The case of the puzzling yard signs

So...on the one hand we have an elementary school principal who is on record of supporting smaller class sizes.  On the other, we have said principal's yard flaunting a complete slate of Republican yard signs.

Hmmm...seeing as how Romney has clearly stated that he doesn't not see a relationship between class size and student achievement, how could an elementary principal be (at least openly) supporting him?

Could it be that personal finance is valued more highly than education?  Based on the principal's salary (and that of said principal's spouse), they may not be in the "1%", but they very clearly fall into the 4%...as in their household income (available through public records) exceeds that of 96% of Americans.

Yeah...they might want to vote for the guy that will cut their taxes...even if he does gut education.

With all due respect to privacy, it just seems strange to us that someone in these shoes would be so open about which candidate they support.  Talk about erecting a wall between you and your staff.

Fact Check: Is SPHS' graduation rate really 98%

 When Dr. Culver hesitated a bit prior to stating at the Annual Electors Meeting that Sun Prairie's graduation rate was 98%, we wondered.  So we did a little research.


As of May 1, 2012, the "official" tally of 12th graders was 496; however, the STAR reported the number of 2012 graduates to be 480.  That would yield a percentage of only 96.8%.  What happened to the other 1.2% (about 6 kids)?  Did we misplace them?

Now DPI data is always at least a year behind, but the DPI data for 2011 (as reported by Sun Prairie) was only a 94.6% graduation rate.  So, from one perspective, going from 94.6% to 96.8% is a nice increase.  But still...where did Dr. Culver's 98% come from?  Is this yet another example of questionable information coming from the district administration?  Or, like a presidential candidate, is the 98% a "true" statement IF you consider a a number of unmentioned conditions?

So what we did next boys and girls, was to compare Sun Prairie's 2011 graduation rate to other districts in Dane County and also to the 20 similar sized districts (10 smaller; 10 larger).

Overall, Sun Prairie looks pretty darn good, especially against similar sized school districts, coming in 5th out of 21.

While in Dane Co., Sun Prairie sits in the middle of the pack, let's be real.  The schools above us are much smaller school districts.

Does size matter?
It's starting to look like size matters when it comes to graduation rate.  But, what the numbers do not show is the demographics of the student body.  It's far more difficult to achieve a 100% graduation rate when the numbers of socio-economically disadvantaged students rises significantly.

Chasing the mean
We also looked at the history of gradation rates (up to age 21) going back to 1996-97 school year.  While the last three years have seen an increase, overall the tendency is to bounce around a mean of 94-96%.  And that's the way statistics work.  It's just like in football, a player will have a "career" year, and then bounce back down to the mean.   Like Monte Ball is doing.  He's a great back, but last year was the perfect storm of sorts, with a (now) NFL starting quarterback, and a lot of quality receivers, much running back depth, and a stalwart offensive line.  Now...he's doing well, but nowhere near a Heisman pace.  Similarly, people started questioning Aaron Rodgers.  One 6 TD game later, and he's back looking like he has the past 3 years.

Life is a game of chasing the mean.  We'll have up games and down games.  We'll have up years and we'll have down years, but, at the end of the day (year, season) we won't fluctuate much off the mean.

Is 100% graduation rate achievable?
The DPI data (2011) includes 381 districts with 12th grade enrollment.  19 of these districts (5%) had 100% high school "completion rates", culminating in a diploma.  So...100% IS attainable.  Notably, however, the average class size of these districts with 100% graduation rate was 42 students.  That means a high school graduating class less than one-tenth of Sun Prairie's size.   Let's not even talk about the differences in diversity or socio-economic disparities.

The largest district with 100% enrollment was  Baldwin-Woodville with a graduating class of 115 (less than 1/3 of Sun Prairie's).  Interestingly, Baldwin-Woodville was on the list of best high schools.  But look closely at how Sun Prairie compares to Baldwin-Woodville.

                             Sun Prairie     Baldwin-Woodville

Median Household Income        $55,456        $46,142

% Economically Disadvantaged    25.8%           23.4%

% Minority students             24.8%            5.9%

Population                     26,031            4,470

# students                      7095             1635

Look...we could have 3 high schools, instead of one...but who's kidding whom?  That would be cost prohibitive.  And regardless of how many high schools we have, we still need to come to grips with the diversity issue.

The Bottom Line
Mr. Guyant's attempt to compare graduation rate to things like airplane crash rate, brake failure, or foodborne illness is ill-informed at best, grandstanding at the very least.  It was a Hail Mary attempt to persuade community members to simply throw more money at the school district.  Frankly, we'd rather see more National Merit Scholars than named courtyards or classrooms.

What we need to do is better educate the kids we have that WANT to be there.  Life is about choices, and some kids simply do not choose to graduate from high school.  Learning cannot be forced.

Last but not least, it would be interesting to learn where Dr. Culver came up with his response that our graduation rate is 98%.  The numbers we see do not add up.  But, hey, that's not the first time we've seen that in this district.

Is a 100% graduation rate realistic?

SPARC member Al Guyant called it out at the annual electors meeting: 98% is not good enough.  He asked how much it would cost to reach 99.99%   Well, Mr. Guyant, if you read up on school finance, you would know that we have these things called Revenue Limits".  And Sun Prairie is levying about $2.3M under the revenue limit.  So that's it, Al...we could spend an additional $2.3M.

So... assuming the graduation rate is 98% (we'll get back to that), at 484 students enrolled in 12th grade last year, 98% graduation means that about 10 kids did not graduate.  What are Mr. Guyant's ideas on how to make that $2.3M ensure that those 10 kids graduated?   Do we offer them $230,000 each if they graduate? Hey...that's a novel idea.  Kind of in line with the whole pay-for-performance concept.

Seriously though.  You cannot equate food safety and engineering safety with high school graduation rates.  That's really pretty ludicrous.  It's like something that would come out of Mitt Romney's mouth.  Also...the last time we checked, this was still a free country.  A 17-year old girl has the right to make decisions regarding her body, so why on earth would she not be allowed to make a decision regarding finishing high school?  We may not agree with her choice, but the choice is hers nonetheless.

