Difference Makers: School Board VP Welke and Police Chief Anhalt

Understandably, our attentions have been diverted to the tragedies which occurred in Boston and Texas over the past week, but we'd be remiss if we didn't highlight this recent action.

In the wake to the Newtown tragedy, school board VP John Welke, who has a law enforcement background linked up with Sun Prairie police chief Pat Anhalt to see what they could do for our community.  The result is a program to offer free gunlocks to community members.  And it doesn't raise your property
taxes.

Sometimes guns are too accessible, and during an emotional upheaval, things can go wrong in a hurry.  Often deadly wrong.  People....please make use of this opportunity.  Keep your guns safe and secure.

If this program saves even one life, it will make it all worthwhile.  Sometimes it's the little things that speak loudest; and this one speaks volumes.

Here's to Mr. Welke and Chief Anhalt for making things happen....for making a difference.

Read the complete letter

Read the complete letter

The IFTK Exemption

One loophole that needs to be immediately excised is the IFTK (It's For the Kids!) exemption.

District Staffer: "You want to reserve ball field? That will be $25/hour.  For 3 hours use, that would be $75."

Prospective Field User: "$25/hr?  But....but...it's for the kids..." 

District Staffer: "Oh...why didn't you say so!  There'll be no charge."

IFTK is deceptively beautiful.  All one has to do is cry, "IFTK!", and the guy on the other side of the issue immediately has to defend himself against the ultimate allegation:  (s)he is anti-kids.  Who wants to wear that crown of thorns?

Do field /facility fees really break the bank?
$25 per hour is all it takes to reserve the top fields in the Sun Prairie school district.  That is if the Little League program lets you use them.  They already have locked out use of the two softball fields from June through August.  That's right...whether or not they'll actually use them doesn't matter.  They've reserved them.  Check that...they are squatting on them (figuratively, of course).  And they won't pay one red cent, despite the fact that some of those dates fall outside of the "Little League agreement".  Despite the fact that the "Little League agreement doesn't even mention the word "softball".

Poor Poor Pitiful Coaches
We can't honestly expect the coaches who run athletic camps to pay for the use of these fields, can we?  It'll take money out of their pocket.  It would make the cost of the camps unaffordable to "the kids".  Really?  You guys charge anywhere from $50 to $175 for these "camps" and the cost of the field rental might add $1 to that?

The Rental Fee doesn't even cover maintenance cost!
The athletic community is raging about having to pay for the use of fields (which by the way, they should have been paying for all long, but the district through a series of nods and winks and handshake deals has never charged them).  But we hear too many reports about the disgusting shape the fields/facilities are left in.  Sunflower seed packages and hulls, trash, and even tobacco slugs.  (Wait....why is tobacco even being used n a district field?).  The cost of a district maintenance worker to clean this crap up, including benefits and vehicle usage, comes to far ore than $25 per hour.  So the district and taxpayers are only deeper in the hole.  But..1.it is for the kids...right?

Rampant Abuse
The abuse of IFTK is running rampant in Sun Prairie, and Tim Culver, despite being the ultimate authority for all things school district, is clearly not going to do anything about it.  And why should he?  He doesn't want to be "the bad guy".  After all, he's the SuperNintendo!

Joe Powelka, the new Buildings&Grounds Manager (at least according to policy...oh wait...we don't follow policy unless it serves our needs) is the district goalie who ensures that field and facility renters pay the fees established by policy KG.  But he's more like Swiss cheese.  And...for now...we won't hang him for that.  He's probably still on probation, likes his job (pretty decent pay and benefits), and doesn't want to blow it all by standing too firmly.

But that's not doing anybody any good.  This needs to stop, dammit!  Sadly, it's going to take four school board members who have the kahungas to stand tall and knock IFTK from the bully pulpit.

It's for the kids!

