In case you did not know, the school district annual elector's meeting is tomorrow night, Monday September 30, 2013.
Place: Sun Prairie High School, 888 Grove St
Time: 7:00 PM
Heart of the matter: Setting the tax levy required to operate and maintain schools
Electors at the meeting will vote to approve the proposed tax levy of $47,524,921 upon all taxable property in the Sun Prairie Area School District for the purposes of operating and maintaining the district schools and for paying for debt for school projects.
That represents a 2.9% increase over the 2012-13 tax levy of $46,187,633
Key information sources
http://www.sunprairie.k12.wi.us/district/annual_mtg_13.cfm
http://www.sunprairie.k12.wi.us/businessfiles/Annual%20Meeting%202013.pdf
Whats this about busing?
For each of at least the past two years, issues have been raised about busing. This year, we hear that a sizeable group of community members ill appear and try to leverage a majority vote to change the busing distance from 2 miles to 1.5 miles...or less.
These 11th hour attempts to take the annual meeting hostage have to end. Don't people get it? A hundred or so people do not represent a school district of 30,000+ residents.
Do these people understand how much money is tied into busing? Redrawing the busing lines could cause a significant jump in the tax levy.
How do we pay for that? These people need to somehow be reminded that the majority of residents in the district do not have any children attending school.. Many are on fixed incomes. We're wondering what the average household income is of these people that want to bus more.
Here's a proposal....why don't we just bus every kid in the district and to pay for it, we'll eliminate Physical Education from the curriculum. If we don't want our babies to get exercise walking to school, why bother with gym class? They probably all get doctor's notes excusing them anyway.
OK...so we jest...but people need to think through these things before engaging their mouths.
Showing posts with label 2013-14 budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2013-14 budget. Show all posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Friday, July 5, 2013
State Aid picture remains rosy for Sun Prairie
Watch out because groups will soon be rushing out of the woodwork.
The Department of Public Instruction (DPI)'s July 1 estimate of state aid for the 2013-14 school year shows Sun Prairie getting 10.98% MORE aid than last year.
The most current budget estimates projected we'd receive a 10% increase over last year.
The net effect is that the district is receiving $3.8M more than last year, and $382K more than projected.
Let the spending begin!
Wait...this s only an estimate. Maybe we shouldn't get too crazy just yet. Maybe we should wait until the final numbers are in?
Nevertheless... it sure looks like great news.
Our only question is how sustainable is it? And what happens when the increases stop?
The Department of Public Instruction (DPI)'s July 1 estimate of state aid for the 2013-14 school year shows Sun Prairie getting 10.98% MORE aid than last year.
The most current budget estimates projected we'd receive a 10% increase over last year.
The net effect is that the district is receiving $3.8M more than last year, and $382K more than projected.
Let the spending begin!
Wait...this s only an estimate. Maybe we shouldn't get too crazy just yet. Maybe we should wait until the final numbers are in?
Nevertheless... it sure looks like great news.
Our only question is how sustainable is it? And what happens when the increases stop?
Only 21 districts had a higher percentage
increase.
Only 3 districts received a higher dollar
increase: Racine, Green Bay, and West Allis.
229 districts will see a reduction in aid.
193 districts will see an increase.
Our friends in Middleton will see about a $570K DECREASE.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Budget Proposal to Purchase 623 iPads: Just Push Pause
Steven Tyler would have us just push "Play"...and Dr. Culver would probably be right there with him. Hmmm...can you imagine a Dr. Culver - Steven Tyler lunch date? What WOULD they talk about? Would Steven be wearing his famous PJs?
Ok...seriously, now.
We think technology is great. A necessary component of classroom learning. BUT.....and it's a large one....sometimes this district just plunges in instead of dipping a toe in the water first.
Classic example: administration rolled out its proposal to purchase 623 iPads at a total cost of $360,000 and now we're hearing (Performance & Operations Committee 4-15-13) that in addition to these iPads, we'll be spending $333,000 on computer replacement for 2013-14 and then a tad over $900,000 for computer replacement over the following two years.
How many iPads will we be buying next year?
Oh...wait...the iPad 2 will be discontinued next year. So what WILL we buy?
Will whatever we buy next year mesh with the iPads we buy this year?
And this proposal only puts 5 iPads in each elementary school classroom.
You have to know that the ultimate goal is 1 iPad for each of the 3,000 plus elementary school kids.
