Trading Cash for Colleagues - The Oconomowoc Overture

Quietly, this week, Oconomowoc's school board discussed a plan to reduce staff at the high school.
OK...that's being just a tiny bit disingenuous.  Certainly, the plan calls for a reduction from 75 teachers to 60.  Rigid right wingers will send up a cheer.  The left will return fire with a voluminous jeers.  And there's the middle.  The rest of the world that chooses not to live or think in extremes.

On its face, it's a win for taxpayers.  Oconomowoc says it provides instant savings of at least $500K per year.  Nothing gets cut, class sizes will not increase.  So what's the hub, bub?  OK, that's where the disingenuous allegation comes in.  The fine print is that, while they cut 15 teachers, remaining teachers that pick up an extra block of teaching (more on that) will be "rewarded" with a $14,000 bump in their pay.  Of course, given the new ruling by our Guv, we don't know if that $14,000 will be eligible for consideration as "base" pay....but we're guessing not.

"The plan calls for most teachers to teach four blocks a day. Add on all the other things that need to be done as part of good teaching, and it's a formidable schedule - impossible, some would say.
A big trade-off: Oconomowoc is planning to offer teachers with four-block loads $14,000 a year extra. That would mean the starting salary at the high school would be just over $50,000; the top salary would be in the mid-$80,000s. (Even with that, the reduction in staff will mean savings of over $500,000.)"
---Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Would you want to profit from your colleague's misfortune? If Milwaukee provides any clue, those folks weren't willing to renegotiate their contracts last year, costing a ton of positions to be cut.  This is where the rubber meets the road, people.

What is "block" scheduling?
Oconomowoc's high school operates on a 4-block schedule of 90 minutes each, while most other schools operate off of a "period" system of 7 periods of 50 minutes or so each.  Proponents of block scheduling believe that having more face time with students on a subject at a time enhances learning.  Look at it this way...remember back in, say, math class where you were feeling so close to the edge of understanding a concept just as the bell rings.  And just like that...you lose that connection, incipient understanding goes fuzzy, and you have to start at square one the next day.  Subject matter experts would then argue that having 90 minutes of the subject would allow for more time to fully grasp new concepts.

As the article points out, suddenly going from teaching for 4.5 hours a day to teaching for 6 hours a day can be a burden.  Having some experience with conducting both all-day training workshops and shorter sessions, certainly we can attest to the fact that all day sessions can be tiring.  But is the construction worker not tired at the end of his/her day?  What about surgeons?  Or general practitioners seeing 15-20 patients a day? Can that not be mentally grueling?  Is work supposed to be a walk in the park?  It's called work, people!

The other side of the mountain
Now professional educators --teachers-- likely won't care for this next part, but like the rest of us, they have to at least SEE the other side of an argument and try to understand it rather than just rejecting it out right.   We'll say what others will whisper but never say publicly:

How is it that working at your main job (teaching) for just 4.5 hours of an 8-hour day is acceptable?   Worse yet...how is asking someone to perform their primary job function--teaching-- for 6 hours of an 8-hour day is an excessive burden?  Let's just toss in for good measure the fact that teachers contracts are for 190 days.   That's 70 days FEWER than the rest of the world.

Don't shoot the messenger
Don't get us wrong.  We are NOT advocating for Oconomowoc's proposal.  We simply think that the professional educators of the world have to come to grips with the simple fact that the public has had the profession under the microscope for some time now. With all the intelligence of this group (90% of teachers will earn a Master's degree during their careers), it's only logical to assume they could understand that the public perception is that they have it pretty darn good.   Sure...some of you slave away all summer working on continuing education credits or developing new lesson plans.  But we know quite a few teachers that relax by the shore with a good book all summer.

Stay in touch with yourselves
Maybe this plan will all go up in a puff of smoke. (OK...let's not get literal here, OK?).  Maybe cooler heads will prevail.  We all need to see how it plays out.  But there is a message in the undertones here that professional educators need to receive.  The winds of change are not done blowing.  And that fact stands regardless of whether or not the Walker Recall is successful.  Backwards should never be a preferred destination.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/time-will-render-bold-oconomowoc-school-plan-effects-da56n8d-149398195.html

Keats Back In The Saddle

We've had this one in the back pocket for awhile but things like the budget keep trumping it.

Many asked questions and were concerned 2 years ago when Paul Keats was very quietly replaced as principal of the high school.  Some good news for those that were concerned:  Mr. Keats has been hired as the interim principal of Rhinelander high school.  It would seem that he would be well placed to compete for the permanent position.

Mr. Keats has gone from Cardinal to Hodag!

http://newsofthenorth.net/article/The_Northwoods/Oneida_Vilas_County/Rhinelander_High_School_names_Paul_Keats_interim_principal/3919370

Cut the Budget Fluff...NOT Safety

Newly elected school board member John Welke will attempt to get at least three other board members to see reason at tomorrow night's meeting. We know...fat chance..right? But we appreciate that he's making the effort. That's more than can be said for other board members.

While other board members are desperately seeking ways to spend more money on athletic fields, Welke's message is a simple one: Safety first. Those among you with kids -or friends/neighbors with kids-- in the high school or upper middle school know that that one of the dark, scary secrets is that Sun Prairie High is no Beverly Hills 90210. Adding fuel to the already smoldering fire within is that next fall, high school freshman will be situated in the new "CHUMS", while grades 8-10 will go on to the new high school. Including the "Prairie Phoenix Academy (SOAR) alternative high school, that means THREE buildings for ONE Police Liaison Officer to monitor. Let's not even talk about the two middle schools.

The board already approved adding Youth Advocates numbers 3 and 4 for the upcoming school year, so clearly they see the need for increased monitoring and involvement. Youth Advocates are nice. They represent the touchy feely, kinder, gentler approach to dealing with what can frequently be a powder keg of young adolescent emotions. But they cannot ever be a police presence, and sometimes we need that. Today's schools are not the schools of the 60's or 70's. Times have changed.

Welke is right on. The priority should have been hiring a 2nd PLO over ANOTHER Assistant Principal. The cost of a 2nd PLO is about $60K, about half the cost of the assistant principal. The district has already announced unexpected savings from increase in SAGE class sizes of $200K. The board has only quietly begun discussing raises for administrators. An expected 3.8% raise will cost the district--and taxpayers-- about $100K.

Bottom line people...would you rather spend $100K (further) lining the pockets of (already) overpaid Administrators? Or would you rather spend only $60K NOW to ensure the safety of our kids? And, unlike the administrator raises, which only cost us more each year as they in turn get "raised", the district has already committed to adding the 2nd PLO NEXT year. So all Welke is talking about is a one-time $60K investment to bridge the gap.

Makes perfect sense. No wonder why the other 6 board members don't get it.

Welke Recommends Adding a 2nd Police Liaison Officer for THIS year (2010-11)

In his situation report available on BoardDocs, Welke recommends:

For the reasons cited above I am recommending that the School Board:

A) Approve the 2nd SPLO position for the 2010-11 school year and use SAGE program savings to fund the position.