Look...here's where we agree with Mr. Guyant (the AlSparc):  any increase we can make in the graduation rate is a good thing.  But we'll stop there.  We'd really like world peace, too; but does Mr. Guyant think THAT's realistic??  We're not gonna just throw money at the problem.  Hell, as one community resident pointed out, we have more named courtyards than we do National Merit Scholars.  We built a Taj Mahal for a high school...you know...if you build it, they will graduate.  So money isn't the problem.  You cannot force kids to want an education.  In fact, doing so may have adverse impact on those that DO want to be in school and learn.

[Spending money isn't going to improve graduation rates]..."we have more named courtyards than we do National Merit Scholars."
-- a community resident

There are numerous studies out there that will tell you that 100% graduation rates are unrealistic in the long term.  Sure some smaller schools may have 100% here and there.  Let's get real.  And people should really do a little research before making such grandiose points in public.

Tax levy approved; 1.4% DECREASE from 2011-12

The annual Electors Meeting...my how it SPARCled.  For awhile there, it appeared that we'd been teleported to Forks, WA.  Would Edward be in attendance?

Like good little liberals, the SPARClers appeared in a moderate show of force to try to erase the reduction in tax levy.  Their play was for a 0% increase, which would have added nearly $1M to the proposed tax levy.

Of course, somehow the message filtered through to the collective and it must have suddenly dawned on them that the electors cannot override a school board proposed tax levy which is adequate to operate and maintain schools.  So their next ploy was to put the extra tax dollars away to pay down the $1.5M debt levy increase scheduled to come next year.  Once again, however, the rest of the electors had clearer heads and soundly defeated the SPARClers.  The levy proposed by the school district,$46,437,308, was approved by a vote of 130-49.

Hail Mary bid for levying an extra $900K
Have we no shame?  Comparing high school graduation rates to airplane crash percentages and foodborne illness, Al Guyant, a prominent Member of the SPARC group (and who has been dubbed the Al SPARC) offered the following, after asking Dr. Culver what the graduation rate is (Culver responded; 98%):

“When I go to the store to buy food, I want 100 percent of that food to be good and not get sick. When I get my brakes fixed, I want those brakes to work 100 percent, not 98 percent. The planes that fly my grandchildren here, I want them to be 100 percent successful, not 98 percent successful. Why is it that we want 100 percent in many things in our society, but we tolerate 98 percent? Our country is under economic attack, we need as many smart people to go work for Epic and other places so that they can hire, they can pay more taxes...the goal should be 99.99 success and someone should come up with what is the cost of doing that.”

--- Al Guyant (as reported by the STAR)

$46,437,308 is Just Right

Like Goldilocks, the school board has determined the tax levy that is just right.  Neither too big, nor too small.
The main purpose of the annual elector's meeting is to vote a tax levy which is sufficient to operate and maintain schools.
Barring any sudden surprises like an unanticipated reduction in stated aid, $46,437,308 is that number.
_______________________________________________________________________
Who's in charge here...the electors or the board?

... the school board has the ultimate authority to determine the property tax levy for the operation and maintenance of the school district because section 120.12(3) requires the board to determine the amount necessary to operate and maintain the schools. Prior attorney general opinions concluded that earlier versions of section 120.12(3) gave the board the power "to operate and maintain a school regardless of whether the electors provide sufficient funds for such operation and maintenance." 13 Op. Att'y Gen. 380, 381 (1924), and 25 Op. Att'y Gen. 411, 413 (1936).

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)

Therefore, if the school board determines that the tax voted at the annual meeting is not sufficient to operate and maintain the schools, the board is empowered to determine the amount necessary to be raised to operate and maintain the schools in the school district.

See sec. 120.12(3)(a), Stats. Also, if the board finds that the annual meeting voted a tax greater than that needed to operate the schools, the board may lower the tax voted by the annual meeting.

See sec. 120.12(3)(c), Stats.

79 Op. Att'y Gen. 46, 48 (1990)

So...let' stop the shenanigans, eh?  Three years ago the electors voted to reduce the tax levy by $2M and the district STILL ended up with almost $1M SURPLUS.  We're pretty certain that is compelling evidence to support that the proposed tax levy that year was far more than that required to "operate and maintain" schools.  Subsequently, Phil Frei's sock drawers have been emptied.
_____________________________________________________________________________

No programs were cut.
Two enhancements were made during the budget process:
(A) The school board voted to add about $40K to the budget ($73M) to ensure that a full school year's worth of RTI tutoring was provided for struggling students.
(B) The school board also voted to use a one-time $300K to assist the Youth Hockey program in bringing their 2-sheet ice arena to fruition.  Get over it.  This is a good thing.  We will reap much in return for our $300K.

Instead of a tax decrease, this could very well turn into a small tax increase...but that is solely due to the continuing (and unexpected) decline in property values.

So...we're voting "YES" to support a tax levy of  $46,437,308
We hope you will to.
Please...come out in numbers.  But leave your politics at home.  This is not the place, and the school board has ultimate authority over the levy.

11th Hour: Unsettling News on Equalized Values front.

Some potentially troubling news came out late this week.
Final fall equalized values were released (remember, that is the denominator) in the mill rate equation; the proposed tax levy is the numerator.  If the denominator is reduced, the mill rate goes up.

We've all seen the new construction, so we were all anticipating at the very least a small INCREASE in the equalized values.  The City of Sun Prairie was using 1% growth in its estimates.  The school district stayed with 0%.  It looks like the 0% is at least 1% closer to actual.

The city of Sun Prairie property values are actually DOWN 3.7%.  Who would have guessed that?

What's the Bottom Line?
Barring any last minute increase to equalized aid from the state, what this means is that our $2.4M windfall and tax levy decrease have evaporated as quickly as out water this part summer.  It's gone baby, gone.  We could be looking at a 2% tax levy INCREASE of as much as 1.7-2.0%.   The acrtual mill rate would now project to $12.84 (district-wide) instead of $12.44.