Budget Proposal to Purchase 623 iPads: Just Push Pause

Steven Tyler would have us just push "Play"...and Dr. Culver would probably be right there with him.  Hmmm...can you imagine a Dr. Culver - Steven Tyler lunch date?  What WOULD they talk about?  Would Steven be wearing his famous PJs?



Ok...seriously, now.
We think technology is great.  A necessary component of classroom learning.  BUT.....and it's a large one....sometimes this district just plunges in instead of dipping a toe in the water first.

Classic example: administration rolled out its proposal to purchase 623 iPads at a total cost of $360,000 and now we're hearing (Performance & Operations Committee 4-15-13)  that in addition to these iPads, we'll be spending $333,000 on computer replacement for 2013-14 and then a tad over $900,000 for computer replacement over the following two years.

How many iPads will we be buying next year?
Oh...wait...the iPad 2 will be discontinued next year.  So what WILL we buy?
Will whatever we buy next year mesh with the iPads we buy this year?

And this proposal only puts 5 iPads in each elementary school classroom.
You have to know that the ultimate goal is 1 iPad for each of the 3,000 plus elementary school kids.
In the meantime...how does this work?

Really, we just have questions...so very many questions.  
Perhaps the district has considered the following questions and has good answers.  But we didn't see such in the proposal.


Are we buying 623?  Or 673?
Because we were informed that the budget for Apps was $25/iPad at a total cost of $16,825.  But $16,825/25 = 673.   That's apps for 50 more iPads?  More magical math from the district?

What about insurance for these?  Will they be covered under the district umbrella purchase?  Or do we need to purchase insurance for each.  The warranty for an iPad covers simple "it won't work".  What if they're dropped?  Insurance can cost anywhere from $39 to $99 per device for a year....some 2 years.

Will there be sharing battles?  [Miss ____, Johnny won't let me use the iPad]
How will a classroom work when 5 out of the 18-25 kids have an iPad and the others do not?
Will we have to pay for a sub to teach the rest of the class while the "five" get to go iPadding?

How much WILL we spend on Apps?
How will App purchases be approved?  Or can teachers just buy what they like.
Will there be district-wide apps...or will different schools buy different ones?

Who will be monitoring the use of iPad cameras?  We can imagine some crazy $#!@ goin' down with cameras and video.
Is there a need for them?  Maybe disable them?

What exactly does a 5 year old do with an iPad?
Have we considered the need to disinfect these before/after use?

Has any consideration been given to buying 175 instead of 623?  That would provide 25 per elementary school, which would allow an entire to class to use the devices simultaneously.

Do we have 623 outlets available?  Or will we need to buy a charging station/cart?

Will we know all the add-on costs BEFORE we purchase the tablets?  Or will it be a case of "Well, now we have them and we really need ______"?

Are we certain that having all these iPads won't adversely affect the district broadband or Wi-Fi?  We've seen first hand novices stumbling and opening multiple browser windows and seen Wi-Fi signal go south quickly.

Alternatives?
The question was asked when this proposal was brought forward several weeks back:  why iPads.  The district response didn't discuss alternatives.  It seemed that the accelerator was stuck on iPad.  NOW, however, when we asked the question informally, we learn that,

The iPad 2 will probably be discontinued before next year, so the proposal will be updated with the technology that is available at the time. For example, since this proposal was written, there have been new tablet devices released for schools.  The Learnpad is appealing for schools since it allows for more management than the iPad does.  ...we will look at all options before placing an order, especially since it is unknown what will be available for purchase next year.

Whoa...wait....huh?  The "Learnpad"?  Why didn't we even hear about that at the Committee level?
Is it just us...or does it seem like the collective has changed its mind already without even notifying the committee or the public?  If that doesn't reek of the need to push "PAUSE" we don't know hat does!

We also need to call a little bullspit here.  The LearnPad has been available--and used in schools-- for over a year.  So maybe the district just found out about it...which would suggest that the research done on this proposal is inadequate. We do agree, however, that new devices are constantly being made available.  Maybe we should pause and decide on a plan of what we want to do with this technology FIRST and then decide what to purchase?  We know a guy that offers something called "Choosing By Advantage"....maybe there's a need for that.

