New State Report Cards Offer a Look at Statewide High Schools

Schools will be graded on Reading and Math achievement,
closing the gaps on reading, math, and graduation rates, and
post-secondary readiness, focusing on graduation rates, and
participation in college entry exams.

First Impressions
 Wisconsin high schools look pretty good...right?  Only 17 of over 400 high schools "Fail to Meet Expectations".  Over 86% of all WI public high schools meet or exceed expectations.  Life is good...yes?

And it looks like a good plan to evaluate districts/schools on more than just test scores....right?

One think to keep in mind that 40 high schools received overall scores of "Not Rated" due to either suspected errors, or insufficient data.


Second Thoughts
Hold on just a sec....over 37% of high schools EXCEED expectations? Not that that isn't a good thing...but weren't we told to expect gloom and doom with the new evaluation system?

The plot of high schools vs. overall assessment seems  a little right slanted, wouldn't you say?  In the NFL, they call this a trips right formation.

What we find interesting, however, is that if you score the overall report card grades as a letter grade using standard grading conventions.  Things do not look so good.  The plot now becomes left leaning (trips left).

We still have a skewed set of data...and that bears some monitoring.  Which is it do you think? Trips left? Or trips right?  One will give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the status of education isn Wisconsin.  Should we just go with that one, then?


Third Degree

Are we now grading on the curve?  Or have we merely lowered our expectations?  Hear us out here.  The maximum accountability score is 100%.  That sure looks like a standard grading chart.

But the new scoring rubric seems a little unappetizing.  A score of 63-72.9 yields an evaluation of "Meets Expectations"?  Really?  If your kid came home with a score of 63% on a test, would you say, "Ohhh...Johnny, you've met expectations, we're so proud of you!"?
Yeah...we didn't think so.

So have we just dumbed this all down to make us all feel better while districts are quietly told to clean up their acts?  Of course...what would be the incentive?  Hey...we met expectations...what more do you want?  Should we be concerned that only 4 high schools "significantly" meet expectations?

Perhaps this is some good watercooler conversation fodder.

The case of the puzzling yard signs

So...on the one hand we have an elementary school principal who is on record of supporting smaller class sizes.  On the other, we have said principal's yard flaunting a complete slate of Republican yard signs.

Hmmm...seeing as how Romney has clearly stated that he doesn't not see a relationship between class size and student achievement, how could an elementary principal be (at least openly) supporting him?

Could it be that personal finance is valued more highly than education?  Based on the principal's salary (and that of said principal's spouse), they may not be in the "1%", but they very clearly fall into the 4%...as in their household income (available through public records) exceeds that of 96% of Americans.

Yeah...they might want to vote for the guy that will cut their taxes...even if he does gut education.

With all due respect to privacy, it just seems strange to us that someone in these shoes would be so open about which candidate they support.  Talk about erecting a wall between you and your staff.

Fact Check: Is SPHS' graduation rate really 98%

 When Dr. Culver hesitated a bit prior to stating at the Annual Electors Meeting that Sun Prairie's graduation rate was 98%, we wondered.  So we did a little research.


As of May 1, 2012, the "official" tally of 12th graders was 496; however, the STAR reported the number of 2012 graduates to be 480.  That would yield a percentage of only 96.8%.  What happened to the other 1.2% (about 6 kids)?  Did we misplace them?

Now DPI data is always at least a year behind, but the DPI data for 2011 (as reported by Sun Prairie) was only a 94.6% graduation rate.  So, from one perspective, going from 94.6% to 96.8% is a nice increase.  But still...where did Dr. Culver's 98% come from?  Is this yet another example of questionable information coming from the district administration?  Or, like a presidential candidate, is the 98% a "true" statement IF you consider a a number of unmentioned conditions?

So what we did next boys and girls, was to compare Sun Prairie's 2011 graduation rate to other districts in Dane County and also to the 20 similar sized districts (10 smaller; 10 larger).

Overall, Sun Prairie looks pretty darn good, especially against similar sized school districts, coming in 5th out of 21.

While in Dane Co., Sun Prairie sits in the middle of the pack, let's be real.  The schools above us are much smaller school districts.