In the meantime...how does this work?
Really, we just have questions...so very many questions.
Perhaps the district has considered the following questions and has good answers. But we didn't see such in the proposal.
Are we buying 623? Or 673?
Because we were informed that the budget for Apps was $25/iPad at a total cost of $16,825. But $16,825/25 = 673. That's apps for 50 more iPads? More magical math from the district?
What about insurance for these? Will they be covered under the district umbrella purchase? Or do we need to purchase insurance for each. The warranty for an iPad covers simple "it won't work". What if they're dropped? Insurance can cost anywhere from $39 to $99 per device for a year....some 2 years.
Will there be sharing battles? [Miss ____, Johnny won't let me use the iPad]
How will a classroom work when 5 out of the 18-25 kids have an iPad and the others do not?
Will we have to pay for a sub to teach the rest of the class while the "five" get to go iPadding?
How much WILL we spend on Apps?
How will App purchases be approved? Or can teachers just buy what they like.
Will there be district-wide apps...or will different schools buy different ones?
Who will be monitoring the use of iPad cameras? We can imagine some crazy $#!@ goin' down with cameras and video.
Is there a need for them? Maybe disable them?
What exactly does a 5 year old do with an iPad?
Have we considered the need to disinfect these before/after use?
Has any consideration been given to buying 175 instead of 623? That would provide 25 per elementary school, which would allow an entire to class to use the devices simultaneously.
Do we have 623 outlets available? Or will we need to buy a charging station/cart?
Will we know all the add-on costs BEFORE we purchase the tablets? Or will it be a case of "Well, now we have them and we really need ______"?
Are we certain that having all these iPads won't adversely affect the district broadband or Wi-Fi? We've seen first hand novices stumbling and opening multiple browser windows and seen Wi-Fi signal go south quickly.
Alternatives?
The question was asked when this proposal was brought forward several weeks back: why iPads. The district response didn't discuss alternatives. It seemed that the accelerator was stuck on iPad. NOW, however, when we asked the question informally, we learn that,
Whoa...wait....huh? The "Learnpad"? Why didn't we even hear about that at the Committee level?
Is it just us...or does it seem like the collective has changed its mind already without even notifying the committee or the public? If that doesn't reek of the need to push "PAUSE" we don't know hat does!
We also need to call a little bullspit here. The LearnPad has been available--and used in schools-- for over a year. So maybe the district just found out about it...which would suggest that the research done on this proposal is inadequate. We do agree, however, that new devices are constantly being made available. Maybe we should pause and decide on a plan of what we want to do with this technology FIRST and then decide what to purchase? We know a guy that offers something called "Choosing By Advantage"....maybe there's a need for that.
BOTTOM LINE
Technology is a great thing, and we DO want our school district to incorporate technology into the curriculum. Our concern however is that we sometimes approach this with a perceived "Technology for Technology's Sake" attitude. We need a well defined plan of implementation which also considers that technology quickly becomes obsolete. We just haven't seen such a philosophy (if it's there...please let it out!), and, until we do there are better uses of $360K. Hell...we want to be sure that there in't one damn hole in any damn roof...right, Caren?
Some resources that should be checked out
Ok...seriously, now.
We think technology is great. A necessary component of classroom learning. BUT.....and it's a large one....sometimes this district just plunges in instead of dipping a toe in the water first.
Classic example: administration rolled out its proposal to purchase 623 iPads at a total cost of $360,000 and now we're hearing (Performance & Operations Committee 4-15-13) that in addition to these iPads, we'll be spending $333,000 on computer replacement for 2013-14 and then a tad over $900,000 for computer replacement over the following two years.How many iPads will we be buying next year?
Oh...wait...the iPad 2 will be discontinued next year. So what WILL we buy?
Will whatever we buy next year mesh with the iPads we buy this year?And this proposal only puts 5 iPads in each elementary school classroom.
You have to know that the ultimate goal is 1 iPad for each of the 3,000 plus elementary school kids.
In the meantime...how does this work?
Really, we just have questions...so very many questions.
Perhaps the district has considered the following questions and has good answers. But we didn't see such in the proposal.
Are we buying 623? Or 673?
Because we were informed that the budget for Apps was $25/iPad at a total cost of $16,825. But $16,825/25 = 673. That's apps for 50 more iPads? More magical math from the district?
