Examining Critical Votes of 2009
1/12/2009 6.02 Sun Prairie Four Kids: A Community Early Learning Program
Supported: 6-1. Camber-Davidson opposed
This vote established a 4-yr old kindergarten program.
Despite 50-50 public sentiment at best, and the fact that we already have the original HeadStart program, the board supported this. It caused a $600K budget deficit for 2009-10, but promised to be a "cash cow" in future years. So...did we do it "for the kids"? Or did we do it because we'd get more money from the state than it costs to run the program? Does this board even know the meaning of "fidelity to funding"?
2/9/2009 6.06 Budget Forecast Model
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The 2010-11 budget (the year the new high school opens) projects an $801,374 deficit.
This was the first warning that NEXT year's budget was going to be hellish. Yet they went ahead and voted to support these measures.
2/9/2009 6.08 District Administrator Contract Extension
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Gave Culver a 1-year extension on a contract that was already valid through June 2011.
" The Board hereby employs the District Administrator and the District Administrator hereby accepts employment for a term commencing on July 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2011. This contract shall be subject to a single one (1) year extension to cover the 2011-2012 school year unless either the Board or District Administrator notifies the other in writing on or before January 31, 2010, that such extension shall not apply. Each January the Board shall review this paragraph as part of an annual evaluation to determine whether to extend this contract by an additional year. "
Why on earth would a board extend a contract that hasn't expired? This isn't exactly Barry Alvarez here!
4/13/2009 7.06 Conversion of Administrative Support FTE
Supported: 6-1 Shimek opposed
In anticipation and preparation for opening the new secondary buildings in the 2010/2011 school year, administration would like to convert 1.0 FTE from the Administrative Support Group (Partnership Principal) to the Administrative Group. Administration would like this change to occur in the 2009/2010 school year so a secondary assistant principal can be hired. The cost would be net zero.
Just what we needed...MORE administration! And what, exactly, IS a "Partnership Principal"? In the real world, these are the kinds of positions that get CUT in tough economic times.
4/13/2009 7.07 Naming Rights Committee Recommendations
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Diedrich opposed
"Price" List for Naming rights generates $3,084,314 (of the total $100M cost) plus any monies derived from selling "bricks" leading up to the new high school.
A 3% return on a $100M investment is the BEST we can do? And someone should ask the questions: who gets the money? And how will it be used? And how will it be accounted for in the budget?
5/16/2009 5.01 Converting Contracted Security Guards to District Employed Youth Advocates
Supported: 4-2-1 Shimek, Stackhouse opposed; McCourt absent
This proposal maintains positions to supervise student safety and security, but reframes them and strengthens them to focus on building relationships in addition to basic “guarding.” The key research supporting this decision came from a study from Baylor University entitled the “Violence Free Zone Initiative: A Milwaukee Case Study.” (See attached or go to http://www.isreligion.org/pdf/case_milwaukee.pdf ). The district also looked at similar programs in Janesville and Madison.For all of these reasons, on April 29, 2009, the Management Team decided to recommend that instead of contracted “security guards” the district put in place “youth advocates” starting with the 2009/10 school year. (See job description in attachment 2.) This program would be carefully monitored and adjusted frequently to determine that it is providing best practices for the safety and security of students.
Let's see...safety at the high school. Security guards? Or "Youth Advocates"? Kinda sounds a little "spare the rod and spoil the child"-ish, doesn't it?
6/22/2009 6.02 Ratification of 2009-2011 SPEA Collective Bargaining Agreement
Supported 5-1-1 Slane opposed; Shimek abstained
A fundamental component of the new contract is a 3.8% increase in the total salary and benefit packages for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 contract years. The salary schedule provided is tentative pending final dental rates which will be available in July.The final agreement was reached on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 after 6 months of negotiations.
NOTE: waiting till after 7/1/09 would have enabled a stronger negotiating position for the district as the 2009-11 biennium state budget removed the QEO.
Hmmm...budget crisis. Budget is about 85% personnel cost. The rest of the world is getting pay CUTs, furloughs, or just plain lay-offs. So 5 of 7 board members supported 7% raise over 2 years???? And remember, folks, a "3.8% total package" means actual salary increases of over 4%.
7/13/2009 6.02 Reduction to Previously Approved Administrator Salary and Benefit Total Package for 2009-2010
Supported: 4-2-1 Camber-Davidson, Slane opposed; McCourt absent
On May 27, 2008 the School Board adopted changes to the Administrative Contractual Benefits and Evaluation Plan that included a 4.5% total package increase. However, the administrative team felt that in light of the cuts to public education funding and the present downturn in the economic cycle, it would be best to ask the School Board to reduce the salary and benefits package from what teachers received last year to what teachers received for 2009-2010: a 3.8% total salary and benefit package.
Do these people even understand what they are voting on? How does one manage to OPPOSE a reduction in pay increases?
7/27/2009 6.01 Personnel
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
Hire a principal for SP4K program: at a cost of $45,000 for a half-time role.
Routine Personnel not through Personnel Committee
Position__________________________Hiree_____Salary__Comments__FTE
------------------------------------------- ---------------------
Principal – Sun Prairie 4 Kids__Ward, Karen__$45,000__1-Year__0.50
So....for a program of 2 hr instruction time, we hire a person to work half-time and then pay them $45,000 for the school year. Any of you make $45K for FULL-TIME? And let's not even talk about the fact that "full-time" means 9 months out of the year.
7/27/2009 6.05 Appointment of Representatives to Standing Committees (Student, Staff & Citizen)
Supported: 6-1 Stackhouse opposed
The board violated its own policies and disregarded deadlines to name someone to the Finance Committee with lesser qualifications than a candidate that met all requirements.
Why do we even write policies if we're not going to follow them? Why set any rules at all? Why even bother going through some false "application" process? Why don't we just let the school board president name anyone he/she wants as citizen representatives for board committees. Oh...wait...that's what John Whalen did. Never mind.
8/24/2009 6.06 Administrative Support Study and New Salary Structure
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
The new salary schedule incorporates nine steps with an approximately 22% range spread. Range maximums average 10.6% higher, but have considerable variance. The schedule is analytically sound with a balance between internal and external measurement.1. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend adoption of the new pay plan.2. Management Team and the Human Resources Committee recommend that the board authorizes a 3.8% total package increase for the Administrative Support Staff group at a cost of approximately $79,371.00 for the 2009/2010 school year.
This from the Department of Redundancy Department: Budget bad...but raises good?
9/14/2009 6.02 Approval of the Sun Prairie Substitute Teachers Association (SPSTA) 2009-2011 Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
Highlights of this contract include: a 0% increase in salary for year one (2009-2010) and a 2% increase for year two (2010-2011).
This from the "So What Are We? Chopped Liver?" Department: So we give Teachers, Admin, and Admin Support 3.8% raises and the put the screws to the SUBSTITUTE teachers...the ones we frequently depend on! Talk about establishing a caste system!
9/14/2009 6.03 Adoption of 2009-10 Proposed Budget
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
So…they ALL (well, you can't hang this on McCourt) approved of the raises, the huge budget increase, and the proposed tax levy increase!
