Hockey players hit with 275% fee increase

subtitle: Are hockey players supporting freshman soccer moms?
subtitle: Hockey fee increases needed to offset cost of adding freshman soccer program

Anyway you slice it folks, this seems wrong. Does hockey cost more due to the cost of ice time?  Absolutely.  Should there be a supplemental fee for hockey to help defray ice time cost? absolutely.  Is a 275% fee increase in one year acceptable?  Absolutely NOT!

Regardless, 4 school board members voted to accept the new fees.  There were allusions to the potential that the issue may be revisited when the athletic budget is brought to the Finance Committee in a few weeks.  Board VP John Welke, however, expressed concern that the board tends to let these things die once set.  We agree. In fact, Athletics Director Jim McClowry is so sure the fees will stand that he's already had the website updated to reflect the change.  That's moving fast, people...for a district office that plods worse than a tortoise on many more important issues.

Here are our problems with what happened, in no specific order.

No phased in approach.  We knew hockey cost a lot.  We've know for years.  So why hasn't the fee ratcheted up $50/yr each year?  Why isn't this increase from $200 to $550 spread over say three years?  Why suddenly are we all worked up to do something about "equity" NOW?

Dammit Jim, you're not making sense.  First you say that you're under budget constraints because the district office cut your budget (and all department budgets) by 10%.  Then you tell us that you're adding freshman boys and girls soccer next year.  Well...how can you be adding two new sports programs without new funding and in the face of a 10% budget cut?  That makes no sense.  Oh...THEN you tell us you want to raise all athletic fees and raise hockey, in particular, 275% (a $350 per student per year increase).

Champion cherry pickers.    As usual coming from the district, a little research indicates that the information on other program hockey fees looks to be cherry picked to make your case.  Yes...some schools (Madison) charge $800 for hockey.   But there are many other schools that charge a flat rate.  This district likes to present only the facts that support their position...not all the facts.  Whatever happened to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


Funky math softens the blow.  Is it a 275% increase?  Or just a $175% increase.  It depends on the math you use, of course!  $550 ÷ $200 × 100 = 275%.   But...if we just look at the increase itself ($550 - $200 = $350) relative to the current fee ($200), then the "increase" is only $350 ÷ $200 × 100= 175%.  These are twicky wabbits, people.  The INCREASE is 175%, but the FEE is being raised 175%.   This is a classic budget ploy used by the district as well.

It's still apples and oranges.  Yes, ice time is expensive.  But which other sports include the cost of field maintenance.  We've heard the district tout that Ashley Field costs $60,000 per year to maintain.  And what sports play on that?  Football for 5-6 games a year? Even with a varsity roster of 70 something kids, that's about $900/year.  Do we charge football for that?  What about the cost of re-conditioning or replacing football helmets?   That's not cheap. Yet hockey kids supply their own...right?  And their own pads?  Does football?

Why is swimming charged the (new) base athletic fee rate of $65?  Isn't swimming the only sport to use the pool, with its very expensive maintenance costs?  Many schools use a tiered fee structure, but the schools we reviewed....those similar in size to Sun Prairie...had a maximum ratio of hockey: base sport fee of about 3 or 4:1.  These schools charge $100-125 as a base fee and then hockey gets charged about $400-$500.  In our case, the hockey fee will be 8 1/2 times the fee charged for swimming.  Hockey ($550)is being charged 6 1/2 times the fee charged for football, basketball and baseball ($85).  Really?  Football is only $10 more than golf?

It seems to us that ALL fees should be raised to at least $100 and then set a hockey fee at $250 with a programmed increase of $50/year till it hits $400.  Alternatively, we need a complete analysis of costs per sport and assess fees appropriately.  Hockey isn't cheap...but neither is football.  And that's not what the new price structure reflects.

Who ordered the 10% budget cuts?

Last night's (6-11-12) school board meeting was an eye opener on many levels.  We have so much to share.  But the big revelation came from Athletic Director Jim McClowry.  McClowry was trying to rationalize his plan to raise hockey fees by 275% (from $200/per athlete to $550) by presenting a chaotic jumble of numbers and percentages.  It was incredibly difficult to follow McClowry through all of his, "Wait...let me back up a bit..."s.  But that may have been all part of the plan...you know...remain purposefully obtuse when discussing anything budgetary in public.  But then, when explaining why he needed to raise hockey fees by 275%, McClowry let it slip (?) that his--and all departments'--- budget had been cut by 10% per Business Manager Phil Frei.  Of course, there was also the interesting piece that board VP John Welke coaxed out of McClowry that McClowry also needed money to cover his plans to add freshmen boys and girls soccer teams next spring.  Hmmm...was the added cost put on the hockey folks' shoulders to cover the 10% budget gap?  Or was it to pay for two new soccer teams???  More on that to come.  For now...let's get back to the 10% budget cut.

The school board was unaware of and did not direct administration to reduce budgets by 10%.  So...who ordered the budget cut...and why....and when?

After this revelation started igniting, Dr. Culver stepped in and clarified that it was not a 10% budget cut....but rather...that he and Frei had directed all administrators to only spend up to 90% of their budgets in order to keep the tax levy increase under 2.5%.

REALLY!  So limiting spending to 90% does not equal a 10% budget cut?  If THAT is not being purposefully obtuse, what is?

Why did Culver initiate a ...sorry, Tim...10% cut for all departments without consulting the schools board?  When were they going to be told?

THIS is what happens when you keep the budget behind Oz' curtain until July 30th.  C'mon, people...this is not transparency.  It's what gives the school district and school board a bad rap.  When are we going to find four board members willing to say, "ENOUGH!"?

Stay tuned, we have more questions than we have answers.  Meanwhile, we suspect someone has been summoned to the woodshed.

Sun Prairie Graduation 2012 - Still Exceeding Statistical Probability

It was nice.  It felt...comfortable.  But of course that maybe because things went as expected and as they usually do: a phenomenal percentage of honors and high honors graduates.

Sure, there floated the occasional beach ball until confiscated by the aisle monitors. There were several bold souls that "shook their stuff" on the stage before accepting their diploma case.  But could anyone help but notice    the inverted triangle of high honor grads?

Last year 1 in 4 students graduated with high honors. This second verse very nearly mirrored the first.  By our unofficial tally, 109 students graduated with "high honors" (cumulative GPA greater than 3.50, or between a B+ and an A-).  We don't have a final tally on the number of graduated, but with we use 440, the number of 12 graders in SPHS, the percentage is 24.9%. If we total all 12th graders (including PPA and virtual schoolers, the number of kids is just under 500 and 109 represents about 22%).

By contrast, the number of students graduation with "Honors" (cumulative GPA of 3.20 to 3.499) was only 63!  How could we possibly have more kids achieving High Honors, than plain old Honors?  It makes no sense...right?   As with everything, GPA should follow a pyramidical scheme....starting with a large foundation, and then as we move up, the proportions get smaller.