B) Direct administration to write a letter of intent to the City of Sun Prairie Police Department indicating the SPASD’s desire to add a second School Police Liaison Officer by the beginning of school in the 2010-2011 school year (i.e., after July 1, 2010) so they can consider how to plan for their portion of the budget for this position.

C) Direct Administration to continue to seek out and apply for grants that may offset the costs of the SPLOs.

...............

Excerpts from SP STAR 5-26-10 "City, SPASD discuss ways to cooperate

The liaison officer interfaces with prevention and social services and is proactive to prevent violence. Wilkinson is responsible for working with staff at the high school, both middle schools and the alternative learning center in the former junior high.

“Our way of thinking is that when the new school opens, [he will be responsible for] five buildings,” [Police Chief] Anhalt said.

Beyond the additional responsibility, the SPPD favors it because of community priorities. Anhalt said he is asked constantly in the community about the schools, drugs and gangs.
“I get a sense this is a priority for the community,” Anhalt said. He said he also believes it is a great place to devote more resources because the officer provides prevention. The chief said he also support it because it fits with the mission of SPPD and that a second liaison officer is a big part of that.

“What [Police Liaison Officer Wilkinson] Jack does so well is he really builds those positive relationships with kids,” [Sun Prairie High Principal Lisa] Heipp said. Wilkinson is in the school during lunches, and is visible with kids to build positive connections.
“He is actually that supportive person who can help problem-solve with kids,” Heipp said. But when Wilkinson is spread so thin, the officer turns into reactive position.
“The more area he has to cover,” Heipp added, “the less powerful that proactive presence is.”
Board members and District Administrator Tim Culver reiterated the previous discussions about the position, which was essentially that the board has planned to add the second liaison officer for the 2011-12 school year.

New board member John Welke disagreed, saying the district needs to hire another officer. “I’m very concerned about how watered down . . . that’s going to get,” Welke said.

.................

Quotable Quotes

[Deputy District Administrator and Business Manager Phil Frei] "... the board voted to forego adding a second police liaison officer for the 2010-11 school year due to budget concerns."

--Phil Frei, Budget Hearing May 20, 2010

“It’s a lot of money for the second liaison officer, know we’re trying to get it under a grant, but long term, I don’t think we need a second officer.”
--former board member Al Slane (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

“Youth advocates great, but liaison officer I’m not totally convinced. That’s a bigger price tag.”
--Board member Jim McCourt (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

“[the district should go a year without the officer first to see if it is really necessary.] With the youth advocates, we might not have that need,”
---Board member Terry Shimek (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

[ the board has been asked for years for a second liaison officer and] “we’ve always said no. [ the message the board should send the city is that they’ll go without a second liaison for 2010-11, and then see if a second officer is needed. ]”
--Board member David Stackhouse (4-12-10 School Board meeting)

The board approved the letter of intent for a second police liaison officer for the 2011-12 school year 5-2. Shimek and Slane voted against it.

What Those Scholarship Folks Don't Understand

So...skunked again on state and national scholarship winners. Don't these people KNOW how smart our kids are? Don't they read the STAR and see those exhaustively lengthy lists of honor roll students?


And what about our perfect 4.0 kids? We have 21 seniors and 25 juniors who posted perfect 4.0 GPAs for the third quarter....and none of them was worthy of a major scholarship?


We've been robbed!!!!!


Did we mention that the 3rd quarter honor roll lists were released in the last couple of weeks?
Ho-hum!


High school
QTR2... 41% made the honor roll; QTR3...what do you know...41% made the honor roll.
QTR2 81 kids (1 of 20 kids) scored a perfect 4.0; QTR3... 82 kids


Middle school
Lo and behold...we did have a slight decline here. Is someone listening?
QTR2... 60% (840)made the honor roll; QTR3...what do you know...only 55% (770) made the honor roll this time. Slackers!


But...some of the middle scholars are actually doing better.
116 kids scored a perfect 4.0 in QTR3, compared to only 103 in QTR2.


Timelines - Comparing Honor rolls 2008 vs 2010
We thought it would be interesting to dig into the archives and see how things compare to 2 years ago....you may recall...that fateful error that put 83% of high school kids on the honor roll? In retrospect, some are wondering if that wasn't one of the final nails that Culver used to seal Paul Keats' fate.


Well...we compared the high school and middle schools, and hey...at least we have consistency going for us. In 3rd quarter 2008 41% of high schoolers made the honor roll...same as in 2010. In 3rd quarter 2008, 55% of middle schoolers made the honor roll, same as in 2010. The one significant difference was the for 3rd quarter 2008, 18% of middle schoolers received a 4.0 GPA, while in 2010, less than half, 8.4%, made that grade.


Telling statistic?


Read the QTR 2 blogpost

WKCE - The Flipside of the Coin

Traditionally --religiously, in fact-- people focus on the bright side of the WKCE results, i.e., that percentage of students scoring as either "Proficient" or "Advanced" for a particular subject area. If we're truly concerned about education for every child, however, shouldn't we be taking a walk along the dark side of WKCE? That is, that percentage of students scored as only "Minimally Proficient"?

According to WKCE materials, "Minimal" is described as:
Limited achievement in the content area. Test score shows evidence of major misconceptions or gaps in knowledge and skills tested in the academic content area.

" Minimal Performance: Demonstrates very limited academic knowledge and skills tested on WKCE at that grade level. "
--- http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/pdreading.html

Rose-colored lenses definition
Demonstrates an emerging understanding of the academic content and skills tested on
the WKCE at that grade level.
-- http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/pdf/stprntbrochure.pdf

As a community, however, we need to be concerned not only with the numbers of kids scoring as "Proficient or Advanced", but also those scoring as only "Minimally" Proficient. For these are the kids most at risk. These numbers tell us both the strength of our district in terms of how well we are preparing kids, or how great a challenge we have ahead of us. Since these are numbers for grade 10, we have 2 more years to cultivate these young seedlings.

So...as Jeff Probst woulds say, "Let's get to it".
What follows is a series of 4 tables:

(1) How Sun Prairie ranks against other Dane County districts in terms of PERCENT of kids scoring minimally proficient,

(2)How Sun Prairie ranks against other similar-sized districts in terms of PERCENT of kids scoring minimally proficient,

Then we turn the heat up a notch:

3) How Sun Prairie ranks against other Dane County districts in terms of NUMBER of kids scoring minimally proficent,

(4) How Sun Prairie ranks against other similar-sized districts in terms of NUMBER of kids scoring minimally proficient.

Here we see that SPASD ranks 4th among the 16 Dane County districts in terms of percent of kids scoring only minimally proficient on the WKCE (grade 10, average of all 5 subject areas).

Then you look at the class sizes and say..."Jeez...some of those are pretty small". So, this time, we look at how SPASD ranks when stacked up against the 20 state school districts closest in size in terms of percent of kids scoring only minimally proficient on the WKCE (grade 10, average of all 5 subject areas). Wow...here we continue to rank 4th....but now we have an apples-to-apples comparison. This is good news, folks.