BOTTOM LINE
Technology is a great thing, and we DO want our school district to incorporate technology into the curriculum.  Our concern however is that we sometimes approach this with a perceived "Technology for Technology's Sake" attitude.  We need a well defined plan of implementation which also considers that technology quickly becomes obsolete.  We just haven't seen such a philosophy (if it's there...please let it out!), and, until we do there are better uses of $360K.  Hell...we want to be sure that there in't one damn hole in any damn roof...right, Caren?

Some resources that should be checked out

http://edudemic.com/2012/09/5-critical-mistakes-schools-ipads-and-correct-them/

http://appsineducation.blogspot.com/2011/04/ipad-accessories-for-learning.html

http://www.yuschoolpartnership.org/documents/1toPlanning.pdf

http://edresources.com/Blog-iPad-or-LearnPad.aspx

http://www.agent4change.net/bett-week/learning-platforms/1846-ipad-rival-with-better-price-and-flexibility-learnpad2.html

Time to Pop This Zit

Sorry for the disgusting analogy, but policy KG has gotten so out of hand, it IS disgusting.

What am I? Click to see the classic clip!

As a friend of ours used to say..."it's a grounder...you gotta squeeze it to get it to surface".

District administration (remember...Dr. Culver is ultimately accountable) simply refuses to deal with the issue. There is a policy in place, but nobody wants to enforce it.  It's unfair to hang this on Joe Powelka, who took over Buildings an Grounds last summer.  He's trying to do the right thing.  We think.  But he's getting no support from on high.

We've spoken with people involve in this whole shady deal and we're told of backroom deals and "negotiations"....you know...nudge, nudge, wink , wink....that ensure that the good folks of SPLL will never be charge while we have no trouble at all charging the Madison Downs Syndrome Society.  Shame on you all!

Show us your "Get Out of Jail Free" card
We've heard rumors of past precedent and "the way things work".  Bullspit!  Show us in writing where it says you can use facilities other than high school fields...even on weekends...and before school competition is complete---without paying a fee.  But please...have something tangible...not some story or blaming of past Buildings and Grounds Managers.

Excerpt from the Sun Prairie Little League facility use agreement

Yes, we have an agreement with the Sun Prairie Little League (SPLL) to use the fields. And yes they are paying us $85,000 over time for 23 years of field use. But that is for the HIGH SCHOOL FIELDs....AFTER the competition season is complete.  It does not apply to indoor facilities; nor does it apply to Ashley field, fields at CHUMS, or any other fields.  We're sorry that this weird spring has forced people to head indoors to practice, but your agreement doesn't cover that.

Lost field/facility maintenance revenue:  $27,625 for ONE field!

SPLL "squatting" on softball fields...AGAIN!

The SPLL has laid claim to the varsity softball field from 8 am to 9 pm EVERY DAY between June 1 and August 24th!   At no cost!  Because, of course...they are giving u $85,000.   That $85,000 over 23 years amounts to a whopping $3,700 per year to cover field maintenance and upkeep.   At field usage fees (Policy KG) we are losing $27,625 in potential maintenance/field facility revenues every single year for JUST THIS ONE FIELD!  Suddenly that $85,000 doesn't seem like such a good deal...does it?

And they also have the JV softball field locked up as well.  Worse, yet...they did this last year; it was called out, and nothing has changed.  We're back doing the same thing all over again!

Shouldn't SOMEONE ask about conflict of interest on Jim McClowry's part?
Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry (yep...Jimmy Mac is back in the headlights again!) is the personal contact for a whole set of facility uses under the Little League umbrella. And did we mention that he serves on the board of directors for the SPLL?   Doesn't that in some way, shape, or form constitute a conflict of interest?  Dr. Culver?  Ferris Beuler?  ANYONE?