The baseball analogy
Hey, it's baseball season.  Once again, Rob Hamilton has coached a bunch of kids well into the state tournament.  So let's look at major league baseball (MLB) batting averages.  A pretty good hitter has a batting average of about 0.275, or gets a hit somewhere between every 3 or 4 at bats.  Really good hitters have a batting average of 0.300 (3 hits per 10 at bats; generally at least 1 hit per game).  Exceptional hitters cross the 0.350 batting average line.  These are often your leadoff batters because the probability of them getting on base each at bat is high.  Annually, the MLB batting champs have an average of about 0.325-0.350.  Given that, how unearthly was Teddy Williams when his season batting average was over 0.400?

GPAs should be like baseball averages...the higher the average (GPA) the fewer achieve it.  Not so in Sun Prairie!  It's called grade inflation, people.  We can ignore it and be oh so proud of our scholarly cherubs, but we're deluding ourselves...and our kids.  And the kids are the ones that will come smashing back down to earth.

In MLB today, 105 players with at least 175 at bats are hitting 0.275 or less.  Only 26 players are hitting better than 0.300.  This is reality folks.

 The snowman analogy
Don't like baseball?  Heat making you think about winter?  Let's talk snowmen.  Who among us doesn't know that a properly proportioned snowman has a mid-body section about 1/2 the diameter of the base, and a head about 1/4 the diameter of the base.

If we look at Sun Prairie's Honors grads as the mid-body segment, and High Honors grads as the head, we see that our snowman looks a little wack.

Something's not right here, and it's time someone looked into it.  We need to stop mollycoddling our kids and start preparing the for reality.  This Dr. Feelgood crap will only serve to have them wind up on some therapist's couch down the road.  Can't we be both loving and honest?  Wasn't honesty supposed to be the best policy?  Where has honesty gone?  And over-inflating anything is a formula for disaster.

You are not special.
If you didn't catch wind of the 2012 commencement address given by Mr. David McCullough, faculty member at Wellesley (MA) high school, you should.  He blew Dr. FeelGood out of the water.
Some excerpts are provided below.

Graduates....you passed an awesome milestone.  A round of applause is certainly in order for earning your diploma.  But let's not get overly caught up in class rank or what type of honors you graduated with.  The slate is wiped clean.  College acceptance is competitive and you are now among peers with the same GPA/ACT scores.  We wish you the very best.  Just do not be surprised if things are more difficult than expected, based on your GPA.  Do not get disillusioned.  Just do your best and you will persevere.  You may or may not get "high honors"from here on out.  And if you are off to work, be all that you can be.  The old adage "work hard and you will be rewarded still plays in some businesses".

But most of all...do not be afraid to fail.  Because if you're not failing at something, you're not trying.  None of you will be the best at everything.  A cumulative GPA of 4.0 in life is absolutely unattainable.  But you can get "A"s in some things.  Strive for "A"s in the things you enjoy, and be happy with average marks on the rest of life.

You are not special. You are not exceptional. Contrary to what your U9 soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you’re nothing special.
But do not get the idea you’re anything special. Because you’re not.

Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That’s 37,000 valedictorians… 37,000 class presidents… 92,000 harmonizing altos… 340,000 swaggering jocks… 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs.

You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless. 
 ---Faculty member David McCullough at Wellesley (MA) High School 2012 Commencement

Elementary space pt. 3- 249 words

3 motions came out of the Elementary Task Force

1. John Welke moved to establish an interim student capacity (maximum capacity) for each
elementary school by using the number of dedicated educational classrooms with even grade
distribution times the current class target size plus two. Motion carried 7-0.

This is it.  This is the entire response provided by the elementary principals
 in response to the three motions made  by the Elementary Task Force.

2. John Welke moved to direct administration to review the interim capacities and prepare a
report with recommendations for each elementary school capacity if it's different than the
interim capacity. Motion carried 7-0.

3. John Welke moved to direct administration to prepare, as desired, a different model for
establishing elementary school capacities and present it to the Elementary Task Force
Committee. Motion carried 7-0.

Loaded with qualifiers.

• "...theoretically possible"
• "...practically...next to impossible"
• "...it would NOT be best"
• "...we would NOT be as effective as Instructional Leaders"

In fa ct, there were more words devoted to qualifying their response than actually providing relevant contributory information.

Really? This is what we get from the $100K club?
These folks are all pretty much card carrying members of the $100K salary club (or at the very least total compensation).  This is the best we get from this group?   No header, no identifying information....hell one wouldn't even know it came from them if it wasn't in BoardDocs.

How do you think any student would fare if they turned in a 249 word paper when a "report" was requested?   Maybe...just maybe...if they were the most concise but explanatory words ever strung together.  Just maybe 249 words would cut it. But we doubt it.  They didn't even put their name on their paper.

Was it even their work?
Some have theorized that the response came from somewhere on high (3 guesses) and the elementary school principals were forced to present it as their own.  Perhaps adding to that, the "author" of the document on BoardDocs is not any of the elementary principals but none other than the Secretary for Business Services.   It would seem unlikely that the principals would write their "report" in an e-mail, which had to be copied into a document.  But, if they presented their "report" in some word processor document, why wouldn't that have just been "PDF'd", carrying the author's name with it?
Just askin'....

An answer for everything

OK...truth be told, building a new school
was the ONLY idea which was NOT
met with a response of,
"That's not what's best for the kids"

When committee members expressed disappointment in the quality of the response received, the unified response was "we know what's in the best interests of the children".  To each of the multitude of options proposed to ensure adequate space at the elementary level while delaying spending money on a brand new school, administration just responded with their trump card, "that's not what's best for the kids".

No compromise.  No discussion.  Just a flat, "that's not what's best for the kids.  And the Elementary Task Force  (well, those members other than the administrative team) came up with dozens of really good ideas  representing ex-box thinking, including:

• move some (or even all) 5th graders to the middle schools
• move 7th graders into CHUMS
• reconfigure the grades in elementary schools: maybe four schools serve as K-2 and three schools serve as 3-5.
• relocate the 80 or so kids in the PPA and use the PPA building as a new elementary school.
• make better use of the old administration building (near the CHUMS)
• look for a building which can be converted to a new school, rather than build from scratch,
• make the next elementary school a charter or magnet school
• re-tool boundary lines to ease "crowding" in Horizon, Eastside, Bird and Northside

Perhaps these ideas will be explored at a later date.  Of course...what would be the point, seeing as our elementary principals don't see anything on that list as being "best for the kids".

We're disappointed. You should be too.

Losing confidence in Sun Prairie School District

Sadly, the credibility of the district is going up in flames, ignited by the sparks of a lengthening track record of poor quality information and financial freewheelin'.

The question we have is: how can we have any confidence in the fiscal management of the Sun Prairie Area School District?