OK....time to start getting beyond the statistics, and into the sociology...the true demographics. Percentages often mean nothing. A 2% minimally proficient score means something very different for a district 10% the size of Sun Prairie. So...it's time to even the odds and bring this analysis down to its root level: How many KIDS are we talking about? Because any kid scoring only minimally proficient in any subject area is a kid to whom we need to reach out. We took some liberty here. In determining the "minimum number of kids at risk", we took a conservative approach and used the maximum number of kids scoring "minimal" in any given subject area. Similarly for the "maximums" we used the sum of all kids scoring minimally proficient in any subject area. Certainly there will be kids that score minimally proficient in more than one subject area...perhaps there are even those who do so in all subject areas. Therefore the true number of kids "at risk" lies somewhere between our minimum and our maximum.

Here we see that SPASD ranks 4th among the 16 Dane County districts in terms of percent of kids scoring only minimally proficient on the WKCE (grade 10, average of all 5 subject areas).

So, this time, we look at how SPASD ranks when stacked up against the 20 state school districts closest in size in terms of percent of kids scoring only minimally proficient on the WKCE (grade 10, average of all 5 subject areas). We remain high (5th) with the apples-to-apples comparison. This is good news, folks. Biut the number of kids potentially at risk is much scarier.

For those of you interested in grade inflation (as we are), we can look at these as very likely indicative of those kids that are in the "sub C" grade level....or D and below. If we consider that for Sun Prairie, that means somewhere between 33 and 125 kids at the grade 10 level, and we extrapolate those numbers across the whole high school, we're looking at somewhere between 132 and 500 kids...or between 8 and 30%. And THAT number seems a little more like the bell curve that Dr. Culver dissed recently.

As educators, parents, and community members, we can't be complacent because of the number of kids that make the honor roll or the number of kids that score as Proficient or Advanced on state tests.

Every kid must count. Let's keep "priority Goal #3 in mind:
Improve and expand learning opportunities so that every graduate is prepared and inspired to successfully and productively pursue any option after high school.

Pop Quiz, Hotshot!

If the Sun Prairie Area School District was an appetizer from a national chain restaurant's menu, what would it be?

Some might answer: "Hot Wings".

Others might suggest, "Fried Cheese Curds" or "Cheese Sticks."

We're certain that a few might quietly chuckle and suggest some type of dip.

And we have to admit that a case could easily be made for that old staple of our youth from a Chinese restaurant --the "Poo Poo Platter".

But there's something even more fitting. We've got it.

The SPASD is like...

a "Bloomin' Onion"!

A "Bloomin Onion", you ask?

Yep. Because the more you dig at it, the more layers there seem to be. And the deeper you get towards the core, the greater the impact on your social graces--if you catch our drift.

The Computer Purchase Example

To illustrate the many layers of the district that one must peel to get at the "core", look no further than the recent announcement regarding computer purchases for the new High School (HS) and Upper Middle School (UMS). It's unfortunate that the Sun Prairie Star failed to cover ANY of this discussion from last Monday's school board meeting, because the more you know, the more you get ticked off.

The District initially announced plans to purchase 1375 computers. No...that's not a typo. At about $500 each, that amounts to a sizable chunk of referendum dollars. So you ask a few questions. How many for the new high school: 1100. 275 for the UMS. Whoa! you plan on opening the doors with 1400 kids and you want to buy 1100 computers????!!!

You ask a few more questions...like how many computers are at the existing HS (which will become the UMS). The answer is quite foggy...something along the lines of the fact that they don't really know exactly which computers are where. They have tag numbers, and when they have to be replaced, a technician just kind of hunts through the school till they find the computer? You mean a $68M "business" cannot track copmputers better than that? Wouldn't that facilitate quiet "movement" of computers from place to another? What about those purchased with referendum dollars? WTF?!

And then you get some information from a district insider and find that they want to have 779 computers in the UMS--for about 900-950 kids. And then they want to have 884 computers in the new HS--for 1400 kids. Do a little math, folks. Of course THIS information hasn't been shared with the community--or even the FTT.

Then they come out and REVISE the proposed purchase and want to buy MORE than 1100 computers for the new HS. What?! And then, you read a little further and see that....

" We estimate that 120 computers will be needed for adding classrooms in the next five years. We propose using these computers to create two additional computer labs at both the 8/9 school and the new high school. As computers are needed in the classrooms, they would be transferred from the computer labs."

WHAT!? You want to buy PCs for FIVE years in advance, when you KNOW district policy is to replace PCs every 5 years? Huh?

Anyone else smellin' what we're smellin'? It's kind of foul, innit?

Final Plan for Youth Advocates Goes Before Board Monday

Costs to increase 14.8%

On Monday, August 10, the Administration's' final plan for Youth Advocates instead of Security Guards at the high school will go before a vote of the school board. Wanna bet that the board will vote 7-0 to approve it? We hear Vegas is laying odds of 20-1.

Administration found a group that operates via the United Way that will provide us with two Youth Advocates at a cost of $45,000. At 7 hours per day and a 175-day contract, that works out to $18.37 per hour for each. That's $5.00 more per hour than the $13.27 per hour the Administration planned to pay Youth Advocates hired under Local 60. It's also $2.37 per hour more than we paid the contracted Security Guards. Gee...don't you just wonder why the sudden change of heart and move away from hiring staff? They were so adamant about that in our last episode.

Notably, a large part of the rationale for hiring FTE Youth Advocates as district employees was that the security guards were not authorized to touch any student, making it difficult to quell physical confrontations. But...wait...don't we have the same problem with these contracted "Youth Advocates"?

Read the Situation Report for the 8/10/09 meeting

Scholarship numbers/amounts reflective of local growth?

An article in the May 24 edition of the Wisconsin State Journal tracks locally funded scholarships by area school district. Sadly, Sun Prairie doesn't fare so well.

The article summarizes:

When adjusted for class size, Stoughton High School landed on top. Last year, it
had enough local scholarship money to award the equivalent of $670 to each
graduating senior. Sun Prairie High School was at the other end with the
equivalent of $90 available for each graduating senior.

Lisa Bollinger, an assistant principal at SPHS is quoted as follows:

Sun Prairie High School, which finished last in per-graduate money, has grown so fast in the last few years that it’s been hard for the local investment in scholarships to keep up. The city’s rapid growth also means many people are new to the area and may not yet have a strong attachment to community institutions, she said, and the district’s educational foundation has chosen to focus on funding innovative classroom projects.

So is it that residents and businesses have yet to build a strong bond with the community? Or is it that the residents are strapped for cash? If it's the former...shouldn't the school board be playing a role there? Or a better role? It would seem that one of the reasons we pay for Tim Culver's Rotary club membership is to help "work this room" so to speak. Is that vein tapped out as well?

The article infers that the Sun Prairie Education Foundation is spending their funds on classroom innovations. Is it time to revive that those two parts of the District Mission statement?

We are committed to maximize each student's learning by:

· Partnering with parents, community, & businesses;
· Inspiring lifelong learning for all students and staff;

It's a little easier to be inspired when, on average, you are awarded more than $90 towards "lifelong learning" when even a small state school costs over $10,000 per year in tuition and living costs.

It also appears, compared to other districts that we're taking the scholarship money that is available and funding a very small segment of the senior class. Hedging our bets, are we?