It' no wonder he hasn't taken the time to learn about the potential new sport, lacrosse, or read their application in detail.  It seems abundantly clear that Mr. McClowry is all about baseball.  Hmmmm...even the turf on Ashley Field project is suddenly being hijacked by the desire for a new baseball field at the cost of $350K+. Is it right for an AD to be that involved in a single sport?  More to the point....to be so un-involved in other sports/activities?   It's no wonder why Jimmy Mac is looking to hire a 1/2 time Assistant AD.  He does't have enough time for baseball!

There are also some reservations made for SPLL under the names of certain high school coaches that list the coach's school district address, phone, and e-mail.  Some community residents may wonder whether our staff are doing SPLL business on the district's dime.

Little League Tournaments
We see several SPLL Tournaments scheduled on OUR fields as well.  You suppose they bring in more than $3,700 in revenue from these?

Geee....we wonder what kind of revenue the district could generate from holding ...say... a softball tournament.  Oh...wait...we can't.  SPLL is squatting on the JV and varsity softball fields all summer.

Can we talk about insurance policies (or lack thereof)?
The other thing of note is that more often than not if you call up a reservation, you see a red flag that there is no current insurance certificate on file.  Again...are we following policy at all?

Bottom Line: For $3,700 a year, SPLL gets to use all of our facilities whenever they like?
Are you KiddinG (ing) us?

How a new SPHS sport is launched

And now you know....the rest of the story

A Closer Look - Athletics/Activities Budget Proposals

Hold onto your hats, kiddies, this is gonna be an E-ticket ride fer sure!

Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry has offered four separate proposals.  We'll look at each in a little more depth.  Upon scrutiny, they do not hold up.  The big questions are:

• Why does district administration continue to allow such poor quality information to be presented to the public?  
• Why does the school board allow it?
• Did we learn NOTHING from the hockey fee fiasco?
• Where is HS Principal Lisa Heipp in all this?  As McClowry's direct line supervisor, shouldn't she have reviewed this?
• Is this the best we can do?  
• REALLY?

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART A:
 0.5 FTE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC & ACTIVITIES DIRECTOR – HIGH SCHOOL
Cost: $36,194.00

Forgive us, but we're a teensy bit tired hearing about how over-worked Mr. McClowry is. He has said numerous times that it's all about the kids and the connections they make, yet first out of the chute is a proposal to get some help for himself.  With all the technology in this school district, you're telling us that the only solution to scheduling and accessing facilities needs is to add a body?

"It is suggested that this position be in line with current Sun Prairie Area School district positions, such as, the Aquatics Program and Facilities Manager in terms of salary and benefits. At .50 F
TE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include: Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade non-conference athletic events.
[Hmmm...we don't see anything about clubs.  Is it all about athletics?]

In 2006, there was a coaching staff of less than 100. Now, the coaching staff is regularly over 120 members with only 60% being district staff. This makes the orientation, training, education, supervision and evaluation of these coaches even more critical to providing safe and positive experiences for our students.
[We're sorry, but we don't see how a 20% increase in coaching staff OVER 7 YEARS is a ton of additional work.   Nor do we understand why "external" staff require more training, education and supervision.  What...every coach that doesnt teach at Sun Prairie is a moron that requires hand holding?]

Over 1,000 student athletes are processed for compliance over three athletic seasons in a given school year. The increase in transfer students and foreign exchange students wishing to participate in athletics has become more demanding as well.
This number just seems a tad high given the number of kids in the high school.  Plus there's the history of Mr. McClowry not providing the most reliable information.  How many of the "1,000" are multi-sport athletes?  What kind of processing does that require?  One would think that ethics codes are per student...not per sport.  We'd like to see the number of actual UNIQUE, individual student athletes.