Most recently we have the district exceeding the 2011-12 budget for certain line items and using 2011-12 surplus dollars to purchase items required for 2012-13 school year.  Without any public discussion. Or approval from the school board.

We also find out that the brand spanking new JV baseball field has drainage issues that is budgeted to cost $70,000 to repair.  Is this not something that should have been identified earlier and made the responsibility of the contractor that graded the field?

The Ashley field costing has blown credibility to shreds.  We were told that annual maintenance costs are $60,000 countless times.  Then late in 2010, the district re-calculated maintenance costs at only $15,000 per year.  However that figure has not been widely released.  Why?  Because the initial plan assumed that we'd save at least $450,000 in maintenance costs over 120 years, and therefor the district should pony up at least $450K.

And that's just this year.
Go back to last year and we have the whole candy fiasco, the inaccurate data coming out of the business office, the shenanigans which occurred at the annual meeting to name just the major hitters.

The *new* budget timeline works for the district but not for the community
This year we have heard no official word at all about the budget, and that's bad for the community.  The first time we officially see any form of a real budget, the new fiscal year will already have begun.
Seriously...how wrong is that?
That's like getting your tax bill after it's due.
Like getting your position description after you start a job.

We've gone backwards, people.
We should be reviewing the state of the CURRENT budget with the community from March through June, as the school and fiscal year year ends.
At the same time, we should be reviewing plans for spending for the upcoming year.


Mid-year budget changes are (almost) entirely unacceptable
With the exception of an unexpected grant or some major unanticipated cost, we should NEVER bee changing the budgeted amount for a given budget line.
Administrators get paid the big bucks to know how to budget...accurately.
And, if we DO need to exceed the budget, isn't that what fund balance is for?
Stop trying to con us into believing that leaving fund balance alone is required to get  a good rating and good interest rates. Poppycock.  That's the stuff that Walker feeds us.  Do we really want it from the district?

The complexion of the board has changed significantly.
We have a new board president.

This is a window of opportunity
for a board  with a new majority

We have a new board treasurer.
It's time to change the way the Sun Prairie Area School District does business.
But it starts with the board; it must take action to address and correct the issues.
And that action begins with a Situation Report and a public discussion.
Any volunteers?

Budget shenanigans alert: $384K of OVER-expenditures identified

Instead of an Annual Meeting Book
or a  150 pg Monitoring Report, how
about each resident gets a copy of this?

We knew it was too good to be true.
We saw at least $700K in surplus, Phil Frei kept saying only $200-400K.
Ah...but he controls the purse strings, so he knew.  He knew.
The questions are, however: did his supervisor, Tim Culver know? Why didn't the school board know?

Budget Shenanigans#1: $300K over-expenditure for textbooks
District administration had to know these were coming.  So why weren't they budgeted for?
Or did Mr. Frei know that there would be a surplus to cover the shortfall in these budget lines?


Budget Shenanigans#2: Who knew? And why wasn't it reported?

District administration certainly, without a doubt knew they needed to purchase these textbooks; they'd been meeting on the issue through 2011.  It is our understanding that when board members asked if there was money in the respective department budgets for these materials, administration indicated affirmative.  Clearly that is not the case.  So where did they think this money was coming from?  Fund Balance?  Budget surplus, hmmm?
Why was this not reported as part of the March budget adjustments?  Did Tim Culver know about/approve this?

Budget Shenanigans#3: Robbing Peter to pay Paul
Clearly, the intent was to purchase $300K of textbooks required for the 2012-13 school year using projected surplus dollars from the 2011-12 budget.  This is not appropriate.  Budgets are budgets. Any budget surplus belongs to the taxpayers, NOT district administration.  Could they ASK nicely (via the school board) if the taxpayers would be so kind as to allow surplus dollars be used to pay for next years expenses?  Sure.  And likely it would be approved.  But that's not what was done here.  The manner in which this was handled is questionable at best and subject to repercussions at worst.

The question that this brings, however, is what OTHER budget hijinx is going on that we have NOT yet discovered? It brings to mind the old adage that if one would steal a candy bar, it establishes that the individual has thieving tendencies, which leads one to question: what else will be (or has been) stolen...and when.


Budget Shenanigans#4: Money Manipulation 101
How can any budget manager, in good conscience, DECREASE the amount budgeted for a specified line item when expenditures for that line item already exceed the budgeted amount?  Because that's what happened for line 471, Textbooks.  The "budget" in March 2012 was $70,173, which was reduced to $66,814 in April 2012, the same month in which the budget was not just exceeded, but shattered by $161,500?   More to the point, the budgeted amount even in December 2001 was $186,003.  Why was it reduced by $120K when Mr. Frei KNEW these purchases were coming?

Wait...why are we even adjusting budgeted amounts on a monthly basis?  Hello...McFly!  A budgeted is a fixed amount by which one's spending is constrained.  If one simply moves the target every month, it defeats the purposes of even having a budget!  This little known trickery has got to stop.

In an attempt to rationalize this practice, Mr. Frei has used an analogy that a teacher might in the spring decide they want top purchase a magazine, but come fall, decide they no longer want the magazine and instead want to buy construction paper.  Therefore Mr. Frei decreases the magazine budget and increases the paper budget. NO!  What happens is that one line item will be a little short and the other will be a little high.  But they balance each other out in the end! So no harm, no foul.   Changing the budgeted amounts just muddies the water.  Of course, sometimes we muddy the water when we don't want people to see what we're doing.

Budget Shenanigans#5: Disingenuous Information
The value "FYTD %" on the monthly Expenditure by Object report is disingenuous at best. It ONLY reflects actual expenditures vs. budgeted amount. This value MUST also include encumbrances, which are financial commitments the district has made. School board members and residents who look at this stuff will generally simply scan the FYTD% column and look for anomalies. The April report shows that we've only spent 64.69% of budget for line 479 "Other Instructional Books", which at a glance, seems like we will have a surplus with only 2 months remaining. Only if you look at the Unencumbered balance and recognize that -133K represents a budget exceedance would you catch it. And it appears near the bottom on page 2 of a 3 page report.

Budget Shenanigans#6: These Are Not The Only Ones
Take a look at budget line items 440 (Non-Cap Equipment) and 550 (Equip. Addition) as we are now $57K and $27K over budget respectively for these lines (roughly 8%). Was the board made aware of this? What did we purchase that required us to exceed budget for these lines?

Eroding the Public Trust

Really!  What if you needed to pass
a referendum for a new school now?
Does anyone really trust the information
coming out of 500 S. Bird St.?

 It is incidents such as this that continue to erode the public trust in the district as good stewards of taxpayer money. People are hurting, and a surplus used to lower the levy for 2012-13 would have been very nice. Instead, it continues to look like the district wants to squeeze and spend every single taxpayer dollar even using questionable means.

