Bursting the Bubble?

A wise man once said that it's a good exercise to look backwards once in awhile and see where you've been. Kinda makes you take stock of how you got to where you are. We were so interested in the numbers that were presented at Thursday's Diversity meeting that we couldn't resist takin' 'em back and playing with 'em a bit.

The Sun Prairie Area School District relies heavily on projections made by the the University of Wisconsin's Applied Population Lab (UW-APL). Projections are great, but they are exactly that....projections. At some point, coming up with these numbers has to involve what some scientists refer to as the "WAG Technique"...you know...as in Wild Ass Guess. Of course, any projection is based on assumptions, and as long as those assumptions ring true, the projections can be fairly valid.

So let's take a trip down memory lane....

The District's Strategic Plan of 2004 (fueled by UW-APL 2003 data)

The APL projections for 2008-09 made 5 years earlier were eerily accurate. In 2003, the APL projected 2972 [K-5] elementary students (actual was 2924); 1401 [6-7-8] Middle School students (actual = 1372); and 1807 [9-12] High School students (actual = 1807). Remember, though, that 71 high school students are situated in the Alternate Learning Center. That means only 1635 are actually in the high school.

Unfortunately, that's about where accuracy gets off the bus. The 5-year projection for High School enrollment (Gr 9-12) beyond 2008-09 was for 2288 students. To reach that level of enrollment, we'd have to experience sustained growth of 5% enrollment increases over each of the next 5 years.

The total district enrollment projection for 2012 (3 years from now) was 7604 students. And that was before adding in the 4K, which wasn't part of the plan back then. Our 2009 K-12 enrollment was 6103. That would mean an increase of 500 students per year to reach that projection.

It would seem that the economy and the bursting of the housing bubble may have been nature's way of putting its foot on the growth brake. Yet another reason to view projections with caution. Projections do NOT (CANNOT) consider the effects of things like 100-year flooding, major economic collapses, or unprecedented state budget shortfalls.

Where does our growth come from?

General consensus is that most of our enrollment growth comes from births. That's why Phil Frei focuses heavily on kindergarten enrollment numbers. It makes a lot of sense, particularly when you consider the high school. Kids don't get born at age 14-18. So the only way we increase high school grade level enrollment is through a net INFLUX into the district. To reach the kind of growth they projected in 2004, we'd have to add 25-30 kids at EACH grade level for each of the next five years. That would mean a LOT of families moving into the district with high school age students, and NONE moving OUT of the district.

Another way to look at projections is to view them in terms of class size. This year, district wide, we AVERAGED about 470 kids per grade level, with a low of 430 (grade 11...hmmmm) and a high of 512 grade 2). Remember we built the new 10-12 high school with a capacity of 2000 students. Divide 2000 by 3 grade levels and you get 667 students per grade. That represents a whopping 42% increase over the average grade enrollment today. THAT is why most of the community felt that ONE high school was plenty.

October 2006 APL projections

During the first referendum attempt for the high school, APL was called upon again. These 2-year projections for 2008-09 were 1718 (high school) 1412 (middle school) and 3059 (elementary). Again, you see the focus for long-term enrollment growth is on the elementary school aged kids.

Their projections for 8 years from now (2016-17) were 2722 in grades 9-12 (680 per grade); 1927 for grades 6-8 (642 per grade); and 3499 for grades K-5 (583 per grade). Seems inverted, doesn't it? Those projections would suggest that growth is declining from that point on. This suggests that the growth "bubble" is really at this year's 4th graders, with class size (growth) tailing off steadily from that point.

Referendum Flyer November 2007

This infomercial scared the beejeezus out of people with projections of 2700 High School (9-12, we hope) students within 8 years of now (2017). Do the math folks, that translates to a graduating class size of 700 students. Hell we haven't even hot 500 yet, and the closest we get by juts advancing forward our current students is 512 based on this year's 2nd graders. For reference, this year's grade 12 is 467 (just about average) while next year's falls to 430.

Projecting it forward

We'll catch grief for this, but a simplistic (yes, perhaps overly so) projection can be made by using a simple technique of "projecting forward" current grade levels to see how things play out. Is it exact. No way. What it does not consider is births (or call them future kindergartners), although we've read that birth rates have declined significantly in recent years. This "projecting it forward". It just looks at current students. It assumes (quite simply) that a net zero students either enter or leave the district. That being said, you can do the math on how much net 'growth" would be required to reach enrollment of any particular level.

