Uh oh, Dr. C!

May 30, 2013 - SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING, closed, 5:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 220), 501 S. Bird St.

Discuss and Review the District Administrator's Performance Evaluation

A really good joke here would be....
WHAT Performance?
Why do you hold  meeting to discuss something that didn't happen?

Sorry, Dr. Culver....we couldn't resist.

But REALLY, people.  How about changing the agenda item to discuss Dr. Culver's NON-performance?
We have Jimmy Mac playing it footloose and fancy free.  On paper he reports to Lisa Heipp, but apparently he's allowed to run to Dr. Culver. Can't you jut hear it?

"Dr. Culver.....Ms. Heipp won't let me do thing my way!"

Dr. Culver even put in a new requirement that all Jimmy Mac's reports had to be reviewed and approved by the Management Team.  Guess that didn't work because that team approved a horrifically, embarrassingly incomplete--not to mention inaccurate and poorly supported-- request for budget proposals.

If the Board had not stepped in, we could have made another epicly poor decision on par with the hockey fees scandal.  We might not have added Lacrosse as a school sponsored sport.  Good old loyal-to-Administration-to-a-fault John Whalen even questioned why we would elevate lacrosse to the school sponsored tier when it i not WIAA-sanctioned.  Gee JohnE....(as VP Welke so tactfully pointed out) then why is SOSP school sponsored?  Cheer?

The athletics calendar is a complete mess.  We have teams that legitimately scheduled field use being bumped by teams that use the coaches only double secret probation calendar.  Is it really that difficult to schedule field and facility use.  Wait....we need to add to that ...when you use only a single public calendar?

Dr. Culver is allowing policy to be violated by not billing coaches who ran athletic camps in oh...FOREVER...according to policy.

There are grave questions about what would we find if anybody chose to dig into booster clubs and how much they REALLY donate to the school.  Yet another policy that has been ignored on Dr. Culver's watch.

And Dr. Culver declared himself publicly to be responsible for Title IX compliance when we haven't really looked at it...have we?  Oh wait...let's answer the way Admin would if their feet were held to the fire:  they look at the aspects of Title IX where we can show we are OK...and turn a blind eye to the ones suspect (know?) we are not.

These are just a few of the things that have been going on.  Maybe Dr. Culver should spend a little less time taking Dr. Feelgood pictures of kids in classrooms and more time actually getting a grip on what's going on in the district.

So....school board...will you have a non-discussion with Dr. Culver?  Or will you have the conversation that needs to be had.  Warning: big boy (and girl) pants required.

No April Fool: We have GOOD News!

Statewide WKCE scores were released this week. Everyone is scrambling to put their best feet forward. Tim Culver has donned his rose colored lenses and is busy as a beaver moving to point out everything that is good about the scores. As with everything else, the not-so-good news is not discussed (well except on this site that is). That's why, when we offer good news, you can take it to the bank.

Apples to Pineapples

How Sun Prairie Compares to Dane County school districts.
Sun Prairie High School (Grade 10) moves up to #2 in Dane County! We slide a bit down to #7 of 16 when grades 4, 8, and 10 are combined, however. While we get a little concerned that the lower grades appear to be slipping, we are excited that the high school is performing so well.

While even Language Arts (!!!) have improved such that 80% are either proficient or advanced, we'd still like to see scores move out of the 80's and into the 90's.





Apples to Apples
How Sun Prairie Compares to similar sized districts.
Here's an analysis you won't see from the district. If you look at ONLY Dane County, there are a number of very small districts. Com paring Sun Prairie to these districts is like comparing apples to pineapples. So SP-EYE wants to know how we stack up against districts of similar size. Sure...Culver will wax philosophically about how we can't compare to these other districts because they don't reflect the same conditions or demographics. Pshaw! You simply cannot compare a district of over 6,000 kids to ones with less than 1,000. Similarly, you can't compare Madison at 24,000+ to SPASD.

So we compared the 10 districts that are just smaller than SPASD and the 10 that are just larger than SPASD.

Surprise! Sun Prairie ranks 4th out of 21 at Grade 10. District-wide, we still rank in the upper one-third at #5 (tie with Wauwatosa). Now that's something to be excited about.

District Perpective
Tim Culver sent this e-mail to District "Key Communicators" this past week. We could not find it on the web site, so we'll just re-print it here.
District E-News to Key Communicators

The 2009 Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) results were announced today and again reveal strong academic achievement for students in the Sun Prairie Area School District. Annually, all school districts in the State of Wisconsin administer the WKCE to students in grades 3-8 and grade 10. The tests are administered in November of each year. Individual student results are mailed home early in March and the State of Wisconsin embargoes the release of school, district, and state
summary data in the spring. This year that release date is today, April 7, 2010.

This past November, Sun Prairie administered the WKCE to over 3,300 students in grades 3-8 and grade 10. Students in grades 3-8 and 10 were assessed in reading and math. Students in grades 4, 8, and 10 were also assessed in language arts, science, social studies, and writing.

Even as the student demographics change in the Sun Prairie Area School District, our students continue to perform well above the state averages at all grade levels and in all subjects. Combining all grade levels, 87% of Sun Prairie students are proficient or advanced in reading and 84% are proficient or advanced in math. A great deal of effort will be spent in analyzing these and other assessment data in the months to come. WKCE is just one indicator and a “snapshot in time” of student
achievement.

Attached, you will find additional information and the breakdown of 2009 state, district, and school results.

For further information please contact District Administrator Tim Culver at 834-6502 or Instructional Program Manager of Assessment and Accountability Kris Mueller at 834-6531.

