This Lunch Smells Funny

 A funny thing happened while we were looking at Free/Reduced lunch percentages.   We were looking at SPASD data and happened upon the DPI files for individual school eligibility percentages.

And then we noticed that SP4K was listed in the 2009-10 all school data.

And THEN we noticed that SP4K had a Free/Reduced  (F/R) price meal eligibility percentage of 2%  (6 out of 381 kids).

And THEN we wondered how could that be...when the rest of the district averaged 27% for 2009-10 (ranging from 15% to 48% at individual schools)?

And THEN we noticed that the SP4K data was not reported for 2010-11.
An we wondered, "What's up with that?"
And so we went to work...

We tried to locate as many 4K schools across the state we could and compared the free/reduced meal eligibility of the 4K program to its district-wide percentage.

Granted, we could only positively identify 14 schools as being 4K (we wonder why...is it naming convention, or are most districts not reporting data for 4K).  But of the 14 schools, only 3 had 4K F/R %ages over 11%.  9 of the 14 has 4K F/R percentages at or below 7%.

And we found that interesting because the average district-wide F/R eligibility percentage for these districts was 36% (statewide, the average is 37%).  Hmmm....

Wasn't the whole idea of 4K to give kids a jump on learning to better prepare them for school?  And weren't kids from lower socioeconomic status homes identified as the kids that could benefit most from 4K?
If that's true, then why is the socioeconomic makeup of kids attending not very well mirroring the makeup of their districts?

Isn't anyone looking at this?  Particularly Sun Prairie...a district that prides itself as an academic leader?
These data, limited though they may be, sure seem to lend credence to those opposed to 4K, citing that it was merely serving as a form of taxpayer funded, elitist daycare.

You know...for a district that's showing a widening achievement gap in some of its schools, maybe it's time to spend more effort getting the kids that could most benefit from 4K into the program, instead of, say... buying candy as "rewards to motivate" kids?  Trips to China?

Are these highly paid administrators just bored with their jobs?  Constantly seeking some new"thing" to sink their teeth into?  When are we going to start focusing on the programs and kids we have now?

Wait...after hearing about her aversion to large numbers of F/R eligible kids, Caren Diedrich must just LOVE SP4K!

We Don't Know What We Don't Know -- and Neither Does the STAR

Sun Prairie STAR editor Chris Mertes offered the following in his editorial this week:

"During the most recent Sun Prairie School Board meeting on Dec. 20, the board learned that the cost to bus the participants in the program will be $192,124 for the 2010-11 school year.  ... The dimension of that expenditure is compounded by someone who, as a member of the board’s Finance Committee, ostensibly did not know what the heck was going on.   

How else could Rick Mealy make a statement like, “How did we [sic] quarduple that amount [originally estimated to be $50,000]?”

Or, for Deputy District Administrator Phil Frei to say, “Did we underestimate transportation? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that. We did the best budget we could at that time.”

And, thanks to the watchfulness of folks like Mealy and Frei, the district taxpayers are now stuck with the tab for their lack of mathematical skill."

Frankly, we think Mertes displayed poor journalistic form (to say the least) by calling out a private citizen and singling out Deputy District Admninistrator Phil Frei.  As a community resident with family ties to the school  district, and editor of the STAR newspaper, we are disappointed that Mr. Mertes used the resources available to him to report this matter in the way that he did--- which is more typical of something from a paper with a name like the Hooterville Humper.

That being said, Mertes is 100% correct.  Mealy did not know that the 4K program busing costs had increased from the initial projection of $50,000 to nearly $200,000  But, unfortunately, the information was compartmentalized.  The information was buried within the budget, hidden from view.  $200K for the cost of busing roughly 130 kids!  We CAN do the math on this one, Mr. Mertes; that comes to over $1,400 per kid.  The cost of busing K-12 kids is more like $400 per kid.  And we completely agree with you.  There's something just plain wrong with those numbers.  In fact, the reason Mealy spoke up was that he had only recently learned of this issue. 

Unfortunately, that’s where Mr. Mertes strays from the facts and simply resorts to casting a narrow beam of blame on a couple of easy targets (Frei and Mealy) rather than using his investigative reporting skills and resources to determine who really is to blame. 

Mertes was clearly wrong to blame any two individuals for the matter.  