District Leaving the School Board with Egg on their Faces
 The quality and shadiness of data coming out of the district is unacceptable, and these things also make the board look either ignorant or complicit. We don't believe either is true...we know how much information there is and how hard it is to peel all the layers of this onion. However, the district has placed all board members in a very bad position.

Budget surplus looks like a safer bet than June 5 outcome

To be fair, SPASD budget guru Phil Frei has been saying that there will be a surplus at the end of this June.  On that point we agree.  It's the dollar amount where our paths diverge.

The stock market has all kinds of indices on which performance is evaluated.  We need and index for the 9 budget focal points we monitor.  Let's call it the SP-NEYEN.

We believe that these budget lines are representative lines where the district habitually over-budgets.  They serve as nine socks of money.

Let's all be like the giving tree, eh?

At the end of March, we were projecting a surplus of $635 K just from these 9 budget lines alone.  At the end of April, we see the surplus as having grown to just over $700K.  And think about it.  Gas for Heating is virtually done for the calendar year.    83% of the school year is in the books, and we;'ve spent only 2/3 of the budgeted amount.  And the two remaining months require very little heating.   Similarly for electricity, we have $348K budgeted dollars remaining, and --on average-- we spend $96K per month.  Anyway you slice it, we have at least $150K surplus in that line item alone.

So why has Phil Frei repeatedly said that he anticipates a surplus of only $200-300K?   What does he know that he's not sharing?  Remember the giving tree?  Can't we all be like the giving tree?   Shouldn't the district be sharing information so the public can understand the budget? Sharing is caring, right?

Or does the district simply prefer to treat community residents like mushrooms.

From poor data to NO data

Less than 48 hours away and NO information!

Last year, it became patently obvious that the quality of data coming out of the school district was poor and unreliable.  One would have hoped for improvement.  Instead, it seems like we're moving from poor data to no data at all.  Maybe it's like Mom always said...if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all.


At issue here is the Elementary Task Force Committee meeting slated for this Wednesday, May 30.  There is not one speck of information posted regarding this meeting.  How helpful is THAT to community residents.  More to the point, how can committee members prepare for a meeting when they have no information with which to prepare?

Is this a not so subtle message from the district administration that they don't like the direction in which they think the committee is heading?   Because certainly SOMEONE was able to get a whole boatload of information posted for the school board and committee meetings scheduled for tomorrow night.

Really, people?  This is the best the $100K club can come up with?
Not impressed here.

Elementary space - pt 2: two definitions of capacity

In part 1 of this series we (hopefully) tucked the idea that we REALLY need to build a school right this second  safely into bed.  We're just not growing anywhere near the rate we did 4-5 years ago.  In addition, none us believe that growth is going to explode at projected rates in the next year or so either.  Before that can happen, we need to get beyond June 5th.  Further, we need to get this economy settled.  It continues to move at 2 steps forward followed by 1-2 steps backward.  Newsflash, people....what happens in Europe DOES eventually affect us.  For now, it's time to talk capacity.  And we need to talk about TWO KINDS of capacity.

#2 We need to identify BOTH individual building and district-wide capacity. 

Individual school capacity
Despite what Dr. Culver might think, we DO need to know what the realistic maximum capacity of each school is.  Perhaps Dr. C has visions of retirement sugarplums dancing in his head, preventing him from seeing clearly.  Lord knows we wouldn't think for one minute that he is not operating with an open mind.

Does a hotel have a single capacity?  Or is it based cumulative based on maximum number of individuals allowed in each room?  We seem to recall these things called fire codes which establish a "capacity" for the number of individuals in a given room.  Otherwise, we could have a hotel with numerous room vacancies yet too many individuals in a ballroom for some crazy party or celebration.  What about elevators?  Don't they have individual capacities based on their size and lift mechanisms?  You know those crazy college kids....we could envision a scenario in which 3 elevators are empty while a fourth is packed like a can of sardines full of coeds.

In a school district, we have buildings of all different sizes.  We have Horizon with 94,000 square feet and then we have the runt of the litter (size-wise, people!), Eastside, with just under 67,000 square feet.  Yet they both have the same "capacity" (516 kids) listed in the annual meeting book.  How can that be?  Horizon's principal is quick to point to the stairwells in the school as space hogs.  Might have a small effect, but we're not buying the whole enchilada there.  More to the point is that Eastside actually has more kids this year than Horizon!

516 is a magic number.
For non-SAGE schools, the district lists capacity as "516", although through time that number has changed from a high of 540 kids. Where does the number 540 come from?  It assumes that each school is designed with 24 classrooms, with 4 for each grade level.  Then we simply multiply 4 grades times the "class size target" at each grade.  The class size targets are 18 kids for Kindergarten, 19 for 1st grade and 20 kids for 2nd grade.  Then it jumps to 23 kids for 3rd grade, 24 for 4th grade, and 25 for 5th grade.

Target?  or Capacity?
It's confusing...we know.  But that's the way SPASD Administration wants it.  If you're confused, you're more likely to nod your head assuming that you should understand ...and walk away.   Is the class size "target" equal to "capacity?   We don't see it that way.  If you've purchased a new car in the last 5-8 years, the manual will tell you that the oil needs to be changed every 5,000 miles.   When you get your oil changed, however, the shop will invariably place a sticker indicating that your next oil change is due in 3,000 miles.  Hey...it works.  They get the revenue from those poor saps that follow the sticker.  Would it hurt to change your oil every 3,000 miles? Hell no!  But do you NEED to do it that often.  Hell no, again!  Is it something to aim for?  Sure.  Kinda like...like...um...er....a TARGET!  But the maximum...thew capacity if you will....is 5,000 miles.  Change your oil before it hits 5,000, or suffer the consequences.

So...what's capacity for an elementary school?  Well...the dirty little secret is that each school and each grade operate on a "+2" system, meaning that for kindergarten, a class can have as many as 20 kids before something needs to happen (move to another class or shuttle to another school).  The same holds true for every grade (in a non-SAGE school).   So...doesn't that make the real capacity of a school 564 (20,21,22,25,26,27 x 4 sections each)?  Now before you shoot us, let's remember the oil change rule.  5,000 is the top end; you don't want to exceed it, but you don't want to flirt there either.

No style points for packaging
Unfortunately, kids don't come in perfectly sized groups.  That's why Northside currently has 5 sections each of kindergarten and 1st grade.   Although a SAGE school, which has smaller class maximum sizes for grades K-3, CH Bird has 5 sections each of grades K-2.   On the other end of the spectrum, Creekside has only 2 sections of 5th grade.

That's the downside of this grade-specific class size target/capacity.   75 Kindergartners in a school means 4 classrooms, but if they were 5th graders, we'd only need 3 classrooms.  If we had a single class capacity for all grades, X amount of kids means Y number of classrooms are needed.

District-wide capacity
Once we have established the capacities of each of the schools, then the district-wide capacity is simply the sum of all the individual school capacities.   The UW's Applied Population Lab (APL) makes district wide projections, not school-specific progressions.  Projections are made based on births as well as grade projections (the historical relationship of number of students at a grade level one year, to the number  of students at the next grade level the following year.