What about insurance for these? Will they be covered under the district umbrella purchase? Or do we need to purchase insurance for each. The warranty for an iPad covers simple "it won't work". What if they're dropped? Insurance can cost anywhere from $39 to $99 per device for a year....some 2 years.
Will there be sharing battles? [Miss ____, Johnny won't let me use the iPad]
How will a classroom work when 5 out of the 18-25 kids have an iPad and the others do not?
Will we have to pay for a sub to teach the rest of the class while the "five" get to go iPadding?
How much WILL we spend on Apps?
How will App purchases be approved? Or can teachers just buy what they like.
Will there be district-wide apps...or will different schools buy different ones?
Who will be monitoring the use of iPad cameras? We can imagine some crazy $#!@ goin' down with cameras and video.
Is there a need for them? Maybe disable them?
What exactly does a 5 year old do with an iPad?
Have we considered the need to disinfect these before/after use?
Has any consideration been given to buying 175 instead of 623? That would provide 25 per elementary school, which would allow an entire to class to use the devices simultaneously.
Do we have 623 outlets available? Or will we need to buy a charging station/cart?
Will we know all the add-on costs BEFORE we purchase the tablets? Or will it be a case of "Well, now we have them and we really need ______"?
Are we certain that having all these iPads won't adversely affect the district broadband or Wi-Fi? We've seen first hand novices stumbling and opening multiple browser windows and seen Wi-Fi signal go south quickly.
Alternatives?
The question was asked when this proposal was brought forward several weeks back: why iPads. The district response didn't discuss alternatives. It seemed that the accelerator was stuck on iPad. NOW, however, when we asked the question informally, we learn that,
The iPad 2 will probably be discontinued before next year, so the proposal will be updated with the technology that is available at the time. For example, since this proposal was written, there have been new tablet devices released for schools. The Learnpad is appealing for schools since it allows for more management than the iPad does. ...we will look at all options before placing an order, especially since it is unknown what will be available for purchase next year.
Whoa...wait....huh? The "Learnpad"? Why didn't we even hear about that at the Committee level?
Is it just us...or does it seem like the collective has changed its mind already without even notifying the committee or the public? If that doesn't reek of the need to push "PAUSE" we don't know hat does!
We also need to call a little bullspit here. The LearnPad has been available--and used in schools-- for over a year. So maybe the district just found out about it...which would suggest that the research done on this proposal is inadequate. We do agree, however, that new devices are constantly being made available. Maybe we should pause and decide on a plan of what we want to do with this technology FIRST and then decide what to purchase? We know a guy that offers something called "Choosing By Advantage"....maybe there's a need for that.
BOTTOM LINE
Technology is a great thing, and we DO want our school district to incorporate technology into the curriculum. Our concern however is that we sometimes approach this with a perceived "Technology for Technology's Sake" attitude. We need a well defined plan of implementation which also considers that technology quickly becomes obsolete. We just haven't seen such a philosophy (if it's there...please let it out!), and, until we do there are better uses of $360K. Hell...we want to be sure that there in't one damn hole in any damn roof...right, Caren?
Some resources that should be checked out
Sunday, April 7, 2013
A Closer Look - Athletics/Activities Budget Proposals
Hold onto your hats, kiddies, this is gonna be an E-ticket ride fer sure!
Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry has offered four separate proposals. We'll look at each in a little more depth. Upon scrutiny, they do not hold up. The big questions are:
0.5 FTE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC & ACTIVITIES DIRECTOR – HIGH SCHOOL
Cost: $36,194.00
Forgive us, but we're a teensy bit tired hearing about how over-worked Mr. McClowry is. He has said numerous times that it's all about the kids and the connections they make, yet first out of the chute is a proposal to get some help for himself. With all the technology in this school district, you're telling us that the only solution to scheduling and accessing facilities needs is to add a body?
"It is suggested that this position be in line with current Sun Prairie Area School district positions, such as, the Aquatics Program and Facilities Manager in terms of salary and benefits. At .50 F
TE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include: Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade non-conference athletic events.
[Hmmm...we don't see anything about clubs. Is it all about athletics?]
In 2006, there was a coaching staff of less than 100. Now, the coaching staff is regularly over 120 members with only 60% being district staff. This makes the orientation, training, education, supervision and evaluation of these coaches even more critical to providing safe and positive experiences for our students.