So...we may as well toss those annual meeting booklets (nice cover!) into the recycle bins.

Could the news get worse...or better?
Guess what?  The final final state aid amounts will not be released until sometime Monday morning.
Now...it's POSSIBLE that the drop in property values could land us a little more state aid to help mitigate this sudden melt-down in our tax picture.

Doesn't it seem just a teensy bit disingenuous to have a meeting the very evening (this Monday night, October 15) that final numbers come out?  Gee...give us a few minutes to digest the sudden bad news and then ask us to vote...right?  Maybe those 2% increases aren't looking like a very good move anymore?

Here's the hard part.  Like it or not, we have to agree at this point that the proposed tax levy, $46,437,308 is the amount necessary to operate and maintain our schools.  So we will need to suck it up and vote to support that levy.

You see, this is likely what Phil Frei has been trying to communicate (but has not done as well as one could).   We have to focus on the amount of dollars necessary to operate and maintain our schools.  But...we also have to be able to trust that the proposed expenditures do not include excessive fluff or unwarranted expenditures.

The rest...the tax levy and mill rate are out of Phil's hands.  From the expenditures budget, we subtract out the revenues received from federal,  state and other sources.  What remains must come from local sources (our wallets) ...the tax levy.  We had a nice surprise of a rather hefty, unexpected increase in state aid.  Now that appears to be washed away by a large decrease in property values.

So, suck it up, Chuck.  It's all for the children...right?

Pop Quiz Time...a True Story

We're gonna make this easy for you....only two choices for the answer.  Shouldn't all multiple choice tests have only two options?

So let's just say that you're the principal of Sun Prairie High School.  Ok... we did...and it was.
...and you decide to show your support for the  school and attend last night's homecoming football game... (which she did).

OK...here comes the question...

So..does the high school principal reach into her wallet and
(A) pull out a  $5 for the entry fee to support the district's athletic programs, or
(B) pull out her staff ID which allows her free admission?

OK....the answer was (B).
And...hey...that's OK, right?  I mean it is a "perk" that staff receive from the district.  So it would be like blowing $5 when you do not have to...right?

Or is it really a character study of sorts.  When you earn over $110,000 per year, which will come with a great retirement pension, do you "take one for the team" and share the wealth of your career?  Or do you say, "Bull$%!# ...I can get in free, so I will, dammit"?   Afterall;...our HS principal has no real ties to this community.  She lives further south, so her tax dollars do not go to support the district.

Without naming names, other highly placed people in the district also attended and chose option (A).
Hmmmmm.

This, boys and girls is a lesson on how the rich get richer.
It's the "haves" vs. the "have nots"
They do not spend one thin dime they do not have to.

Readers Write - Business Ed. Over Diversity Hire

<senorstubs@yahoo.com> wrote:

I see your point in saying that the district said there was no new funds to hire a "diversity specialist" and went to create a new position for a retired person for a job they did as a teacher. It baffles me too. However, without a dedicated person connecting the business and industry with education, it would not happen. Businesses have better things to do than chase public education to see what is happening and connect with a disconnected organization. Expecting a teacher with a full teaching load (which Ms. Everson DID NOT have when she was performing that job) would result in a lesser partnership. Was it right to hire back Ms. Everson and not pass on the duties to someone new? That is a good question and one worth chasing for an answer. To say the partnership is not needed will disconnect the schools from careers even more so than they are now.

We agree on some of your points.

We DO need someone who can work with the businesses...and perhaps it should be a dedicated role.  We just are not overly fond of pulling back a double dipper to fill a role that perhaps could have been filled with an individual in need of a job, and who could provide the district with valuable diversity recruiting strength.  And why are we bringing back a double dipper as an FTE with benefits???  We could have saved over $20K by offering the position as a LTE role. This economy requires us to put people to work...not putting cushy-pensioned retirees BACK to work.  

And where is the cross-training here?  Shouldn't we have been having Ms. Everson mentor someone to assume that role upon her retirement?  Perhaps someone whose salary is not a burden for the district.

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves what is most critical: diversity recruitment or business-education liaison.  The diversity of SPASD students only continues to rise, yet we are not as fortunate in attracting qualified diverse candidates.

We also need to do our part to create jobs to keep the economy moving forward.  Hiring a bunch of double-dippers to serve as RTI tutors and fill the Business-Ed role did not create a single new job.  It just allowed retirees to cash their plush pension check (or even pout it off a bit) while still getting a regular check at a decent salary.  Could we really not find any young, energized, unemployed teachers who could assist with RTI efforts?  It's the ultimate "try before you buy" scenario.  If they work out, then they may be great candidates for future job openings.

Perhaps overly optimistic, but we believe we could have shared the wealth and come up with solutions to both our needs.  The Everson re-hire was clearly a stick of political dynamite that everyone shied away from.   Sadly, we should be able to expect better from our commander-in-chief.

Could YOUR Household Make it on $112K?

We looked just at those professional educators that are married to another professional educator.
To be more specific, we only looked at those that both work in the Sun Prairie School District AND they share the same last name.  Oh, yeah...not to worry...we verified our data on the linkage.

This of course does NOT include those whose spouse works in another district, those whose spouse is an administrator, or those with different last names, which includes domestic partners.  READ:  there are a lot more than what we found.

We found 11 confirmed pairs.

The average total compensation for the pair was $112,500.
The median total compensation was $113,000.
The average years of teaching was 14.5
The range of total income was $91,150 - $146,505

We hear how terrible it is for teachers...especially those that share a home.
We're going to have to call bullspit on this one.
We're pretty sure MOST household incomes in Sun Prairie are far less than $113,000.
These are, on average, young people doing QUITE well.

