Supr. Heidi Carvin writes: RE: Discontinuation of half-day kindergarten

(Editor. letter is slightly abridged due to post line limit.)

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

> Melissa,
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to correct some
> misperceptions in your
> email
>
> 1) Mr. Hoffenberg was aware before I spoke to
> him personally about
> his contract for next year, that the elimination of
> the stand alone half
> day program (which will be replaced with a parent
> option to send their
> child half day into a full day section) was a strong
> possibility. I have
> the utmost respect and appreciation for Mr.
> Hoffenberg. He is a
> wonderful teacher and I have certainly thanked him
> for many
> contributions he makes to our district. He was part
> of the team at the
> Kindergarten registration night on March 2 that told
> parents the
> elimination of that program was a real possibility.
> I could have decided
> not to continue my conversation with the person who
> has either misquoted
> me or through the retelling of the information has
> changed it to the
> point where it no longer matches my memory of it. I
> did indicate that I
> had an appointment to talk to Steve about his
> contract the next day.
> Because contracts go out March 15 by state law, I
> wanted him to know
> that we would be offering him a full time contract
> for next year. The
> day I received the parent phone call was the day
> that the administrative
> team prioritized the proposed budget cuts. Once that
> was done, they will
> be shared with the Board tonight as an informational
> item and taken to
> each building for their prioritization, discussion
> and ideas on
> additional ways we may find the $160,000 plus the
> money for a new Social
> Studies position. They will then come back to the
> board for action in
> April. This is the beginning of the process. None of
> this is a done
> deal.
>
> 2) The parents I talked to were very polite in
> their questions and
> I believe my responses were the same. I am sorry if
> in the retelling,
> they have been interpreted differently. I do recall
> that after a series
> of statements from one of them I said, "I am sure
> you don't mean that as
> a threat." And she replied that she did not. This is
> obviously an
> emotional issue for all of us. After making very
> difficult budget
> decisions each year I have been here, my
> recommendation to eliminate the
> stand alone option and replace it with an integrated
> option was not done
> lightly. The real target for parent frustration
> should be the state
> legislature which has put us in this position after
> more than a dozen
> years of revenue caps.
>
> 3) When it comes to budgeting, people often
> use slightly different
> numbers. Sometimes they round them, sometimes they
> transpose numbers.
> The increase in revenue over three years by
> eliminating the stand alone
> half day program is over $100,000. The exact amount
> will depend on the
> state revenue limits, the outcome of teacher
> negotiations, and changes
> in transportation costs.
>
> 4) We are not eliminating the ability of
> children to go half day.
> We respect the differences in family situations and
> child development
> and will continue to offer this option to parents.
> This option actually
> provides more flexibility since if during the year
> the parent decides
> the child is ready to attend full day, that is
> easily accommodated.
>
> 5) I agree that is it very hard to understand
> the way the state
> revenue formula works. But generally speaking
> increasing enrollment
> which is what happens when students who were only
> attending half day
> programs go to full day, increases the revenue the
> state provides beyond
> the cost of the program provided space is available.
> When the new
> buildings and grade configurations.
>
> 6) The enrollment at Levi Leonard is 450 and
> Theodore Robinson's
> is 378. Elementary schools with enrollments over 300
> typically have a
> full time principal. At 408 students our middle
> school is at a size
> where an assistant principal would typically be
> hired at least part
> time. At an enrolment of 518, our high school has a
> principal and a half
> time vice principal. The enrollment is projected to
> increase by about 40
> students next year at the high school which means we
> are at the size
> where the half time vice principal would be full
> time. Obviously, we
> don't have the funds to do that. Last year when our
> Curriculum Director
> resigned to take a higher paying position elsewhere,
> that administrative
> position was eliminated. I now share those duties
> with the Special
> Education Director and the building principals. Most
> other districts our
> size have a full time Curriculum Director. Our
> position was part time
> and now of course is gone all together.
> Administratively, we have
> absorbed the brunt of the budget cuts. Since 2002
> our district has
> increased in size by over 200 students.
>
> 7) Your information about my initial contract
> and Mr. Albrecht's
> leaving is inaccurate. I don't know where your
> information came from. I
> was never hired as an interim or vice
> superintendent. Dr. Hotter was the
> interim superintendent from the point of Dr.
> Albrecht's leaving to June
> 30 of 2003. I came on board July 1, 2003.
>
> 8) I don't believe summer school was
> eliminated for the reasons
> you describe. Ms. Olsen is on vacation this week,
> but I will get
> verification of my understanding which is, those are
> two very separate
> budgets and one would not impact the other. I am
> actually not aware that
> there were cost overruns. On a project of that size
> there are often
> budget changes based on cost throughout the project.
> Certainly when I
> was hired a year after the building opened, I did
> not hear of anything
> that wasn't done due to cost overruns. With all of
> the time dedicated to
> the moving and construction at all sites in the
> district, it simply
> wasn't practical to offer summer school. I am hoping
> to reinstate summer
> school because it is a real educational benefit to
> students and if done
> carefully under the state revenue formula operates
> on a break even or
> slightly revenue producing basis.
>
> 9) SAGE: We continue to evaluate SAGE, it is
> on the list of budget
> considerations. Particularly because the amount per
> student will
> increase next year, it looks like we can continue
> the program.
>
>
>
> 10) I share your frustration that our budget
> decisions can not be made
> with what is optimal for all students in mind. After
> more than twelve
> years of Revenue Caps which only allow our budget to
> increase by 2.3%
> while salaries/fringes are required to go up by
> 3.8%, transportation,
> insurance and utility costs by significantly more,
> the annual cuts of
> $120,000 to $200,000 are clearly having an impact on
> class sizes and
> services to students. Please contact your state
> representatives! If we
> could even have the Revenue limit raised to the 3.8%
> that
=== message truncated ===