A few Words on Grade Progression Ratios

The APL calculates what it terms "grade projection ratios" which essentially represent projected changes in grade level enrollment from year to year. One last little mystery to solve. Astute observers will note a sudden increase in enroillment at Grade 9 (1.18, or 18% over 8th grade). This actually represents students coming into the public school from private or parochial schools, such as Sacred Hearts, which only gextends through 8th grade. You might also note a DECREASE at grades 10 and 11. Does this decrease relate to dropouts? We're not sure, but like many other things, the district doesn't offer any commentary on these little questions.

Take a look at the two graphs below. They are scaled identically. The first is OUR simplistic projection by simply advancing grade level enrollments forward. The second is the projection from the APL associated with the November 2007 referendum information. Both plots are ONLY fro the "new" high school, i.e., grades 10-12. Note the much steeper growth projected by the APL. That was before the economy and housing market hit the skids. Remember...the school was built to hold 2000. The bubble seems to appear at grade 2 enrollment. After that, has the bubble been burst? Will we face declining enrollment?

N

It's Celebrity Resemblances Time Again!

How could we resist?

Sure...there were other options. But then we had a hankerin' for a tuna slamwich and who spoke to us from the can? None other than Charlie the Tuna. He put in a plug for Cousin "Jimmy the Sea Bass" McCourt.

...and we were drawn to it like moths to a flame.

What better tribute could there be to the school board member who laughs in the face of unprecedented economic and budgetary times. Mr. McCourt must certainly be a financial whiz, cuz he sure felt like the taxpayers OWED him a sea bass dinner last January. There are parallels to the wall street world. Take the taxpayers' money and give out bonuses...or have a $40 sea bass dinner...with shrimp on the side? In fact, you have to believe that McCourt KNEW SP-EYE would be monitoring the annual board dinner on the taxpayers' dime...and yet he nonetheless opted for the pricey sea bass. Yup...a model of leadership for an elected official.

2008 Graduation hijinx mean changes for 2009

Read Dr. Culver's post regarding newly instituted protocols for Graduation 2009:

http://tinyurl.com/SP-Grad-changes

Read SP-EYE's commentary on last year's graduation hijinx:

http://tinyurl.com/2008Grad

Post-mortem on a questionable decision

Two years ago, as construction for Creekside elementary was beginning and the high school picture was clarifying, discussions about the need for a "construction manager" were held at the school board's FT&T committee. The intent was to hire --actually initial discussions were heavily centered on contracting for services of--someone who could act as the school districts "agent" on the construction site(s) to ensure that we (the district) would get critical input that would ensure quality buildings without "fluff". The intent was that this individual would suggest modifications such as "hey we could use this flooring (or this ceiling tile) instead of what the builder planned and we get better durability at a lower cost" or "if we cut out some of the angles here we could save a great deal of construction cost". They would also monitor invoices to ensure that we get what we pay for. Sounds good so far...right? We agree. But as with everything, whether something is a good idea or not is relevant only when you consider the cost. At 25,000 per year (and if evidence of equivalent or better cost savings is shown): great idea. At $88,000 per year and with no tangible evidence of cost-savings: questionable idea at best.

When it came time to discuss cost is when discussions got hinky. At least one committee member and a construction-savvy board member felt strongly that this was NOT a full-time position, and should be dealt with as a "limited term employment" (LTE) that would not provide benefits, as a cost saving to the district. In fact, former board member and FTT committee chair Mary Ellen Havel-Lang was leading the charge for this to be a full-time position. It would also eliminate the need to pay unemployment when the construction was over and we had no further use for the position.

The discussion (which of course is never captured in meeting minutes and these meetings aren't recorded) was that the construction manager should bring forward regular formal (read: written) reports that basically justified the continuing value of the position. The idea was that the individual would report on the costs savings they had built into the project(s) on a monthly basis that would more than cover the cost of the position. Have we even seen a SINGLE such report?