For instance, if you do a little math, about 102 Stoughton graduates received , on average $2,100 each. Now THAT puts a little dent in tuition! On the other hand, about 60 Sun Prairie seniors were awarded, on average, $355 each. That MAY cover book fees for ONE semester..

Once again Sun Prairie...there may certainly be more to this story than meets the eye. But (A) we ain't seein' it, and (B) this data doesn't exactly put a nice glossy finish on Sun Prairie.

Dear Dr. Culver…Do we need to review Open Meetings Laws again?

First off…and we may have missed it…but we do not recall anyone asking you whether or not you agreed with Mr. Mealy’s allegation that the vagueness of the agenda item related to “Youth Advocates” represented a violation of noticing requirements under the Open Meetings laws. Furthermore, a significant number of community residents would prefer that you remember that these are school board meetings, of which you are NOT a member. Remember? You are the employee…the board is the employer?

Second, we’re wondering how difficult it must be for you to dance between positions. At one point during Monday’s meeting you clearly counseled board members (your employers) that any members planning on attending an upcoming meeting need to alert Gwen King in order that she can generate a public meeting notice, if an equivalent of a quorum planned to attend, to satisfy Open Meetings Laws noticing requirements. So, on the one hand you’re going out of your way to alert the board to situations that potentially fall under the jurisdiction of Open Meetings Laws. A conservative position, one would say. On the other hand, you’re arguing that burying an underlying, critical issue regarding security at the high school under the innocuous agenda title of, Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE, does NOT represent a violation of Open Meeting Laws. Where did that conservatism go?

Logic Analysis
Let’s look at the logic (or lack thereof) in your argument that the agenda item was NOT a violation of Open Meetings Laws. Administration’s plan was/is to replace security guards with Youth Advocates. The board agenda item related to approval of the Youth Advocate job description. A separate board decision would be required to discontinue Security Guards, replacing them with Youth Advocates. Therefore, Mr. Spock would tell you that it is illogical to begin by approving a job description since the creation of those positions was dependent on the board FIRST approving the switch from Security Guards to Youth Advocates. What if they agreed to approve the job description but not the switch? That wouldn't make sense? It only makes sense to decide on whether or not to use Youth Advocates instead of Security Guards. THEN you move forward with a job description. Of course the decision to switch should consider a maximum amount to be invested in Youth Advocates to keep the plan cost neutral.

You put the cart before the horse. The first action SHOULD have been to allow the public to know about and have input on the decision of whether or not to discontinue the practice of using Security Guards.

Do we have any doubt that you’ll find an attorney who’ll support your position? Nope. After all…attorneys get paid by the hour to argue contrary positions. How do you get an attorney to argue an unreasonable position? Pay ‘em!!!!

What does the Law say?
The law ( Open Meetings Laws Guide 2007, III.A.2.a.) states that Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2) sets forth a reasonableness standard [for clarity of public notices] , and that such a standard strikes the proper balance contemplated in Wis. Stat. §§ 19.81(1) and (4) between the public’s right to information and the government’s need to efficiently conduct its business.” The document states further that the reasonableness standard “requires a case specific analysis” and “whether notice is sufficiently specific will depend upon what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

In making that determination, the factors to be considered include:
“[1] the burden of providing more detailed notice,
[ How much effort would it have been to have the agenda item read, Replacing Security Guards at the High School with new positions, titled, Youth Advocates???]

[2] whether the subject is of particular public interest, and
Hello! You KNOW there has been significant public concern about violence at the high school!

[3] whether it involves non-routine action that the public would be unlikely to anticipate.”
This is the easiest. We have contracted Security Guards for several years now, so this is a non-routine action. Further, there is no way the public could make the leap in logic from approving a job description for “Youth Advocates” to replacing Security Guards with these positions.

Poor form, Dr. Culver. The law is clear. Your logic was equally clearly flawed. That public notice violated the requirements of Open Meetings Laws. Save us a few hundred dollars and skip the attorney consult to which you alluded, will you please?

There’s no need to check with the attorneys and cost the taxpayers money. Simply open your copy of the WISCONSIN OPEN MEETINGS LAW A COMPLIANCE GUIDE 2007 (OML 2007) and read section III A 2.a. Then resurrect that conservative approach you presented when trying to protect the school board’s collective keesters earlier in the meeting.

Dr. Culver…you hung President John Whalen’s keester out on this issue, because –as you know—you are immune from any sanctions related to violation of Open Meetings Laws. Only elected officials can be taken to the woodshed. But rest assured, John. We already know that DA Blanchard is waaaaaaay too busy to deal with Open Meetings complaints. He still has one in the hopper on which he has yet to adjudicate.

Board Votes to Hold Off on Cutting Security Guards at the High School

At Monday's board meeting, the school board listened and came to the conclusion that the best decision was to table the Security Guard issue for its Tuesday May 26, 2009 meeting. We appreciate the votes of Jill Camber-Davidson, Caren Diedrich, Al Slane, David Stackhouse, and John Whalen to table the issue. Jim McCourt and Terry Shimek voted against tabling the decision. Do we detect a change in board philosophy? If so, we like what we're seeing! It's not about voting to support or slam what any citizen presents. It's about listening to what's being presented and asking if it makes sense. Then it simply defaults to doing what's right for the community.

To recap, the root issue here was buried underneath the innocuous agenda title, "Youth Advocates Job Description and FTE". [SP-EYE: C'mon....did ANYONE without fore knowledge read this agenda item and realize that it meant no more security guards at the troubled SPHS???] It sure seemed like Administration was playing a clever game of bait and switch wanting us to believe that the agenda item SOLELY involved approving the job description, allowing HR head Annette Mikula to formally negotiate salary with the Local 60 union. David Stackhouse, however, correctly pointed out that never has he seen a case where once a job description was approved, administration did not immediately move to hire.

And that brings us up to the "ulterior motive" behind this agenda item.....remember ulterior motives, Dr. Culver? You should, since you accused a citizen of operating similarly last fall. What could NOT be gleaned from the agenda item was that behind this proposal is the idea to discontinue the employment of two contractor security guards at the high school. Instead, the district plan is to hire two "Youth Advocates" whose role will be more of a counseling, supporting, advising, rapport- development one. Call them walking social workers. It's a Dr. FeelGood, kinder gentler approach. We're just not sure how the emphasis on "Non-violent Crisis Intervention" strategy plays out when one of the frequent "altercations" breaks out at the high school.

Youth Advocate: "Excuse me, kids? Could you please stop altercating?"

Sure...this MIGHT work (emphasis on MIGHT)...but the community has been very concerned about safety at the high school; and, from our conversations, most folks are a little leery about the prospect of success for this change. So...community members...if you care...

...mark your calendars for Tuesday May 26. Please attend the school board meeting and have your vice be heard. If you cant attend, please phone or e-mail (at right) board members with your comments/concerns.

Once again...THANK YOU, school board members (well...the five of you) for seeing the logic in delaying any decision for two weeks. It does no harm to sit back for 2 weeks and think this through carefully before proceeding. The proposal certainly isn't cost neutral...but delaying action doesn't cost you a thing and quite likely buys back a notch or two of community trust and support.