9/14/2009 6.08 Proposed 2009-2011 District Administrator Employment Contract
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
The District Administrator has requested that he receive no base salary increase for 2009-2010. As part of this agreement the District Administrator has requested two things: That it is made clear that the purpose of getting no salary increase is not necessarily a reflection of the Board's evaluation of performance for 2008-2009 and an additional 3 days of vacation be added to the employment contract.So, they gave him NO raise, but then gave him 3 MORE paid days off!
"The District Administrator has requested"...doesn't that sum it all up? This is the very picture of the tail wagging the dog. Our only question is: why didn't Culver ask for more...maybe an increase to his monthly, exempt-from-receipts $425/month stipend? It appears the board is his personal genie, granting his every wish.
10/26/2009 6.02 2009-10 Budget Adoption
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
This vote says it all, folks. If you approve a budget that requires a 12+% increase to property taxes, you get what you deserve.
10/26/2009 6.03 2009-10 Tax Levy Approval
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Despite posturing that McCourt and/or Slane might propose to overturn the vote of the people, the board voted unanimously to implement the tax levy (reduced by $2M) set by the electors at the annual meeting.
This was actually the first sign that the board realized that the public meant business by its actions at the annual meeting. Perhaps some of them feared for their re-election hopes in April if they voted against this.
11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 6-1 Diedrich opposed
Motion as amended TO APPROVE THE BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING AS OUTLINED IN SECTIONS I, II, AND III.
Caren Diedrich wanted to dig deeper for cuts!....and even got testy with Culver and Frei in the process. This from someone who has typically voted in support of EVERYTHING coming from Administration. Does she really "get it"...or is this a clever advance tactical ruse to garner votes for her re-election in April. Go ahead...roll the dice...do you feel lucky with her on the board?
11/23/2009 6.02 2009-2010 Budget Adjustments and Reductions
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
It was moved by Al Slane and seconded by Jim McCourt TO SCHEDULE A CLOSED SESSION OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPEA REGARDING SALARIES.The result of the vote was: Unanimous
Geee...too little, too late? Can anyone blame the teachers for NOT agreeing to a voluntary ONE-day furlough? I mean really...if your boss asked you to voluntarily work one day without pay, would you? No...of course not. The thing about furloughs is that no sane person would voluntarily agree to them....unless a knife were held to their throats. Furloughs MUST be a decree...not an option.
The budget problem is related to school funding, and a solution coming from the legislature is simply NOT going to happen. Being the smart politicians they are, they are pushing those decisions down to the local level...as in ELECTED school boards. Furloughs are not an answer....negotiating more reasonable contracts IS.
11/23/2009 6.05 2010 Sun Prairie Chamber of Commerce Membership
Supported: 5-2 Camber-Davidson, Shimek opposed
Motion made to NOT renew COC membership…at a cost of over $1300.
Look...the Chamber of Commerce is a great entity...but the school district is NOT engaged in commerce. In fact, it's a non-profit organization whose sole goal is education. Sure, good schools help get people to locate here, who will subsequently support local businesses. So school districts should logically be a part of any chamber of commerce....but how about waiving the membership fee? Or...at the very least...offer a VERY paltry fee...as other local Chambers of Commerce do. It's called negotiation, school board members, and you may want to brush up on the concept.
11/23/2009 6.06 State Education Convention
Supported: 7-0 UNANIMOUS
Motion made to NOT re-imburse any board member for attendance at the annual conference!
Most common sense vote ever coming out of this board. This year, if McCourt wants to go and eat seabass, it comes out of HIS pocket! We're betting he passes on attending (and actually having to PAY for seabass).
12/14/2009 6.10 Addendums mutually agreeing to a voluntary one-day reduction in each administrator contract during the 2009-2010 contract year
Supported: 6-1 McCourt absent
ONE furlough day? THAT is the best they could do? State employees, who got their 2009 raise (2%) repealed and will NOT receive raises in 2009-10 or 2010-11, are being furloughed SIXTEEN days over the next 2 years! RUFKM????
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009. Show all posts
Monday, January 4, 2010
Monday, May 25, 2009
2008 Graduation hijinx mean changes for 2009
Read Dr. Culver's post regarding newly instituted protocols for Graduation 2009:
Read SP-EYE's commentary on last year's graduation hijinx:
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Kids Are Alright...
It's that time of year again. WKCE (Wisconsin Knowledge & Concepts Exam) results came out this past week. It's what we wait almost 6 months for after the kids take the tests each fall. Honestly, historically, results have not been very good....at least they have not been what one would expect given the glowing, gushing statements coming out of the district and the school board.
For the past 5 years, SP-EYE has been monitoring the WKCE results and evaluating them in an unbiased fashion. Yep, we strip off all the spin-doctoring and vapid praise and get down and dirty with the data. We want to "keep it real" for you. So, we follow up on the annual State Journal comparisons of the 16 area school districts and review how Sun Prairie measures up. We strip off the percentages (which reflect the percentage of students that achieve a score of "Proficient" or "Advanced" for a given exam (the District-wide goal is to have all students at or above 90% at each grade level and subject), and just rank the schools from high to low. Sometimes it's hard to do that just by looking at 16 school districts x 5 exams x 7 grades.
Since only grades 4, 8, and 10 are evaluated on all 5 subject areas (grades 3, 5, 6, and 7 are only evaluated on Reading and Math), we've limited our summaries to those key grades.
Overall, very few grade levels achieved the goal of 90% students at "Proficient" or "Advanced". However, how we measure up across the county and vs. the statewide averages is what really tells the tale. As the school district indicates, it takes a lot of time and effort to review this data in fine detail. So we're giving you the view from 20,000 feet. There have been numerous concerns about how the high school has fared relative to the rest of the county over the last five years. This year, SPHS ranked #3 for the 10th grade exams. That is a remarkable accomplishment. The teachers are the front-line warriors in this battle, with support provided from the puzzle palace at 501 South Bird St. Well done, folks. And great work, students! (But let's not celebrate with a bunch of pizza parties, eh?)
For Further Reading
Wisconsin State Journal article 4/28/09
2009 Dane Co. Reading & Math scores
2009 Dane Co. Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies scores
link to SP-EYE post on 2007-08 WKCE scores
School District Press Release on 2008-09 Results
2009 performance at Grades 10, 8, and 4
For the past 5 years, SP-EYE has been monitoring the WKCE results and evaluating them in an unbiased fashion. Yep, we strip off all the spin-doctoring and vapid praise and get down and dirty with the data. We want to "keep it real" for you. So, we follow up on the annual State Journal comparisons of the 16 area school districts and review how Sun Prairie measures up. We strip off the percentages (which reflect the percentage of students that achieve a score of "Proficient" or "Advanced" for a given exam (the District-wide goal is to have all students at or above 90% at each grade level and subject), and just rank the schools from high to low. Sometimes it's hard to do that just by looking at 16 school districts x 5 exams x 7 grades.
Since only grades 4, 8, and 10 are evaluated on all 5 subject areas (grades 3, 5, 6, and 7 are only evaluated on Reading and Math), we've limited our summaries to those key grades.