[We're sorry, but we don't see how a 20% increase in coaching staff OVER 7 YEARS is a ton of additional work. Nor do we understand why "external" staff require more training, education and supervision. What...every coach that doesnt teach at Sun Prairie is a moron that requires hand holding?]
Over 1,000 student athletes are processed for compliance over three athletic seasons in a given school year. The increase in transfer students and foreign exchange students wishing to participate in athletics has become more demanding as well.
This number just seems a tad high given the number of kids in the high school. Plus there's the history of Mr. McClowry not providing the most reliable information. How many of the "1,000" are multi-sport athletes? What kind of processing does that require? One would think that ethics codes are per student...not per sport. We'd like to see the number of actual UNIQUE, individual student athletes.
During the 2011-12 school year, 1,320 students participated in a school-based club which represents 67% of students in high school that are participating in a club.athletics has become more demanding as well.
Again, the devil is always in the detail when it comes from Jimmy Mac. Over 1,320 kids participated in clubs last year. Is that unique kids? How many kids participate in multiple clubs? And the wording suggests that the number REPRESENTS 67% of students in the high school. Most will read that as 67% of high school kids participate in one or more club. But that's not really what it says...is it? Is this more of the district or McClowry being purposefully obtuse? Why do we care? Because if 2/3 of the kids in high school are participating in extracurricular activities, that's awesome. But is that really the case? Or do they hope that's what we'll believe by reading those words quickly and not asking questions? Again, we want to know...how many individual unique students participate in one or more clubs? With all our technology, is that too difficult a question to answer?
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
" High school:
Conservatively, the district hosts over hundreds of athletic and activity events each school year. Each event has its own unique needs, but all events need proper supervision, emergency response plans and coordination.
It is likely that we will be adding two to four new levels of a spring sport in the near future. That will add another 12-24 home sporting events. These would add to an already very cumbersome and full spring schedule for athletics."
2 to 4 new levels of a spring sport "in the near future"? He's only proposing girls varsity lacrosse NEXT year and boys varsity lacrosse the year after that. Those are turn-key operations. Why on earth does he need help for that?
How about some data? Jimmy Mac ducked the question about whether schools of similar size have an assistant AD. That smells like it struck a nerve.
ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART B:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICTWIDE CLUB ADVISOR STIPEND ADDITIONS
Cost: $27,840.00
The proposal is to increase club stipends in each building across the district. The rate of 2% of Full Time Equivalency (FTE) would be used as a universal amount for all stipends.
[NOTE: This amounts to $580 per year per advisor)
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
See attached data.
(there is none!)
3. How will the outcomes of this proposal be evaluated after 12 months? Three years?
Elementary - TBD
Middle School/Prairie Phoenix Academy (PPA) - TBD
High School - TBD
Really? So....how will it be determined? Does Jimmy Mac even have a plan? No plan...no approval!
ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART C:
ADDITIONAL HIGH SCHOOL COACHING POSITIONS
Cost: $7,106.00
Proposal: Add two swim coaching assistant positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Swim Assistant Coaches Stipends: 7% or $2,030 x 2 = $4,060
Proposal: Add two cross-country assistant coaching positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Cross-Country Assistant Coach Stipends: 5.25% or $1,523 x 2 = $3,046
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
1. Provides a more appropriate student-to-coach ratio.
2. Provides proper safety and supervision of student-athletes.
3. Provides more diversified skill development and connection with sub-varsity student-athletes.
4. Provides a high quality experience for students in existing programs.
Participation Numbers for last 4 years:
Boys Swim 17, 29, 33, 45
Girls Swim 18, 28, 34, 48
Boys CC 43, 49, 35, 38
Girls CC 29, 33, 32, 38
Look carefully at these numbers! Boys cross country participation has actually DECLINED, while girls have remained fairly steady with a very slight increase this year. Swimming, on the other hand, is clearly on the rise.
Here's a case where the data support PART of the proposal: additional coaches for swimming.
ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART D:
INTRODUCING VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL LACROSSE
Cost: $11,010.00 (Year 1) $11,280.00 (Year 2)
There is a desire in the community for the school district to sponsor boys' and girls' lacrosse teams.
This proposal rolls out a plan to do so.
