Sometimes it has to be done.

Former NFL MVP and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady had to do it. And may have to do it gain. According to reports, Colts QB Peyton Manning also had to do it....several times. Neither one of them really wanted to do it. But it had to be done. What did they do? Why did they do it? And what in tarnation does this have to do with the Sun Prairie School Board?

What both QBs had to do was undergo surgery to clean out an infection that developed following recent surgical procedures on their knees. Their doctors were the highest paid and most qualified in their field. Yet, infection developed nonetheless. Failure to go back in and clear the infection could have led to permanent damage to their knees.

As Hawkeye Pierce would say, the Sun Prairie school board performed the equivalent of meatball surgery using a rusty machete when they implemented boundary changes this past spring. Infection is running rampant, and the whole goal of performing the surgery has not and will not be achieved. It's time that our school board of boundary surgeons gets back into the OR and perform corrective surgery to address the situation. We're afraid that the patient's "finger" needs to be amputated.

1. Only about 19 Students of the District Office’s projected 53 students transferred from CH Bird to Westside.

2. There was no significant space created at CHB to get below the schools capacity and create a long term solution to the schools attendance numbers and projected growth. Bird remains OVERcapacity. To compound this issue there are currently at least 4 elementary shuttles that transfer students from school to school because their home school did not have room for them.

3. The total number of "instructional classrooms" at CHB currently being used this school year has not been reduced. The DO staff indicated in a presentation to the board and the community that CHB was only designed and built for 24 "instructional classrooms". The DO asserted negatively that "rooms originally designed for Science (Room #21) and Special Ed (Room #38) have been converted to instructional classrooms". Despite this stated concern Room #21 is still being used as an instructional classroom housing a 2nd grade class and Room #38 is also still being used as an instructional classroom housing a 3rd grade class. Meanwhile instructional classroom #15, one of the largest and newest classrooms in the building, is only being used intermittently for specialized classes and instruction. Eastside elementary ALSO continues to use non-instructional space for classrooms.

Meanwhile....

• at least 8 classrooms at the lovely new Creekside elementary sit gathering dust. There is only a single 5th grade class!
• Creekside is barely half full and somehow is being allowed to operate as if it were a 3rd SAGE school with less than 15 students per class on average in grades K-2.
• Northside, Eastside and Bird schools are either over capacity or within a handful of students of being at capacity.
• Westside sits at 70% capacity.
• the socio-economic balance between schools has not changed.
• a neighborhood had been torn apart...despite rallying cries of the school board that all their boundary decisions are made to retain "neighborhood" schools
• the approval rating of the school board is lower that President Bush's

With the economic slow-down, projected to last through 2009, it's clear that the build-out of Smith's Crossing is not going to populate Creekside significantly for years.

School Board members, take a memo: It's long past time to prep the patient for another surgery on the boundaries. Don't let this infection fester any further. Prep "the finger" for amputation.

District Policy DUM-B

Have you ever looked at the district Policy naming structure? Does it drive you to drink? OK, that's fodder for an entirely different blog post. We have other business to attend to.

On the verge of another school year, a number of parents have been struggling to make sense of the board's decision on boundaries and try to reconcile it with policies and goals related to connectedness. This is their story.

Bird Elementary has space available. There are at least 21 spaces out of 436 total. That is a fact.

4 parents applied to allow their younger child, sibling of their child (who was grandfathered to stay at Bird due to their entry into 5th grade). TWO (2) were approved. TWO (2) others were not. This is also a fact.

We can't place these TWO kids at Bird Elementary????
This reeks of retribution an inconsistency.

Parents were told they have to ask Alice Murphy who then told them Culver makes the decision and then Culver tells them the Board makes those decisions and then back to Culver who says his staff makes those decisions. Conceptually this is how everything works, and its also how the district sweeps things under the carpet. People with a legitimate concern (like the Cardinal Parents group who were appalled at the graduation fiasco and requested action) keep shopping for answers or a response and they keep getting shuttled to someone else. You'll notice that that issue withered on the vine over the summer...just how the district likes it.

One parent summed it up as follows:

"Each party tells the complainant to contact the other to resolve it and the other refers them back to the original person. Pretty soon the complainant gets so frustrated they drop the whole issue and "go away" just like the district wants them to."