Overall, very few grade levels achieved the goal of 90% students at "Proficient" or "Advanced". However, how we measure up across the county and vs. the statewide averages is what really tells the tale. As the school district indicates, it takes a lot of time and effort to review this data in fine detail. So we're giving you the view from 20,000 feet. There have been numerous concerns about how the high school has fared relative to the rest of the county over the last five years. This year, SPHS ranked #3 for the 10th grade exams. That is a remarkable accomplishment. The teachers are the front-line warriors in this battle, with support provided from the puzzle palace at 501 South Bird St. Well done, folks. And great work, students! (But let's not celebrate with a bunch of pizza parties, eh?)
For Further Reading
Wisconsin State Journal article 4/28/09
2009 Dane Co. Reading & Math scores
2009 Dane Co. Language Arts, Science, and Social Studies scores
link to SP-EYE post on 2007-08 WKCE scores
School District Press Release on 2008-09 Results
2009 performance at Grades 10, 8, and 4
5-year historical trends at Grades 10, 8, and 4
So...Sun Prairie, it seems that we are moving onto the right track. Things could be better in the lower grades, but the cake ain't done cooking 'til you take it out of the oven (and even then it continues to cook a bit longer), and if we can sustain this year's performance at Grade 10, we'll be in good shape. For the last three years we were mired in the middle of the 16 Dane County school districts. Five years ago, our scores were at rock bottom. The results for Grade 10 are particularly impressive. Perhaps this will be further reflected down the road in post-graduation and follow-up surveys regarding preparedness for life beyond high school.
Sun Prairie has always been known as a sports town, but perhaps now we're on the path to being renowned for academics as well. That would be nice. We also find that, all in all, the kids really are alright. Life is not without its speed bumps, of course, but our kids do persevere...although we believe that is often IN SPITE of , rather than BECAUSE of the school board.
We Have a Winner!
Congratulations to Sun Prairie High School senior Jennifer Anderson for being named a 2009 Wisconsin All-State Scholar and recipient of a Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship.
Sun Prairie has had a rather lengthy drought from having a student achieve this honor. Certainly we haven't had a winner in at least the past 3 years. The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) offers this information about the All-State Scholars Program:
Not only is Ms. Anderson a fine scholar, but a little birdie tells us that she is also an accomplished martial artist, holding a 2nd degree black belt. Congratulations Jennifer and SPHS!
Sun Prairie has had a rather lengthy drought from having a student achieve this honor. Certainly we haven't had a winner in at least the past 3 years. The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) offers this information about the All-State Scholars Program:
2009 all-state scholarsWisconsin All-State Scholars Program
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, and the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators' Foundation for Educational Administration annually sponsor the Wisconsin All-State Scholars/Robert C. Byrd Scholarship Program. This recognition program was begun in 1986 (the Robert C. Byrd scholarship was added in 1987) and has been an outstanding success each year. Each year over 500 high school senior students are nominated by their principals to be named All-State Scholars. Every nominee receives a beautiful certificate and statewide publicity in a special Sunday supplement in the Wisconsin State Journal. Over one hundred students traditionally receive scholarships.Wisconsin All-State Scholars/Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship recipients are chosen by a committee of school administrators with equal representation from each congressional district. Recipients are chosen based on their overall grade point averages and ACT/SAT test score. Pending full funding at the federal level, Byrd scholarships may provide a scholarship of $1,500 per year for up to four years. The student may use this scholarship at any post-secondary educational institution in the United States.
Not only is Ms. Anderson a fine scholar, but a little birdie tells us that she is also an accomplished martial artist, holding a 2nd degree black belt. Congratulations Jennifer and SPHS!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Mill rate projected to rise ~ $1.00 for 2009 tax bills
At the 1-26-09 meeting of the school board's Finance committee, committee members were presented with a snapshot of budget projections for the next several years.During 2009 we can expect to see expenses rise as the district borrows at least the 2nd $32M installment for the new high school (and upper middle school) construction. In addition, we may be seeing borrowing for the pool, and definitely will be seeing the costs of start-up of the 4 yr old kindergarten program (SP 4 Kids)
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Lack of Community Engagement leads to community EnRAGEment
Deep down inside, even the school board knows they screwed up. Of course they'd never publicly admit that, but secretly they know their actions over the course of the past year meant that they had violated the pooch, so to speak.
One thing Jim Carrel pushed for before he resigned his seat was the development of a special board sub-committee tasked with determining how the board could best win back public support. So the board voted to establish the "Community Engagement Task Force ". They held a bunch of meetings, as board-established task forces are wont to do, and on August 11, 2008, the committee's recommendations were presented to the board.
One key question the task force was charged with was answering the question,
The committee's answer came in the form of three suggestions. Each has been annotated with a simple "Yes/No" to indicate whether any action has been taken to-date.
1.Establish an on-going standing committee
ACTION RECOMENDATION
NO Enabled to call a community response team / study circle for use on specific issues
NO Use same methodology as the community response team for the high school
NO The community engagement committee will guide and review the implementation of these and future community engagement recommendations
2.Improve Board member accessibility
ACTION? RECOMMENDATION
NO More face-to-face interaction
NO “Meet the Board” sessions
NO Listening sessions (at schools and within community)
NO Booth at Corn Fest/community events / public venues
NO Host/attend community/city events
NO Town Hall Meetings
3.Leverage the Web (it is the future)
ACTION? RECOMMENDATION
NO Public forum links
NO On-line bulletin board
NO On-line comment card
NO Redesign website
NO Call-in radio web show
NO Set up/maintain blog
So....what are we waiting for, board members. Signs suggest that many more community members have become less enthralled with your behaviors and your direction.
What do you have to say for it?
One thing Jim Carrel pushed for before he resigned his seat was the development of a special board sub-committee tasked with determining how the board could best win back public support. So the board voted to establish the "Community Engagement Task Force ". They held a bunch of meetings, as board-established task forces are wont to do, and on August 11, 2008, the committee's recommendations were presented to the board.
One key question the task force was charged with was answering the question,
"What can the School Board do to get community input into their work?"
The committee's answer came in the form of three suggestions. Each has been annotated with a simple "Yes/No" to indicate whether any action has been taken to-date.
1.Establish an on-going standing committee
ACTION RECOMENDATION
NO Enabled to call a community response team / study circle for use on specific issues
NO Use same methodology as the community response team for the high school
NO The community engagement committee will guide and review the implementation of these and future community engagement recommendations
2.Improve Board member accessibility
ACTION? RECOMMENDATION
NO More face-to-face interaction
NO “Meet the Board” sessions
NO Listening sessions (at schools and within community)
NO Booth at Corn Fest/community events / public venues
NO Host/attend community/city events
NO Town Hall Meetings
3.Leverage the Web (it is the future)
ACTION? RECOMMENDATION
NO Public forum links
NO On-line bulletin board
NO On-line comment card
NO Redesign website
NO Call-in radio web show
NO Set up/maintain blog
So....what are we waiting for, board members. Signs suggest that many more community members have become less enthralled with your behaviors and your direction.