A "desire in the community"? Really? This makes it sound like a few old guys in lawn chairs sippin' brewskis came up with the wild idea to develop a varsity lacrosse team. That is worlds apart from concerted effort by a large and growing club sport to be recognized as a full school-sponsored sport! Disingenuous doesn't even begin to describe this.
Spring 2013-14: introduce a girls varsity lacrosse team
Spring 2014-15: A boys' varsity lacrosse team would be introduced.
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
See data attached.
Once again...NO DATA! This is beyond embarrassing. It's downright shoddy work. And Mr. McClowry knows full well that the lacrosse program has been requesting this for months, so there is no excuse for not doing a better job. In fact, we happen to know (and have seen a copy) that the lacrosse folks put together a very detailed report to support this proposal. Did McClowry use any of it? Why not? Does he have some personal issue with lacrosse? For someone that speaks frequently about the importance of giving kids opportunities and the value of sports, McClowry doesn't seem all that interested in adding lacrosse.
A participation fee of $85 for all SPHS lacrosse members would be accessed. All other expenses would be the responsibility of SPASD. The expected cost of running a lacrosse program for boys would be approximately $11,280. The Sun Prairie Lacrosse Club (SPLC) has agreed to donate $10,000 for start up costs and to purchase uniforms.
On Jan. 24 the Secondary Principals level met and ranked this proposal 2 out of the 4 submitted at this level. Projected participation fees $85 x 40 = $3,400
Athletics and Activities Director Jim McClowry has offered four separate proposals. We'll look at each in a little more depth. Upon scrutiny, they do not hold up. The big questions are:
- Why does district administration continue to allow such poor quality information to be presented to the public?
- Why does the school board allow it?
- Did we learn NOTHING from the hockey fee fiasco?
- Where is HS Principal Lisa Heipp in all this? As McClowry's direct line supervisor, shouldn't she have reviewed this?
- Is this the best we can do?
- REALLY?
0.5 FTE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC & ACTIVITIES DIRECTOR – HIGH SCHOOL
Cost: $36,194.00
Forgive us, but we're a teensy bit tired hearing about how over-worked Mr. McClowry is. He has said numerous times that it's all about the kids and the connections they make, yet first out of the chute is a proposal to get some help for himself. With all the technology in this school district, you're telling us that the only solution to scheduling and accessing facilities needs is to add a body?
"It is suggested that this position be in line with current Sun Prairie Area School district positions, such as, the Aquatics Program and Facilities Manager in terms of salary and benefits. At .50 F
TE, the salary would range from $25,625-$31,356. Some administrative responsibilities would include: Evaluating staff, accessing facility and equipment needs, creating and facilitating professional development programs, administering large multi-team events and scheduling JV and 9th grade non-conference athletic events.
[Hmmm...we don't see anything about clubs. Is it all about athletics?]
In 2006, there was a coaching staff of less than 100. Now, the coaching staff is regularly over 120 members with only 60% being district staff. This makes the orientation, training, education, supervision and evaluation of these coaches even more critical to providing safe and positive experiences for our students.
[We're sorry, but we don't see how a 20% increase in coaching staff OVER 7 YEARS is a ton of additional work. Nor do we understand why "external" staff require more training, education and supervision. What...every coach that doesnt teach at Sun Prairie is a moron that requires hand holding?]
Over 1,000 student athletes are processed for compliance over three athletic seasons in a given school year. The increase in transfer students and foreign exchange students wishing to participate in athletics has become more demanding as well.
This number just seems a tad high given the number of kids in the high school. Plus there's the history of Mr. McClowry not providing the most reliable information. How many of the "1,000" are multi-sport athletes? What kind of processing does that require? One would think that ethics codes are per student...not per sport. We'd like to see the number of actual UNIQUE, individual student athletes.
During the 2011-12 school year, 1,320 students participated in a school-based club which represents 67% of students in high school that are participating in a club.athletics has become more demanding as well.
Again, the devil is always in the detail when it comes from Jimmy Mac. Over 1,320 kids participated in clubs last year. Is that unique kids? How many kids participate in multiple clubs? And the wording suggests that the number REPRESENTS 67% of students in the high school. Most will read that as 67% of high school kids participate in one or more club. But that's not really what it says...is it? Is this more of the district or McClowry being purposefully obtuse? Why do we care? Because if 2/3 of the kids in high school are participating in extracurricular activities, that's awesome. But is that really the case? Or do they hope that's what we'll believe by reading those words quickly and not asking questions? Again, we want to know...how many individual unique students participate in one or more clubs? With all our technology, is that too difficult a question to answer?