The district took all this discussion and came to the school board with a recommendation that we hire a permanent (well...at least for the project duration) Construction Manager at a starting salary of $23.17 per hour. (NOTE: that person is almost twice as valuable as a "Youth Advocate based on salary, so how serious are we about safety?). So based on this proposal, we've gone from a part-time position (discussions generally agreed that on the whole this would be a HALF-TIME position at best) to one that bills the district $7,300 per month.

In this economic climate, are we REALLY getting $7300 per month worth of "quality management" from the district's construction manager? Or is this $88,000 we could cut from the district budget and handle with existing staff? If state government can do more with less, why shouldn't the school district?

We're in the midst of unprecedented times. The state is even cutting aid to schools by 2.5%! That decision was announced and we STILL haven't heard any indication of cuts from district administration or the school board. Where is the Sun Prairie school board cutting back? Nowhere. The initial budget report says "no new programs...except 4K". Nothing is being cut. When are we going to start attacking our school district budget with a red pen? What will we do if folks decide they can't afford to live here anymore and they bail? We already saw initial projects of 425 4K students drop to 350. What if ALL enrollments starts dropping?

Decisions such as the Construction Manager position, the $9300 per month we pay to Energy Education Inc. to remind us to turn off lights and lower then thermostat HAVE to be re-visited. We could shave $200,000 off the budget by those two moves alone! We are NOT saying we need to reduce critical things like teaching staff. But the fluff has to be eradicated. We need to hunker down, focus on educating the kids, and cut the sea bass out of our diet.

Peace. Out. On this Memorial Day, please remember those that gave their lives for our country, and the loved ones that lost them.

Scholarship numbers/amounts reflective of local growth?

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

The article summarizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security Guard ⇒ Youth Advocate

And you thought the age of political correctness was over!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dear school board:

Let's put this in simple terms.

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

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

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

Love,

SP-EYE

We Have a Winner!

Congratulations to Sun Prairie High School senior Jennifer Anderson for being named a 2009 Wisconsin All-State Scholar and recipient of a Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship.

Sun Prairie has had a rather lengthy drought from having a student achieve this honor. Certainly we haven't had a winner in at least the past 3 years. The Department of Public Instruction (DPI) offers this information about the All-State Scholars Program:

Wisconsin All-State Scholars Program
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, and the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators' Foundation for Educational Administration annually sponsor the Wisconsin All-State Scholars/Robert C. Byrd Scholarship Program. This recognition program was begun in 1986 (the Robert C. Byrd scholarship was added in 1987) and has been an outstanding success each year. Each year over 500 high school senior students are nominated by their principals to be named All-State Scholars. Every nominee receives a beautiful certificate and statewide publicity in a special Sunday supplement in the Wisconsin State Journal. Over one hundred students traditionally receive scholarships.

Wisconsin All-State Scholars/Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship recipients are chosen by a committee of school administrators with equal representation from each congressional district. Recipients are chosen based on their overall grade point averages and ACT/SAT test score. Pending full funding at the federal level, Byrd scholarships may provide a scholarship of $1,500 per year for up to four years. The student may use this scholarship at any post-secondary educational institution in the United States.

2009 all-state scholars

Not only is Ms. Anderson a fine scholar, but a little birdie tells us that she is also an accomplished martial artist, holding a 2nd degree black belt. Congratulations Jennifer and SPHS!

Dangerous liaisons alleged at SPHS

The following statement was released by Distict Administrator Tim Culver to the district "Key Communicators" list on Friday, April 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM

District E-News to Key Communicators

On April 15, 2009, a Sun Prairie High School support staff employee was placed on administrative leave due to allegations related to inappropriate contact with a high school student. The school district is involved in an ongoing investigation of the matter. The employee submitted a letter of resignation to the school district on April 17. The Sun Prairie Police Department has referred the case to the District Attorney’s Office.

High school staff will be working with the student and the student’sfamily to ensure they have the support they need.

“Our first priority is to ensure the student has the necessary support,” said District Administrator Tim Culver. “We never, ever want a student involved in this type of situation. We have a reporting system in place and I am pleased to know it worked. In less than 24 hours from the time we were notified of the alleged conduct, the employee was questioned by police and placed on leave.”

---

Channel3000.com is reporting that a male support staff person engaged in a sexual relationship with a 16-year old fremale student.

Read more at Ch3000.com