Security Guard ⇒ Youth Advocate

And you thought the age of political correctness was over!

Let the DAMN Meeting Begin
At tomorrow night' s (May 11, 2009) meeting of the School Board (excuse us, it's probably more politically correct to call it the Affirmation of District Administration Management Needs -- or A DAMN! meeting), a seemingly innocuous agenda item appears, entitled " Youth Advocate Job Description and FTE". It's buried down in the meeting agenda---we almost missed it ourselves.

Yet it reflects a fundamental change in the way of handling security at the high school. Something we're all pretty sensitized to. Certainly, change is in order. But this represents a radical change that should NOT be simply rubber stamped into existence. We need to think this one through. A hint of malingering odor is detected from the smell test.

Instead of just forging ahead with a job description at the HR committee...shouldn't the issue be discussed FIRST in public forum by the school board where the public can watch it , attend it, or obtain a video copy?

Once again, this "idea" is a plan that is ready to be rubber stamped, with opportunity for 3 minutes of public input only IF you are savvy and engaged enough to read the meeting agenda and realize that something very important is at stake here.

An audible emission of intestinal gases is still a ...
When we first read this situation report, our first thought was that the parallel here to the world of water treatment is both ironic and comical. Nobody likes to talk about poop. We live in a 'flush and forget' society. What began as Sewage Treatment works has slowly morphed into Wastewater Treatment and even to Water Pollution Control management. There is even one local community that has named its facilities the "Water Recycling Center" . Look...we get that. Totally. But let's do it with a conscious focus and do it with some structure and abide by some rules. Let the public in on exactly what we're doing. Let's give them more than just a slim shot at providing input, and let's tell them exactly what it means in terms of costs. Hey...what do you know? The community might even get on board with the DAMN idea. But if you try to slip one by the goalie...even unintentionally...the reputation of the A DAMN board will only continue to grow.

What's in a Word? Morphing from Security Guard to Youth Advocate
So we start with Security Guard.
Security: means freedom from danger, risk, etc.; safety.
Guard: means to give protection; keep watch; be watchful.

...now consider 'Youth Advocate'
Youth: we get it...it means 'kids"
Advocate: means: one that supports or promotes the interests of another

So, we're transitioning from having trained security guards being watchful over and protecting safety to employees whose role is to support or promote the interests of the kids? Huh? We're all for building rapport with the kids, but security does not equate to social work. Those are two very distinct issues.

Security Guard? Youth Advocate? Social Worker?
Things get more disconcerting when you look at the job description for these "Youth Advocates". Are these "requirements" really in line with what's needed at the high school? Here are just a few tidbits:

• Must have experience in similar backgrounds as the youth who are being served.
• Must have experience in or full understanding of urban cultures, diverse cultures, and/or large high schools.
• Must have knowledge and appreciation for adolescent development and a desire to serve young people.
• Must have completed or willing to be trained in Non-Violent Crisis Intervention.
  

SP-EYE: This seems like pretty specific experience...whose got it? Does that mean that anyone who graduated from like Deerfield High need not apply? And do they have to have a degree? taken a class? in adolescent development? What's that mean? And the only REAL training required is "Non-Violent Crisis Intervention"??? Hello? Have you BEEN to high school lately?

Or, how about this from the Essential Duties And Responsibilities section of the position description. Doesn't this sound more like a Social Worker? If we can get this kind of social work for $13.27/hr....WOW!

• Identifies, monitors, and assists students who may be disengaged from school.
• Meets with students who are chronically late to school.
• Contacts home and/or makes home visits to help identify issues affecting poor attendance.
• Refers students to community agencies or student services as needed.
• Participates in teacher-student, parent-student, and student-student mediation scheduled throughout the day to identify and resolve issues causing disruption within the school and during class time.
• Builds relationships through presence, visibility, and student engagement during non-classroom time at school (before and after school, lunch time).
  

SP-EYE- WOW! And NO social worker training is required? These people can --and are supposed to--conduct home visits, mediation, make referrals to community services? Local 60...are you seeing this? SPEA...isn't this more suited to someone with special licensing or training?

• Develops and maintains an awareness of potential neighborhood rivalries or conflicts, potential gang related issues, and other community issues that may impact schools.
• Intervenes in altercations between students, staff and public as needed to maintain safety and security.

SP-EYE--Ah...the "intervening in altercations" part...that would be the non-violent intervention kind...right? Just speak firmly and logicallylike Spock and they'll stop altercating...right? Or is it a Jedi mind trick kind of thing? Oh...and they have to become knowledgeable in gang activities, too? And we're going to get this for $13.27 per hour????.

What's it going to cost?
The plan is to discontinue the practice of hiring two private contractor security guards. Instead, we'll create two positions, called Youth Advocates, with the funding coming from what historically was used for the security guards.

Let us be the first to state this CLEARLY. Economy bad. Creating positions good. Got that? We like the idea of creating jobs. It's the rest of it that is giving us some heartburn (or was it those peppers in the omelet this morning?).

If one looks at the biweekly check register...one sees that we spend about $2,500-2,600 every 2 weeks. That means about $1270 per week....which translates to about $31.25 per hour. Divide that by 2 security guards, and you get about $16.00 hr that we pay for them. We do NOT pay for benefits. Those are paid out of what we pay the contractor.

The plan (which hasn't been approved by Local 60) is to hire 2 full time (FTE) "Youth Advocates" at a beginning salary of $13.27/hr (again, IF Local 60 agrees). But that doesn't include benefits which typically cost the district (taxpayers) about 50% of salary costs. That means 'bennies' will cost another $6.63 per hr...for a grand total of $19.90/hr. $19.90 per hour X 2 Youth Advocates X 80 hrs per two weeks comes to a cost of $3,184, which represents an increase of 22.5%.

So...let us get this right. The national economy is still faltering, the state budget has gone down the point-of-use waste recycling outlet, and management wants to increase the cost of doing business by 22.5%???? Hold on to that thought while you learn the rest of this scheme.

And if we decide this isn't going to work, we then have to cut positions (people) and then pay unemployment? HELLO! Can you say "TRIAL BASIS"? Did you think to maybe do this as an LTE (no benefits) initially? Those are both fiscally sound procedures for handling untried plans.

---

Dear school board:

Let's put this in simple terms.

Economy bad. Generating jobs, good.
Costing more not so good.
Job descriptions that sound like 'Social Worker' but paid far less not good.
Plan needs more thought and public input.

In other words, and please forgive our concerted tact avoidance, proceeding with an affirmation of the Decorum Maintenance Coordination plan known as "Youth Advocates" without additional public input represents an act of cranial-rectal inversion. The plan is factually unencumbered, and fecally plenary.

Got all that? We now need to proceed expeditiously to conduct an unplanned re-examination of recent food choices.

Love,

SP-EYE

Why are the Police at the High School?

Ever since we posted the numbers of police calls to the Sun Prairie High School, people commented things like, "A lot of those calls are just for lock-outs or other minor things."

