, TAG, and moving a child up a grade level, I know what
they are going through. My children have attended five of our elementary schools, Patrick Marsh Middle School and the High School. I am a twenty three year resident of Sun Prairie and have been involved with our schools in some way for over 16 years. My purpose is to give back to this community and to do that, I seek to be re-elected to the School Board.

Question 6: Is there anything else you'd like to share with the community?
Thank you for this opportunity!

---

Al Slane
Question 1: Would you "give back" 1/2 of your school board stipend?
I would not pledge to donate my stipend for a number of reasons:
* My wife and I already contribute in several ways to our parent group.
* While interesting, some people perceive this kind of pledge as buying votes, though it may just be campaigning.
* I would not ask other candidates to make the same pledge since I don't know their financial situations, though I would suspect that most could do without the $63.46 paid before taxes each week.
* It is just a hollow promise with no guarantee on follow thru.

Question 2: Identify 4 or 5 basic elements that serve as the foundation for your platform should you be (re-)elected.
* Continued focus on improving student education thru innovative curriculum and technology
* Add focus on writing, safety, truancy, and tardiness
* Encourage broad participation in activities and sports
* Work to improve the starting salary for teachers to help recruit the best new teachers
* Continue to form a new boundary policy
* Continue to gather input and make data driven decisions

Question 3: What have you done as a board member or going forward that highlights your position on the fiscal responsibility spectrum.
I would continue to use excess aid created by 4K to run under the revenue cap once 4K startup costs are paid for. I would also continue to press to not use the authorization to exceed the revenue cap for pool operating costs.

Question 4: (incumbents)What have you done well as a board member? What will you do differently if re-elected?
As a new member, I think I have kept and open mind, listened to input, and tried to make good decisions with the information available. If elected I will be a more active member now that I better understand how the board functions.

Question 5: What makes you a candidate that deserves to be (re-)elected?
I think I have used the last six months to learn how things work, and I am now ready to move forward and use my new experience to make good long term decisions for the community.

Question 6: Is there anything else you'd like to share with the community?
No response.

---

John Welke (write-in candidate)

Question 1: Would you "give back" 1/2 of your school board stipend?
A number of community members have asked me why I would “give back” my stipend if elected to the Board so I feel that I need to address that with you. Currently we are in incredibly tough financial times to say the least. Teachers are spending their own money on school supplies and teaching aides. The District has a number of schools that have a poverty rate of 30% or more. By returning my stipend to the schools it is my hope that they will put it to good use in areas that it is needed. If this money helps pay for a student's field trip that can’t otherwise afford it or provides some funding for teaching supplies and aides that would be great. People donate to our schools in many different ways. This is just my way of “giving” that seems right to me under the current circumstances.

Question 2: Identify 4 or 5 basic elements that serve as the foundation for your platform should you be (re-)elected.
Since I am currently not a Board member I will answer this question with the things that I feel are important to me as a community member of the SPASD. If elected I will carry these values and ideas with me as a Board member.

I am an advocate of transparency, accountability and community engagement.

I believe that The SPASD could benefit from being more transparent in their activity and actions. Board Meeting agendas should be released to the public sooner and have more detail. Meeting minutes should contain enough information so that future Boards and Administrations and the public can easily retrieve the minutes from a specific topic and have a good understanding of what transpired on that issue. Community Engagement should be something that the board is constantly involved in throughout the year and not just a month or two before the spring election. The CETF gave the board a number of sound recommendations to better connect with the community yet I do not believe they have implemented any of them. As an extension of community engagement I would like to see teachers more involved earlier on in the processes of the District and Board. Personal and professional accountability is the most important. The Board should be accountable to all state and federal laws, DPI funded program requirements, District policy and most importantly to the children and residents of the school district. Mistakes will be made and I think that it is very important to be open about them, learn from them and move on. This community has a great capacity to accept and understand as long as mistakes are not swept under the rug or concealed.

Question 3: What have you done as a board member or going forward that highlights your position on the fiscal responsibility spectrum?
As a community member I have prepared and presented three Situation and Recommendations reports to the School Board. Two of them had to do with the outcomes of the most recent boundary change and one asked for a cost/benefit analysis of the SAGE program. All three of the reports had portions that addressed funding and school expenses. I believe we should have a regularly reoccurring review of programs and services in order to retain the ones that are working and look for alternatives to the ones that are not or are not cost effective. The District should be seeking out grants and alternative funding sources while keeping fidelity to current funding sources. I think that the Board should be asking the teachers and support staff to identify potential areas of saving and then acting on those ideas if possible. As a taxing authority, the school district needs to remember that there is a high expectation that they be good Stewards of the Taxpayers dollars.