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
" High school:
Conservatively, the district hosts over hundreds of athletic and activity events each school year. Each event has its own unique needs, but all events need proper supervision, emergency response plans and coordination.
It is likely that we will be adding two to four new levels of a spring sport in the near future. That will add another 12-24 home sporting events. These would add to an already very cumbersome and full spring schedule for athletics."
2 to 4 new levels of a spring sport "in the near future"? He's only proposing girls varsity lacrosse NEXT year and boys varsity lacrosse the year after that. Those are turn-key operations. Why on earth does he need help for that?
How about some data? Jimmy Mac ducked the question about whether schools of similar size have an assistant AD. That smells like it struck a nerve.
ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART B:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICTWIDE CLUB ADVISOR STIPEND ADDITIONS
Cost: $27,840.00
The proposal is to increase club stipends in each building across the district. The rate of 2% of Full Time Equivalency (FTE) would be used as a universal amount for all stipends.
[NOTE: This amounts to $580 per year per advisor)
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
See attached data.
(there is none!)
3. How will the outcomes of this proposal be evaluated after 12 months? Three years?
Elementary - TBD
Middle School/Prairie Phoenix Academy (PPA) - TBD
High School - TBD
Really? So....how will it be determined? Does Jimmy Mac even have a plan? No plan...no approval!
ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART C:
ADDITIONAL HIGH SCHOOL COACHING POSITIONS
Cost: $7,106.00
Proposal: Add two swim coaching assistant positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Swim Assistant Coaches Stipends: 7% or $2,030 x 2 = $4,060
Proposal: Add two cross-country assistant coaching positions; one for boys, and one for girls.
Cross-Country Assistant Coach Stipends: 5.25% or $1,523 x 2 = $3,046
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
1. Provides a more appropriate student-to-coach ratio.2. Provides proper safety and supervision of student-athletes.
3. Provides more diversified skill development and connection with sub-varsity student-athletes.
4. Provides a high quality experience for students in existing programs.
Participation Numbers for last 4 years:
Boys Swim 17, 29, 33, 45
Girls Swim 18, 28, 34, 48
Boys CC 43, 49, 35, 38
Girls CC 29, 33, 32, 38
Look carefully at these numbers! Boys cross country participation has actually DECLINED, while girls have remained fairly steady with a very slight increase this year. Swimming, on the other hand, is clearly on the rise.
Here's a case where the data support PART of the proposal: additional coaches for swimming.
ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES PART D:
INTRODUCING VARSITY HIGH SCHOOL LACROSSE
Cost: $11,010.00 (Year 1) $11,280.00 (Year 2)
There is a desire in the community for the school district to sponsor boys' and girls' lacrosse teams.
This proposal rolls out a plan to do so.A "desire in the community"? Really? This makes it sound like a few old guys in lawn chairs sippin' brewskis came up with the wild idea to develop a varsity lacrosse team. That is worlds apart from concerted effort by a large and growing club sport to be recognized as a full school-sponsored sport! Disingenuous doesn't even begin to describe this.
Spring 2013-14: introduce a girls varsity lacrosse team
Spring 2014-15: A boys' varsity lacrosse team would be introduced.
2. Please provide data supporting your rationale for this proposal.
See data attached.
Once again...NO DATA! This is beyond embarrassing. It's downright shoddy work. And Mr. McClowry knows full well that the lacrosse program has been requesting this for months, so there is no excuse for not doing a better job. In fact, we happen to know (and have seen a copy) that the lacrosse folks put together a very detailed report to support this proposal. Did McClowry use any of it? Why not? Does he have some personal issue with lacrosse? For someone that speaks frequently about the importance of giving kids opportunities and the value of sports, McClowry doesn't seem all that interested in adding lacrosse.
A participation fee of $85 for all SPHS lacrosse members would be accessed. All other expenses would be the responsibility of SPASD. The expected cost of running a lacrosse program for boys would be approximately $11,280. The Sun Prairie Lacrosse Club (SPLC) has agreed to donate $10,000 for start up costs and to purchase uniforms.
On Jan. 24 the Secondary Principals level met and ranked this proposal 2 out of the 4 submitted at this level. Projected participation fees $85 x 40 = $3,400
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Budget Proposals: An All Or None Proposition?