Just the Facts. Sir
Let’s examine the facts that Mr. Mertes failed to disclose in his editorial.

1.  – There are 3 Board members and 2 citizen reps on the finance committee.
2.  – There are 7 total board members
3.  – The FTT committee has 3 SB members and 2 citizen reps.
4.  – The district administrator is, by policy, responsible for all district operations.
5.  – School Board president was aware of the situation yet never mentioned it to anyone; NOR was he concerned enough to bring it to the board table so that it could be discussed.

Mertes was equally wrong to call out Phil Frei.  If Mertes wants to assign culpability, then he needs to assign it to the one accountable for the district...and that's Tim Culver.

Beyond the fact that he is a newspaper editor, a position which one would associate with "being in the know", Mertes also has family ties to the district.  Shouldn't Mertes have been aware of the exorbitant transportation costs?  After all, the STAR published the district budget documents and covers budget hearings and committee meetings.

So let's get the facts straight.  What Mertes apparently doesn't know that he doesn't know is the following:

1. Mealy was but ONE member of the FIVE member Finance Committee.
2. The school board's Finance Committee has no authority to make decisions.  In fact, an item can be (and has been) voted down at the Committee level, only to be approved at the Board table.   If you want to lay blame, Mr. Mertes, you should include the entire school board--most of whom you supported during elections.
3. The issue of 4K busing costs was never an agenda item reviewed or approved by the Finance Committee.  True, the Finance Committee RECOMMENDS approval/forwarding the entire budget onto the full school board, but those "revised" busing costs were buried within the "complicated details" of the district budget.  In the grand scheme of accounting, the raise in 4K costs was buried within the much larger total "transportation" budget, and therefore never revealed.
4. Now that we mention "Transportation", Mr. Mertes should understand that the "transportation" budget is assigned NOT to the Finance Committee, but to the FTT (Facilities, Technology and TRANSPORTATION) Committee.  We didn't see Mertes calling out any of those folks.
5. We're not sure how Mertes could have missed the inaccuracy of his statement, " During the most recent Sun Prairie School Board meeting on Dec. 20, the board learned that the cost to bus the participants in the program will be $192,124 for the 2010-11 school year."  How could it POSSIBLY be that the board "did not learn until December 20th",  when this issue had been raised earlier at an FTT Committee meeting.  (Remember, Chris, issues begin at the Committee level and THEN go to the full board for formal approval?)  As with Finance, the FTT Committee includes THREE board members.  So, using your logic, THREE board members apparently SHOULD have known about the busing costs from Finance Committee meetings, and THREE more from FTT!!!
6. The only people that we KNOW were completely aware of the increased busing costs were those within the district business office.  And those folks report to Tim Culver, who in turn reports to the board.  Board president John Whalen publicly acknowledged that he knew...but couldn't recall WHEN he was informed.

What we like about the STAR Editorial is that it brings to light the fact that many similar issues are buried within the district budget.  Recall that neither the school board nor the public had any inkling of a $3M budget surplus at the end of the 2009-10 school year until very late in the budget process.  Those are the issues on which we need to focus the spotlight.

We'd like to see the STAR and Editor Mertes refocus their journalistic powers to sorting out the wheat from the chaff within the school district budget.   Perhaps instead of singling out two people, Mertes should be calling out the entire to school board to demand that these kind of "mathematical" issues get raised properly and publicly BEFORE we spend the money.  How about expending some of your journalistic ink to help uncover the things which need to be uncovered rather than assigning blame to two individuals?

Editor Mertes should also recall the old adage that when he points a finger, he has three other fingers pointing back at himself.  If you're not part of the solution, you're only part of the problem.  


Mr.  Mertes has contributed in a positive way over the years to the greater Sun Prairie Community.  We appreciate and respect what he has done but unfortunately with this episode of situational ethics he has tarnished the really good things that he and The Star have done for the community.     

Update
The District Office has amended the busing contract and it will be going to FTT and the Board on Monday night.  Hmmmm, why was that?, Oh that’s right they screwed it up and omitted some important language and attachments and now they want a “do over”.  This really underscores the underlying illness:  a series of egregious errors/miscalculations further hampered by  a lack of proactive transparency by the administrators.