 During the 2011-12 school year, 1,320 students participated in a school-based club which represents 67% of students in high school that are participating in a club.athletics has become more demanding as well.
Again, the devil is always in the detail when it comes from Jimmy Mac.  Over 1,320 kids participated in clubs last year.  Is that unique kids?  How many kids participate in multiple clubs?  And the wording suggests that the number REPRESENTS 67% of students in the high school.  Most will read that as 67% of high school kids participate in one or more club.  But that's not really what it says...is it?  Is this more of the district or McClowry being purposefully obtuse?  Why do we care?  Because if 2/3 of the kids in high school are participating in extracurricular activities, that's awesome.  But is that really the case?  Or do they hope that's what we'll believe by reading those words quickly and not asking questions?  Again, we want to know...how many individual unique students participate in one or more clubs?  With all our technology, is that too difficult a question to answer?

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
" High school:
Conservatively, the district hosts over hundreds of athletic and activity events each school year. Each event has its own unique needs, but all events need proper supervision, emergency response plans and coordination.
It is likely that we will be adding two to four new levels of a spring sport in the near future. That will add another 12-24 home sporting events. These would add to an already very cumbersome and full spring schedule for athletics."
2 to 4 new levels of a spring sport "in the near future"?  He's only proposing girls varsity lacrosse NEXT year and boys varsity lacrosse the year after that.  Those are turn-key operations.  Why on earth does he need help for that?
How about some data?  Jimmy Mac ducked the question about whether schools of similar size have an assistant AD.   That smells like it struck a nerve.

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART B:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICTWIDE CLUB ADVISOR STIPEND ADDITIONS
Cost: $27,840.00

The proposal is to increase club stipends in each building across the district. The rate of 2% of Full Time Equivalency (FTE) would be used as a universal amount for all stipends.
[NOTE: This amounts to $580 per year per advisor)

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal. 
See attached data.
(there is none!)

3. How will the outcomes of this proposal be evaluated after 12 months? Three years?
Elementary - TBD 
Middle School/Prairie Phoenix Academy (PPA) - TBD
High School - TBD

Really? So....how will it be determined?  Does Jimmy Mac even have a plan?  No plan...no approval!



ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART C:
ADDITIONAL HIGH SCHOOL COACHING POSITIONS
Cost: $7,106.00

Proposal: Add two swim coaching assistant positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Swim Assistant Coaches Stipends: 7% or $2,030 x 2 = $4,060

Proposal: Add two cross-country assistant coaching positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Cross-Country Assistant Coach Stipends: 5.25% or $1,523 x 2 = $3,046

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
1. Provides a more appropriate student-to-coach ratio.
2. Provides proper safety and supervision of student-athletes.
3. Provides more diversified skill development and connection with sub-varsity student-athletes.
4. Provides a high quality experience for students in existing programs.

Participation Numbers for last 4 years:
Boys Swim 17, 29, 33, 45
Girls Swim 18, 28, 34, 48
Boys CC 43, 49, 35, 38
Girls CC 29, 33, 32, 38

Look carefully at these numbers!  Boys cross country participation has actually DECLINED, while girls have remained fairly steady with a very slight increase this year.  Swimming, on the other hand, is clearly on the rise.
Here's a case where the data support PART of the proposal:  additional coaches for swimming.

ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART D:
INTRODUCING VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL LACROSSE
Cost: $11,010.00 (Year 1) $11,280.00 (Year 2)

There is a desire in the community for the school district to sponsor boys' and girls' lacrosse teams. This proposal rolls out a plan to do so.
A "desire in the community"? Really?  This makes it sound like a few old guys in lawn chairs sippin' brewskis came up with the wild idea to develop a varsity lacrosse team.   That is worlds apart from  concerted effort by a large and growing club sport to be recognized as a full school-sponsored sport!  Disingenuous doesn't even begin to describe this.

Spring 2013-14: introduce a girls varsity lacrosse team
Spring 2014-15: A boys' varsity lacrosse team would be introduced.