Hell...even the lowest total, $91,150 is a very do-able household income.
Wikipedia (yeah...we know...) shows a median income for a household of  $51,345, and the median income for a family is $61,197.  This 2009 data.  Remember...teachers have received increases since then, but not many others.

And they forget that only one of the pair needs to carry the health insurance cost.

A Few More Bites of the Apple

Some more things to ponder, regarding the "Total Compensation" data...

As they say...pictures tell 1,000 words...so we think none are really necessary.

You Can Lead Them To Data...But You Cannot Make Them Mine It

Click to view full-screen

And SP-EYE just happens to be Miner 49-ers when it comes to data!  Warning:  Reality can have a nasty bite to it.

If you were distressed as we were hearing how terrible that teachers...er...professional educators.... have it...how horribly undervalued (READS: underpaid) they are, this one's for you.   And if you were one of those that heard or read their gut-wrenching stories of financial struggles, then this is also for you.

The district office has been working on a document that compiles total compensation--not benefits mind you,  strictly cash-in-your-wallet compensation.  We heard about this at a recent HR Committee meeting (memo to people: you just may want to find time in your busy lives to start coming to some meetings).  We asked about it this week and learned that the compilation is complete and we requested a copy.  This study covers all professional educators and the "cash" compensation earned during the FY2011-12 school year.

We have pulled out several nuggets from the data; there are many more.
We have also taken the liberty of sorting the data by total compensation, showing base salary and "add-ons".  A copy of this is available here:

View the spreadsheet, sorted by total compensation

Warning Unheeded

Click to view full-screen

We have been warned by trusted compadres in the past that one should never poke an individual holding the keys to the newspaper ink, but we're certain that even someone in such a position whose significant other might just appear near the top of these lists will understand that "the truth shall set them free".  This of course includes a certain editor who happens to slant their OpEds so far to the right that Ann Romney is getting jealous.  Yet, when it comes to this school district, Mr. Right Lurching Journalist, tips so far to the left that they SPARCle.  But there's no link there...right?  It's just coincidence...right?  Someone who so strongly supported Gov. Walker and his "teachers are far too well compensated" rhetoric would never lay aside his political philosophies when it comes to a school district which employs his significant other...right?  Guess we'll see.

A word about "Add-Ons"
There are 23 options available to professional educators to enhance their salary...and take-home pay.

In 2011-12, $27.8M was paid out in salaries.  Another $1.8M was paid out as "add-ons".  That represents, overall, a 6.5% bump to salaries!  Are you kidding us!  And these folks are falling just shy of demanding not a 2% increase, but a 3.1% increase?

Click to view full-screen

And can we please keep in mind that Professional Eductaors operator under a 190 day contract.  Most of the rest of the world operates under a 260 day basis (2080 hrs/8 hrs/day).

Stay tuned...there's more to come as we pick through this.   A shout-out to the district office for putting this information together.

Final thoughts...Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders just shouted out to us.

It is time for you to stop all of your sobbing
yes it's time for you to stop all of your sobbing oh oh oh
there's one thing you gotta do
to make me still want you
gotta stop sobbing now
yeah yeah stop it stop it

---The Pretenders, “Stop Your Sobbing”

Getting Back To Diversity Issues

This one's been brewing on the back burner for a bit.  At the August 16, 2012 public hearing on the budget, there were some public comments related to the need for a more diverse staff.

We've heard rumblings that blame the school board for not investing in diversity.  Let us be clear, that the record reflects that the school board voted to authorize the district --Tim Culver-- to hire a diversity recruitment specialist.  Their only stipulation was that it had to be done within the existing budget.

The district declined, basically saying that "no new money means no diversity specialist".

What we DO find interesting is that if one looks through the DPI list of 2011-12 staff, one should notice that VERY QUIETLY the district hired back Nancy Everson, who retired at the end of 2010-11 school year.

She was apparently brought back as a "double-dipper" at a salary of $44,436 with benefits of an additional $17,593.  Ms. Everson retired at a salary of over $86,000.  That must make for a pretty nice pension.

Noun 1.  double dipper - someone who draws two incomes from the government (usually by combining a salary and a pension)

Now don't get us wrong.  Ms. Everson served an incredibly vital and valuable role as the district's link to businesses to provide learning opportunities for our students.  We're just wondering...couldn't some of those skills have been passed on to existing staff?  Cross-training?  And what's more important to the district?  We seem to recall diversity being a primary goal.  We didn't see business education on that list.

Instead of blaming the school board, we might suggest that people ask Dr. Culver why he opted to spend over $60,000 on the Business-Education Partnership program when he could have invested in a diversity recruitment specialist.

We'd like to hear that answer.

Another Grade We Did Not Make

So...we had 2 schools recognized in 2010-11, but none for 2011-12?

Just wondering....how did all that RTI investment work out?

[Sept. 5, 2012] The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has recognized 132 high-poverty schools for above-average math and reading student achievement, though none in Madison or Dane County.

Eligible schools are among the top quarter in the state for percentage of low-income students as measured by free and reduced-price lunch participation. Last year Madison had 27 schools in the top quarter and Sun Prairie had two.  

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/education/extra-credit/extra-credit-no-madison-schools-among-schools-of-recognition/article_ed3f8468-f76f-11e1-946c-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz26e12aRgI

The Proof is in the Pudding

78 seniors in Dane Co. named as National Merit semi-finalists for 2012-13.
Sun Prairie had...wait for it...ONE
Our favorite rival....close in size but smaller Middleton, had THIRTEEN
Madison Memorial had FOURTEEN
Even Mount Horeb had TWO

Semifinalists represent the top 1 percent of the approximately 1.5 million students who took the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test last year. About 90 percent of semifinalists become finalists who are eligible to receive one of 8,300 college scholarships totaling more than $32 million next spring.
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/education/local_schools/high-school-seniors-in-dane-county-named-national-merit-semifinalists/article_994e97e4-fc6b-11e1-9341-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz26dx1YYGP

We keep talking about Sun Prairie being the cream of the crop, but there's more crop than cream here.