This week we heard (at least until the meeting had to be suspended after 3 hrs) about the districts new proposals for the 2013-14 budget year.
Kinda has a "We want them all or none of them" ring to it, doesn't it? As in "if we can't all play, then one of us plays". We don't know if that was the intent, but that's how we read it and how several folks we asked read it.
We know this is really crazy...really OUT THERE...but do you suppose....do you you leave any room for the possibility that just maybe the school board might feel strongly about one or more of these that they would approve them regardless of the state budget scenario? Just wonderin'.
We'll take a look at each in more detail...some more detail than others, of course, but these are just a few of the thing that just sacked us in the face about the proposals, shotgun style:
RECOMMENDATION:
On March 19, 2013, Management Team recommended the following steps, taking into consideration the pending state budget and the related uncertainty of school funding:
- If the state budget is approved with no dollar increase to the per pupil spending (Governor Walker’s proposal), all new proposals would be delayed until future years. Based on current projections, they could not be sustained.
- If the state budget is approved with a $150 increase, or close to that amount, the budget proposals would be implemented as shown on Attachment 1, starting in 2013-14, and Year 2 and 3 would be considered in future budgets.
- If other revenue becomes available in the 2013-14 budget, the budget proposals would be implemented as shown on Attachment 1, starting in 2013-14, and Year 2 and 3 would be considered in future budgets.
Kinda has a "We want them all or none of them" ring to it, doesn't it? As in "if we can't all play, then one of us plays". We don't know if that was the intent, but that's how we read it and how several folks we asked read it.
We know this is really crazy...really OUT THERE...but do you suppose....do you you leave any room for the possibility that just maybe the school board might feel strongly about one or more of these that they would approve them regardless of the state budget scenario? Just wonderin'.We'll take a look at each in more detail...some more detail than others, of course, but these are just a few of the thing that just sacked us in the face about the proposals, shotgun style:
- It adds a lot of personnel (12.7 FTE by our count). Many illnesses can be cured with a little antibiotic, but like some STDs, FTEs are forever. Isn't the idea that technology allows you to do more with less bodies?
- 3.5 FTE for "Instructional Coaches". The paint is still wet on the forerunner to this initiative. Can we maybe let the paint dry and see how things play out before jumping t this?
- 623 Ipads? REALLY? SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE? And why do they have to be I-Pads? WI-FI and retina display? For grades K-5? Can we think this through?
- Expand/Re-structure Youth Advocates. We can almost see this one. If we're truly doing all the training now...why exactly are we paying someone else to provide these positions? The $64,000 question (or actually roughly $100K question is: does offering the district benefit package make a $14 dollar/hr wage more palatable?
- Athletics & Activities. Lots of buried treasure here. Jim "Jimmy Mac" McClowry wants to add more club advisors and coaches, pay them more, get himself a half-time assistant AD...oh yeah...and maybe add girls varsity lacrosse next year. Did anyone even review his proposal? He talks about attached data that we didn't see. Other folks looking to add positions provide PDs. Jimmy Mac did not. In fact, there's no substance here. And lacrosse seems to be a finely tuned turn-key operation. So why is Jimmy Mac proposing to simply take ONLY the right front tire? And why start wi girl? That funk kinds reeks of a Title IX concern....dontcha think?
- PBIS Coaches. This is the least expensive and arguably most needed of all the proposals.
- Add 1.5 FTE Support staff at CHUMS. Not huge fans of adding FTE, but at least the proposal includes clear data to support the need. Unlike Jimmy Macs (hint, hint).
- Add 2 groundskeepers. Wait...after last summer, don't we have LESS grass to deal with? Just kidding! Far better data to support it although we wonder why we should be swayed by Florida or Washington models. Being that we're SO much like those states.
- Add 0.5FTE for Business Services and 0.5 FTE for Human Resources. The former gives us some heartburn while the latter is more understandable. Several years back our Business Services Manager received a $5.00 per hour increase that due to complaints the school board split p over 2 years. Still, we pay that position a LOT of money and now they need help? It's tarting to look like the people that get paid the big bucks don't do very much and we need to hire lesser paid positions to do their work. Sorry to be blunt, but w're just sayin' what everyone else is thinkin'. Maybe if Phil Frei focused on the business end more and let others deal with the non-business things (like technology and buildings/grounds), we wouldn't need this position.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