2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
See data attached.
Once again...NO DATA!  This is beyond embarrassing.  It's downright shoddy work.  And Mr. McClowry knows full well that the lacrosse program has been requesting this for months, so there is no excuse for not doing a better job.  In fact, we happen to know (and have seen a copy) that the lacrosse folks put together a very detailed report to support this proposal.  Did McClowry use any of it?   Why not?  Does he have some personal issue with lacrosse?  For someone that speaks frequently about the importance of giving kids opportunities and the value of sports, McClowry doesn't seem all that interested in adding lacrosse. 

A participation fee of $85 for all SPHS lacrosse members would be accessed. All other expenses would be the responsibility of SPASD. The expected cost of running a lacrosse program for boys would be approximately $11,280. The Sun Prairie Lacrosse Club (SPLC) has agreed to donate $10,000 for start up costs and to purchase uniforms.

On Jan. 24 the Secondary Principals level met and ranked this proposal 2 out of the 4 submitted at this level. Projected participation fees $85 x 40 = $3,400

Does ANYBODY Review What Comes out of the Athletic Dept?

We had to start somewhere in reviewing these budget proposals...what better place than athletics.  If you glance at the budget proposals most include some level of detail and rationale.  Jim McClowry's do not.  We got bupkis.

We happen to have some inside information that, following the poor information presented regarding hockey fees, that any future reports to be presented by Mr. McClowry would be reviewed by the entire management team.  Did they?  Either way, the Management Team comes off looking poorly here because either (A) they reviewed--and approved--this proposal, or (B) they didn't review it and let it go to the public as is (again).

How can we trust ANY budget information coming out of the district when such poor quality reports such as this are released?  This district if going to need an 8th elementary school within 4-5 years and that will cost $18-20 M (or more).  Did anyone notice that most of the building referenda got slammed last week?  If one wants this community to support another big ticket venture, one might want to foc on putting one best and most quality foot forward when it comes to information.

And who exactly IS the district "Management Team"?  We assume it would include Tim Culver, Phil Frei, and Alice Murphy.  One would hope that HR Director Annette Mikula is also part of the team.  But that makes only 4 and most teams have an odd number to ensure no tie votes.  Is there a 5th?  Perhaps Student Services Manager Jennifer Apodaca?

Our next question is...do they vote on issues like this?  Knowing these folks, SOME of them HAD to take issue with Mr. McClowry's report.  Did they simply get over-ruled?  Really?  Someone actually thought the Athletics and Actvities Budget Proposals were well written and supported by data?  Or did some members of the Team simply not read it (and we can understand why)?

See attached ( Non-existent ) data
Two out of Jimmy Mac's 4 budget proposals, in response to the instruction, "2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal." were annotated with "See attached data".  Yet there was no data attached...at least any data that remotely responded to the directive.

Really?  Nobody caught that?  Who's responsible?  (ahem...Tim Culver)

Let's take only the left front wheel instead of a complete  turn key operation
Mr. McClowry...the district?....is proposing to add girls varsity lacrosse next spring.  Yippeee.  Seriously ...that's great.  And there's even a proposal to add boys varsity lacrosse th year after.  But hat about JV?  Freshmen? Lacrosse is by and large the number one growing sport in the country (although Jimmy Mac's report includes nothing about that).  It already would be better populated than several existing school sponsored sports...but we'll take just girls varsity and then boys varsity?  Really?

From the Why Don't We Show Growth Numbers That Don'T Support Our Proposal Dept.
...and then we have the request to add two assistant coaches each for swimming and cross country. Swimming...we get  The data bears that out.   But just look at the cross country data.   It does not support ANY additional coaches!

McClowry Needs Help
Out personal favorite is batting in the leadoff position.  In which McClowry asks for a half FTE (at a hefty salary) an Assistant Athletics and Activities Director.  Mr. McClowry has publicly stated that he's really, really busy.

At .50 FTE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include:
Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade nonconference athletic events.

Hmmm... not seeing much about activities there?

We hear Bon Jovi's releasing an updated version of one of their old hits.  It will be called "You Give SP A Bad Name".

Budget Proposals: An All Or None Proposition?

This week we heard (at least until the meeting had to be suspended after 3 hrs) about the districts new proposals for the 2013-14 budget year.