Teachers want to be valued...and recognized with cash.
Ill-informed political groups just want to throw more money (tax dollars) at it.

People....spending more money does not produce National Merit scholarships!  It takes a strong curriculum as a foundation with strong teaching as the framework.  And while we're at it....knock off the Dr. FeelGood grade inflation.

Maybe if we laid off the teaching 100 Chinese characters and instead developed a Latin program that would without question benefits students.  And let's not even talk about how our offering Mandarin Chinese plays in a world in which the Chinese government is involved in some pretty serious human rights issues.

The pudding is here in the National Merit semifinalists list, and it only proves that Sun Prairie is mediocre in terms of educational achievement.
What other conclusion is there other than that the really smart kids do not choose to attend SPHS?

In the Interest of Full Disclosure

The professional educators that spoke out this week in an attempt to cajole the school board into giving them not just a 2%, but a 3.1% raise were not providing full disclosure.

While their pleas are certain have touched a few hearts, we wonder if their pleas would have had any effect at all had they shared a little more information about their positions.

We heard very clear that they feel that they are undervalued...that they do not earn enough.

If we were practicing full disclosure, however, what we SHOULD have heard would go something like this..

• Hi...I'm a professional educator with 7 years teaching experience.
• My salary is $45,118; expressed as an hourly rate that is $29.68/hour.
• Oh...and my spouse earns a little over $50,000/year.
• Our household is really struggling with a combined income of only $95,000.
• I have my summers off, as well as a week off at Christmas, a week in the spring, and several days at Thanksgiving.
• I have many other options available to me to that allow me to enhance my salary.
• I just completed 6 credits towards my PhD. degree, so I will be receiving a 3% increase this year for that.
• I'm still "on the grid", so by virtue of completing another year of service, I will receive an additional 2% salary increase.
• With the 2%, 3%, plus the 2% raise you offer, I will earn an additional $3,157/year ($263/month).
• I feel that if you truly valued me, you would give me a 3.1% raise instead of only 2%.
• That extra $42/month will really show me that I'm valued.

How do you suppose THAT would have gone over?

Decepticons Targeting SPASD?

Those familiar with the Transformers movie series will know that the Decepticons are in forever in search of the AllSpark....the essence of life for Transformers.  Here in Sun Prairie we have the SPARClers, apparently led by Al Guyant, who shall be dubbed the AlSPARC.  Or...maybe, SPARC-Al?

At this past week's meetings of the full school board and the board's Finance Committee, Sun Prairie's liberal..errr...progressive..."SPARC" group (Sun Prairie Action Resource Coalition made its presence known.  Looks like the comments made previously by John Whalen have born fruit.  Someone has engaged SPARC in what appears to be an attempt to outmaneuver the school board regarding the budget.   This is exactly what we get for allowing Jim McCourt to do what he did autonomously at last year's annual meeting.

The SPARC-Al spoke in opposition to having a 2% levy DECREASE to the tax levy. [Wait...cutting property taxes is bad????]   He used some metaphor about the electrical industry and focused on what he called a 5% reduction.  "We wouldn't accept 95% in our electrical system, and we won't accept 95% for our kids", he said.

The problem we're having is that his speechifying is no less full of half-truths or outright embellishments than any other political candidate.  The proposed 2012-13 budget DOES NOT reduce our kids' education to 95% levels.  In fact, the only "cuts" made were to administrative departments (10%).  And even summed up, those "cuts" don't even reside in the same galaxy as even 1% of the overall $73.2M district budget.

But he kept tossing out that "We won't accept 95% for our kids", hoping to catch the ears of uninformed electorate.  Shame! Shame! Shame!

Don't fall for comments that the school board's proposed budget means only "95% for our kids".  There IS no 5% reduction to education.   There is only a 2% REDUCTION to property taxes.  School programs are fully (100%) funded.

Why can't these political groups speak the truth?  Why must they embark on some never-ending quest to distort information to serve their purposes.

Be prepared for the Annual Electors Meeting to be a SPARClefest.
It is clear, people, that the Annul Meeting has degraded into a war of who can bring the most people to force the school board (at least in their minds) to do their bidding.  We anticipate that SPARC will be rallying a large contingent with the express purpose of taking back the $2.4M in state aid which exceeds that necessary to operate and maintain schools.  Instead of a 2% reduction in the tax levy, they appear hell bent to push for a 2-3% tax levy increase.

Perhaps THAT is the 5% alluded to by SPARC-Al. Giving the $2.4M surplus back to the taxpayers (in the form a tax levy relief) amounts to roughly a 5% drop in the tax levy from what was initially proposed by district administration.

Some SAY that they want to put the $2.4M into fund balance..."for a rainy day".  Yeah ...right....like the district would ever keep it there.  This is the same district that used $600K of 2011-12" surplus (which COULD have been placed in fund balance) to purchases books for 2012-13.  We hear reports that some of these texts will not even be used.

Oh well...as Wayne Campbell would shout, "Game On!"

Teachers Declare They Deserve a 3.1% Wage Increase

Listen...we value teachers.  Really, we do.
But it borders on unmitigated gall for them to rally at the meeting at which the school board's Finance Committee was slated to approve the district's proposed budget for 2012-13 and forward it to the full board for final approval and adoption.

Where have you been?

Caren Diedrich actually got it right when she chastised the large group of teachers in the audience.   She asked, accusingly, "Where the hell were you 4...5....6 months ago?  We needed to hear from you long before our backs were up against the wall.  You cannot wait till the 11th hour."
Can you blames them for not coming off the lake to attend a public hearing?
Diedrich's point is well taken; where WERE these folks at the public hearings on the budget?  Oh...wait...those were during the summer.  Our bad...teachers are off all summer.

Forgive us if we offend...but frankly the whole attitude on display was offensive.

