RE: Supr. Carvin Responds re: School Board meeting story--Monday

(The Observer has corrected the social studies salary
amount as mentioned in Supr. Carvin's email. The gap has been termed "relatively small rather than very,very small. Further
correction on the "gap" may be made in the Observer
article after reviewing spreadsheet analysis of the "gap" and how
it is computed as well as the audio recording of the
meeting. The essence of the debate at the meeting is the impact of the cut. As to dollars and as to the kids. That is an essential difference and the Observer hoped to capture the difference of opinion in this regard. )

--- "Carvin, Heidi" <carvinh@evansville.k12.wi.us>
wrote:

> Richard,
> It looks like you have several errors!
> In particular, I don't know how you can leap to the
> conclusion that
> "So---the bottom line is that the apples to apples
> comparison is that
> BEFORE any discussion of the half day kindergarten
> program is begun---
> the budget gap is VERY SMALL and can be remedied."
>
> First of all, it is not the intention that the
> elimination of the stand
> alone half day kindergarten program will be of much
> help this year at
> all. It is the benefit over the next three years
> that is significant.
>
> The amount saved this year by eliminating the stand
> alone half day
> kindergarten option is quite small. Because of how
> the Revenue Cap is
> calculated, we don't receive the full benefit until
> three school years
> out. This item isn't on the list so much because of
> what it saves this
> year, but how it will help minimize cuts next year
> and the following
> year. We have had to cut $130,000 to $170,000 each
> year. Saving $43,440
> next year and $69,504 every year after that would go
> a long way towards
> avoiding other cuts.
>
>
> The total amount I am look for on a list of possible
> budget cuts is
> $210,000 (Not $184,000) This amount will provide
> decision making options
> as we deal with increasing "Costs to continue" under
> the revenue cap
> limits and provide options to make the decision
> about whether or not to
> add the high school social studies position, replace
> the FACE position
> or the K-2 Gifted and Talented/Reading Support
> position. Without the
> additional high school social studies position,
> class sizes will average
> 35 which means some sections will be at 40. Our
> rooms are not even built
> for these high class sizes. Without the FACE
> Position, the 230 students
> in our FACE courses will need to go elsewhere which
> will cause class
> sizes to escalate even more than the 2 student
> average increase we saw
> this year across our departments and will see again
> next year. Without
> the elementary GT/Reading position 450 students will
> have their services
> cut back. These needs have to be balance against the
> wishes of 8 parents
> who want an option of a stand alone half day program
> that virtually no
> other districts in our area are still able to
> provide.
>
> Several of the items on the list are ideas that we
> will not be able to
> act on until high school course registration is
> complete and IEP's are
> done. This is one reason the list has be
> considerably higher than the
> $210,000 target so that as more information is
> available we can consider
> which items can actually be acted on.
>
> The only items we can be sure of at this point are:
> Phone charges $6400
> Operating budget reductions $74645
> Eliminate Printing the calendar $1500
> Professional Development committee and Reader
> stipends $2500
> Which total only $85,045
> This is far short of the $210,000 target.
>
> While the SAGE aid/Voucher compromise has been
> signed by the Governor
> DPI has not verified we will actually see the
> estimated $16,000 in
> increased revenue next year.
>
> You listened to the board discussion on raising
> fees, that additional
> $10,000 is still under consideration.
>
> The change in coverage for the middle school study
> hall at $10,854 is no
> more a done deal than anything else on this list.
> Our middle school is
> strong because our teachers have daily time to work
> and plan together to
> meet the needs of each child. By moving them into
> study hall supervision
> on a rotating basis, the time to meet will be cut at
> least in half.
>
> Before the Varsity assistant basketball coach
> position is eliminated,
> the board needs to provide direction that we will
> cut athletes in our
> programs. This is a major shift for our programs. So
> this $2420 is not
> solid.
>
> The .3 reduction in high school staffing is
> dependent on course
> enrollments. Since the enrollment will increase next
> year, we may not be
> able to reduce this amount. This won't be known
> until the April board
> meeting. So we can't count on that $25,939.
>
> We won't know if we will be able to reduce one
> special education
> assistant until the IEP's are completed between now
> and the end of the
> year. So that $29,728 cannot be counted on yet.
>
> All that being said, we are continuing to seek at
> other creative
> solutions and ideas that have a minimal impact on
> students and don't
> further decimate areas that have already taken the
> brunt of the cuts.
>
> Your final remark also has an error. We are
> estimating the cost of the
> Social studies position at $50,000 not $60,000.
>
> As to the section on the kindergarten discussion, I
> think you covered it
> quite well. My comment would be that while I am
> concerned any time a
> parent leaves our district because they are unhappy
> with how a decision
> we have made impacted their child, the implication
> that we will end up
> losing more revenue than we will gain is simply not
> born out by the
> experience of other district around us. I could not
> find a single
> district that after a few years of eliminating the
> half day program had
> more than one or two students still in half day. In
> requests for open
> enrollment to our district, we do not see a flight
> from other districts
> to get into our half day program.
>
> Quite frankly if some parents choose to pursue other
> options, the way
> our enrollment is projected to increase, the loss of
> these students
> might be a benefit. As you grasped in your article,
> we still need to
> find the other 2/3 for each new student each year.
> If the increase in
> enrollment is slower than we project so will be the
> anticipated costs.
>
> I wish that we didn't have to make these hard
> choices, I wish we could
> give every parent what they think is best for their
> children, but we
> have to make tough decisions and look out for all
> 1754 students in our
> district. To imply that finding the money to
> continue this half day
> program is a small matter, is simply not accurate.
>
>
>
> Heidi Carvin
> District Administrator
>
>
=== message truncated ===