Oh, the district will tell you that their hands are tied, because SAGE rules require mandatory class sizes not to exceed 15 students per class in grades K-3. Of course, the REST of the story...what they don't tell you is that:
(A) The district has exceeded SAGE limits in each of the last 3 years, and
(B) The Department of Public Instruction is either asleep at the switch on the issue or is incorporating it's own version of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The bottom line (as is frequently the case with this district) is that they cite rules and policy when the rules and policies even remotely support their actions, but otherwise, it's Policies be Damned.

Welcome to "Dis-connectedness"

Letters! We get letters!
SP-EYE: We received an open letter to the school board/district administration/community pointing out once again the complete lack of common sense of the school board's boundary decision.

In this follow-up, we learn that there are at least 15 open seat at Bird school. 4 parents applied to allow their younger child to stay at Bird with their older sibling who was "grandfathered". 1 was accepted. 3 were denied. THIS is connectedness?

Back in March the school board made a decision to change a school boundary that affected about 38 children attending CH Bird Elementary. This was a very contentious issue that created a significant amount of stress on the affected parties and created distrust in the school board and school district.

Recently interviews were conducted with a number of candidates to fill a vacated School Board Position. During the interview process the School Board President asked each candidate “Is the school boundary issue over?” All of the candidates responded, “Yes”.

Now as the school year approaches and the student’s class assignments have been made a spin off of the school boundary change has come to light and it has re-opened the wound and should leave anyone with school aged children in a state of
disbelief.

As part of the Boundary change the District has appropriately allowed students that will be entering 5th grade to remain at their former school. That makes sense since who would want any student to have three different schools in three years if you could reasonably avoid it. But what about the younger siblings of these students? Well the district has decided that these younger siblings need to go to their new school and not where their grandfathered sibling is going! Apparently this is the district’s “policy” yet no such policy exists anywhere in writing.

In the case of the students affected by the recent boundary change well, there are four grandfathered 5th grade students returning to CH Bird who have younger siblings. One of the younger siblings was allowed to return to CH Bird under the Voluntary Placement process while the other three were told that they had to go to their new school because there was room for them there. Voluntary placement requires that the “home school” be full at the needed grade before the district will consider the request. Parents of the remaining three students tried several different approaches to get the District to understand their concerns and even though there were over 15 empty classroom seats that could accommodate these three children, their requests were denied. The district defended these denials based on “policy” yet no policy exists on Grandfathered students and their siblings.

So what does this mean? Whatl I do know that there will be more school boundary changes occurring in the future. I also know that there will likely be grandfathered students who have younger siblings who will be faced with the same dilemma. So in the absence of common sense I guess there needs to be a written policy that spells out specifically how the district should address the placement of grandfathered student’s younger siblings. In the absence of that we will have to rely on the districts judgment which frankly is way off base on this issue.

I have heard the District Administrator tout the benefits of “connectedness” many times. Well, as long as the district is going to have a “policy” of separating siblings how can he ever hope to achieve the level of connectedness that he is striving for? To heck with family and sibling relationships. To heck with showing compassion to parents and children who’s requests are reasonable, attainable and in the spirit of “connectedness.” The school board made a decision and the district administration is going to implement it no matter what the cost!

Now that the school boundary wound has been reopened with this demonstrated lack of compassion I guess it’s fair to say that the “school boundary issue” is not over. This recent decision by the district to separate these three siblings clearly shows that some district officials are living in the state of “Disconnectedness”.

Name Witheld to protect them from retribution

Culver : The "adults in charge" have spoken

The Boundary Wars began as an attempt to (A) populate the new Creekside Elementary, and then (B) an ancillary concept was to achieve better socioeconomic balance in the elementary schools. This latter objective was later tabled in favor of creating another one of those dreaded Task Forces.

The ultimate game of musical chairs that ensued ended up with identifying 53 children from the northern edge of the district (developments within the town of Bristol) to be relocated from Bird school to Westside. SP-EYE is awaiting final numbers, but all reports indicate that the actual number of students involved is far less than the original number--as little as 8-10 students. Subsequently 4 parents have asked the question, "...if space exists in Bird, and my older child is 'grandfathered' to remain at Bird, could you please allow my child's younger sibling to be with their sibling--at least for this year?" One of these parents, who was told "NO", shared the message that she received from Dr. Culver when she asked how she should explain the rationale for this inexplicable ruling to her younger child. Dr. Culver responded:

The parent responds
Excerpts from the parent's response to this extremely frustrating and inconceivable nonsense are provided below:
I think I will tell my daughter that sometimes there are circumstances in which people make rules and policies in life that do nothing to make positive change. In this case, some adults who forgot they are elected officials, are trying to mask a crisis in our community by randomly busing children all over town.