Does size matter?
It's starting to look like size matters when it comes to graduation rate.  But, what the numbers do not show is the demographics of the student body.  It's far more difficult to achieve a 100% graduation rate when the numbers of socio-economically disadvantaged students rises significantly.

Chasing the mean
We also looked at the history of gradation rates (up to age 21) going back to 1996-97 school year.  While the last three years have seen an increase, overall the tendency is to bounce around a mean of 94-96%.  And that's the way statistics work.  It's just like in football, a player will have a "career" year, and then bounce back down to the mean.   Like Monte Ball is doing.  He's a great back, but last year was the perfect storm of sorts, with a (now) NFL starting quarterback, and a lot of quality receivers, much running back depth, and a stalwart offensive line.  Now...he's doing well, but nowhere near a Heisman pace.  Similarly, people started questioning Aaron Rodgers.  One 6 TD game later, and he's back looking like he has the past 3 years.

Life is a game of chasing the mean.  We'll have up games and down games.  We'll have up years and we'll have down years, but, at the end of the day (year, season) we won't fluctuate much off the mean.

Is 100% graduation rate achievable?
The DPI data (2011) includes 381 districts with 12th grade enrollment.  19 of these districts (5%) had 100% high school "completion rates", culminating in a diploma.  So...100% IS attainable.  Notably, however, the average class size of these districts with 100% graduation rate was 42 students.  That means a high school graduating class less than one-tenth of Sun Prairie's size.   Let's not even talk about the differences in diversity or socio-economic disparities.

The largest district with 100% enrollment was  Baldwin-Woodville with a graduating class of 115 (less than 1/3 of Sun Prairie's).  Interestingly, Baldwin-Woodville was on the list of best high schools.  But look closely at how Sun Prairie compares to Baldwin-Woodville.

                             Sun Prairie     Baldwin-Woodville

Median Household Income        $55,456        $46,142

% Economically Disadvantaged    25.8%           23.4%

% Minority students             24.8%            5.9%

Population                     26,031            4,470

# students                      7095             1635

Look...we could have 3 high schools, instead of one...but who's kidding whom?  That would be cost prohibitive.  And regardless of how many high schools we have, we still need to come to grips with the diversity issue.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Guyant's attempt to compare graduation rate to things like airplane crash rate, brake failure, or foodborne illness is ill-informed at best, grandstanding at the very least.  It was a Hail Mary attempt to persuade community members to simply throw more money at the school district.  Frankly, we'd rather see more National Merit Scholars than named courtyards or classrooms.

What we need to do is better educate the kids we have that WANT to be there.  Life is about choices, and some kids simply do not choose to graduate from high school.  Learning cannot be forced.

Last but not least, it would be interesting to learn where Dr. Culver came up with his response that our graduation rate is 98%.  The numbers we see do not add up.  But, hey, that's not the first time we've seen that in this district.

Is a 100% graduation rate realistic?

SPARC member Al Guyant called it out at the annual electors meeting: 98% is not good enough.  He asked how much it would cost to reach 99.99%   Well, Mr. Guyant, if you read up on school finance, you would know that we have these things called Revenue Limits".  And Sun Prairie is levying about $2.3M under the revenue limit.  So that's it, Al...we could spend an additional $2.3M.

So... assuming the graduation rate is 98% (we'll get back to that), at 484 students enrolled in 12th grade last year, 98% graduation means that about 10 kids did not graduate.  What are Mr. Guyant's ideas on how to make that $2.3M ensure that those 10 kids graduated?   Do we offer them $230,000 each if they graduate? Hey...that's a novel idea.  Kind of in line with the whole pay-for-performance concept.

Seriously though.  You cannot equate food safety and engineering safety with high school graduation rates.  That's really pretty ludicrous.  It's like something that would come out of Mitt Romney's mouth.  Also...the last time we checked, this was still a free country.  A 17-year old girl has the right to make decisions regarding her body, so why on earth would she not be allowed to make a decision regarding finishing high school?  We may not agree with her choice, but the choice is hers nonetheless.

