--- "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 ===
I wonder if you are intending to group into one class all of the children of families that plan to accept your offer and remove their youngster at the half-day mark. This would allow for those children to enjoy a full curriculum and not feel like they are missing out or going home early. This way you could get all of the money you are looking for and the parents can still have 1/2 day kindergarten.
ReplyDeleteI think we would get farther in finding the solution if we simply admitted it's all about the money and not the children or families. This is why the emotions are high. No one likes to feel hustled.
You say 3.8% increase for sal&fring benifits for the employee's. I think that is the QUO from the state but, is that what the raise was? Did that include the cost of Health Ins. for those staff members too?
ReplyDelete