Question 4: (incumbents)What have you done well as a board member? What will you do differently if re-elected?
[SP-EYE - Though no response was required Mr. Welke opted to to take this opportunity to describve what he brings to the table. ]
I think that my record as a community member speaks for itself. As a community member, in the last year, I have prepared documents and information along with alternative ideas for the board to consider as they struggled through the latest boundary decision. Since then I have authored 3 Situation and Recommendations reports that made their way onto the School Board's agenda. I have been actively engaged with the Board and district and I would certainly continue that level of commitment as a board member.

Question 5: What makes you a candidate that deserves to be (re-)elected?
I believe that I deserve to be elected because of my background and experience. I have been a sworn Law Enforcement officer for the State of Wisconsin for over 20 years. As such I bring to the table the perspective of a Public Servant. I have performed at a high level under close public scrutiny and with a high degree of personal accountability. I have served on a number of local, State and Federal Committees and task forces and have also served as my department’s law enforcement liaison with several user groups. My skills, knowledge, experience and abilities should transfer well in the role of a school board member. My perspective, values and experience should also compliment and diversify the current composition of the School Board.

Question 6: Is there anything else you'd like to share with the community?
I think that it is important for the School Board to remember their role. They are to represent, to the extent possible, the wishes and values of the community that elects them as they perform their duties. The Board should support ideas that bring people together rather than divide them. The board should also be striving to make the SPASD “the employer of choice” for administrators, educators and support staff by providing an environment that is safe and rewarding to work in and by providing fair and competitive compensation packages to attract and retain staff.

---

John Whalen
[SP-EYE- After a 2nd invitation to Mr. Whalen to participate in this exercise, we received the following response. In reply to Mr. Whalen's concern that responses would be edited, we present his response exactly as he sent it. The same holds true for other candidates. ]
Thank you for your interest in my responses. At this time, I would like to respectfully decline. To date, I have participated in interviews/surveys by the Sun Prairie Star and the League of Women Voters. I think voters will find these sources useful in selecting a candidate.

In the future, I would recommend providing some guidelines or policies for publishing responses. For example, will responses be edited prior to posting? Should the responses be limited in length? What is the deadline for responses? Also, if you are sincerely interested in all candidates responses, you may not want to endorse a candidate until after responses to your questions are solicited. This would help SP-EYE avoid the perception that it has a bias towards one candidate.

Thank you,
John Whalen

---

[SP-EYE: We'll chalk it up to election-related nerves or paranoia, but SP-EYE has not formally endorsed any candidate. Perhaps Mr. Whalen is refering to our post " School board elections 2009: You DO have a choice.html " in which we mentioned that instead of a slate of 3 incumbent candidates, John Welke announced his decision to join the race as a write-in candidate. If that is deemed equivalent to SP-EYE endorsing Mr. Welke, then the STAR must be endorsing Welke as well, since they also printed Mr. Welke's announcement.

That's OK John, we understand. As community residents who are watching the school board, we understand why you might be a little nervous now that you're not a shoo-in for re-election. After all...look what happened to long-time school board member Mary Ellen Havel-Lang last year. Like another infamously malodorous event, change happens.

Whether you fashion the status quo or change in the composition of our school board, SP-EYE reminds you to do you civic duty and express your opinion: VOTE on Tuesday April 7, 2009.]

---

...and Jim McCourt will have the Sea Bass (and NY Strip! and Shrimp!)

Ok... Sportsfans...this is what you've all been waiting for...

Ever since last year's annual WASB school board conference ( Reminisce over last year's feast!), when the Admin & School Board gang broke the bank at Butch's Old Casino Steakhouse, you've all been wondering...what would they do for an encore?



So...what did they do for an encore? How about a two-night extravaganza! Night One had the gang dining at the very haute cuisine "Umami Moto".

This is where Jim McCourt had the Sea Bass. Several communityt folks have wondered whether McCourt purposefully ate high on the hog (or fish) just as an "in your face" to SP-EYE and those community residents who believe that a "reasonable" meal is not defined as spending over $40 per plate. We'd like to believe that McCourt is not that shallow. He's just used to fine dining (and wining). What kind of community would we be to stick a pin in his balloon?