At best, seniors will likely get a 1.5% increase in Social Security

What make you more deserving than anyone else?
Do any of these teacher have parents living on social security?  We guess not.  Do you care about those folks?  The current projections for a COLA (Cost of living adjustment) for seniors on social security is a whopping 1.5% increase.  And that's on an income of less than $20K.  Gee...your 2% doesn't look so bad now does it?

State employees, who have had NO raises since 2008, will get NO RAISES for 2013.  Or likely in 2014 either.  Municipal employees are finding similar territory.  What about private sector workers who haven't even made up ground lost since 2008?

Again, forgive us, but this sense of entitlement is really getting old.  In our humble opinion, you are actually turning more people off than developing a rally around yourselves.

Can we stop with the sob stories?
"I'm not getting paid what my friends get paid, yet I'm more educated and work more hours..."
"I took a pay cut to come to Sun Prairie and it's taken me 10 years to get back.."
"[A 3.1% raise] would make us feel valued..."
"With a 2% increase and insurance changes I will earn less"
"I can't afford to take too many more hits [on my paycheck] before I need to choose something else"

Even curriculum leadership was tossed under the bus vs. coaching!
"We [coach] 4-5 hours per day for 5-6 days each week for a small stipend.  Not trying to bash the CLC stipends, but they don't put in the time that [coaches] do."

Again....do you people realize that people are losing their homes!  We watched as an in-home daycare provider --who may have cared for some of your kids-- lost their home to foreclosure.
You seem to forget that you pay less for your insurance benefits --and get better benefits--than state workers do.   The E/R co-pay for state workers has long been $75....which is STILL more than you pay with an increase.  Maybe save the E/R for...um...emergencies?  You folks get dental insurance--at very low expense, while most of the rest of us have to pay those costs out of pocket.  Are you even aware--do you even care--that state workers have to pay $600/year to get $500-$1000 worth of dental coverage?

The sob stories aren't working.  Many people that did NOT flood the meeting are worse off than you.  Seriously, there's a part of us that wants to say, "If you're not happy, then you know where the door is and watch that it doesn't smack your backside on the way out."  But we shouldn't say that...so we won't.  Because if you're not happy, you're probably less effective in your job anyway.  And this district is not going to be held hostage to making you happy.

It's not just 3.1% either; raises could be as high as 8.1%!
But they won't tell you that, will they?  This is the classic magician's game.  Focus on the raise and maybe people will forget about "the other stuff" they get.  Most of the public do not know that the current teachers contract calls for an automatic 2% "step increase" each year they teach.  Now, some teachers have taught so long that they "fall off the grid" and are therefore no longer eligible for the 2% increase

Then there are the "lane" increases.  Gain 6 credits (2 college courses) and you get a 3% increase!  So a younger teacher who was here last year, gets a 2% pay bump automatically.  If they've completed 6 credits, they get another 3% bump.  And now...2% MORE isn't good enough?  You could see a 7% increase yet you want to demand 8.1%? It's called reality and you need to come to grips with it.

And then there are a ton of other opportunities for additional "stipends" on top of salaries.  It has been estimated that as much as $1.8M per year is divvied out to staff for these other opportunities.   If one adds up budget lines 105,106,107, and 110 (Extracurricular, Summer school, Leadership Council and "Other" Salaries) the total for 2012-13 is $1.9M.   That would translate to over $3,000 for every single SPEA member.

And you're not earning enough?
As we said...we value what you do, but you try our patience.  For a group that keeps saying that you don't do it for the money, it seems to be all about the benjamins.

Why Policy Governance is a Cop-Out

Without calling it out as such, John Whalen and Caren Diedrich constantly extol the virtues of policy governance.  And in their minds--well, after July 30th we're clear that not even Caren Diedrich knows what's in her mind---the SPASD school board has historically operated on a principle of policy governance.

Apparently they did not get the memo.  Or their Cliff Notes was missing a few pages.

Because in their minds, the school board simply writes policy--or delegates the writing of policy to administration-- and then steps back with their rubber stamp firmly in hand.

The problem with a policy governance model is that at its very foundation is a committment to ADHERE to the policies.  We've just seen far too many cases where the school district and even the school board either "forget" or outright ignore their own policies.

Perhaps, in their defense, there are simply too many policies to remember.
Scratch that...even we can't begin to accept that rationale.
Plain and simply stated, policy governance will not work as a model when there is rampant abuse of policy and no consequences.  How do you get people to obey the speed limit?  Set up random speed traps.  Issue a few tickets.  Smacking people where they sit is a good motivator.

What exasperates this problem when it comes to Diedrich and Whalen, is that they believe that having to step in and fix things when they are broken constitutes micro-managing.  So...Mr. Whalen, and Ms. Diedrich...do you apply the same logic in your private lives?  If your financial advisor is making decisions that loses you money, is it "micro-managing" to step in and issue some directives to squelch the problem?  If you do not like the advice offered by your doctor, do you just blindly follow it, believing that to do otherwise would be "micro-managing"?

We think not.
And thus comes the real question...why do you apply different logic at the board table?

If you do not like what your own policies say/require, then by all means, bring them forward publicly and declare in public how you wish to change them... and the rationale to support the change.  Those are discussions we'd love to hear from you.  Of course, that would actually mean having to prepare a Situation Report.....

How Does One Make a Decision Without New Information?

Tomorrow night's agenda for the School Board's HR Committee included the following agenda item:

Sound of Sun Prairie Stipends

But....there are no documents attached. This is basically EXACTLY what was presented previously when the item was tabled.

RECOMMENDATION:
The Executive Director of Human Resources recommends that the Sound of Sun Prairie stipends as stated above, be approved and forwarded to the full board.
ATTACHMENTS:
None

HR Committee Minutes from 8-6-12

Caren Diedrich moved to approve and forward to the full board the 2012-2013 Athletic/Activity Payment Schedule with noted changes except for the Sound of Sun Prairie payment stipends.

Why is it that we have to look to the Sun Prairie STAR to learn WHY this item was tabled--an unusual move?  Shouldn't this have been included in the HR minutes?