We might have 500 first grader this year (actually it's about 562) but that doesn't not means that we'll have 500 second graders next year.  Families move into the district; families move out.  Some families remain in the district but send their kids to a private school or a virtual school.  But, with enough data, we can make a mathematical progression of how this year's 1st grade enrollment may translate to next year's 2nd grade enrollment.

Why we need both - two different triggers for action
If a district has 6 elementary schools that are half full but a 7th that exceeds "capacity", then the solution to the problem is not to build an 8th school...can we agree on that?  Unless, of course, we also are projecting such rapid growth that in a couple of years ALL schools will be full.  And that, Dr. Culver, is why we need to define what capacity is for a given school.

Sun Prairie currently has two schools (Eastside and Horizon) that are getting cramped. Using the district's own "+2" definition of capacity (564), both these schools are at 88% of capacity.  Creekside, on the other hand, is just under 70% capacity.  Westside sits at 66% using the same basis.   District-wide, the elementary schools are at 80% of capacity.  So....while 2-3 schools are getting tight, does that mean the district needs an 8th school within a couple of years?  We don't thinks so.

That being said, SOMETHING needs to be done to alleviate the crowding at Eastside, Horizon, and even Northside.  But rather than build a new school, adding $20-22M to what is already the 2nd highest debt levy in the state, maybe we could do something else.  Maybe we could take some action to better utilize space within the district at the elementary level.

The important take-away message here is that when a couple of schools are straining at the edges of capacity, we might need to take some action that will address those schools.  When the straining is being felt at a curriculum level across the district, however, THAT is the time to start seriously looking at adding a new school.

Defining "action"
There are many actions that COULD be taken.  For instance, all the pre-K special Ed kids are housed at Northside, which is on the cusp of feeling crowded.  Why would the district not move those kids/that program over to Creekside, which has plenty of space?  That is such a simple solution which would give Northside (86% of capacity) a little breathing space.

While nobody likes to talk about it, perhaps a minor boundary shift would direct more students from Horizon into Royal Oaks and from Eastside to Creekside.  Yes, many folks are still feeling the pain of the last boundary change fiasco.   Hell...the folks in Bristol, got the finger...remember?  But at issue here is like the difference between a good dentist and a not-so-good one.  With a good dentist, you feel little or no pain from the procedure.  For the last  boundary change, we had a poor dentist on the job that was doing extractions without Novocain.  So let's get another "dentist" to handle the next boundary change.

What about moving SAGE from Bird to Creekside? Creekside could better handle the reduced class sizes at grades K-3.  Or maybe we decide to offer SAGE at only grades K-2....or K and 1.

What's important is that there ARE other options than building a new school.

We could discuss changing grade configurations.  Perhaps moving some or all 5th graders into the middle schools.  Or perhaps using four of the elementary schools as K-2 schools and three as 3-5 schools.

Elementary space: Part 1 -through the lens distortedly

Putting aside such controversial issues as (cough, cough) capacity for a minute...how does one decide when more space is needed?  Does a young couple, dreaming of oodles of babies decide to move from their one bedroom apartment and buy a 5-bedroom house?  Maybe...if they're rich.     Or are such decisions better made closer to reality...such as when bun #2 is baking in the oven, is it time to move from a 2 bedroom home to a 3-bedroom home?   Similarly, does a school district which sits at 79% of "capacity" decide it's time to build a school?  Or do they look for some untested measure of "capacity" which supports a much higher percentage of capacity?  Doesn't part of this district's mission say something about making decisions based on data?  It would seem that we need to add a modifier there, language geeks.  Perhaps an adjective?  Maybe..."accurate"..."reliable"?  How about tossing in an adverb for good measure.  Maybe our motto needs to be something more like, "We only make decisions based on accurate and reliable data?  There...THAT changes the flavor nicely.

...bored now

Of course, that opening salvo will start phones ringing tomorrow morning...if not sooner...and some poor blogger is gonna wind up in someone's doghouse.  You know what?  So. Be. It.  Not caring here.  We're with Dark Willow...we're bored now.  Shackles and gags don't work very well for us.  Because, in the end, we err on the side of more information.  We believe in getting the data out there and letting the community decide.   Hell, our beloved local newspaper and official newspaper of the school district, the STAR, doesn't publish anything until it's said and done, brewing and controversial, or unless they read some twisted message into something that has no bearing on truth.  Anything to sell newspapers you know.  Credible journalism is not affected by the fact that a newspaper is shrinking in terms of both number and size of its pages, right?

Where are we going with this?  Well....we have a school board approved timeline for building elementary school #8.  Of course that decision was made deep within the black box that is SPASD administration.  We have no information on HOW they reached that conclusion...although our guess is "because it's what's best for the kids".  But, with all that said, according to the school board approved timeline, we should be well on our way to selecting a site on which to build this 8th elementary school to open September 2015.  In order to toss a couple of boulders on the track to slow this train down, we offer the first of three key concepts:


#1 Building a new school based on unrealized projections is just plain wrong. 
How do we know when it's time to build a new school?  Well..seeing as the UW APL projections for growth keep getting tossed out at us, it would seem that's a big part of the black box source code.  That being said, let us be perfectly clear.  As our governor would likely point out, the APL projections are but a single tool to maintain a complex machine.  They are mathematical projections based on actual enrollment and birth data.  What cannot be so easily converted to mathematical functions, however are petty little annoyances like 4-year long recessions, a weak housing market, foreclosures, and rapidly declining home values.  Oh....and maybe a new governor.

So...according to projections,  we need to build an 8th elementary school to open by the fall of 2015.  Those projections assume that we will add 547 additional elementary school kids in the next 4 years.   Certainly, if we increase the number of elementary school-aged children by  18% in 4 years, then we will be VERY tight on space.

But this isn't FairyTale land.  And our elementary "growth" over the past FIVE (not four) years has been 271 kids....or roughly half of growth projected for the next 4 years.  The APL projection is that this fall, for the 2012-13 school year, we will add just under 300 total students, of which 109 will be K-5 kids.  That's funny, because in the budget projections trotted out by Phil Frei, an increase of only 120 TOTAL kids is planned.  So even administration has some doubts about the accuracy of the APL projections.  Over the last 10 years, elementary school kids have represented, on average, 45.8% of the total district enrollment.  And this number has been pretty solid: the lowest percent was 43.8 and the highest was 47.9%.  That means that Mr. Frei's budget projection of 120 new kids translates to about 55 new K-5 students.  And that's a pretty far cry from the 109 new K-5 kids projected by APL.  Could the APL projections be materialized?  Sure, anythings possible until the 3rd Friday count.  But over the past 5 years, the K-5 increases have been exactly: 5, 77,72,77, and 40 this year.  It's pretty hard to envision us ballooning to 109.  The economy sputters still. And we haven't resolved the governor fiasco.