For Night Two the gang went back to Butch's Casino Steakhouse, the scene of last year's crime. Mr. McCourt had the 10 oz. NY Strip with 2 giant Guayma shrimp.

All told they spent $377.07 over two dinners (7 dined on the first night; 6 on the second) ...and that does NOT include any beverages!!!! Several board members were quick to point out that while they all had "a few adult beverages" (bar tab of $39.50 for Night Two), these were paid for separately. Thank heavens for small favors...right? It's not like these people are completely devoid of scruples.

Mr. McCourt won the prize for spending the most per meal EACH night, clocking in with a whopping 2-day dinner tab of $80.49!. Perhaps some will think we're being a tad unfair by singling out Mr. McCourt...but he WAS the one who argued so vehemently last year when last year's tab was questioned by the community. Mr. McCourt made his point loud and clear that there was a sense of entitlement to a couple of fine meals because he and other school board members give so much of their time to the district. Yep...and just when is Mr. McCourt going to take all those who volunteer countless hours reading to and tutoring kids out for a sea bass or filet mignon dinner??? There are MANY folks who give selflessly to the district and don't carry a sense of entitlement to anything. There's a difference.

Incumbent school board members John Whalen and Al Slane, both running for re-election, apparently had no loss of appetite worrying how the public would feel about them splurging on the taxpayer's dime for two consecutive nights.

On the other hand, we appreciate that both Jill Camber-Davidson and Terry Shimek (who also is up for re-election) chose to join in for only ONE of the evening fares. They also were not eating anywhere near as high on the hog as Jim McCourt. They spent less than the other board members except for Al Slane's very conservative $16 tab on Night One. He did make up for it, though, by doubling that total on the 2nd night.

A special award has to go to Caren Diedfrich who skipped the dinners entirely.

---

---

Things that make you go "hmmmm": Virtual High School a "Consent" item

See the Budget:

Play the (very brief)video



What's that mean? That is an understatement!
Does it mean we will CHARGE each student $6,500 per year (for 5 or less students)? Is that on top of the state aid we get for each of them? Or do we not get aid for virtual students?
These are all legitimate questions...but you likely won't get any answers as the whole concept of starting a virtual high school is listed on the "Consent Items" agenda.

What exactly does "Consent Items" mean on a board agenda?

A consent agenda, sometimes called a consent "calendar," is a component of a meeting agenda that enables the board to group routine items and resolutions under one umbrella.

As the name implies, there is a general agreement on the procedure. Issues in this consent package do not need any discussion before a vote. Unless a board member feels that an item should be discussed and requests the removal of that item ahead of time, the entire package is voted on at once without any additional explanations or comments.

Because no questions or comments on these items are allowed during the meeting, this procedure saves time.

Read the whole article from BoardSource.org

The school board rushed through the 4-year old kindergarten proposal, and now we're jumping into a virtual school with NO public input? Oh...wait...to be totally accurate, this WAS a subject at the Education&Policy committee meeting last week. I guess if you didn't have your say there, then tough tooties.

[ SP-EYE: Look, this is just our take, but does anyone else think that just maybe, the school district should start excelling in what they already have before leaping into all these new programs? We hear about the great accomplishments of our sports teams, our cheer teams, and our dance teams. But when was the last time we had A national merit scholar? Why does Sun Prairie rank right dead square in the middle of the pack of area schools in terms of WKCE scores? Sun Prairie is well known for its athletic achievement...and that's an awesome PART of a total education. When are we going to be known for BOTH athletics and academic achievement?

The District is usually quick to respond to such questions by pointing at the high levels of "diversity" in the district. Good one.

But if the "diversity issue" is holding us back, then why are we expending all of these efforts on new programs instead of focusing on dealing with the diversity of our students? We learned at the CETF meeting last week that there will be no boundary changes until the 8th elementary school planning in 3-4 years. That means there will be no plan to balance the socioeconomic diversity for 3-4 years.

It is common sense to not branch out until you first have a solid foundation. Why aren't we fortifying what we have before starting new programs? That seems to reflect a position of striving for mediocrity. ]

Stimulus $$ and School Construction: Nevermind

Lights on a ball field? Installing additional school security? Decisions regarding what is or is not an appropriate use of federal stimulus money? Never mind.

For whatever reasons, monies for construction have been eliminated from the final bill.
The Wisconsin State Journal article reports the following excerpts:

One U.S. House version of the federal stimulus bill included $317 million for school construction, renovation and repair in Wisconsin.