Look...here's where we agree with Mr. Guyant (the AlSparc):  any increase we can make in the graduation rate is a good thing.  But we'll stop there.  We'd really like world peace, too; but does Mr. Guyant think THAT's realistic??  We're not gonna just throw money at the problem.  Hell, as one community resident pointed out, we have more named courtyards than we do National Merit Scholars.  We built a Taj Mahal for a high school...you know...if you build it, they will graduate.  So money isn't the problem.  You cannot force kids to want an education.  In fact, doing so may have adverse impact on those that DO want to be in school and learn.

[Spending money isn't going to improve graduation rates]..."we have more named courtyards than we do National Merit Scholars."
-- a community resident

There are numerous studies out there that will tell you that 100% graduation rates are unrealistic in the long term.  Sure some smaller schools may have 100% here and there.  Let's get real.  And people should really do a little research before making such grandiose points in public.

Tax levy approved; 1.4% DECREASE from 2011-12

The annual Electors Meeting...my how it SPARCled.  For awhile there, it appeared that we'd been teleported to Forks, WA.  Would Edward be in attendance?

Like good little liberals, the SPARClers appeared in a moderate show of force to try to erase the reduction in tax levy.  Their play was for a 0% increase, which would have added nearly $1M to the proposed tax levy.

Of course, somehow the message filtered through to the collective and it must have suddenly dawned on them that the electors cannot override a school board proposed tax levy which is adequate to operate and maintain schools.  So their next ploy was to put the extra tax dollars away to pay down the $1.5M debt levy increase scheduled to come next year.  Once again, however, the rest of the electors had clearer heads and soundly defeated the SPARClers.  The levy proposed by the school district,$46,437,308, was approved by a vote of 130-49.

Hail Mary bid for levying an extra $900K
Have we no shame?  Comparing high school graduation rates to airplane crash percentages and foodborne illness, Al Guyant, a prominent Member of the SPARC group (and who has been dubbed the Al SPARC) offered the following, after asking Dr. Culver what the graduation rate is (Culver responded; 98%):

“When I go to the store to buy food, I want 100 percent of that food to be good and not get sick. When I get my brakes fixed, I want those brakes to work 100 percent, not 98 percent. The planes that fly my grandchildren here, I want them to be 100 percent successful, not 98 percent successful. Why is it that we want 100 percent in many things in our society, but we tolerate 98 percent? Our country is under economic attack, we need as many smart people to go work for Epic and other places so that they can hire, they can pay more taxes...the goal should be 99.99 success and someone should come up with what is the cost of doing that.”

--- Al Guyant (as reported by the STAR)

$46,437,308 is Just Right

Like Goldilocks, the school board has determined the tax levy that is just right.  Neither too big, nor too small.
The main purpose of the annual elector's meeting is to vote a tax levy which is sufficient to operate and maintain schools.
Barring any sudden surprises like an unanticipated reduction in stated aid, $46,437,308 is that number.
_______________________________________________________________________
Who's in charge here...the electors or the board?

... the school board has the ultimate authority to determine the property tax levy for the operation and maintenance of the school district because section 120.12(3) requires the board to determine the amount necessary to operate and maintain the schools. Prior attorney general opinions concluded that earlier versions of section 120.12(3) gave the board the power "to operate and maintain a school regardless of whether the electors provide sufficient funds for such operation and maintenance." 13 Op. Att'y Gen. 380, 381 (1924), and 25 Op. Att'y Gen. 411, 413 (1936).

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)

Therefore, if the school board determines that the tax voted at the annual meeting is not sufficient to operate and maintain the schools, the board is empowered to determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools in the school district.

See sec. 120.12(3)(a), Stats. Also, if the board finds that the annual meeting voted a tax greater than that needed to operate the schools, the board may lower the tax voted by the annual meeting.

See sec. 120.12(3)(c), Stats.

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)

So...let' stop the shenanigans, eh?  Three years ago the electors voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M and the district STILL ended up with almost $1M SURPLUS.  We're pretty certain that is compelling evidence to support that the proposed tax levy that year was far more than that required to "operate and maintain" schools.  Subsequently, Phil Frei's sock drawers have been emptied.
_____________________________________________________________________________

No programs were cut.
Two enhancements were made during the budget process:
(A) The school board voted to add about $40K to the budget ($73M) to ensure that a full school year's worth of RTI tutoring was provided for struggling students.
(B) The school board also voted to use a one-time $300K to assist the Youth Hockey program in bringing their 2-sheet ice arena to fruition.  Get over it.  This is a good thing.  We will reap much in return for our $300K.

