What if you trust but cannot verify?

We won't necessarily call "bullshit" (remember that old card game?)...but we did a little independent verification of the hockey fee information presented by Athletics Director Jim McClowry, and it doesn't pass the smell test.

This is why we need to (A) see the data and (B) know the source of the data before making any decision.  In the absence of tangible corroborating data, any vote to support should be  a resounding "NO".  In the old exhibitionist's game of chicken, we'll show him ours if he'll show us his!  And because our source is student and athletics fee information largely published in 2011-12 student handbooks, a student could certainly make a strong argument that (if the school district was trying to charge more), just like when shopping, if the price tag says "X", the store cannot charge "Y" without evidence to support fraud.

Based on the Situation report for June 11th, McClowry indicated:

"...the fee for participating in hockey is planned to increase 275% from $200 per year to $550 per year. This would bring the SP Hockey fee into line with other districts in the conference, which range from $450 to $800 and last year averaged $644."

No matter how we twisted the data, we could not come up with an average hockey fee cost for the Big 8 of $644.  Now...the only fee we could not find was the fee for Middleton girls hockey.  All available information indicates that the cost for hockey is $172, ("...except for girls").

The highest average we could come up with was $588, when we used the increased SPASD fee and counted the three Madison schools individually rather than as a single district.

Perhaps more to the point, what we did not hear was how Sun Prairie's proposed fees compared to the 20 districts similar in enrollment size.  Here, we found that our previous fee ($200) was actually higher than the mean!  In fact, only 4 of 19 districts for which we found hockey fee data had higher fees.
Hmmmm.

What's the Sequel to "Trust But Verify"?
The phrase "trust but verify" originated from ex-President Ronald Reagan.  I think everyone understands that it means that we can take things on face value initially, but that we should verify the information  before acting upon it.   We think the corollary should be:  ...and if you cannot verify the data, no longer trust the source.

Oh, Jim.....

If Dr. Culver wonders why a large portion of the community has lost trust in the school district, this is only a single clear example (there are many others).  A verbal only report was presented to support a significant increase in fees for ONE sport.  If anyone were to do even a cursory analysis on their own, they would quickly find that the information presented by Mr. McClowry was cherry-picked at best.

Now that it's clear that his data cannot be verified....what should the consequences be?
....you know...to intervene and promote more positive behaviors.

Behavior Modification Therapy

When a new puppy peediddles on the carpet, what do you do?  You don't say, "there's a good puppy!", right?  Hopefully you also don't smack it either.  But what you need to do is SOMETHING to alter the course of future events.  Otherwise, young puppy is gonna be thinking, "YeeeeeeHAH, my master doesn't give a rat's hairy tookus if I just lift my leg and let loose on this nice comfy carpet.  And it's oh so absorbent, so I think I will."

Are you with us so far?

Along a similar vein, our school board needs to introduce some form of behavior modification therapy when administration does not produce what is expected.  Like a puppy who pees on the carpet, administration will continue to engage in unacceptable behaviors so long as the board allows it.  Ultimately, of course, it should be Tim Culver that is instituting the behavioral modification therapy (because ONLY Dr. Culver reports to the school board; all others report to the good doctor).  But, if he is unwilling, or unable, it falls on the school board.

In the real world, many people/businesses do something called a "post-mortem" after a decision has been made to evaluate the process and the decision made.  Let's do just that, in abbreviated form, and look back at the decision to raise hockey fees by 275%, when the most any other sport fee was raised was 70% (from $50 to $85; baseball, basketball, football, soccer, and wrestling).


It started with an informational item at the May 14th 2012 school board meeting.  Note that informational items require no action by the board--they just are told what transpired.  In addition, responsibility for establishing athletic fees was delegated to administration years ago (and maybe THAT is a decision to re-consider).

Discussion was had at the May 14, 2012 Board Meeting (https://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/Private?open&login) regarding the changes being proposed by the Administration in fees related to students participating in district sponsored sports.  Fee changes were recommended for all sports, however, the fee for participating in hockey is planned to increase 275% from $200 per year to $550 per year. This would bring the SP Hockey fee into line with other districts in the conference, which range from $450 to $800 and last year averaged $644.

Subsequently board members Jill Camber-Davidson and Tom Weber put together a Situation Report to re-visit the athletic fees for 2012-13 at the School Board Meeting of June 11, 2012.  Now, bear in mind, those that present a Situation Report usually do so for a reason.  This Situation Report, an Action item this time, outlined the following recommendations:

RECOMMENDATIONS:Direct administration to research and prepare a report answering questions above and to:
Option 1:  Direct administration to maintain the current $200 hockey fee until further information can be obtained and research completed on a justifiable and appropriate fee adjustment and fee setting procedure.
Option 2:  Propose a modification to policy JN that would include language stating that any fee or fine amount change greater than ‘x’% in a single year be approved by the Board.
Option 3:  Propose that the Board take over the ownership and execution of procedure JN-R and have fees and fines established directly by the Board.
Option 4:  No action on this item

So...clearly a number of options were provided.  This was the meeting at which Athletics Director McClowry provided a long, ramblingly chaotic discussion in an attempt to rationalize his fee increase for hockey.  The problem was that (A) McClowry was obviously unprepared, and (B) the board was given NO hard data to support McClowry's ramblings, and (C) there was no verification of data which would have allowed the board to see that McClowry cherry-picked the data which supported his position.  A more complete analysis and more complete set of hard data would have shown a very different picture than the one McClowry painted.  A lengthy board discussion ensued.  In the end, however, the following motion was made, and you can see how the vote went.