But the final version — a compromise between the House and the Senate — replaced that money with two national loan programs for school infrastructure projects.

“I’m very disappointed,” Crystal Ritzenthaler, superintendent of Baraboo schools, said of the exclusion of construction money from the final bill. “Our district, like many districts, has aging facilities.”

Ritzenthaler said her district has $4.5 million in construction needs, including $1.6 million for roof repairs and $300,000 for surveillance cameras and improved entry locks.

Doyle also said he was disappointed there was no construction money for schools in the final package.

“I thought school construction would’ve been very important from a stimulus point of view,” he said. “It would’ve put people to work very quickly.”

3/8/09 Wisconsin State Journal article on stimulus funding for schools

ProPublica article detailing funding cuts (see graphic excerpt at right)

SP-EYE now on Twitter

As we try to stay abreast of current technology (ahem! cough, cough) SP-EYE "tweets" are now available on Twitter. Check us out at "SPEYE" on Twitter.

Can't get to your PC? At least get access to a synopsis of the latest posts on your cell phone.

What the heck is Twitter?

Smartboards: High-tech tool...or just something to stick papers on?

On Thursday night the school board convened a special "working" session jointly with the Community Engagement Task Force (CETF) to discuss the process for future boundary changes and how to engage the community as part of that process.

The members in attendance were broken down into 2 groups for separate brainstorming sessions. The format of these brainstorming sessions was to go down the line and ask for "bullet" points (limited to 7 words) to identify critical boundary criteria or steps to consider during the process.

A person was chosen from each group to jot down these "bullets" on large "sticky note" style 2' x 3" flipchart pages. Even more shocking was the fact that the SMARTboard was merely used as a "wall" on which the sticky sheets could be attached (see picture from the meeting below).

Now...why on earth wouldn't they have used the fancy new "Smart"board that has been installed in the district office? OK...they could say that they had 2 groups and only one SMARTboard mounted. C'mon! We just funded this district with enough referendum dollars to equip EACH classroom in the new Creekside elementary and EACH classroom in the new high school with these technological innovations. The district and board have also committed to placing these in every classroom. They make SMARTboards on wheels. Are you telling us you don't have access to a mobile SMARTboard.

Why NOT showcase this technology for the public? These SMARTboards also have optical character recognition (OCR) software that would have enabled the district secretary to simply convert the handwritten "bullets" into text which could then have been used to generate minutes. At the bare minimum, the information could have been captured electronically to cut out the time it willk take to later transcribe these into a word processor. Using this technology would also have enabled the groups to very quickly sort the resultant phrases and even combine one or more like ideas.

The district invested a great deal of time to develop training sessions so that teachers could make full use of these devices. Is this yet another case of what's good for the goose is beyond the capability of the gander? Or just another in a series of poor decisions. And why didn't even a single board member, who voted to purchase these SMARTboards for its "Classroom 2010" project even THINK to say, "Hey....Dr. Culver...do you think that maybe we should make use of these cool SMARTboards?"

Here's what really irks us: we have these boards mounted in every classroom in Creekside, yet at least EIGHT classrooms are not even being used because the school is only half full. Trumping that is the fact that we have teachers that ARE technologically proficient and would kill for one of these SMARTboards. Instead, they aren't even allowed to purchase a projector so they can project a PC display on the wall....even when they offer to pay for most of it out of their pocket!!!!

We've spent over $50,000 of taxpayer dollars for this "BoardDocs", whose utility could easily be replaced by a decent website. On Monday (3/9) the board will approve spending $10,000 so the district can participate in a the local JEDI virtual school consortium.....something that we have no idea whether it will serve even a handful of students. How about forgoing the virtual school and instead purchasing 5 or 6 mobile SMARTboards for teachers across the district?

When are we going to stop throwing money at gimmicks and get the funding to the teachers...who will actually utilize in in enhancing the educational experience of our children?

A Sudden Desire to Engage the Community??

Captain's Log, Stardate 030509

Beamed down to planet DO501 to attend the minimally publicized "Special School Board Meeting: Community Engagement Task Force Meeting to Discuss Boundary Changes Process".

Observation: The leaders of this district, who call themselves the "School Board" are indeed a curious people. Following an unsightly period of civil unrest last year at this time, this group decided to embark on a quest to engage the rest of the planet, who they refer to as "the Community". These leaders developed a subgroup (the Community Engagement Task Force, or CETF)within their ranks who were charged with developing a set of protocols by which they could interact positively with members of "the Community".