RECOMMENDATION:

On March 19, 2013, Management Team recommended the following steps, taking into consideration the pending state budget and the related uncertainty of school funding:

1. If the state budget is approved with no dollar increase to the per pupil spending (Governor Walker’s proposal), all new proposals would be delayed until future years. Based on current projections, they could not be sustained.
2. If the state budget is approved with a $150 increase, or close to that amount, the budget proposals would be implemented as shown on Attachment 1, starting in 2013-14, and Year 2 and 3 would be considered in future budgets.
3. If other revenue becomes available in the 2013-14 budget, the budget proposals would be implemented as shown on Attachment 1, starting in 2013-14, and Year 2 and 3 would be considered in future budgets.

Kinda has a "We want them all or none of them" ring to it, doesn't it?  As in "if we can't all play, then one of us plays".   We don't know if that was the intent, but that's how we read it and how several folks we asked read it.

We know this is really crazy...really OUT THERE...but do you suppose....do you you leave any room for the possibility that just maybe the school board might feel strongly about one or more of these that they would approve them regardless of the state budget scenario?  Just wonderin'.

We'll take a look at each in more detail...some more detail than others, of course, but these are just a few of the thing that just sacked us in the face about the proposals, shotgun style:

• It adds a lot of personnel (12.7 FTE by our count).  Many illnesses can be cured with a little antibiotic, but like some STDs, FTEs are forever.  Isn't the idea that technology allows you to do more with less bodies?
• 3.5 FTE for "Instructional Coaches".  The paint is still wet on the forerunner to this initiative.  Can we maybe let the paint dry and see how things play out before jumping t this?
• 623 Ipads?  REALLY?  SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE?   And why do they have to be I-Pads?   WI-FI and retina display? For grades K-5?  Can we think this through?   
• Expand/Re-structure Youth Advocates.  We can almost see this one.  If we're truly doing all the training now...why exactly are we paying someone else to provide these positions?  The $64,000 question (or actually roughly $100K question is:  does offering the district benefit package make a $14 dollar/hr wage more palatable?
• Athletics & Activities.  Lots of buried treasure here.  Jim "Jimmy Mac" McClowry wants to add more club advisors and coaches, pay them more, get himself a half-time assistant AD...oh yeah...and maybe add girls varsity lacrosse next year.  Did anyone even review his proposal?  He talks about attached data that we didn't see.  Other folks looking to add positions provide PDs.  Jimmy Mac did not.  In fact, there's no substance here.  And lacrosse seems to be a finely tuned turn-key operation.  So why is Jimmy Mac proposing to simply take ONLY the right front tire?  And why start wi girl?  That funk kinds reeks of a Title IX concern....dontcha think?
• PBIS Coaches.  This is the least expensive and arguably most needed of all the proposals. 
• Add 1.5 FTE Support staff at CHUMS.  Not huge fans of adding FTE, but at least the proposal includes clear data to support the need.  Unlike Jimmy Macs (hint, hint).
• Add 2 groundskeepers.  Wait...after last summer, don't we have LESS grass to deal with?  Just kidding!   Far better data to support it although we wonder why we should be swayed by Florida or Washington models.  Being that we're SO much like those states.
• Add 0.5FTE for Business Services and 0.5 FTE for Human Resources.  The former gives us some heartburn while the latter is more understandable.  Several years back our Business Services Manager received a $5.00 per hour increase that due to complaints the school board split p over 2 years.  Still, we pay that position a LOT of money and now they need help?  It's tarting to look like the people that get paid the big bucks don't do very much and we need to hire lesser paid positions to do their work. Sorry to be blunt, but w're just sayin' what everyone else is thinkin'.  Maybe if Phil Frei focused on the business end more and let others deal with the non-business things (like technology and buildings/grounds), we wouldn't need this position.

Enjoy!

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/files/966PZY671906/$file/Att.2-Complete%20Set%20of%20Proposals.pdf