SP-EYE's past Reviews
SP-EYE on 2008-09 WKCE results

SP-EYE on 2007-08 WKCE results

See for yourself the data on DPI's site

School Board Decides to Eliminate Math!

Well....at least as it pertains to determining an objective score for the annual performance review (and did we mention raise?) for the District Administrator.

This past Monday's "special" school board working session began with about a 90-minute discussion of the process for evaluation the District Administrator, Tim Culver. It started off well with even Jim McCourt blasting out of the gate with his grave concerns that the "math" behind the scoring (as discussed in previous posts here). McCourt's sentiments were both echoed and expanded upon by most members, notably Al Slane and Terry Shimek.

Despite all the discussion and concern for an effective, equitable means of evaluating the District Administrator, the final decision was to simply abandon the existing process and replace it with a completely subjective scoring mechanism. Each board member will review Dr. Culver's performance against the 1,400 page "Monitoring Report" (OK...we exaggerate on the number of pages...but not by much). They will then come up with an individual score (out of 10 points). Then all board members will meet in closed session, discuss their individual scores and come up with a final "one voice" score.

So...there you have it, ladies and gentlemen....exposed for establishing and unanimously approving a scoring system that violated at least five basic math concepts, the board simply chose to eliminate the math---and objectivity---and go with a subjective evaluation system which better shields the board from accountability. And the vote was unanimous.

Yet another nice lesson for Sun Prairie's kids. Rather than correct a problem that you created, just switch to something different behind which you can easily hide.

Fuzzy Math and Fudging = a B- for Culver

The school board gave Dr. Culver his annual performance review recently...to which his raise is tied. He ended up with a score of 8.0 out of 10...or a B-...and a 4.4% increase, much larger than the teachers (SPEA) or support staff (Local 60) received.

In the final scoring against 5 goals, Culver received 7.4 out of 10 points....which is clearly a "C" grade. But then under the guise of ,"Adjustment to points(+/-)[Yeah...right...like the board would ever subtract points!] by the School Board based on job description evaluation and other factors explained in the summary of that tool.", the Board added 0.6 points to Culver's evaluation to get him to 8.0 out of 10, and also pushing him up into the next tier of salary increases. This is how Culver got his 4.4%.

But...instead of accepting their "assessment" of Culver, let's look a little more closely. Yes, you would have to have taken the time to read through the whole package to obtain this perspective, but it serves to show how far the board goes to paint Dr. Culver in a positive light.

Fuzzy Math Part I: Subtract 1 from the total # of benchmarks.
Notice how the scoring for each "goal" subtracts one from the total number of benchmarks. Ancient math rule #1, kids: When you divide by a smaller number, the decimal percentage INCREASES. Nice fuzzy math way to improve the score. Why not just a simple, "# of benchmarks met divided by # of benchmarks not met"?

Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired: 8 "benchmarks. 1 "S", 3 "I", 3 "D", and 1 "U". The school board added the S+ I (4) and used 7 instead of 8 for the total. That lead to a score of 0.67, rather than a score of 0.57.

Fuzzy Math Part II: Don't count performance benchmarks that show no change (U) from the previous year.
When you reduce the denominator by removing things that are unchanged...especially when the benchmark is not met in either year(!), you INCREASE the goal score. Refer to ancient math rule #1.

Here's a great example of a benchmark from Goal 1- Improve Reading Achievement: 90% or more of SPASD 3rd-5th graders score as proficient or advanced on the WKCE. Last year: 87%. This year: 87%. Didn't meet the goal either year. Let's not count it.

Fuzzy Math Part III: Even marginal improvement (I) over last year on a benchmark is scored the same as a "success" (S), or actually meeting/exceeding the benchmark.
Note that the numerator always weights any increase over last year the same as meeting a benchmark. We could maybe see giving "half credit"...but giving full credit when the gioal isn't met doesn't make much sense, does it? Perhaps this logic is at the root of grader inflation within the school district.


Here's a great example from Goal 3- Prepared & Inspired.: The benchmark is that 90% or more of SPASD graduating seniors respond positively to the exit survey statement, " I feel fully prepared to pursue any option after high school". In 2007, 72% responded "Yes"; in 2008, 75% responded "Yes". Yet, this was scored as a "Success" because it increased by 3%.

Fuzzy Math Part IV: Regardless of how many benchmarks per goal, average all goal scores.
This has to do with weighting certain criteria...or NOT weighting, in this case. Basically this review says that improvement in Reading and Math--the top 2 goals of the school district-- are weighted as being equally important as having "Prepared & Inspired" students? "Connectedness"? How about classroom space, which Culver has NO ABILITY to impact. It's the ELECTORS who approve building referenda that should be reviewed here...not Culver.

Fuzzy Math Part V: Add a "Booster" adjustment score to improve Culver's final grade.
Last, and perhaps the most important, is the "fudge factor" applied by the school board to boost Culver's overall grade. What kind of hooey is involved with adding 0.6 "points" to raise Culver's score from an average "74" to a more proper looking "80"? This is clearly a number that the board pulled out of its collective buttocks (with proper decorum, of course!). One school board member admitted, off the record, that the adjustment was exactly what it looks like on paper...a fictitious adjustment, made arbitrarily and capriciously, with the sole purposes of looking good for appearances sake AND ensuring that Culver would reach the "80" mark, which provided him with a sweeter raise.

---

SP-EYE: If this is the kind of fuzzy logic and math that we're teaching our children, no wonder why they don't view themselves as being properly prepared for post-high school life. The lesson that the school board is presenting to the children of Sun Prairie is that the ends--regardless of how ludicrous or improper-- justify the means. Nice. How does THAT affect student achievement?

---