The CETF brought forth their recommendations approximately 6 months ago (in planet DO501 time units), yet no action has been taken on any of these recommendations. Suddenly, out of the blue, the CETF was re-convened with the express purpose to identify the process and criteria for future boundary changes within the district and then how best to disseminate this information to members of "the Community".

What prompted this sudden apparent interest in engaging "the Community"?

The "School Board" has proven to be a relatively predictable bunch. Our current theory for the heightened interest in "Community " engagement may be related to a ritual on this planet known as "Election Season". It appears that the ruling terms of 3 of the 7 members of the "School Board" are about to expire. A democratic selection process for the 3 seats will take place on Tuesday April 7, 2009. They call this the "Spring Elections". From our scanning probes, we have learned that a member of "the Community" has risen from the ranks to challenge the incumbent leaders for one of their seats.

We believe that the "School Board" will be working quite diligently over the next few weeks to re-cultivate the strained relations with "the Community". Our data suggest that they enjoy their seats as members of the ruling class and are nervous about the prospects of having one of the common "Community" members join their elite ranks. We find this development quite interesting and plan to continue our monitoring of the situation.

Captain out.

QEO Reality: The Story of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice

We figure Phil Frei will crucify us for our example, but we need an example to show how things work, and we need it to be uncomplicated. So we're going to create a fictional school district, Pine Stump Consolidated School District, or PSCSD. Pine stump has exactly 4 teachers. Let's stay simple and ignore administrators. Also, Pine Stump being a very simple district, there are no additional salaries associated with things like building leadership, curriculum committee, co-curriculars, or coaching. Yeah...we know...those things do exist and only complicate what's complex to begin with, but to see the QEO in play, we need to use the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stanley).

So that's it. Sunny Pine Stump has exactly 4 teachers, and we'll call them....oh...say Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. Those are nice names.

Steps and Lanes and Moving Off the Grid
We first have to get a basic understanding of steps and lanes. The salary grid is composed of steps or downward cells in the grid. Each full "step" represents an additional year of teaching experience.

For Sun Prairie, a year of additional experience moves you one full step down the grid. This translates to a 3.0% increase in the Bachelor's lanes, a 3.3% increase in the Masters lanes, and a 3.6% increase if you fall in the PhD lane.

Lane movement occurs each time a teacher earns another 6 credits (or a new degree) beyond a bachelors. A change in lane represents an additional 1.9% increase (above base) for any changes in the Bachelors or Masters lanes. Moving into the PhD lane translates to an additional 2.25% increase above base.

Sound easy? OK...fine...but the grid only goes so far. What happens when you've attained enough tenure that you fall "off the grid"? Well, that's built into the contract as well. For teachers off the grid, an annual "step" increase is calculated as the greatest of (A) the last step on the grid, the last step on the grid + 3.62%, or a 3.62% increase to the existing salary.

The math behind the grid
We have to go back to high school math to figure out how to construct the grid.
Salary = Base salary x lane factor x step factor

Lane Factor
There are 12 lanes beyond the base, Bachelor+0 credits lane and the 13th lane is for PhD. Each lane other than the PhD earns a 1.9% increase above base; PhD adds 2.25% above that. So the math is 1.9% time the lane number you are in. a Bachelors + 12 credits is lane number 2 (beyond base). So the lane multiplier for a teacher with a BS + 12 credits is 3.8% or (1.9% x 2).
The lane multiplier for those who have earned a PhD is (1.9% x 12) + 2.25, or 25.05%. Thus a rookie teacher with a fresh PhD starts off at a salary 25.05% higher than that of someone starting off with a Bachelors only.

Step Factor
Calculating the step factor is a little harder because its multiplicative. The formula is simply the step increase amount raised to the power of the step number minus 1. So for a teacher on step 5 (4 years of experience) of the grid in the Bachelors lanes, the step increase is 3.3% raised to the power of 4 (or 3.3% x 3.3% x 3.3% x 3.3% ). We use "n-1" here (or 4, rather than 5) because the grid actually starts at step 1.

Putting it all together, lane+ step factors.
So...to put it all together, calculating any particular grid cell salary is done by multiplying the Base Salary times the Base Adjustment Factor. The Base Adjustment Factor is calculated as the Lane Factor times the Step Factor.