What do you have to say for it?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
SP4K...More Questions Than Answers
Oh...but you can bank on it that the school board will vote 7-0 to approve the new 4-yr old kindergarten at the Monday January 12 meeting. Sure, Caren Diedrich and someone else will likely do their regular on-screen acting where they appear torn by the costs involved in the wake of the national economic gloom. But vote yes they will. All of them. Mmmmm...yes.
We're just wondering how much they've really thought about this proposal rather than just voting yes because they don't have the time or energy to really do the research. If district administration supports it, surely it must be a good thing, right?
Because our elected "leaders" won't ask the tough questions, I guess we have to.
Loss of command & control
4K teachers will be hired by and employees of the partnering childcare centers. Therefore, the school district has no control over the teaching situation. The requirement is that these teachers be duly licensed by DPI. But they also have to meet all other continuing education and training obligations required to maintain the license. Who pays for that? Who's monitoring that?
In addition, these teachers can become ill, be terminated, or resign. Then what happens to the continuity of instructional programs? Will SPASD meet the state mandated instructional hours requirements? Within the district, we have a "substitute" pool from which to draw on. We can just make a call and plug in a substitute teacher. What will the childcare centers do? And how will that be funded?
Employment equity
Will 4K teachers at the childcare centers, as center (vs. district) employees be provided with an equivalent benefit package that teachers WITHIN the district receive? If not...why not? And is there liability in establishing such a differential scale?
What about childcare violations?
With no intent of maligning any of the childcare "partners" for the 4K program proposal, we DO all read the papers and watch the news. We know that many local childcare centers HAVE been assessed fines for violation of state regulations. Does this issue warrant a little further discussion in light of the fact that now our kids will actually be attending these centers for formal education funded by tax dollars? The state has established a website to review the record of childcare centers.
Safety
Our children's safety is of paramount concern...as it should be. But how safe are our kids in a district funded educational offering provided outside the lines of the district's security measures??? We the taxpayers have paid good tax dollars to install cameras and hire employees to be a "first line" of defense in our schools. But these area childcare centers can't be expected to duplicate the district security measures...can they? We all read the newspapers about kids being accidentally released to the wrong people.
Legal liability?
If, God forbid, something happens to one of our kids at one of these centers during kindergarten program hours, who is liable? Just the daycare center....or is the school district liable as well? District Administration is usually very quick to secure a legal opinion on even the most trivial matters (like reviewing the agenda for an annual meeting that never changes). Hopefully this is one issue that has been exhaustively reviewed.
What do you do with 4-yr olds that aren't "ready" for school?
State laws require that any child who turns 4 by September 1 of a given school year MUST be allowed entry into a districts 4K program. We all know kids that aren't yet potty-trained...or still drink from a bottle. And those are just the obvious issues to be concerned with. You think separation anxiety is a problem at 5 yrs old? How about at age 4?
The bottom line is that there ARE a significant number of kids that are NOT ready for school by age 4. What do we do with these kids that MUST be allowed access? How will their presence impede learning of other kids?
Will this increase --or decrease--my childcare costs?
If I'm a parent that would normally leave my child in daycare all-day...and now I can have my child attend state-funded 4-yr KG for 2.5 hours each day.....
Will I have to pay more for this service? Or will I actually be charged LESS in daycare expenses because the school district is funding the 2.5 hr KG segment of my child's normal daycare routine?
Questions vs. Answers
All good questions. Unfortunately we have no answers.
Perhaps one of the elected school board members who claim not to monitor such an offensive blog as this one ---yet who somehow manage to intuitively be aware of posts made here and continually make public responses to them--- will be able to offer the public some good answers to all these questions at the meeting tomorrow, January 12, 2009. Hey...maybe one of them will actually appear to have researched the issue and ask some relevant questions.
We're just wondering how much they've really thought about this proposal rather than just voting yes because they don't have the time or energy to really do the research. If district administration supports it, surely it must be a good thing, right?
Because our elected "leaders" won't ask the tough questions, I guess we have to.
Loss of command & control
4K teachers will be hired by and employees of the partnering childcare centers. Therefore, the school district has no control over the teaching situation. The requirement is that these teachers be duly licensed by DPI. But they also have to meet all other continuing education and training obligations required to maintain the license. Who pays for that? Who's monitoring that?
In addition, these teachers can become ill, be terminated, or resign. Then what happens to the continuity of instructional programs? Will SPASD meet the state mandated instructional hours requirements? Within the district, we have a "substitute" pool from which to draw on. We can just make a call and plug in a substitute teacher. What will the childcare centers do? And how will that be funded?
Employment equity
Will 4K teachers at the childcare centers, as center (vs. district) employees be provided with an equivalent benefit package that teachers WITHIN the district receive? If not...why not? And is there liability in establishing such a differential scale?
What about childcare violations?
With no intent of maligning any of the childcare "partners" for the 4K program proposal, we DO all read the papers and watch the news. We know that many local childcare centers HAVE been assessed fines for violation of state regulations. Does this issue warrant a little further discussion in light of the fact that now our kids will actually be attending these centers for formal education funded by tax dollars? The state has established a website to review the record of childcare centers.
Safety
Our children's safety is of paramount concern...as it should be. But how safe are our kids in a district funded educational offering provided outside the lines of the district's security measures??? We the taxpayers have paid good tax dollars to install cameras and hire employees to be a "first line" of defense in our schools. But these area childcare centers can't be expected to duplicate the district security measures...can they? We all read the newspapers about kids being accidentally released to the wrong people.
Legal liability?
If, God forbid, something happens to one of our kids at one of these centers during kindergarten program hours, who is liable? Just the daycare center....or is the school district liable as well? District Administration is usually very quick to secure a legal opinion on even the most trivial matters (like reviewing the agenda for an annual meeting that never changes). Hopefully this is one issue that has been exhaustively reviewed.
What do you do with 4-yr olds that aren't "ready" for school?
State laws require that any child who turns 4 by September 1 of a given school year MUST be allowed entry into a districts 4K program. We all know kids that aren't yet potty-trained...or still drink from a bottle. And those are just the obvious issues to be concerned with. You think separation anxiety is a problem at 5 yrs old? How about at age 4?
The bottom line is that there ARE a significant number of kids that are NOT ready for school by age 4. What do we do with these kids that MUST be allowed access? How will their presence impede learning of other kids?
Will this increase --or decrease--my childcare costs?
If I'm a parent that would normally leave my child in daycare all-day...and now I can have my child attend state-funded 4-yr KG for 2.5 hours each day.....
Will I have to pay more for this service? Or will I actually be charged LESS in daycare expenses because the school district is funding the 2.5 hr KG segment of my child's normal daycare routine?
Questions vs. Answers
All good questions. Unfortunately we have no answers.
Perhaps one of the elected school board members who claim not to monitor such an offensive blog as this one ---yet who somehow manage to intuitively be aware of posts made here and continually make public responses to them--- will be able to offer the public some good answers to all these questions at the meeting tomorrow, January 12, 2009. Hey...maybe one of them will actually appear to have researched the issue and ask some relevant questions.
Profitting from kindergarteners
That's right...the school board is selling the proposed 4-year old kindergarten program as a slam-dunk because the school district will actually make a profit from it!!!!