Stipends were not approved for the Sound of Sun Prairie Marching Band, as a full report on the program is due to come before the board at a later date.-- SP Star 8-15-12

OK...so if a full report was requested and there is no such report attached to the agenda item, what specific new information will the committee now use to make a decision which they did not have previously?  What's the point of even having the discussion.

Or...did the HR Committee members --but NOT the general public--get a copy of the aforementioned report?
If that's the case, then double dog shame on the district for once again avoiding the light of day.  Who needs Twilight when we have our very own daylight shunning vampires here in SPASD?

Or has the sacred cow used its powers to sweep information that it does not wish to see the light of day underneath the rug?

Oh, so very many questions.  At first glance, [withholding information] is not something we would expect from Ms. Mikula.  So one big question is: if documents were withheld from the public eye, WHO ORDERED THE CODE RED?

The very simplest question we have is this:

How come we pay the SOSP folks MORE than athletics coaches, MORE than activity advisors...and most egregiously...almost 3 times MORE than we pay those teachers who are working on new curriculum????

Please, please tell us that there's a rationale we can support for this apparent nonsense.

Kicking Can Down the Road

Proposing to add $1,000,000 to the 2012-13 tax (debt) levy to help reduce the impact of 2013-14's debt levy increase is ludicrous; it reeks of ill-informed representation.

Thankfully, clear headed Mike Krachey quickly made a motion to table this nonsense.  But John Whalen made a comment (as if he knew something) that we would be discussing this again at the annual meeting.

Caren Diedrich gets partial credit for at least requesting a report from the district on the "bounceback" impact on future debt levies.  Of course requesting clarity from the district administration is like asking John Whalen to cast a vote in opposition to district wishes.  Temper your expectations.

According to documents provided by the district, the 2012-13 debt levy portion of the total proposed (school district) tax levy is $11,505,387. And the scheduled debt levy payment for 2013-14 is $12,365,565. That means an increase in the scheduled debt service levy of almost $1M, which translates to about a 2% total tax levy increase (2013-14) before we talk about a dime in annual expenditure increases. 

Finance Committee Citizen Rep Mike Hietpas is desperately trying to get the board to tax us $1M for 2012-13 for the purpose of reducing the debt levy for 2013-14. Well...truth be told, he initially wanted to simply add it to fund balance with no express purpose other than building savings. Someone must have quietly whispered to him that you cannot simply budget (tax) to increase fund balance with no express.

 But....but...hold on a second...according to other documents from the district, the "one-time additional state aid" ($350K) will be used to lower the debt levy for 2012-13. And didn't the district also tell us at last year's annual meeting that $450K in construction "savings" would be applied to lower the debt levy for 2012-13? Welll...that adds up to $800K to reduce the 2012-13 debt levy.

The question we have...and certainly it's not clear in district documents...is whether that $800K being applied THIS year means that instead of taxing $11.5M for debt service, will we actually be taxed only $10.7M?   Because if that is the case, then the bounceback for next year (2013-14) is not just $1M due to programmed debt service payments.  It becomes closer to $1.7M ($12.4M - $10.7M).

The concern with making one-time payments to reduce debt levy (or any tax levy) is that it becomes a game of kicking the can down the road one year at a time.  And that means that EACH successive year we need to tax more to kick the can further.  The only time this approach works is when the next fiscal year projects to see a scheduled REDUCTION in debt service payment.  For SPASD, the first time programmed increases in debt service payments occurs is in 2017-18 (5 years from now), when instead of increasing by $500K, the increase is only a bit over $100K.  The first time a scheduled reduction in debt service payment will occur is the year 2021-12, nine years from now.

So...in sum...don't hold your breath, and don't tax us to reduce further debt levy.

Now...if someone is barking up the "let's make an extra payment towards principal" tree, that is a separate issue which would have to be discussed.  That's the equivalent of winning $2,400 in the lottery and deciding whether to blow it all on vacations and other things or whether to make an extra payment or three on your mortgage to pay it off earlier/gain equity.

That is the root of our situation.  SPASD is projected to receive $2.4M more in state aid than it anticipated.  That is currently being applied to reduce the tax levy by 2% over last year instead of having an increase of 2.5% or more.   Gee...people are still struggling, the economy isn't that great (unless you're a 1%er)....maybe  giving a year of tax relief would be a good thing to do.  You know...maybe to buy some good will with the electorate  for 3-4 years from now when you (really) need a $20+M referendum for a new elementary school.

Wait...what's this thing called Debt Service Fund Balance?
You know...historically when the talking heads speak about "fund balance", they are referring to Fund 10, or the "General" Fund.  In reality, there are a number of "funds" (think of them as individual checking accounts) that comprise a school district's finances.    At the end of fiscal 2012-13, we are still projecting to have a little over $4M in Debt Service (fund 39) fund balance.  Hmmm.

Perhaps the bigger issue is that the Debt Service fund balance is slated to drop almost $900K for 2012-13.  Hmmmm...we don't recall that ever being discussed.  Is THIS the magic holding pen for the $350K and the $450K being applied against this year's debt levy?

Oh happy day...we get to use one of our top all-time phrases here.  It would seem that our questions here would suggest that the budget information presented by the district is tantamount to exegesis without clarity.
Look that up in your F&Ws.  In any event, we can't be having any of this exegesis without clarity nonsense.

2 People Does Not a School District Electorate Make

So...why are we suddenly talking about putting money into fund balance this year?
That idea came from TWO...that's right...EXACTLY TWO people who attended the August 16th Budget Hearing.

We seem to recall a certain resident being concerned at the July 30th meeting about "proposals" that come out of the woodwork.  We think this fits that bill.

Oh...and it gets better...those two people BOTH have direct ties to the district.  Hmmmm...sensing a plant scenario here.
We don't need to "out" these folks, but one is currently an SPASD teacher and the other happens to be a citizen representative on the Finance Committee whose WIFE happens to be an SPASD teacher.