Good point. Which is why we requested a breakdown of information on the types of calls for service being made. That data was made available for 2009 to-date. Because it was a rather lengthy, convoluted lists, we took the liberty of trying to "lump" those calls that appear to be of a similar nature.

You be the judge. Do we have a problem, Houston?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Debate Extends to High School Security Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seattle, WA


On-line debate

Inside Edition: Events Linked to Paul Keats' Resignation

Many have wondered. We've received calls, e-mails and personal inquiries. Everyone seems to know that something unsavory went down, but no one has all of the pieces. Those at the district would rather not have the details see the light of day. They silently ask why would someone want this information?; they suggest an invasion of Mr. Keats' privacy. And while we respect Mr. Keats' needs, we have to balance those needs against them the public's right to know what in tarnation is going on at the high school.

WHY, on the cusp of opening a sparkling new high school, did Mr. Keats resign?
DID Mr. Keats resign willingly...or was it one of those backroom, "resign...or else" deals?
DID something happen that places the over 1700 kids at Sun Prairie High School in danger?

Parents have a right to know. More to the point, when you smell that aroma of doggie fecal excrement, one's natural inclination is to check one's shoes. With all that has transpired, has the district possibly stepped in it once again?

We have NO information---yet---of any personnel matter that might explain the sudden resignation of Mr. Keats. In fact, SP-EYE has no personal issues against Mr. Keats. Maybe he did something (or DIDN'T) do something that precipitated all of this. But we're bottom line people...and the bottom line is when something stinks as badly as this, the place needs to be aired out. Therefore, we have obtained the following information. It represents a very interesting and rapid-paced timeline. All have been documented. We have obtained copies. Read into it what you will.

January 12, 2009 - "Resignation Agreement" between the District and Paul Keats
This is a 6-page contractual agreement (wonder what THAT cost in legal fees!). The highlights are as follows:

• Resignation is effective 6-30-09. Resignation is offered to either (a) accept another position in the district or (b) pursue employment elsewhere.


• Allows Keats to prepare HIS OWN public statement regarding his resignation which must be approved by the district and shall be [emphasis added] the ONLY such statement. [exactly WHO gets to author their own resignation-related press release??!!]


• Keats' contract and duties remain until 6-30-09, with the exception of renewal/non-renewal provisions.


• Keats wishes to assume another position within the district. Tim Culver shall not object to Keats filling any position in the District other than a position at the high school. Yet nothing shall preclude Keats from applying for and accepting a position at the High School.


• Assuming Keats stays on through June 2009, his health benefits will be paid through August 2009. This includes $150 per pay period he is paid in lieu of health insurance coverage.


• The District agrees to provide Keats with a mutually agreeable reference letter on District letterhead, signed by Tim Culver.


• Following placement of the letter of reference in his personnel file, no further documents regarding Keats' performance shall be placed into his personnel file.


• In return for this agreement, Mr. Keats "irrevocably and unconditionally releases, waives and fully forever discharges the District [and all its agents] from all claims....", etc. [ a string of 12 nouns ensues] "of any nature whatsoever.


• Keats agrees to use all unused vacation days prior to June 30, 2009 or forfeit them. Interestingly enough, if Keats accepts any other employment prior to June 30, 2009, he gets paid $421.91 per diem for each unused day.


• The District signature on the agreement is difficult to decipher and there is no typewritten name or title. It is not Tim Culver's signature. It looks like it could be that of Board president David Stackhouse.

[SP-EYE: We wish Mr. Keats the very best of luck. We've also never seen such a thing as this "resignation agreement". All we can say is, "Wow."]

January 12, 2009 - Letter of Recommendation for Paul Keats from Tim Culver
Interesting. The letter is stamped "DRAFT", although a request for all final documents was made. Key excerpts from the letter:

• "Few principals can equal [Keats] in his application of effort and attention to detail."


• In my opinion, the following aspects of Paul's job performance have been consistently 'exemplary' [quotes appear in the original document]: [includes a bulleted list of 7 demonstrative skills]


• Concludes with, "Paul's experience, knowledge, intelligence, and organizational skills serve as the technical foundations for a quality school administrator. I recommend him for any school management position matching the needs for these attributes."

January 12, 2009 - Letter of Resignation from Paul Keats
Key excerpts include:

• "I believe my leadership has added to the fabric of the learning community and I am pleased of the work I have done."


• "I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead for me. Perhaps my path will intersect with the Sun Prairie Area School District again in the future. "

January 12, 2009 - School Board Minutes of 1-12-09
The minutes of the January 12, 2009 school board meeting show that at 9:03 pm the school board moved to go into closed session "for the purpose of discussing administrative personnel issues". "The result of the vote was: Unanimous. " At 9:25 pm, the meeting was adjourned. Action take during the closed session was "TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF PAUL KEATS". The motion was made by Stackhouse and seconded by Diedrich. "Motion carried".

SP-EYE - Note that when you make a motion it means that you support the motion. The motion "carried" [emphasis added]. Note very carefully the distinctly different results of the two votes. The phrase "motion carried" usually is used to indicate that a majority (but not all) voted in favor of the motion. It CAN be synonymous with a unanimous vote, but typically such a voted would be expressed as it was on the motion to go into closed session. We suspect that one or more board members did NOT support accepting Keats' resignation.

January 13, 2009 - Letter form the District to Paul Keats
From Annette Mikula, Executive Director of Human Resources. Confirms Keats' resignation.

January 13, 2009 - Principal position opening created on the Sun Prairie website
Effective July 1, 2009.

January 26, 2009 - Keats' resignation announced via e-mail to Sun Prairie "Key Communicators"

OK...so based on the Resignation Agreement, Keats clearly wants to continue on in Sun Prairie. And Tim Culver just as clearly does not want Keats at the High school. It just doesn't smell right that all these things transpired on January 12th...ONE day. We all know that our district administration and school board RARELY move at such speeds. Heck...it took them a week to clear snow and ice from the SOAR sidewalk!!!!Even if Mr. Keats was just having some doubts and voluntarily tendered his resignation out of the blue (which we doubt), logic would suggest that the District would have counseled him to take some time. Not here. The bullet train immediately left the station and then the engine was sabotaged so it could not possibly start up again. So, it makes you wonder... did Keats really resign...or was this all precipitated by a notification --or a verbal discussion--in which Keats was told that his contract was not going to be renewed after June 30, 2009? As some of you know...a "Notice of Non-Renewal of Contract" must be placed on file with DPI....and THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is most certainly the equivalent of an educational arena "black ball"

More info comes in on HS Principal Keats

The information we're receiving is that Paul Keats has indeed turned in his hall pass.

Reports are that Keats was told that (A) he was not guaranteed that the position of principal at the new high school was his, that (B) he'd have to apply for the job, and (C) the he need not apply because he would not get the job.

Reading between the lines, it would appear that Keats was recently informed that his administrative contract as high school principal would not be renewed when it expires June 30, 2009. Subsequently we believe that Mr. Keats turned in his resignation effective immediately.

Assuming this is all accurate, we're wondering why this? why now? Keats may not have been a top shelf administrator, but if the board (Culver) were going to develop a hatchet list and axe some administrators, our thinking i that Keats wouldn't be the community's choice for first neck under the guillotine.