Of course, in any transaction, when one party "profits", isn't it typically the case that another party loses? We don't hear this plan being a win-win for all parties involved...do we? So who is being taken advantage of in this situation?
Is it the partnering childcare centers that are being exploited? These businesses will receive (according to the proposal) $3,000 per 4-yr old child in return for providing the teachers and space for educating 4-yr olds according to state curriculum requirements. And those payments will increase 3% per year!!!!!
If the district receive $5-6,000 per enrolled 4-year old and we're only paying the childcare centers $3,000 per kid...that would be a nice profit. And to offer only a 3% increase per year when we know we increase costs by 5-10% routinely is poor form. Heck...district employee salaries alone were increased by 4-5% last year! So that's it childcare centers. You do get a great source of revenue....but only 50-67% of what the district gets. And you only get a fixed increase of 3% per year, while the district knows that its costs increase about double that annually.
Or is it the state and taxpayers that's being exploited? The school board and district administration constantly remind us that school finance funding is "one big pie" and state equalization aids is the way the "pie" is doled out to all districts. If we understand the district correctly, if SPASD will actually receive MORE state aid, then understandably, everyone else receives LESS state aid...right? So we gain by screwing all the other kids in the state, is that it?
Of course, the Democratic controlled state legislature could vote to increase school funding in addition to lifting the QEO...right? Sure...that COULD happen....but what's the likelihood that it WILL happen in the wake of a $5-6 BILLION dollar state budget deficit and an ongoing recession surpassed only by the great depression. In fact, less state revenues might have to mean LESS money for schools...in which case any SPASD budget shortfall would have to be covered by...yup...us...the taxpayers.
You DO NOT know what the next 9 months will entail for this city, this school district, this state or the nation. You cannot guarantee that state aid money that you THINK will be there WILL be there. There our too many unknowns regarding finances and now is not the time to spend money.
So, dear school board members....for once in your collective tenures....perhaps this is the time to say, "Hey...we're really jazzed about the prospect of having 4-yr old kindergarten, but unfortunately the economic prospect of doing so in 2009-10 doesn't look good."
Of course, in any transaction, when one party "profits", isn't it typically the case that another party loses? We don't hear this plan being a win-win for all parties involved...do we? So who is being taken advantage of in this situation?
Is it the partnering childcare centers that are being exploited? These businesses will receive (according to the proposal) $3,000 per 4-yr old child in return for providing the teachers and space for educating 4-yr olds according to state curriculum requirements. And those payments will increase 3% per year!!!!!
If the district receive $5-6,000 per enrolled 4-year old and we're only paying the childcare centers $3,000 per kid...that would be a nice profit. And to offer only a 3% increase per year when we know we increase costs by 5-10% routinely is poor form. Heck...district employee salaries alone were increased by 4-5% last year! So that's it childcare centers. You do get a great source of revenue....but only 50-67% of what the district gets. And you only get a fixed increase of 3% per year, while the district knows that its costs increase about double that annually.
Or is it the state and taxpayers that's being exploited? The school board and district administration constantly remind us that school finance funding is "one big pie" and state equalization aids is the way the "pie" is doled out to all districts. If we understand the district correctly, if SPASD will actually receive MORE state aid, then understandably, everyone else receives LESS state aid...right? So we gain by screwing all the other kids in the state, is that it?
Of course, the Democratic controlled state legislature could vote to increase school funding in addition to lifting the QEO...right? Sure...that COULD happen....but what's the likelihood that it WILL happen in the wake of a $5-6 BILLION dollar state budget deficit and an ongoing recession surpassed only by the great depression. In fact, less state revenues might have to mean LESS money for schools...in which case any SPASD budget shortfall would have to be covered by...yup...us...the taxpayers.
You DO NOT know what the next 9 months will entail for this city, this school district, this state or the nation. You cannot guarantee that state aid money that you THINK will be there WILL be there. There our too many unknowns regarding finances and now is not the time to spend money.
So, dear school board members....for once in your collective tenures....perhaps this is the time to say, "Hey...we're really jazzed about the prospect of having 4-yr old kindergarten, but unfortunately the economic prospect of doing so in 2009-10 doesn't look good."
Sunday, January 4, 2009
SP4K Program: The Return of Fuzzy Accounting
OK, folks, the proposal for the SP4K (Sun Prairie Four Kids-4 yr kindercare...er kindergarten) program is out on the school district website. Unfortunately, it's difficult to provide a link to it because of the way BoardDocs works. Memo to District: Something to look into. The proposal is listed on Board Docs under the agenda for the Education & Policy committee mtg for January 5th, under Business Items.
This proposal confirms many of our projections, but when the really big question comes up, it actually provides only more questions and no concrete answers. What's the big question? How much is this program going to cost us? Is it 6 coffees? 12? 50? Well it's hard to tell.
The program expenses are listed as dollar costs.
But "revenues" are listed in terms/units of "Revenue Cap increase"
...and that's like saying X minus Y = Grape
More on that in a sec. Two other items of note:
1. While the proposal indicates that DPI start-up funding ($700/child for 1st year programs in in 2008-09), this "revenue" is not included in the balancing attempt.
2. There is a note that funding will have a $603,000 shortfall in 2009-10, but that part of this shortfall would be covered by the $500,000 set aside in the current (08-09) budget for "one-time payments. Hold the phone, Tyrone! The board made it VERY clear that the $500,000 budget "surplus" would be used to offset future costs to start-up the new high school. We were NEVER told it would be used to fund a new program!
But we digress...back to the balance sheet...or lack thereof. Instead of the weird apples and oranges approach, why aren't we going back to basic accounting 10 principles...you know...expenses = X dollars and projected income to offset these expenses are Y dollars. The board/district also need to make every effort to estimate what this all means in terms of projected mill rate increase and then how that translates to property taxes on a typical $200K home.
Frankly, Mr. Shankly, if you look at the way they present the summary of "Net cost/revenue to the district", it appears that after the 1st year, we'll actually be making a profit off of a 4K program!!! Yeah right. If you believe that, there's a call for you from Bernard Madoff regarding a hot investment opportunity he has for you.
Why don't they want to tell us what it costs???
"Revenue Cap increase" is a nebulous thing at best. In addition, the revenue cap is merely the cap for all general fund budget items. This includes State equalized aid (what we get from the state) and Property tax levy (what those of us who pay our property taxes pay out of our pockets). And historically, our "Revenue Cap Limit" per child is just under $10,000. Then you have to bear in mind that roughly one half of that amount is provided through "equalized aid" (i.e., state money). We pay the other 50% through the property tax levy.
That means that we can expect to receive roughly $5,000 per 4K student from the state. Oh yeah...and 4K students only count as 0.5 or 0.6 "FTE pupils"...because they don't attend school full-time. Oh...and one more thing....you have to remember that the pupil count figure for determining state aid is calculated on a 3-year average. That means that for every 100 kids that enroll in the 4K program this year, we essentially get state aid for 33 of them. Then we get aid for 67 of them in Year 2 and the full state aid (at 60%) in the 3rd year.