It is easier for [the school board/district] to ignore the true issues of the district and separate you from your family and middle school peers. I will encourage her to deal with this change by reassuring that no one in the community will allow for such incompetence to continue.

One important skill my children will learn is to have integrity. I will teach them to hold true to their principles and values. I will tell her how many adults would rather hide behind inaccurate data and incomplete information than admit when they have made a mistake. I will tell her to never be afraid to admit if you are wrong.

Finally, I reminded her that if the school board/district thinks this is over, they have under estimated the people of Sun Prairie. Thanks for your suggestions but I prefer to be honest with my children.

---

SP-EYE: The board loves to prattle on about the importance of "neighborhood schools" and connectedness. How connected can you be if your older sibling is allowed to stay at one school whole the younger ones are left to try to make sense out of being carted away past not one, but TWO elementary schools to their new 'home'? Is that any way to emphasize family? Culver and others have been quick to offer, "well....you could have your 5th grade student choose to move to Westside with their younger sibling."

Once again, where is the logic in that? A 5th grader needs to continue to build on connections and relationships with their student support base in preparation for entering middle school next year. This is NOT the time to throw these kids into a new school! It's apparent that the board will not reconsider its bad decision--despite the message about accountability and taking responsibility for one's actions that their decisions have sent across the city. One would hope however, that if space is available, the board demands that the district allow siblings in these cases to remain with their brother/sister at Bird.

What was the hub, bub?

Is the boundary issue dead...or are the embers silently smoldering? During recent interviews for the heir to Jim Carrel's school board seat, board president David Stackhouse asked each candidate a question that wasn't on the prepared question list. Stackhouse asked of each,

"Is the boundary issue resolved?"

Logic would seem to dictate that it is in the board's best interest to keep the dead buried....so why did Stackhouse ask the question? Was he looking for another ally to rally the issue? Or was his intent to exclude from consideration any candidate that indicated the issue was not resolved?

Why were people affected by the decision so distraught? Certainly the board's way of coming to a decision had a lot to do with things, but the map also clearly points out the disconnection in a district that claims to place high value on "connectedness". Take a look at the island the board created (the purple region north of Egre road and west of Bird St). These students were leapfrogged over both Bird and Northside to be placed at Westside. Does this make sense? Shouldn't the primary rule for developing boundaries be to draw lines for any individual school to form a single polygon? Isn't THAT what facilitates development of "neighborhood" schools?

Now consider ...for a minute...just ONE alternate map (at right). Certainly, the numbers of students was not considered in creating this quick version, but logically, does it not make more sense?

This was never about allowing people to stay with a beloved school but rather about making a decision which makes no sense.

Download or view the full-size District elementary boundary maps.


......THIS?...................or THIS?

Conflict of Interest breach in the Boundary Decision Vote?

On May 12th, The school board voted 4-3 to RE-AFFIRM its initial (March 11th) vote regarding boundary changes. As noted earlier, this vote was made despite documentation of over 500 community residents who voiced their opposition to the board's vote. Board members John Whalen, Jim McCourt, Terry Shimek, and Caren Diedrich voted against reconsidering boundary changes.

At this past Monday's school board meeting, board member Caren Diedrich indicated publicly that her grandchildren attend Bird elementary school. Now that this information is in the public arena, Ms. Diedrich's comments [regarding her vote on the Boundary decision], that, "Bird is over crowded, I need to get some children out of Bird." are far more troubling.

Many would say that this Ms. Diedrich holds a distinct personal interest in Bird school, and therefore she should have abstained from the Boundary decision vote. If Ms. Diedrich had abstained, the vote would have been tied at 3-3-1, opening the door for further discussion on the issue--and another vote. Perhaps one of the other 3 may have "seen the light" . There is no "I" in "school board" (of course there ain't no "we" either!). Ms. Diedrich was not speaking for her constituents--or even the school board; she was speaking for herself. Hear for yourself; play the video clip below.