We're just sayin'.

High School Principal Paul Keats...Gone?

The rumor mill is flying. Reports from multiple sources indicate that high school principal Paul Keats has left the building...and will not be returning.

We have not heard anything official from the school district (SURPRISE!) but the district website sure lists a high school principal position open...and we only have one of those. The "opening" date (1-13-09) also coincides with the first reports we heard of this event.

Sun Prairie high school principal job announcement

The position availability is NOW, and will start July 2009...which, of course, nicely coincides with the beginning of a new fiscal year.

We'll keep you posted.

High School Project Over-budget

Quietly at the Jan 12 FTT meeting, those few in attendance heard that the current projection for the existing high school remodel is over-budget. Of course you won't hear this on-camera at a full school board meeting. That is, of course, until one of our Elite Eight reads this blog and then tries to "spin" its version of things.

Of course, when we were told that the projections were to exceed the budget, we weren't given any indication of HOW MUCH the projections were over-budget. And the announcement was quickly followed up by a statement that the portion of the "Upper Middle School" (8-9) project that was over-budget MAY be offset by any cost-savings from the new high school project.

After a few pointed questions to Michael Huffman, the district's hired construction representative, however, we got the answer: the project is currently projected to be over-budget by between $300,000 and 400,000.

Huffman quickly added that the project hadn't gone out to bid yet, and they are hoping to make up the projected shortfall either there or via adjustments to sitework.

District to purchase more land for the high school site?
The original plan was to connect the existing high school and the new high school via a Marshview Road connection. There has been some difficulty in doing so, however, because the planned access way impacts a wetlands area. Consequently, the District has been quietly working to acquire "2-3 parcels of land".

When this factoid was elicited, Dr. Culver was quick to point out that the original Referendum Question #1 allowed for the purchase of land for the project. Did you miss that when you voted?

Hmmmm...didn't see a line item about the costs of property acquisition in the high school design information. Wonder how that might affect the budget. One also has to wonder (can you hear the legal fees mounting) if purchase of property will have to be approved at an elector's meeting--as is the law--or whether by voting approval of the referendum question, the referendum vote itself constitutes an elector's meeting. Care to guess what the district's position will be?

Referendum Question 1:
Shall there be issued, pursuant to Chapter 67, Wisconsin Statutes, General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $96,000,000 for the purpose of paying the cost of constructing and equipping a new high school for grades 10 through 12 on the district-owned Highway N site; acquiring property adjacent to the Highway N site for additional access, if necessary; and remodeling the
existing high school building into a school for grades 8 and 9?

Sun Prairie High Makes "The List"

...unfortunately it's not a list we WANT to be on.

It's one of the lists required as part of the "No Child Left Behind" Act (NCLB) . Whether you agree with NCLB or disagree...it is part of the rules by which schools must play.

This is certainly not a red alert...but it's definitely time to sound some sort of alarm and take some sort of corrective action. Where SPHS "failed" was in the category of "Adequate Yearly Progress", or AYP. The subject area affected was Reading. Recent media reports have indicated that SPHS's first appearance on the list is a result of the reading scores of special education students.

District Administrator Tim Culver is quoted as follows regarding this announcement:

"By no means do I think this is a failing school..."

"It's sad to put the 'F' word on a school when there's a lot more to it than the one test score."

"This is an issue we have to face up to and own."

Culver noted that the high school's overall scores were well above the state's minimum standard and honors are flowing in for the school's jazz bands, academic decathlon team and cheerleading squads.

SP-EYE: Does anyone ever get tired of the re-direction that comes with spin doctoring bad news? Does anyone ever wonder how our students are ever going to face adversity when they see leaders continually focusing away from a problem and highlighting only the good things?

What Culver really said was, "never mind the bad scores...we're working on that. Instead , focus on the successes of the music program, the academic decathlon students, and the cheer team." That philosophy flies in the face of the school board and district's own vision statement which states,

Our Vision: Working together to provide the best education for every student by building a community of learners.

Our #1 priority goal is to "improve reading achievement". Since SPHS has never been on "the list" before, that mean we're not improving....we're falling behind the pace. To simply remark that the failure is due to our special education students is not only insulting, it's borderline discriminatory. Let's not place blame at all. Instead why don't we buck up and make some changes to effect the necessary improvements. All of these kids are OUR kids, and singling out one group or another as the reason for not achieving goals is not unlike blaming and humiliating the child who strikes out at the plate in the 9th inning with the two outs , the bases loaded, and a one-run deficit.

There is no intent here of taking away from any of the students or programs that did meet with success during the year. But we also can't negate a real problem just because we have successes elsewhere.

Finally, we can't just thumb our noses at the NCLB requirements; because they ARE requirements. Certainly, these issues need to be revisited at the national level, but the rules are what they are. Do we want our kids to ignore rules just because they don't like or agree with them? How is THAT attitude affecting student achievement?

Read the Wisconsin State Journal article

Check out the list from the DPI website.
Select 2007-08 for school year and then "Only Districts and Schools that Missed AYP "

Read the news article online

Graduation's Degradation?

Having attended graduation in the last few years as well as watching live on cable on several occasions, it should come as no surprise that our graduating seniors are busting at the seams to get on with their post-high school lives. Has this youthful exuberance finally exacted a painful toll on the celebration of the event by parents and grandparents who guided their kids through this long journey? Have the graduation ceremony hi jinx crossed the line?

One of the community parent groups collected informal comments from those that attended Graduation 2008. A sampling of the comments (uncensored) received appear below. This is a rather lengthy list. Is it enough for the school board to consider it as more than just one or two perennial "wreckers"?

Our understanding is that these comments were being packaged for presentation to district administration with a request to take some measure of action. Being somewhat skeptical that this information would ever see the light of day, SP-EYE brings it to you. Is it time for the school board and administration to do more than get dressed up and paste a smile on their faces as they go through the rote ritual of graduation? Some school board members spoke loudly about the "lack of decorum" at its own meetings...but apparently they don't care about a similar lack of decorum at what is supposed to be a professional ceremony.