Our estimate of cost using one approach is:
________________________2009-10 ___2010-11___ 2011-12
Rev. Cap. Increase __ $ 877,124 $ 1,938,551 $ 3,111,357
assume 50%= prop. tax $ 438,562 $ 969,276 $ 1,555,679
Equal.value (+ 3%/yr) $4,039B _______$4,160B _____ $4,285B
mill increase ________$ 0.11 _____$0.23 _____$0.36
Cost per $200K home __$ 22 _______$ 46 ______$ 72
But I'm sure we-simplify things.
One thing that this all seems to indicate....for several years the school board has patted themselves on the back for NOT taxing us right up to the Revenue Cap. The constant reference to the Revenue Cap suggests that from here on in, the board will tax us right up to the revenue limit...or even hold a referendumn to EXCEED the limit.
Program Cost Summary from SP4K proposal
"Revenue" Summary from SP4K proposal
This proposal confirms many of our projections, but when the really big question comes up, it actually provides only more questions and no concrete answers. What's the big question? How much is this program going to cost us? Is it 6 coffees? 12? 50? Well it's hard to tell.
The program expenses are listed as dollar costs.
But "revenues" are listed in terms/units of "Revenue Cap increase"
...and that's like saying X minus Y = Grape
More on that in a sec. Two other items of note:
1. While the proposal indicates that DPI start-up funding ($700/child for 1st year programs in in 2008-09), this "revenue" is not included in the balancing attempt.
2. There is a note that funding will have a $603,000 shortfall in 2009-10, but that part of this shortfall would be covered by the $500,000 set aside in the current (08-09) budget for "one-time payments. Hold the phone, Tyrone! The board made it VERY clear that the $500,000 budget "surplus" would be used to offset future costs to start-up the new high school. We were NEVER told it would be used to fund a new program!
But we digress...back to the balance sheet...or lack thereof. Instead of the weird apples and oranges approach, why aren't we going back to basic accounting 10 principles...you know...expenses = X dollars and projected income to offset these expenses are Y dollars. The board/district also need to make every effort to estimate what this all means in terms of projected mill rate increase and then how that translates to property taxes on a typical $200K home.
Frankly, Mr. Shankly, if you look at the way they present the summary of "Net cost/revenue to the district", it appears that after the 1st year, we'll actually be making a profit off of a 4K program!!! Yeah right. If you believe that, there's a call for you from Bernard Madoff regarding a hot investment opportunity he has for you.
Why don't they want to tell us what it costs???
"Revenue Cap increase" is a nebulous thing at best. In addition, the revenue cap is merely the cap for all general fund budget items. This includes State equalized aid (what we get from the state) and Property tax levy (what those of us who pay our property taxes pay out of our pockets). And historically, our "Revenue Cap Limit" per child is just under $10,000. Then you have to bear in mind that roughly one half of that amount is provided through "equalized aid" (i.e., state money). We pay the other 50% through the property tax levy.
That means that we can expect to receive roughly $5,000 per 4K student from the state. Oh yeah...and 4K students only count as 0.5 or 0.6 "FTE pupils"...because they don't attend school full-time. Oh...and one more thing....you have to remember that the pupil count figure for determining state aid is calculated on a 3-year average. That means that for every 100 kids that enroll in the 4K program this year, we essentially get state aid for 33 of them. Then we get aid for 67 of them in Year 2 and the full state aid (at 60%) in the 3rd year.
Our estimate of cost using one approach is:
________________________2009-10 ___2010-11___ 2011-12
Rev. Cap. Increase __ $ 877,124 $ 1,938,551 $ 3,111,357
assume 50%= prop. tax $ 438,562 $ 969,276 $ 1,555,679
Equal.value (+ 3%/yr) $4,039B _______$4,160B _____ $4,285B
mill increase ________$ 0.11 _____$0.23 _____$0.36
Cost per $200K home __$ 22 _______$ 46 ______$ 72
But I'm sure we-simplify things.
One thing that this all seems to indicate....for several years the school board has patted themselves on the back for NOT taxing us right up to the Revenue Cap. The constant reference to the Revenue Cap suggests that from here on in, the board will tax us right up to the revenue limit...or even hold a referendumn to EXCEED the limit.
Program Cost Summary from SP4K proposal
"Revenue" Summary from SP4K proposal
Friday, January 2, 2009
The 4K Train Keeps A Rollin'
The 4K train has left the station folks. The cleverly titled program proposal "Sun Prairie Four Kids" will be discussed at the Monday Jan. 5 meeting of the Education & Policy committee. If they vote to forward the proposal on to the school board, that means the program will likely go to the school board for its Jan. 12 meeting. Things have to move quickly if the district wants to begin 4K with the 2009-10 school year. Applications are due July 1, which means the money must be in the school budget plans before then. Budget planning for 2009-10 begins in January/February.
At the December 22, 2008 meeting of the school board's Finance committee, the agenda informational item entitled, 2009-10 Budget Timeline, clearly stated that budgets for programs which included the "4-K Program" were due February 1st.:
Do you really think any school board member will vote against such a proposal? Seriously. Our school board is so in lock-step with district administration that when Tim Culver and school board president David Stackhouse lunch together, they leave only a single set of footprints.
For more information:
DPI- Economic impacts of a 4K program
DPI- 4yr kindergarten fact sheet
DPI- 4K Questions and Answers
At the December 22, 2008 meeting of the school board's Finance committee, the agenda informational item entitled, 2009-10 Budget Timeline, clearly stated that budgets for programs which included the "4-K Program" were due February 1st.:
The following budgets are due to the Assistant District Administrator of Instructional programs:If you're not following with the rest of the class, that is definitive indication that the district administration plans to implement a 4K program next year.
• District Testing
• ESL
• K-12 Reading
• Staff Development
• Talented & Gifted
• Summer School
• 4 Year Old Kindergarten
• Virtual School
Do you really think any school board member will vote against such a proposal? Seriously. Our school board is so in lock-step with district administration that when Tim Culver and school board president David Stackhouse lunch together, they leave only a single set of footprints.
The problem with our school board is that not a single one of the seven has sufficient spinal integrity to stand up and say, "You know what? This sounds like a nice program, but I don't think it's right for Sun Prairie". Often they'll start off by saying that they "...have some concerns..." or suggest that a certain program "...means an awful lot of money for taxpayers..." But in the end? They say something like, "I've reconsidered all the information..." and then vote for the program 7-0.
Think it doesn't happen? As an example, several school board members have OFF THE RECORD stated that in retrospect, while the land donated by Veridian was a great opportunity, perhaps the location of Creekside elementary was not in the best interests of the school district at this time. Sure! Would have been nice if these members had spoken so candidly BEFORE the school was constructed! But that's not to be. Human nature is that school board members tend to go with the administrative flow, so to speak.
What is 4-K (4-yr kindergarten)?