Projections call for more growth in the next 10 years than the prior 10.
Hard to believe...right?  From the 2001-2002 school year to the current school year, SPASD saw an increase of 41% at the K-5 level.  904 kids. On average that represents 4.0% per year. That's pretty significant growth.  More significant?  The APL projections (which of course are less accurate the further out they get) suggest 42% growth over the next 10 years.   "So what", you say.  "Big deal".  So growth rises an additional 1%.  What the big hairy dealio?

The big dealio comes in two parts.  First....how realistic to express HIGHER growth than during our boom years over the next 10 years when (A) we've seen stagnant to declining growth and (B) math is funny.  That 42% growth over the next 10 years, translates to an addition 1309 K-5 kids...or 45% MORE kids than we saw come in over the past 10 years.  WTF?  How could essentially the same growth rate translate to 50% more kids?  That's that funny thing about math.  The higher then  starting niumber is, the larger the absolute increase given the same percentage increase.

Or, more simply put, a 50% increase in growth is not a big deal when we're talking about just a few kids kids.  That means just 1-2 kids.  But when the enrollment of K-5 is 3100, then a 50% increase translates to more than 1500 kids.  Is Sun Prairie really that big?

Futurecasting
Really?  Somebody believes that our growth is going to suddenly exceed diminished projections made in 2007-08 and 2008-09?  Really?  Can we maybe think about that?

This past fall the APL updated their projections for us.  As usual, they offer 5 different ways of projection future growth.  Interestingly enough, we pick a different one as our basis each time.  This year the "2-yr trend" was selected based on the scientific WAG* method.  If one superimposes actual enrollments over the past 15 years or so, does the 2'yr trend (which projects the 2nd highest degree of growth) look like the most fitting?

Capacity is a moving target

District administration produces these humongous "monitoring reports" annually.   They are hard to read due to the overwhelming amount of good data mixed in with a bunch of adminospeak.  But...there are some diamonds in that roughage.  We looks at monitoring reports for 2006-07 through 2008-09.  Each presents interesting data on projected growth and timing of need for an 8th elementary school.  For instance, the 2006-07 reported projected that we'd have 320 more K-5 kids than we actually had this school year.  It also projected that an 8th elementary school was needed by this past fall.  Oops.  we missed that memo.  Good thing too....because...newsflash....didn't need it.  The 2008-09 Monitoring report came much closer to projecting enrollment for this past year...the projection was only high by 176 kids.  More to the point, it was this report that first backed up the projected need to the 2013-14 school year.  The biggest thing of note that with the 2008-09 monitoring report, something else changed.  Now the number of kids at which an 8th elementary was needed increased from 3,500 to 3656.  Doing the may, prior to 2008-09, need was based on an average school capacity of 500 kids.  Suddenly, without fanfare, that increased to 516.  Hmmmm.

Projections do not support the need for a new school NOW
The bottom line is that we have to remember our basics from Computer Programming 101: Garbage In=Garbage Out.  It is abundantly clear now that the recession has only thrown a lot of cold water in the face of the hot APL projections.  We're clearly well behind the projected growth curve.  Therefore it's time to turn off the alarms and rescind/revise the timeline for elementary school #8.  We're not opposed to building it.  We simply believe that the urgency of the need for it is less urgent.  Just based on flawed projections, alone it would seem that the earliest an 8th elementary school would be needed would be 2016-17 or 2017-18.

That should shift the need from planning an 8th elementary school to dealing with the 2-3 schools that ARE struggling with capacity now (assuming of course that we know what capacity is).  For longer term, that allows us to give some thought as to what an 8th elementary school would/should look like.  Is it a cookie cutter copy of Horizon/Creekside?  Smaller?  Or is it something entirely different?  Perhaps a charter/magnet school?

---

* WAG = Wild Assed Guess

Hats off to Skills USA kids

Very quietly (we believe) Sun Prairie's Skills USA group delivered an awe-inspiring fundraiser yesterday.  On what was the hottest day of the young season yesterday, with the mercury cracking the 90 ° mark, this group tuned up lawnmowers. Led by their instructor, Mr. Chris Neff, these kids offered a complete lawn-mower tune-up and blade sharpening for a great price.  All to afford the cost to travel to Kansas City for the National SkillsUSA Leadership and Skills Conference.

That's right.. they didn't sell frozen pizza, or the endless array of under-utilized discount cards.  They offered a valuable and practical service.  Many of us are frequently too busy to attend to proper lawnmower maintenance.  We think it's fair to say that at the end of a season, most of them have been ridden (or pushed) hard and put away wet.  Spark plug replaced?  Wait...are we supposed to replace those?  Oil change and filter replacement?  You mean the old rule, "if it isn't too black, too gritty, or too low, start 'er up" doesn't apply?  AND a tank full of gas?  All for $35 (push) or $50 (ride-on).  And they even sharpened blades for $10!  Who among i running with a few gouges out of the blade?  Heck, parts and supplies alone can run you $15-20.  And the labor, even for a pro, can run 1.5-3 hours.

SkillsUSA is a national student organization for technology and industrial education students.  We "Prepare for leadership in the world of work."  Sun Prairie has SkillsUSA available for students from 6th through 12th grade.  SkillsUSA chapters also exist at area technical colleges across the nation.  If you would like more info about SkillsUSA, visit www.skillsusa.org.

We read the papers a little so we know what some folks will charge for a service like that.  A little research will show you that a tune-up like that can cost $75-100.  These kids did a great job, they offered the service at a very affordable price, and they furthered their education at the same time!  Do you have any idea what it takes to figure out where all these things fit and how to do this stuff on a wide variety of machines?  And on top of that, they did it in a pretty hot garage on a very warm day.  One on which we're sure they would have liked to be elsewhere.

That's dedication, folks.  And it's commitment to a team goal.  Our hat is off to Mr. Neff and his students.  They were looking to work on about 130 mowers to raise enough money for the trip.  We don't know if they did or not, but it looked like they had at least 5 or so pages of names.  We hope they were successful.

http://www.sunprairie.k12.wi.us/news_detail.cfm?newsid=84306&detailid=65547

Another "Top" List We Did Not Make

In case you haven't heard yet, U.S. News and World Report released its most recent assessment of top performing high schools across the nation.  You can look, but you won't find Sun Prairie on the list.  You WILL see, however, a few high schools you may recognize on that list:

Janesville Parker ranked 19th in the state: http://www.channel3000.com/education/Janesville-Parker-High-School-ranked-in-magazine-s-list-of-top-schools/-/1624/13126812/-/114wa28/-/index.html

• Milwaukee's Rufus King ranked #1, and is ranked #130 in the nation.
• Eau Claire Memorial ranked #3 statewide, and is nationally ranked.
• Even itty bitty Lancaster high ranked 4th.
• Green Bay Preble and Appleton West also ranked in the top 10.