---

• [Student]...– no control so I figured I may as well “join them” –
  
• [Student]...– really felt sorry for the kid a row ahead of me – he got his cap knocked off at least five times and was really frustrated
• [Student]...– was not worth attending – got nothing out of it – should have kept my work hours and got something out of the 2 hours.
• [Student]...– Really sucks that some kids could not hear their name announced.
• [Student]...– who cares, it is fun and nobody cares about the speeches. Not like we had weapons
• [Unknown]...–It was out of control. Teachers looked ridiculous trying to maintain control – but give them credit, as at least somebody appeared to care as our board obviously does not care – behavior gets worse every year and no changes are made
• [Watched on TV]...–I was not able to be in attendance but did watch on cable channel. I’m glad I did not waste my time. This is a disgrace to our community
• [Grandparent]...–As a grandparent in attendance; I was shocked by the lack of control the school has over these kids. Is there no discipline anymore?
• [Unknown]...–Time to clean house from school board, superintendent, SPHS administration – they do not care about the quality of student – no principals or assistant principals in line to shake hands of graduates – of course I guess I would distance myself if I was responsible for this calamity
• [Unknown]...–Enough is enough – time for new principals and assistant principals and some teachers are to blame too. I’ve heard teachers allow disruptions in classroom, but choose to ignore and just try to talk/teach over the noise. I didn’t really believe that until Friday night.
• [Unknown]...–And to think that our school leaders want TWO high schools! Can’t control what they have now –
• [Parent of pre-high schoolers]...–I have 2 kids in Sacred Hearts – After what I witnessed I’ll be sending them to Edgewood High School.
• [Unknown]...–I would say that the conduct was about the same, but that the sound system was better indoors so you could hear over the noise a bit better. I think Dr. Culver had some good things to say, but kids didn't hear any of it which was too bad. I felt bad for the kids that were going across the stage when the beach balls were taken out of circulation and then the students booed. Unfortunately, I think the kids remember graduation for the beach balls and not the speeches. I'm not sure how decorum can be restored without doing searches for blow-up toys before the procession. Or, it can be acknowledged that there will be beach balls, but appeal to the graduates to hold them 'til the end. I have my doubts that would work.
• [Unknown]...–The ball/blown up condom/beach toys was going to far. We saw people starting to point at the number of beach balls in the air while graduates were walking across the stage. I think it was disturbing to some of the students that weren't interested in the game and most disrespect to the staffs.
• [Parent of a graduating senior]...–My first child graduated Friday, and I attended last year's ceremony when my niece graduated. I was appalled at the behavior of the students. Beach balls are one thing, but making all of that noise when people are speaking and announcing graduates is very rude and disrespectful and should NOT be tolerated in my opinion. Teachers are trying to take away the balls, they are booed by the students and the audience, which causes even more of a ruckus.
• [Parent of a graduating senior]...–My 2 sets of parents, my in-laws and aunt and uncle-in-law were all there, appalled, and I was embarrassed! It is pretty sad when you are there to see your child graduate and some parents couldn't even here their student called, or people were booing over the balls when a student was called.
• [Parent of a graduating senior]...–My dad said that the administration ought to stop the ceremony and not begin again until students are under control. If it takes too long, he believes the ceremony should be cancelled. My husband thinks that there ought to be a committee, made up of graduating seniors, that works with the administration to come up with a solution. Speaking of the administration, what is with Paul Keats? It is obvious he is not passionate about the students of SPHS and I find it horrible that he did not shake the hands of all of the students graduating. Isn't that what a principal does? Wouldn't one that cared about the kids want to be up there congratulating them? His speech was very short, which I don't blame him too much for as he was booed and horns were blowing during his speech last year and they were starting this year. Even still, what message is that sending?
• [Unknown]...–I say good for Dr. Culver for attempting a speech, even one that the students that wanted to hear couldn't due to the beach ball scene. I also say good for him for standing there and shaking hands with and speaking to the students.
• [Parent]...–As a parent of a graduating senior: Graduation is an emotional event for any parent. My thoughts on the graduation are a little mixed. I know that kids will be kids. And since I graduated over 30 years ago, kids have been doing the beach ball thing at graduation. It is kind of a tradition they don't want to miss out on. At times I felt that the audience was more disrespectful than the kids. Maybe if the teachers that are guarding the sides would just ignore the ball and not try to interfere with them, there would be less booing, etc. It just makes the kids want to get it back even more. I do feel sorry for the parents who could not hear their child's name called.
• [Unknown]...–Thanks to those that made it possible for having this event outdoors. The work done to prepare a wet field.
• [Unknown]...–My tax dollars paid for this event. Waste of money. My dollars pay the salary of SPASD employees. Waste of money. Time for people to be fired and people with higher standards to be hired that run a school. Time for school board to hold some feet to the fire. Perform and strive for excellence or don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
• [Unknown]...–Graduation ceremony no different than what happens in classrooms. This was normal everyday activity for disruptive students. Teachers allow horseplay – children learn what they live!
• [Unknown]...–Nothing short of total embarrassment! Apology is in order. Changes need made in administration.
• [Unknown]...– I’m sorry.....but one of us is delusional and I don’t think it is me! I was at Ashley field on the 13th of June. I guarantee you what was taking place was not a graduation ceremony! I was there and after my son walked across the stage I left.
• [Unknown]...–School officials should be ashamed of themselves. We must have attended different events – I was obviously at a seminar for “Clownin’ Around” I cannot remember the last time I was so embarrassed.


• [Parent of a graduating senior]...–Both sets of grandparents traveled distances to attend my daughter’s graduation. It was humiliating. They said of all the grandkids' gradations over the last few years in the Midwest this was the worst they’ve ever witnessed. I was embarrassed for the administration. They had to have their tail between their legs as the disrespectful display, yelling, running, booing - - - these are the kids our education system has produced.
• [Unknown]...–No wonder principals were not in line to acknowledge graduates. I’d distance myself as far as I could too if this happened under my watch. As tax payers we pay their salary! Time to fire staff and get people in who can do the job from board leadership– to superintendent – to principals and probably ½ of the teachers. Time we stand up for our kids because the school leaders don’t give a sh**.
• [Unknown]...– The schools have been yapping about “connectedness” yet they only talk about it and put in writing. They are not putting it into action. There was no evidence of any “connect” between graduates and administration. Not one principal or assistant principal stood in the line to congratulate the students. That is pathetic!
• [Parent of a high school student]...–My son has told me for two years the security guards are a joke and the assistant principals are the laughing stock of the school. He’s told me how the principals are in the lunch room, but they sit in their own little group just like the students do. No interaction except for buddying up with the bullies and trouble makers. Time to wake up! You are not paid to be our kids “buddies” they have plenty of buddies. You are an authoritative figure who should lead. Maybe if you’d get out of your personal lunch click you’d wise up to the fact that 1-2 distract you as the others are “up to no good”. If you provided leadership these kids would not be walking all over you and their peers.


• [Unknown]...–Where was Keats? How sad when the principal of the school does not even acknowledge each individual graduate. Kudos’ to Dr. Culver for taking the time. Thank you to the few teachers who made an effort to control the unruly situation. It is unfortunate that the school board members and administration could not make any kind of asserted effort or give you any support.
• [Unknown]...–The grounds staff did a wonderful job of preparing the field so we could hold outside. Last year it was inside, which provided a better sound system, but to be outside for graduation is so much nicer.
• [Unknown]...– Our kids got screwed by administration – please encourage parents of next years seniors and other underclassmen parents to apply pressure on SPASD administration so the disrespect our kids experience is not experienced by them.
• [Unknown]...–Blown up condom – how much more repulsive can we get. Ceremony should have stopped. Instead the board members and administration sat there like bumps on a log with glued on smiles like nothing was happening. Stop ignoring the issues and do your jobs. Your lack of ethics is an embarrassment.

School board....these are the voices (and a lot of them) of this community....and not just seniors that complain about taxes and don't vote. These are parents of children attending YOUR--OUR school district. You might want to listen. You might want to include this as an agenda item on an upcoming board meeting. How about in September, when everyone is back from vacation and re-engaged in the schools?