Boundary Issue Redux: Board Stubbornly Affirms Its Earlier Decision

As each board member philosophised their individual positions on the March 11th boundary decisions, it became clear where they stood. No vote was needed. Finally. Jim Carrel moved that the board rescind it's March 11th decision, which was seconded by board resident David Stackhouse. The roll was called:

In favor (of rescinding the decision): Stackhouse, Carrel, Camber-Davidson
Opposed: Diedrich, Whalen, Shimek, McCourt

And so it went; the motion to rescind failed 3-4. But let's backup a bit.

The agenda item began with countless members of the public once again imploring the board to reconsider the decisions made on March 11th ( http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2008/03/sun-prairie-school-boundaries-finalized.html ). Another 62 cards were turned in from those people that did not wish to speak, but who support rescinding the earlier vote. A petition containing signatures of 500 community residents who also supported rescinding the decision was presented.

Yes, many of these folks had "said their piece" at previous meetings. But there was a different feeling in the air. This was not a bunch of "elitists" who simply didn't want their kids going to a different school. This was a community that organized, did extensive research into the issue and numbers, and presented their case firmly.

But most importantly, this group came forward offering to be part of the solution, rather than just voicing opposition. Loudly and clearly, these folks stated that they only wanted a temporary reprieve from the boundary decisions in order that the District take the necessary time to do this job right, rather than slapping on another temporary band-aid. They told the board that if, after properly researching all the issues, the board had clear data which indicated that moving their children made the most sense for the District, then they would abide by that decision.

This was also not just parents...but a number of teachers from Bird Elementary spoke out in support of rescinding the decision. Is this not the definition of community based, data-driven decisions? In most cases, board members need to wrap themselves around a board decision. Sometime, however, they do "get it wrong". (Have the 4 board members forgotten the Madison school board's school naming fiasco?). And in those rare instances, board members need to put on their big boy (and girl) pants and admit their error. They will be bigger people and garner much more respect for it. Unfortunately it's too late.

Some key highlight's from individual board members' soliloquies:

Jill Camber-Davidson: "This move has not just affected the kids, but the entire community. Free/Reduced lunches does not mean a problem child; it's just an indication of need or an achievement gap. There are studies that show obese children don't have problems with achievement. What's next...balancing the district's children for obesity?"

John Whalen : "There's nothing to say that was not said on March 11th. I didn't come here with my mind made up."


Caren Diedrich: [SP-EYE note: Warning. The following quotes have been rated at least PG-13. Ms. Diedrich didn't speak to the audience, she nearly screamed at them, all the while chastising them.] "This pretty much ruined my weekend. I'm tired of the pissing contest...move this kid here, move that kid there. I don't appreciate YOU [the parents who spoke] managing our schools. Bitch at us. He [Culver] manages the schools according to our direction. [after analyzing things] you left me with very few things that it could be [reasons for opposition]. Could it be that your kids just don't want to rub elbows with the Westside kids? "


Jim Carrel: "We 7 serve at the discretion of the voters. If we're doing something that alienates the community, then we're doing something wrong. I did not make condescending assumptions on why you did not want your kids to be moved' I came to you and asked. We didn't listen. We did this...the 7 of us...actually, just 3 of us. The question is not whether to rescind the decision; that is obvious. We are not balancing diversity by moving 13 kids.


Jim McCourt: "I don't think it's obvious. I haven't heard anything new. You can't assume a decision will be rescinded just because there are new board members. To think that [because 40 kids will be moving out of the District as a result of this change] that we'll re-think our decision? I'm not saying it's just a threat."

Terry Shimek: "This is not necessarily the best solution, but it's an equitable solution. Did we choose the best process? No....but in the end it worked. The Bird folks presented some good information. We [board members] can't communicate [outside meetings] so I don't know if everyone read it all...but I think they all did."

David Stackhouse: "My goal has always been to support board decisions. But I disagree with this decision...it was a short term fix. As a district we need to make all our schools equal...to a point. I think we made a mistake and need to pull it back."

Boundary Issue back on the agenda!

The rumors were correct, and it was announced at Monday's meeting that the school board will put the controversial boundary issue back on the agenda for its May 12 meeting. President Stackhouse kept a good poker face and didn't give any indication of whether it would be merely to appease those that have lobbied hard...and convincingly...to re-consider the decision.

Will the board simply vote to reaffirm its earlier decision? Or will the boundaries be up for discussion again? Tune in May 12.