If you have trouble googling "4K programs", you may have better luck searching under the umbrella conceptual term of "early childhood education" or "early childhood programs". According to the DPI website, " Early childhood programs prepare youngsters to learn and to successfully transition into school. The programs provide educational and economic benefit regardless of family income, but specifically bridge the effects of poverty [emphasis added] by allowing children from economically disadvantaged families to gain a more equal footing with their peers. Reports also show that young children attending quality early education programs do better in school, and they have fewer referrals for special education. Retention rates are lower, meaning fewer students are held back a grade. Additionally, those who attend quality early childhood programs are more likely to graduate from high school, work, and avoid incarceration.
More from DPI: "Under the grant-funded community approach, school districts form a council or advisory group and collaborate with a Head Start, licensed group-based child care, or preschool center to provide 4K services.
"The community approach model of providing 4K services recognizes the shared responsibility for providing quality early care and education," Burmaster said. "This strategy is growing quickly from just three districts using a community approach in the 2001-02 school year to 89 this year. It makes sense for school districts to partner with their communities to provide vital 4K services to children and their families."
Does 4K really work?
The National Education Association (NEA)says that, "High quality early childhood education represents one of the best investments our country can make. NEA believes it's a common sense investment we can't afford to pass up.
Research shows that providing a high quality education for children before they turn five yields significant long-term benefits.
One well-known study, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, ) [ The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (2005) study examines the lives of 123 African Americans born in poverty and at high risk of failing in school] found that individuals who were enrolled in a quality preschool program ultimately earned up to $2,000 more per month than those who were not. Young people who were in preschool programs are more likely to graduate from high school, to own homes, and have longer marriages.
Who has 4K programs in Wisconsin?
According to DPI, in the 2008-09 school year 4K enrollment included 319 Districts totalling
33,976 students. A spreadsheet on the District's website shows slightly different numbers.
While statewide these numbers mean that about 75% of school districts have some level of a 4K program, Dane County --at least as of 2008-09--seems to buck that trend. As of the current school year, only 5 of 14 Dane County school districts (35%) have a 4K program.
Will more school space be needed?
In a word...maybe. You'll have to see what administration is proposing, but since preference in start-up funding is given to those districts that partner with community groups, such as child care centers, our bet is that the district will propose setting up 4K programs in existing daycare centers.
There is no minimum square foot requirement for any classroom. For safety purposes, the WDOC specifies a maximum of 20 sq.ft. per occupant of open floor space, assuming a self-contained classroom with one exit. This standard does not suggest this is the optimal room size for an education program. In considering space for educational programming, a district may look for guidance to the Head Start and child care requirement of no less than 35 square feet of usable floor space for each child.
What are the eligibility requirements?
Basically, none. As long as a child is 4 years old as of September 1 of a given school year, he/she is eligible to attend a 4K program. No pre-testing is required, and ALL eligible children must be allowed to enroll.
Are there curriculum requirements?
Yes. State statutes, 121.02(1), define subject areas that should be addressed at each grade level. For kindergarten they include:
–reading/language arts-math,
–social studies -science,
–health ed-physical ed
–art -music
–environmental ed-computer literacy
Curriculum can be integrated and developmentally appropriate and not taught by subject area alone. Such a curriculum would incorporate the concepts from the required subject areas.
Are the specials (physical education, art, and music) required?
Yes, the same as for regular kindergarten (5 yrs old):–10% of the instruction year (437 hours) for music, phy. ed., health, science and social studies. These do not need to be taught as separate subjects using a teacher driven curriculum. "Specials" should be integrated within the learning day with children working in two or more areas at a time (i.e. movement and music) using an integrated curriculum.
Are there teacher certification requirements?
Absolutely. Teachers of 4K students must hold a prekindergarten or kindergarten license (#080 prekindergarten; #090 PK-K; #083 PK-3; #100 kindergarten; #103 K-3; #086 PK-6; #106 K-6; #088 PK-8; #108 K-8; 70-777 Regular Education – Early Childhood level; 71-777 Regular Education –Early Childhood-Middle Childhood level; etc.).
Is there a requirement for teacher planning time? Yes, the same as all other teachers per local union contract.
Are there DPI-required pupil-to-student ratios?
No. Unlike SAGE, there are no state regulations directing the teacher-child ratio for 4K. Class size is a local policy determined by the school board. The DPI SUGGESTS considering practices in other programs such as:
- 1:10 with a maximum class size of 20 as defined for quality benchmarks by the National Institute on Early Education Research (NIEER);
- 1:13 with a maximum group size of 24 as required in state child care licensing regulations;
- 1:15 ratio required by the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) class size reduction program and early childhood special education inclusion models; or
-2 teachers working with groups of 16 to 20 as advised by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
How much will starting a 4-K program cost?
According to the DPI, "Districts report setting aside between $4,000 to $10,000 per room for purchasing classroom materials and equipment. The cost of co-locating [meaning partnering with an existing facility like a daycare center]) were less than costs of totally new start-up." Preference for start-up grant money is given to districts that partner with community, such as those that at least partially utilize daycare settings for the 4K program.
Of course, that doesn't include the costs associated with licensed teachers plus their benefits. Sun Prairie currently budgets about $75,000 per teacher, including salary and benefits. A new program also likely means a new $100K club member to coordinate the program. Of course it's possible that some daycare teachers are properly state licensed as certified educators, based on reports of salaries paid to daycare teachers relative to salaries of public school teachers, it would seem that any daycare teachers that are licensed to teach in public schools would probably already be doing so.
How much state aid will we get to offset the cost of starting a 4K program?
If you read the statute ( Statutes, ch. 115) it says that districts CAN receive up to $3000 per child in the 1st year and up to $1500 per child in the 2nd year as "start-up" assistance. Newsflash: CAN and will are often star-crossed lovers. First of all, the state budget for this is exactly $3M per year. That means the funds are split evenly per child of school districts applying. Note, however, that these start-up grants cease to be provided after the first two years of operation.
For the 2008-09 school year 38 districts applied to add 4K programs. They totalled 4297 kids. Divide $3M by 4297 and each district received exactly $698.16 per child to offset start-up costs. Larger districts that added 4K in 2008-09 include: West De Pere (181 kids; $ 126,367 in aid), Janesville (526 kids; $ 367,232 in aid), and Green Bay Area (1,137 kids; 6 $ 793,808 in aid). See the DPI FACTS here
That being said...the game of course would be to apply when the LEAST amount of districts (and least amount of kids) apply. THAT would give a district the best shot at seeing closer to $3,000 per child.
Is any funding available other than start-up costs?
Yes. A district received equivalent state aid funding for 4K enrolled kids very much like we receive state equalization aid for each pupil listed on the infamous "3rd Friday count".
There is a catch though. instead of 1.0 equivalent per enrolled child in grades K-12, for each enrolled child in a 4K program, the district receives either 0.5 or 0.6 "pupil equivalents" in aid as follows:
To receive 0.5 (pupil count equivalents) in membership aide, a district must operate a program a minimum of 437 hours per year (175 days X 2 1/2 hours per day). 87.5 hours (20%) of the 437 hours can be used for outreach activities for the school staff to link to the child’s primary caregivers.
To receive 0.6 (pupil count equivalents) in membership aide, a district must annually provide at least 87.5 hours of outreach activities in addition to the 437 hours of center based programming.