Gee...does that mean that when two citizens that normally attend Finance and School Board meetings speak out , THEIR wishes should be taken up by the board?

Kudos to board member Mike Krachey, who sits on the Finance Committee, for sniffing out the whole "let's put money into fund balance" and subsequently making a successful motion to postpone any fund balance discussion until December or January.

Shame on Administration...or was it Finance Chair John Whalen's work....for bringing forward a folly supported by exactly two people who both have ties to the district.  Shouldn't we have a little stronger c=omposition of the electorate before suggesting any moves to the budget?

Let the SPARCs fly at the Annual Meeting?

We heah 'tings.

And we hear that the SPARC (Sun Prairie Action Resource Coalition, a group that swings so far left that they walk in counterclockwise circles) folks have hatched a great idea based on last years annual meeting:  instead of lowering the tax levy 2%, let's spend, spend, spend more money on schools.

We can think Jim McCourt and Phil Frei and their "options" presented last year for that.

If this rumor is true, then we're in for another rocky annual meeting.

And, again, if true, do these people ever read the rules?  A school board has the power to establish a tax levy TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SCHOOLS.

You cannot come to the meeting and ADD initiatives to the budget.  In fact, the electors have absolutely NO input on the budget once it's passed by the school board.  At the annual meeting, their power is to vote a tax levy to operate and maintain schools.  Period.

If a levy is voted which exceeds that necessary to operate and maintain schools, then the board is obligated to reduce the tax levy to what is required to operate and maintain schools.

Did we mention "operate and maintain schools"?  That does not translate to "new budget initiatives".

Let the sparks fly, baby!

There's no such thing as maybe,
Burn it like you fading,
No more hesitating
Let the sparks fly baby;

Give me one if it's real
And two if you can feel it,
Give me three signs that you're awake,
It only takes one spark
For two to fall apart
And three more to blow it away

Thousand Foot Krutch "Let the Sparks Fly"

More Fun with Fund Balance

The Sun Prairie School District just cannot come to grips with the idea of actually lowering taxes for a year.

It started with Caren Diedrich (you know, Caren "I don't even know what's in my mind" Diedrich) tossing out the seemingly innocent question about whether we had enough reserves in fund balance.  Good God, Gertie...she doesn't even know what's in her mind, how could anyone take her seriously?

But some apparently have....and now a discussion on fund balance will occur at tomorrow's Finance Committee meeting.  Ostensibly, the idea some have is to put money into fund balance instead of reducing the tax levy.

Clearly, we still don't understand this "fund balance" thing.

Fund Balance Myth #1: A low fund balance affects our credit rating and interest rates.
This is a tall tale frequently told by old Seabass McCourt.  We learned that, after the recission, when EVERYONE was taking money out of fund balance, how much of a myth that was.  Even before the great recession, the amount of fund balance on hand maybe affected interests rates by a couple of hundredths of a percentage point.  That's peanuts for a school district with annual costs of $73-75M.

Fund Balance Myth #2 - We can just "budget" to increase fund balance.
Newsflash, people.  That's not a legitimate practice.  As outlined very clearly below:

Budget Surpluses
Several Supreme Court decisions and Opinions of the Attorney General have dealt with the question of budget surpluses. As a general rule, local governmental bodies do not have the authority to tax for the purpose of accumulating “unappropriated surplus funds” in the treasury. Money appropriated for a particular purpose in a given year but not used and unallocated surpluses become “funds on hand” which should be applied to the following year’s budget to reduce the amount raised by taxation. --WASB • May 2012,  The Annual School District Meeting 

Fund Balance Myth #3 - Fund Balance is a just a savings account.
While the value of fund balance is certainly the ability to handle unanticipated, "big-ticket" expenses ( e.g.,  a boiler goes out, major HVAC repairs), the real value of a fund balance is to have sufficient cash on hand to avoid the need to borrow money for operations.  The simple fact is that the state does not pay us aid all at once, but rather parcels it out; yet, salary and insurance costs are major monthly costs that quickly deplete available cash on hand.  Similarly, while the school year starts July 1, and costs mount monthly, we do not receive property tax payments until January or so.  Subsequently, school districts with low fund balances need to borrow money each fall to help "make payroll" until all state aid is received.

---

So...what does this all mean for Sun Prairie?

Last year we borrowed $12,000,000 to meet its cash flow needs.  The interest rate was 1%, and the "premium" (or loan origination fee) was $33,000.  If one looks at line 682 of the school district "Expenditures by Object Code report", we see that the net cost to borrow this $12 MILLION dollars was $116,070.08.

So, really, the net cost of us having a lower fund balance is $116K or 0.16% of our annual budget.  Hell,we spend more on that just on Dr. Culver's salary!

More to the point, in order to cut out this temporary borrowing expense, we'd have to increase our fund balance by at least $12,000,000.  People...that's not going to happen.  At least not any time soon.

First of all, "budgeting" (which we cannot do) to add $500K to fund balance would mean an increase in the tax levy of 1%.  So...what if we "accidentally" had a surplus in the budget of $1M for $2012-13?  The tax levy would increase by 1% (for every $500K added) and we'd barely be scratching at the amount we need.

Also keep in mind that THIS year (2011-12) we had a final surplus of $200K, BUT on top of that we spent $600K on books and computers for 2012-13, so the TRUE surplus was at least $800K.  And all that goes to fund balance is a measly $200K.

Why do we need to borrow money?
We start off each fiscal year in July.  Expenses start rolling in.  For a $72M budget, on average, the district spends about $6M per month.  Yet we don't receive any significant revenue until the first quarterly state aid payment in September.  Last year, by the end of September we had spent $11.5M yet only received $5.3M in revenues.

Fund balance can ultimately serve as a means to cover some of this, but we need to borrow money short term to meet demands.  For example, as of the end of December 2011, we had expenditures of nearly $29M yet revenues of only about $13M.  That left a shortfall "gap" of about $16M.  And that is why we needed to borrow $12M last October (and have done so for many years).