Instead of a tax decrease, this could very well turn into a small tax increase...but that is solely due to the continuing (and unexpected) decline in property values.

So...we're voting "YES" to support a tax levy of  $46,437,308
We hope you will to.
Please...come out in numbers.  But leave your politics at home.  This is not the place, and the school board has ultimate authority over the levy.

11th Hour: Unsettling News on Equalized Values front.

Some potentially troubling news came out late this week.
Final fall equalized values were released (remember, that is the denominator) in the mill rate equation; the proposed tax levy is the numerator.  If the denominator is reduced, the mill rate goes up.

We've all seen the new construction, so we were all anticipating at the very least a small INCREASE in the equalized values.  The City of Sun Prairie was using 1% growth in its estimates.  The school district stayed with 0%.  It looks like the 0% is at least 1% closer to actual.

The city of Sun Prairie property values are actually DOWN 3.7%.  Who would have guessed that?

What's the Bottom Line?
Barring any last minute increase to equalized aid from the state, what this means is that our $2.4M windfall and tax levy decrease have evaporated as quickly as out water this part summer.  It's gone baby, gone.  We could be looking at a 2% tax levy INCREASE of as much as 1.7-2.0%.   The acrtual mill rate would now project to $12.84 (district-wide) instead of $12.44.

So...we may as well toss those annual meeting booklets (nice cover!) into the recycle bins.

Could the news get worse...or better?
Guess what?  The final final state aid amounts will not be released until sometime Monday morning.
Now...it's POSSIBLE that the drop in property values could land us a little more state aid to help mitigate this sudden melt-down in our tax picture.

Doesn't it seem just a teensy bit disingenuous to have a meeting the very evening (this Monday night, October 15) that final numbers come out?  Gee...give us a few minutes to digest the sudden bad news and then ask us to vote...right?  Maybe those 2% increases aren't looking like a very good move anymore?

Here's the hard part.  Like it or not, we have to agree at this point that the proposed tax levy, $46,437,308 is the amount necessary to operate and maintain our schools.  So we will need to suck it up and vote to support that levy.

You see, this is likely what Phil Frei has been trying to communicate (but has not done as well as one could).   We have to focus on the amount of dollars necessary to operate and maintain our schools.  But...we also have to be able to trust that the proposed expenditures do not include excessive fluff or unwarranted expenditures.

The rest...the tax levy and mill rate are out of Phil's hands.  From the expenditures budget, we subtract out the revenues received from federal,  state and other sources.  What remains must come from local sources (our wallets) ...the tax levy.  We had a nice surprise of a rather hefty, unexpected increase in state aid.  Now that appears to be washed away by a large decrease in property values.

So, suck it up, Chuck.  It's all for the children...right?

Pop Quiz Time...a True Story

We're gonna make this easy for you....only two choices for the answer.  Shouldn't all multiple choice tests have only two options?

So let's just say that you're the principal of Sun Prairie High School.  Ok... we did...and it was.
...and you decide to show your support for the  school and attend last night's homecoming football game... (which she did).

OK...here comes the question...

So..does the high school principal reach into her wallet and
(A) pull out a  $5 for the entry fee to support the district's athletic programs, or
(B) pull out her staff ID which allows her free admission?

OK....the answer was (B).
And...hey...that's OK, right?  I mean it is a "perk" that staff receive from the district.  So it would be like blowing $5 when you do not have to...right?

Or is it really a character study of sorts.  When you earn over $110,000 per year, which will come with a great retirement pension, do you "take one for the team" and share the wealth of your career?  Or do you say, "Bull$%!# ...I can get in free, so I will, dammit"?   Afterall;...our HS principal has no real ties to this community.  She lives further south, so her tax dollars do not go to support the district.

Without naming names, other highly placed people in the district also attended and chose option (A).
Hmmmmm.

This, boys and girls is a lesson on how the rich get richer.
It's the "haves" vs. the "have nots"
They do not spend one thin dime they do not have to.