Uh Oh Spaghetti O! 4K Busing Coming Under Fire

It seems that ride times for the little nippers can be as much as ONE HOUR...EACH WAY.
As one parent put it--and any parent knows--- a 1 hr ride for the average 4-year old means that a snack and games (and perhaps even a potty break) are mandatory accoutrements.  On a school bus?  We don't think so.


According to school district busing czarina Rhonda Page, the length of ride time ranges from two minutes to one hour, with an average ride time of 29 minutes.  The average sounds OK, but as is often the case with statistics, the standard deviation can speak volumes.  If your child has the 2 minute ride, you're loving it.  If your child has the 60 minute ride.  Not so much.  Of course there's also the point that it seems rather strange for kids to spend 2 hours on buses for 2.5 hours of education.


At what cost?
For the 2009-10 school year, 391 students were enrolled in SP4K, and 155 were transported by bus. The cost to transport those students was $259,847.63. [ $1,676 per child]



As of October 2010, 462 students were enrolled in SP4K for the 2010-11 school year, and 133 were transported by bus.   This year's busing cost is $261,124.30.  [$1,963 per child]


Using this year’s data, if the maximum time on the bus were shortened from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, the best-case scenario would add two additional SP4K routes at a cost of $70,296.16.   Increasing costs to $2,492 per child.  That also amounts to cost of about $5,000 per minute shaved off the maximum ride time.


The worst-case scenario would add four routes at a cost for $141,058.32   That would mean busing costs for 4K rise to $3,024 per child.  And shaving the maximum ride time costs $10,000 per minute.


Transportation cost comparisons

In July, we he;d a special electors meeting to discuss reducing the busing limit for middle schoolers from 2.0 to 1.5 miles.  The change would have affected 135 bus riders from Prairie View and 45 bus riders from Patrick Marsh. The cost for the additional routes for those children was approximately $89,650.  That would have cost $498 per child.  But it was voted down.

The average cost per child transported by bus in the district is about $350-$400.  How come it's so much more expensive for 4K.

Poor Projecting
Looking back at the original "plan" for SP4K costs, we see that the projection for busing costs for this year was only $52,000.  In fact, as far out as the 2013-14 school year, the busng cost was only projected to be about $56,000.
Hmmm...how did we get from a projection of $54K bus cost to over $260K?  Was the school board even informed?
That's more than a 500% increase over the program budget estimates!
That's further off than even the weatherman gets!


What's sad is that had the school board members known that transportation cost were going to be this high, they might not have been so quick to support 4K.

Madison wrestles with the thought of 4K

Wisconsin State Journal- Madison looking at 4K program

So...isn't this a great time to look at some feedback on what our school district has accomplished?
A Sun Prairie "SP4K" parent writes this to the Wisconsin State Journal:

mikefromsunprairie said on: January 9, 2010, 1:26 pm
My child is currently in a 4k program and I must say we are very disappointed in the program. The curriculum is based on play, and after asking my child everyday how was your day and did you learn anything it really doesn't sound like it is very helpful in preparing kids for [sic] kindergarden at all.There is very little contact between the daycare center and the school district and there is a total lack of communication. I would be very upset to be a tax payer paying for this program and after going through this [sic] expireance this year would not [sic] recomend the program at all to other parents.

Why is Madison looking at 4K now, despite projections that it will increases costs and property taxes? Gee....it seems that in order to chase the $4.35B in "Race To The Top" money, a district has to meet certain criteria, like, as in having a 4K program!

" Madison schools might need to commit to launching a four-year-old kindergarten program as part of the state’s application for $254 million in federal “Race to the Top” stimulus money, state officials said Wednesday.
Madison and four other large urban Wisconsin districts would need to agree to fulfill two of four “early childhood initiatives,” along with other requirements, to qualify for some of the money the state has promised should Wisconsin actually win any “Race to the Top” dollars. "

Journalistic Integrity be (expletive deleted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

Breakdown of 4K program settings in Wisconsin

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

Inside the 4K Decision: Who Said What

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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


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

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

Despite board member & community concerns, Board approves 4K

Color us surprised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SP4K...More Questions Than Answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profitting from kindergarteners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SP4K Program: The Return of Fuzzy Accounting

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Our estimate of cost using one approach is:

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

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


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

---

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

The 4K Train Keeps A Rollin'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

DPI- 4yr kindergarten fact sheet

DPI- 4K Questions and Answers