One more thing. The way state equalization aid funding works, pupil counts are calculated as a 3-year average. Therefore if Sun Prairie were to have say 300 kids enrolled in a 4K program on the 3rd Friday count of the 2009-10 school year, only 1/3 of these "new enrollees", or 100, would count towards funding in the 1st year. Thus, assuming no outreach beyond the total 437 instruction hours, the district would receive an additional 0.5 x 100 or 50 pupil equivalents of state aid. We receive roughly $5000 in state equalization aid per pupil. Thus we would receive about $250,000 in year one, $500,000 in year 2, and (assuming a steady 300 kids in 4K) $750,000 in the 3rd and subsequent years. These calculations will surely be "dissed" as erroneous by the school, district/board. Certainly, we may have oversimplified things, but at least we'll give you a far straighter estimate of cost than you'll get from the district or the board.
Will a referendum be required to start-up a 4K program?
No. All a school board has to do is apply to DPI, and budget for it. The public can comment during the annual budget public hearing (usually late May-June of each year) and again at the annual electors meeting in October of each year. Although arguably too late in the process, at least at the annual elector's meeting, all residents can VOTE on the amount of money to allocate to the school budget. For example, if the electors vote at the annual meeting to reduce the school district budget by the same amount as would be required to run the 4K program, arguably, the school board would then have to cut something from the budget. Other than that, all you can do to voice support/opposition is to speak up at school board meetings or contact school board members.
This sounds an awful lot like Head Start
That's because the 4K program is designed to do exactly what the federal Head Start program does.
What's next?
Believe it or not, many studies are now saying that early childhood education should begin at age 3. So a 3K program may not be far behind. We've come along way since we were kids.
For more information:
DPI- Economic impacts of a 4K program
DPI- 4yr kindergarten fact sheet
DPI- 4K Questions and Answers
Thursday, January 1, 2009
What's in store for 2009??
The high school is under construction
The pool was approved, bringing total construction costs to $100M. ($32M in bonds have been secured to-date
The 7th elementary school (Creekside) is complete (tho it's only half-full, while other schools are at a hair beneath capacity)
So...what's on the school board's docket for 2009?
The annual school board conference will be held in January 2009. Will 2009 be a repeat of the decadence of 2008, when 6 of 7 school board members plus administration spent $42 apiece on a luscious steak dinner? And that doesn't include travel or conference expenses. Or will the board wisely consider the state of the economy and scale back the number of members that attend and perhaps opt for lesser dining fare? Whatever happened to the concept of sending 1-2 members and then those members bringing back and sharing what they learned? Or maybe implement a "you speak/present at the conference and you get to attend" policy?
We shall see what transpires. Our crystal ball shows a few issues that are likely to be the hot button issues to be pushed by the school board this year.
4-yr kindergarten
It's coming folks. Whether you see it as a valuable educational program or glorified tax-funded daycare, the board and administration ARE moving to create a 4-yr kindergarten program. Applications for new fall 2009 programs are due July 1. Stay tuned.
Re-structuring school board committees
This too is more than just conjecture based on school board member comments during open meetings. In a nutshell, all current committees (FTT, Finance, Human Resources, Education & Policy) will be disbanded. In their place, 3 committees will likely be formed. No formal names have been discussed, so let's just call the 3 committees: Planning, Implementation, and Assessment. This wacky scheme was conjured from an article shared by Dr. Culver with the school board. Observations indicate that board member Jim McCourt, in particular, has glommed onto this notion. Essentially each of the three new committees will contain elements of each of the old disbanded committees. Sounds like a nice way of unseating current citizen representatives that the board doesn't care for (yet voted in). You will be hearing more soon.
More land needed?
In case you haven't caught wind yet, there seems to be a wee problem with the plan to connect the new high school with the existing one. The DNR is quietly being made the "bad guy" because they don't like the idea of destroying wetlands for the project. There was at least one closed-door school board session this fall to discuss purchasing some additional land, but no decision was made. Some ancillary discussions during recent board committee meetings suggest that the original plan to purchase some adjacent land "fell through", but another land owner may be being courted. We'll have to be formally informed if anything develops, because any land purchase MUST be approved by electors (that's you if you're over 18 and have lived within the school district for at least 10 days) at a public meeting.
More Administrative Staff?
Just what we need...more members of the $100K club. Yes, we need to improve the diversity of our collective teaching and administrative staff, but do we really need another $100K club addition to the Human Resources "department" to accomplish this???? As is usuallyt the case, the board initially expressed reluctance to approve such a position, but inevitably they vote 7-0 to approve. Stay tuned!
The pool was approved, bringing total construction costs to $100M. ($32M in bonds have been secured to-date
The 7th elementary school (Creekside) is complete (tho it's only half-full, while other schools are at a hair beneath capacity)
So...what's on the school board's docket for 2009?
The annual school board conference will be held in January 2009. Will 2009 be a repeat of the decadence of 2008, when 6 of 7 school board members plus administration spent $42 apiece on a luscious steak dinner? And that doesn't include travel or conference expenses. Or will the board wisely consider the state of the economy and scale back the number of members that attend and perhaps opt for lesser dining fare? Whatever happened to the concept of sending 1-2 members and then those members bringing back and sharing what they learned? Or maybe implement a "you speak/present at the conference and you get to attend" policy?
We shall see what transpires. Our crystal ball shows a few issues that are likely to be the hot button issues to be pushed by the school board this year.
4-yr kindergarten
It's coming folks. Whether you see it as a valuable educational program or glorified tax-funded daycare, the board and administration ARE moving to create a 4-yr kindergarten program. Applications for new fall 2009 programs are due July 1. Stay tuned.
Re-structuring school board committees
This too is more than just conjecture based on school board member comments during open meetings. In a nutshell, all current committees (FTT, Finance, Human Resources, Education & Policy) will be disbanded. In their place, 3 committees will likely be formed. No formal names have been discussed, so let's just call the 3 committees: Planning, Implementation, and Assessment. This wacky scheme was conjured from an article shared by Dr. Culver with the school board. Observations indicate that board member Jim McCourt, in particular, has glommed onto this notion. Essentially each of the three new committees will contain elements of each of the old disbanded committees. Sounds like a nice way of unseating current citizen representatives that the board doesn't care for (yet voted in). You will be hearing more soon.
More land needed?
In case you haven't caught wind yet, there seems to be a wee problem with the plan to connect the new high school with the existing one. The DNR is quietly being made the "bad guy" because they don't like the idea of destroying wetlands for the project. There was at least one closed-door school board session this fall to discuss purchasing some additional land, but no decision was made. Some ancillary discussions during recent board committee meetings suggest that the original plan to purchase some adjacent land "fell through", but another land owner may be being courted. We'll have to be formally informed if anything develops, because any land purchase MUST be approved by electors (that's you if you're over 18 and have lived within the school district for at least 10 days) at a public meeting.
More Administrative Staff?
Just what we need...more members of the $100K club. Yes, we need to improve the diversity of our collective teaching and administrative staff, but do we really need another $100K club addition to the Human Resources "department" to accomplish this???? As is usuallyt the case, the board initially expressed reluctance to approve such a position, but inevitably they vote 7-0 to approve. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