Example time
Ok , let's start with the basics. The salary and benefit picture for Pine Stump is as follows:

Total salary..........$ 176,598
Fringe ...............$ 82,295 (46.6% of salary)
Total salary+Fringe...$ 258,893

Pine stump employs 4 teachers, as we've said: Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice. Their years of experience and current salaries are as follows:


Name Years exp. STEP LANE 2008-09 Salary
Bob........0 (new)...1.....B.......$ 29,706
Carol.....10........10....M6.......$ 45,079
Ted.......12........12....PhD......$ 54,813
Alice.....25.......off....B24......$ 47,000

We're going to assume no lane changes here. The two key benchmarks to consider are:
3.8% of the total package ($258,893) mounts to $9,838
1.7% of the total package is $4,401

Let's assume that there's a very small increase in the cost of maintaining the fringe benefit package. Let's say that the cost of the fringes rises 2.5% above last year, or $2,057. Remember, however, that the QEO requires fringes to be relative to the TOTAL package. In this case, $2,057 represents only a 0.8% increase to the total package. As we've learned, anything under a 1.7% increase in fringes must be made up in terms of an equivalent increase on the salary side of the equation. That means, to arrive at an offer that represents a 3.8% increase to the TOTAL package, salaries must be increased by a dollar amount equal to 3.0% of the TOTAL PACKAGE. This is NOT the same as a 3.0% increase in salary. In fact, it is more than a 3.0% increase. We'll see.

So we know that a valid QEO must consist of an increase in $9,838 over last year. $2,057 of that will come from the additional fringe costs. That means that the remainder of $7,781 must come as adjustments to salaries.

First, we have to cover routine step increases. Normal step increases are as follows:
Bob: $891, Carol: $1,488, Ted: $ 1,973 and Alice: $ 1,701 for a total cost of $6,053. Adding in the additional fringe cost ($2,057), we need to raise salaries by a total dollar amount of $1,728 in order to come up with a valid QEO offer. How we do that dollar adjustment is open to options, but typically it is done by adjusting the "base" salary factor on the grid.

Here's where the district staff really earn their salaries. Basically they would have to calculate the Base Adjustment Factor for every teacher in the district. Then they would divide the total dollars needed to for a valid QEO by the sum of those factors to determine how the base salary must be adjusted. Of course, we have it easy...we have only 4 teachers.

Bob's Base Adjustment Factor is 1.030 [Lane Factor =1.0, Step Factor = 1.03. 1 x 1.03 = 1.03]
Carol's Base Adjustment Factor is 1.568 [Lane Factor =1.133, Step Factor = 1.384. 1.133 x 1.1384 = 1.568]
Ted's Base Adjustment Factor is 1.912 [Lane Factor =1.2505, Step Factor = 1.529. 1.2505 x 1.529 = 1.912]
Alice's Base Adjustment Factor is 1.0362 [Because Alice is off the grid, we just use the base raise in the contract. ]

So the Total Base Adjustment Factor for the district is 5.546 (1.030 + 1.568 + 1.912 + 1.0362].
The total number of salary INCREASE dollars (above steps) needed for the QEO is $1,728. We divide that number by the 5.546 and we come up with a figure of $311. That is the amount by which the base on the salary grid needs to be raised in order to properly distribute the salary dollars.

This results in the following new salaries for the upcoming year:

Teacher new salary raise% $ raise new $$
------- ------------ ------ ------- ------
Bob ....$ 30,918......4.08%.....$ 1,212..$ 320
Carol...$ 47,054......4.38%.....$ 1,975..$ 488
Ted.....$ 57,381......4.69%.....$ 2,568..$ 595
Alice...$ 49,024......4.31%.....$ 2,024..$ 322

...for an average salary increase across the district of 4.37%

The total package increase for a valid QEO was $9,838. The fringe benefits portion of this increase was $2,057 (0.8%) , and the salary portion totalled $7,779 (3.0%). Yes those two add up to only $9,836. Close enough for government work. We rounded to whole dollars.

So...a QEO offer when the increased fringe costs were less than the 1.7% resulted in gross" raises of 4.37%. Note that the average raises when we consider "new" money---or money above and beyond what was "guaranteed" by step increases is actually only about 1%.

Again...our apologies for over-simplifying a very complex topic. You can do the math. You understand that Sun Prairie has about 537 teaching staff right now. Many are off the grid.

We've increased our total costs to run the district by 3.8% without ANY increase in basic costs like textbooks, maintenance, etc.. Salaries and benefits account for 82% of the general budget for this district and the revenue cap was only increased by 2.2%. Let's hope Pine Stump enrollment doesn't decline...or we won't be able to cover the budget. See how it all works together?