The process used--a pretty comprehensive one-- is summarized below.  You can see that we likely would have passed Step 3...had we gotten there.  Which means we didn't pass Step 2.  But what's worse, if you look at the data, is that we didn't even make it past Step 1 (achievement).

Step 1 of the rankings aimed to identify high schools that performed above expectations, controlling for the proportion of economically disadvantaged students.


Step 2 identified high schools in which disadvantaged students—defined as Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, or economically disadvantaged as determined by state criteria (often defined as students eligible for free or reduced price lunch through the National School Lunch Program)—had combined reading and mathematics proficiency levels that were at least equal to the state’s combined reading and mathematics proficiency levels for those disadvantaged student groups. The purpose of Step 2 was to make sure that high schools progressing to Step 3 successfully educated all students, regardless of their socioeconomic or ethnic backgrounds.
High schools with disadvantaged student subgroups that performed as well as or better than the state average advanced to Step 3. That is, all high schools that had a value of 0 or higher for the disadvantaged student proficiency gap differential passed Step 2.


Step 3 of the analysis measured the extent to which students were prepared for college-level work. The college readiness index—created for the “Best High Schools” rankings—accounted for student participation in and performance on AP (Advanced Placement) or IB (International Baccalaureate)  exams.


High schools that passed Step 1 and Step 2 and either (a) participated in AP and/or IB programs but did not meet the predetermined college readiness index threshold of 16.2844 or (b) did not participate in AP and IB programs were awarded bronze medals. High schools that passed Step 1 and Step 2 and met or exceeded the college readiness index threshold were awarded silver or gold medals.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/wisconsin/districts/sun-prairie-area-school-district/sun-prairie-high-21919

Crystal Ball: Doesn't Take A Genius to See a Surplus

The only question, then, is.... how much?

We've heard estimates of $200-$400K surplus for the school year from the district office.
What has not been clear is whether that projected surplus considers the $350-$700K planned to be used from fund balance this year.  Or is that $200-400K over and above (meaning we would actually INCREASE rather than decrease fund balance)?

All good questions for which we currently lack answers.
And since the district is showing very few of its cards regarding the 2012-13 budget, let's just shake the trees a bit and see what falls out, shall we?

We looked at just NINE budget "lines", and we see approximately $635K of surplus just from those lines alone.  Of course their could be some hefty shortages in some budget lines of which we have not been forewarned.  But let's just focus on what we can (and you should too) see in just 9 simple budget lines.

1. Line 331 Gas for Heat
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 61% of budget had been spent.  14% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 18.7% under budget.   18.7% of a $305,518 budget would translate to a surplus of $57,000.

Looking at it another way, $120K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, Gas expenses for April through June were $57K.  This year, we have averaged $23K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about $69K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $51-$61K.  Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect about $60K surplus.


2. Line 337 Water
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 51% of budget had been spent.  24% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 32% under budget.   32% of a $55,030 budget would translate to a surplus of $17,600.

Looking at it another way, $27K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June were $10K.  This year, we have averaged $3,500 per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $10.5K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $17K.  Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect about $17K surplus.


3. Line 336 Electricity
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 63% of budget had been spent.  12% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 16% under budget.   16% of a $1,209,019 budget would translate to a surplus of $193,443.

Looking at it another way, $452K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June were $295K.  This year, we have averaged $95K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $285K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $157-167K.  Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect about $160K surplus.


4. Line 411 Supplies
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 57% of budget had been spent.  18% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 24% under budget.   24% of a $1,101,715 budget would translate to a surplus of $264,411.  Note that with the March budget adjustments, this line was LOWERED by $56K!  This however, is a line that gets spent down heavily in the last few months.  Hmmmm.

Looking at it another way, $331K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June were $248K.  This year, we have averaged $76K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $228K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $83-103K.
Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect at least $80K surplus.


5. Line 490 Other Non-Capital Objects
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 16% of budget had been spent (Nope, not a typo...16% spent to-date).  84% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 89% under budget.   89% of a $81,150 budget would translate to a surplus of $72K.  Note that with the March budget adjustments, this line was INCREASED by $7K!  Why on earth would we budget MORE for a budget line that has only spent 16% of its total budget to-date?  Hmmmm.

Looking at it another way, $58K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June were $10K.  This year, we have averaged $1,500 per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $3.5K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $48-55K.
Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect at least $50K surplus.

6. Line 109 Substitutes (Teachers)
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 57% of budget had been spent.  18% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 24% under budget.   18% of a $1,157,033 budget would translate to a surplus of $268K.  Note that with the March budget adjustments, this line was DECREASED by $100K!  Hmmmm.  Seems like someone saw what we see.  But, the trend is for a much higher substitute cost in the spring.  Teachers playing hooky when the weather gets nice?

Looking at it another way, $496K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June were $391K.  This year, we have averaged $73K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $220K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $105-276K.
Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect at least $100K surplus.


7. Line 310 Personal Services (Send Lawyers, Guns and Money)
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 59% of budget had been spent.  16% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 21% under budget.   21% of a $1,109,139 budget would translate to a surplus of $233K.  Note that with the March budget adjustments, this line was INcreased by $1,100!  Ummm...what's the point of raising a $1.1M budget by $1,100?Hmmmm.

Looking at it another way, $378K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June totaled $321K.  This year, we have averaged $72K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $216K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $57-162K.
Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect at least $55K surplus.  Even if we expel all 6 of the pot brownie boys. :-)



8. Line 342 Employee Travel
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 52% of budget had been spent.  23% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 30% under budget.   30% of a $80,151 budget would translate to a surplus of $24K.  Note that with the March budget adjustments, this line was DEcreased by $3,600.  

Looking at it another way, $40K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June totaled $12K.  This year, we have averaged $5K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $15K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $25-28K.
Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect at least $25K surplus. 


9. Line 940 Dues & Fees
Through March (75% of the fiscal year) only 53% of budget had been spent.  22% unspent after 3/4 of the year is complete would suggest that we might logically end up as much as 29% under budget.   29% of a $338,349 budget would translate to a surplus of $98K.  Note that with the March budget adjustments, this line was DEcreased by $8,500.  

Looking at it another way, $148K of the budget remains unspent.  Last year, expenses for April through June totaled $41K.  This year, we have averaged $20K per month.  Based on this year's spending trend, we could project spending about another $60K.  That tells us that we can project a surplus of $88-107K.
Compare that to our earlier projection, and it seems realistic to expect at least $88K surplus. 


Y'all do the math.  See if you see differently.  Now...the district could, of course, suddenly accelerate its spending in these lines, or magically transfer the overages to other budget lines.  The bottom line is that over-budgeting is the oldest trick in the books to increase fund balance. Oh, gee....we over spent?  No...no...you have it all wrong...we were just being frugal.  Guess we'll just have to put the surplus into fund balance.