Motion & Voting

hockey fees 4.06 - TO TAKE NO ACTION - (leave fee as in the procedure, but still bring to F[inance Committe] in 2 weeks)

Motion by John Whalen, second by Caren Diedrich.

Final Resolution: Motion Carried

Yea: Caren Diedrich, Mike Krachey, Tom Weber, John Whalen

Nay: Jill Camber Davidson, John Welke

So...ultimately the board decided to take no action, which essentially translated to "go ahead with your fee increase".  It was passive support.  Only board members Camber-Davidson and Welke felt that something else should have happened.  It's not our intent to throw board president Tom Weber under the bus, but we have to ask the question: "why did you support a motion that kept the fee increases when you co-authored the report to re-visit them?"

The next ...actually more of a comment... is for the four board members who supported the motion to leave the fee increases as is:
Your decision to take no action effectively rewarded Mr. McClowry's unacceptable report. (You DO realize that this kind of filtered, oral only information is unacceptable...right?)  This is Behavior Modification Therapy 101.  If you reward the unacceptable behaviors, then they will only continue (and multiply).  You need to get on a long term path to consistently enact consequences to correct (not necessarily punish) inappropriate behaviors.  This is the teachable moment...right?  Didn't we just invest a huge amount of time and money in PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Support)?  Did we not learn anything at the board table from this?  You must also see that ultimately these behaviors fall upon the district administrator to correct.  Your role is to make it abundantly clear with Dr. Culver that these behaviors will no longer be tolerated.  Call it tough love; call it whatever you like...but call it.

When administrative student problem behavior is unresponsive to preventive school-wide and classroom-wide procedures, information about the administrator's student’s behavior is used to (a) understand why the problem behavior is occurring (function); 

(b) strengthen more acceptable alternative behaviors (social skills); 

(c) remove antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain problem behavior, respectively; and 

(d) add antecedents and consequences that trigger and maintain acceptable alternative behaviors.

Sorry to be hard on you, school board, but if this district is ever going to be what it could be, you need to be doing it better than the other guy.  You need to hold administration accountable.  You can trust...but you must verify.   And, perhaps more to the point...if you can't verify the information, you need to revoke the trust.  Do not let the puppy to continue to pee on the carpet...unless you care to spend an awful lot of money on carpet cleaning and replacement.

Excuse us for nitPicking...BUT....

We're a little tired of hearing Dr. Culver cite incorrect facts from his pulpit...you know the school district administrator's board table. And you should be too.

Dr. Culver is on a rabid quest to secure incredible raises for all district staff in a time when the economy is teetering on collapse. Did you READ the paper or watch the news, Dr. C? Wisconsin is just a hair below double-digit unemployment!! Yet you stated vehemently. "The Sun Prairie School District is in great financial shape".

Of course it is. That's because the taxpayers foot the bill. But the day of reckoning is fast approaching. But we digress.

The issue here is simple:

"Culver continuously states (quite incorrectly in fact) that "nearly 98% of school districts tax up to the revenue limit. Sun Prairie is in that 2% that do not do so." "

Here's the truth:

In 2008-09 school year, 85 out of 426 school districts set a tax levy UNDER the allowable limit. That's 20%, Dr. Culver.....as in TWO ZERO point ZERO, not TWO point ZERO. You're off by an order of magnitude. You gotta quit taking math lessons from McSeaBass.

And, yes...Sun Prairie taxed $200,000 UNDER what we could have been taxed last year. And that's GREAT...but that also pales in comparison to some other districts. In fact, of the 85 that taxed under the limit, we ranked #22 in terms of absolute dollars. That's not even in the 90th percentile! Yes, a handful of districts only taxed $1 shy of the limit, but $1 under counts.

And there are some VERY BIG names (and big $$) ahead of us on the list: Janesville, Mukwonago, DC Everest, Racine, and Hudson, to name a few. In fact, Hudson tops the list; they levied a tax $5,000,000 under the limit.

Y'all decide. When it comes to Culver-speak or the board, practice the principle of trust but VERIFY! ...and we don't want you to just take our word for it, either. See the data for yourself. Become educated on the issues. The truth shall set you free!

Districts taxing further under the limit than Sun Prairie. See all districts and how they levied.

District / Amount under Tax Levy Maximum
Hudson $5,142,387
Norris $1,913,982
Gresham $1,684,234
Campbellsport $1,404,033
Cadott Community $1,372,640
Janesville $1,230,000
D C Everest Area $1,183,801
Shawano $1,044,016
Menominee Indian $907,910
Augusta $559,299
Monroe $523,173
Cedarburg $520,576
Waterford Graded $435,643
Racine $414,255
Wauzeka-Steuben $350,100
Mukwonago $300,000
Northwood $272,514
Fall River $259,053
Union Grove UHS $250,000
Darlington Community $240,585
Florence $216,515
Sun Prairie Area $200,000