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!

Ruh Roh, Raggy: 4K Is in the Gunsights

Maybe we won't have to worry about how $50,000 for busing 4-year olds became $250,000.
It seems that at least one Republican lawmaker has got the 4K program squarely on his radar screen.  Bombs away?

"It is important for Governor Walker to make it clear that the days of encouraging four-year-old kindergarten are at an end so local districts can plan accordingly," 

--State Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend

 Read the State Journal article

4K Transportation: What Kind of Accounting is this?

In December 2008, district administration presented the school board with its budget for the costing of the new 4 year old kindergarten program (SP4K).
Year 1 (2009-10) projected transportation costs (busing): $50,000
with projected increases of 4% per year.  Notably, this is the budget which was approved by the school board in agreeing to implement 4K.


In October 2009, a revised "estimate" was generated (with no fanfare, despite a 150% increase over the projection 10 month prior:  $125,000.  Neither the school board (nor the public) was informed of the severity of the under-budgeting of the 4K transportation costs.  The cost was buried within routine "budget adjustments".


Actual cost for 2009-10:  $ 259,848
Projected Cost for 2010-11: $ 261,124


How does a projection of $50,000 swell to $125,000 in just 10 months and then again to $261,000 ?
That's an under-budgeting of 500%!


Phil Frei's answer:
"Well....we don't just budget for a program...like we don't budget for the cost of the science program"


Um...Phil....the problem with your logic is that it's not logical.  Science is PART of an entire curriculum which is and always has existed.  The SP4K was a NEW addition to the school district.  As would be expected of ANY new curriculum, an accurate accounting is required.  Being off by a factor of 5 just doesn't cut it.


If we're off this much for the SP4K busing, maybe that explains how we wound up with a surplus of nearly $3M AFTER the community voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M.


Hmmm...the original budget called for a $600K deficit for 2009-10, a $300K "profit" (surplus) for 2010-11, and a $1.3M "profit" for 2011-12.  


Our questions:
1. Would the board have approved the 4K program had they know that transportation would cost FIVE TIMES as much as projected?  With up to a 60 minute (each way) ride time?
2. Whatever happened to the concept of "fidelity to funding"?  If we are "making a profit off of 4K....why should there be a 60 minute ride time for 4 year olds?  Oh ...wait...we know...because they want to use the "surplus" for other things.


We're hoping Governor -elect Walker has his radar screen focused on DPI and state aids as well as he has it focused on nailing state employees.

Pint-Sized Passengers -- Hefty Cost

The School Board will review SP4K busing tomorrow night.

This started out as a simple issue...a parent complained (rightfully) that their 4 year old was spending 2 hours a day on a bus for about 2.5 hours of instruction.  But...as with many school board issues, this one became another bloomin' onion....the more layers you peel away, the more information that comes clear.

Notable facts:

1. We, the people, and the school board were sold a bill of goods with the 4K program.  We were told that busing costs were projected (and budgeted) to be about $50K.  The number of students is as projected, yet the busing costs are FOUR TIMES higher than projected at just under $200K per year.

2. The cost to bus each student is a whopping $1963.34 per year, which is just more than FOUR times the average cost to bus a K-12 student.

3. There are FOUR times fewer kids per bus than for K-12 kids.

4. Here's the silver tuna...the school district expects to make a profit of about ONE MILLION dollars off the 4K program.  Shhhhh...keep that one under your hat.  They don't want YOU to know that...and they certainly don't want Scott Walker to find out that DPI is giving out $1M more for 4K than the program actually costs ...for ONE district

WTF?

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. "

Thank Goodness the SP4K Kids Weren't Affected!

Last Thursday, staff at Rock-A-Bye Child Care Learning Center, one of the sites for Sun Prairie's "SP4K" 4-Year Old Kindergarten Program, found a camera concealed in a staff bathroom.

Luckily, according to the information available, no cameras were found in bathrooms used by children.

A criminal complaint filed on [10-16-09] said a female staffer found the phone on Oct. 8 in the bathroom. The phone was hidden inside a tissue box and it had [the custodian's] name on it and real-time images of the bathroom. A tissue box in another adult bathroom also had a hole cut in it, according to the complaint.

Day care owner Mandy Kuenster said that while the incident is very upsetting, she said children were never in any harm.

-- Channel3000.com

Channel3000.com: Day Care Worker Accused Of Planting Camera In Bathroom - Authorities Say Arrest Warrant Issued

Explaining the Mill Rate Increase

So...by now many of you have become more informed.
You know that the school tax levy mill rate is increasing by about $1.32

But why?

Is it the high school construction? Or something else?
The answers can be found if you pry into the Annual Meeting Booklet"

The total tax levy is proposed to be $46,249,461
The increase in levy over last year is $5,160,700
This is broken down into 2 "portions":
.......The "general budget" levy increase: $ 3,778,246______ $ 0.97
.......The debt service levy: $1,386,766_______ $ 0.36

The high school construction accounts for only $0.36 (28%) of the proposed $1.28 mill rate increase. Clearly, it's not the construction that causing the large increases.

Hmmm...big salary increases coming home to roost?

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.

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