Real Data: How Act 10 Affected SPASD

Act 10 was designed to provide school district and municipalities with "tools"....tools which could be used to lower property taxes and get a handle on exploding costs.

How did it work?
Well...we look at DPT salary and fringe benefit data available from DPI and compared apples to apples.  We looked at actual employees in both administration and teaching (support staff salary data is not available).  We looked at employees that were on staff both in 2010-11 and this year (2011-12).

We broke teachers down in to 3 classes:  the top shelf (most highly paid), those with salaries right in the middle, and those on the bottom rung.  Further, we initially obtained data on 32 individuals in each class, to make for a representative statistical sampling.

Weeding the Garden of Outliers
In each case, there were some employees with unusual circumstances that skewed the data, so we removed these statistical outliers.  For example, there was an administrator that was promoted last year whose salary was increased by $36,000 (46%).  They also increased their fringe  benefits by $2800.  Clearly things went very well for that individual.  And that was not the norm, so we excluded that one.  We also had staff that appeared to switch from single plan heal insurance to the family plan (and vice versa).  Those individuals were culled from the data as well.  Essentially, we were looking to compare this year to last year for staff that did not have any other changes that would skew the data.  We hoped to see ONLY the effects of Act 10.  Finally, we looked at the median values in each case because the data suggested that the medians were more representative of actual impacts.

Explaining the Data -Administrators
First, let us point out that our group of administrators also includes the Special Ed Program Managers who technically fall under the Administrative Support Classification.   Since DPI includes their data, and their salaries are similar to administrators' we included them.

The typical (median) administrator earned an additional $1,762 in 2011-12, a 1.9% increase.  In fringe benefits, however, our typical administrator lost $5,188 (-16.5%).  Recall that due to Act 10, they were to pay 5.8% (50% of retirement contribution formerly paid entirely by the district) of their salary towards the state retirement system.  In addition, all were required to pay at least 9% of their health insurance benefit (up from about 5% last year).

The net effect is only a 1.9% "hit" on total compensation (defined here as salary + fringes).  They lost a net $2,300 (less than $200/month) on an average salary with gross monthly pay of  $7,720.


Explaining the Data -Top 1/3 Teachers
The typical (median) highest paid teacher/professional educator earned only an additional $300 in 2011-12, a 0.4% increase.   The salary for this group ranged from $71,000 to $86,000.   In fringe benefits, however, our typical high end teacher lost $3,918 (-12.9%).  They lost 5.8%  of their salary towards the state retirement system.  In addition, all were required to pay at least 9% of their health insurance benefit (up from less than 2% last year).  In terms of total compensation, this group fared the worst, losing a net 3.4%.  Their total compensation (median) declined to $101,758 from $105,320.


Explaining the Data -Mid 1/3 Teachers

A look at 25-30 staff members in each group comparing
2010-11 compensation to 2011-12 compensation.

The typical (median) "average" teacher/professional educator earned an additional $1,976 in 2011-12, a 4.0% increase.   The salary for this group ranged from $49,800 to $52,200.   In fringe benefits, however, our typical mid-level teacher lost $2,975 (-13.8%).  They, too,  lost 5.8%  of their salary towards the state retirement system.  In addition, all were required to pay at least 9% of their health insurance benefit (up from less than 2% last year).  In terms of total compensation, this group fared similar to Administrators losing a net 1.8%.  Their total compensation (median) declined to $73,388 from $74,759.



Explaining the Data -Bottom 1/3 Teachers
The typical (median) "entry level" (1st few years) teacher/professional educator earned an additional $1,621 in 2011-12, a 5.0% increase.   The salary for this group ranged from $33,100 to $35,900.   In fringe benefits, however, our typical bottom rung teacher lost $1,754 (-13.8%).  They, too,  lost 5.8%  of their salary towards the state retirement system.  In addition, all were required to pay at least 9% of their health insurance benefit (up from less than 2% last year).  In terms of total compensation, this group fared better than all groups, actually GAINING a meager net 0.2%.  Their total compensation (median) increased slightly to $46,309 from $46,212.

We have no data to support this, but due to the significantly lower fringe benefits, our theory is that these teachers typically may be single and thus opt for the less expensive single health plan over the family plan chosen by older teachers.  They are also likely affected by a move--one we applaud-- to raise the starting salary for teachers.

Other anomalies
We did note that in several cases for each group, "overload" assignments were added in 2011-12, perhaps to make up for lost take-home pay due to Act 10.  In addition, we noticed what appeared to be a switch from family plan to either a single plan--or perhaps no health plan-- in 2011-12.  This could increase compensation in 2011-12.  Any employee who opts not to take health insurance is eligible for a payment of $3600 ($300/month) in lieu of the health benefit.  So if a staff member were to be covered under a spouse/significant other's plan, they could reduce actually increase their net compensation.

Has Grading For Learning Squelched Grade Inflation?

We have posted numerous times about grade inflation in the school district, which is great on the ego, but has a nasty after-bite if one opts to go on to college.

Looking back over the years we documented the following for middle school kids and grade inflation, using the honor roll as our data:

2008 3rd Quarter:  55% of all middle schools made the honor roll; 18% scored perfect 4.0's
2010 2nd Quarter: 60% of all middle schools made the honor roll
2010 3rd Quarter: 55% of all middle schools made the honor roll; 8.4% scored perfect 4.0's

This year, "Grading for Learning" was put into place, in which instead of letter grades, kids earned number grades from 1-4, with 4 equivalent to "mastering" a subject.  Honor roll is earned by earning nothing but 3's and 4;s in classes.  And the results are:

2012 3rd Quarter:  22.3% of middle schoolers (grades 6 &7) made the honor roll.
WOW!  Much more statistically "likely".  Sure, some kids that may have been used to making the honor roll now aren't getting there, but this is reality. And perhaps it gives kids an opportunity to reflect more on the need to work a little harder.

This percentage is pretty consistent between the two middle schools and between grades:
Patrick Marsh: 22.5%  (18.0% 6th grade; 27.2% 7th grade)
Prairie View: 22.2%  (26.5% 6th grade; 18.2% 7th grade)
all 6th graders: 22.0%
all 7th graders: 22.6%

If this is what Grading For Learning will look like down the road, then our hat is off to Alice Murphy and all those who coordinated this initiative.  We need to be honest with our kids.  If their learning is not up to par, then the kids need to make some adjustments.  Parents. you can help out at home, too.

SPHS: Same. Old. Story.
The high school has been running about 40% on the honor roll (which statistically unlikely) for years.  This year:  in the 3rd quarter we're at 39.9%.
Same old story.
Same old song and dance (my friends).
The range for grades 10-12 was 35.7% to 43.2%.

Good Lord...those middle schoolers will hit high school, and instantly become geniuses!

The grading for learning in the middle schools seems to correlate well to what we see on WKCE tests:  we're just an average school district in terms of learning.  We CAN...and should...improve