Yes, you read that right. In another sign of how municipalities must cope with the lack of community resources to ensure the necessary access of their citizens to a quality education. The mayor of Akron, Ohio
Has proposed leasing the city-owned sewage system to a private contractor for up to $200 million and using the money to finance college scholarships for Akron’s public high school graduates.
…
He said money for the scholarships would help students attend the University of Akron or a trade school in the city, and turning over the system to a contractor would include rate caps and service guarantees.
Plusquellic said the plan would address brain drain — a migration of talented students out of the city. The city’s population also has dropped 4 percent, to 207,934, since 2000 because of a decline in the manufacturing industry.
Plusquellic’s plan is a twist on programs in other U.S. cities, including Kalamazoo, Mich., that offer scholarships to students with the hope that they eventually stay. But the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators knows of no other program that leases a sewage system to pay for college scholarships.
Are band-aid solutions going to remain the “go to” panacea for public education in America?
Community and Schools Together (CAST) has been working to educate the public on the need to change the state finance system and support referendums that preserve and expand the good our schools do. We are eager to continue this work and help pass the referendum the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education approved on Monday, August 25, 2008.
“The support and interest from everyone has been great,” said Franklin and Wright parent and CAST member Thomas J. Mertz. “We’ve got a strong organization, lots of enthusiasm, and we’re ready to do everything we can to pass this referendum and move our schools beyond the painful annual cuts. Our community values education. It’s a good referendum and we are confident the community will support it.”
Community and Schools Together (CAST) strongly supports the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education’s decision to place a three-year recurring referendum on the November 4, 2008 ballot. This is the best way for the district to address the legislated structural deficit we will face over the next few years.
This responsible approach provides time for the MMSD and the community to engage in the strategic planning that will take our already excellent schools to the next echelon. It will also establish a solid foundation for setting future budgets, justifying future referendums, and working for state finance reform. Such a process could be easily derailed if the community and district become distracted by discussion of major reductions in programs and services. At little cost to taxpayers, the Board’s action has given our community an opportunity to enter the Superintendent Nerad era in a way that will allow us to make good use of his talents and contributions.
“If we want to look at the big picture and plan for the future, we need the certainty that a recurring referendum provides,” stressed Hamilton Middle School parent and CAST activist Jerry Eykholt.
Since 1993 the district has reduced programs and services by over $60 million, even as other costs have continued to rise. The proposed referendum will provide basic operating funds to maintain the existing programs and services in Madison’s schools. Over the last fifteen years more than $60 million of programs and services have been cut. Without a referendum the cuts will continue at ever higher levels.
“Without the referendum, the preliminary areas identified by Superintendent Nerad and his staff for further cuts would create unwarranted stresses on our students, making it much harder to provide the education they deserve,” said Deb Gilbert, a CAST member and parent of two children at Leopold.
CAST is confident that the board and administration understand this referendum simply provides the authority to exceed revenue limits and, with the community, will continue to seek additional efficiencies and limit levy amounts to that needed to ensure a sound education for Madison’s children.
“I like the partnership aspects,” said CAST Treasurer and Falk parent Jackie Woodruff. “They clearly understand that we all need to work together to make the best use of the resources the community provides.”
A three-year referendum is a responsible way to allow the community and district to engage in a strong partnership to ensure the future success of Madison schools and students while minimizing the impact on children and tax payers.
CAST is proud of the quality of Madison’s schools and what they have achieved, even as resources have been cut and the needs of our population have grown through rapidly changing demographics-evidence of the dedication and creativity of the MMSD staff and the Madison community. Quality public education is essential to maintaining the economic health and quality of life of our community.
“We need to keep our schools strong-they are at the heart of our neighborhoods and what makes Madison such a great place to raise children” said Jill Jacklitz an activist with CAST and parent at Marquette and Lapham.
CAST is a grassroots organization of parents, educators, and community members that is dedicated to educating the citizens of Madison about school funding referenda in the Madison Metropolitan School District.
If you believe quality public schools for all is an integral part of our democracy, join us in working to assure our schools have adequate resources. We look forward to sharing a positive message about the future of the MMSD. Visit www.madisoncast.org for more information or contact:Community and Schools Together, madisoncast@sbcglobal.net.
Since I am active with CAST and quoted in the statement, now would be a good time to clarify some things.
CAST is a coalition of people dedicated to working for the passage of school referenda and educating on state school finance reform. Decisions are made collectively. Individuals involved differ on many matters related to school issues, even those related to referenda and school finance reform. As a group, we do and say what the group thinks best.
I also blog here and write about what I — as an individual — think is best. What I write or say, here or elsewhere, as an individual should in no way be considered to reflect the beliefs of CAST as an organization. Anything from CAST will be clearly labeled as such. Anything else is just me on my soapbox.
This should be obvious, but I think it needed saying.
The Madison Metropolitan School Board approved placing a three-year recurring referendum on the November ballot and enacted tax mitigation policies Monday, August 25, 2008. This is a good referendum, a good package and if passed will help create a positive atmosphere for the anticipated strategic planning that will make our schools even better while minimizing the costs to local taxpayers. Much more in the coming hours, days, weeks and months.
Just one thing that needs to be said now. Both before and after the vote opponents and other “watchdogs” cultivated deliberate misunderstanding by labeling the recurring referendum a “(virtual) blank check.” It is nothing of the sort. It is a “check” (taxation authority to exceed the revenue caps by up to) for $5 million the first year, $9 million the second year and $13 million each year thereafter. A blank check is a check that may be written in any amount; this referendum asks for specific authority up to a maximum. The idea of a “virtual blank check” is illogical demagoguery. Either a check is blank or it isn’t; it is like being a “little bit pregnant,” no such thing. Those who are pushing this line are insulting the people of Madison.
I’ve been so tied up with life and the referendum stuff that I haven’t been much paying attention to the city budget process. A story in today’s Wisconsin State Journal got my attention, this graphic in particular. Two items on the possible cut list will directly impact the school district budget and at least three more will make things harder for our schools to do their job.
These possible cuts have been identified early in the budget process. Mayor Cieslewicz asked all departments to list what they would propose in the way of a 5% budget cut. If things go as the Mayor envisions, about 37% of these cuts will need to be enacted. Nothing is set in stone at this point. The Mayor will propose his budget in October and the Common Council will act in November.
The two proposed cuts that will force the school district to find more money to makeup the shortfall are a proposal to require the district to pay $522,000 for crossing guards and a proposal to increase bus fares, including pass programs. MMSD spent about $800,000 on Madison Metro bus pass subsidies last year. The proposed 33% fare increase translates into another $264,000 (or a shift to students and families). These two items add up to $786,000.
To me , that’s 786,000 more reasons not to do a referendum on the cheap. If the November referendum passes, we aren’t going to get a second shot at asking for more operational revenue authority in the foreseeable future. No matter what else happens to create new needs — like the city budget — there will be no second chances. We need to do more than loosen the bonds that have tied the district’s hands, we need to take the ropes all the way off (more on those thoughts here).
The other cuts are in the areas of library hours and social services and childcare tuition aid.
Since we have lived in Madison I have considered the limited library hours a source of shame. Cutting further, or closing a branch will harm both the educational climate and the quality of life.
We all know that children, especially those in poverty, come to school carrying the baggage of their home lives and that the kinds of things that social service help with are the kinds of things that if not addressed make it harder for students to be successful and create behavioral problems which effect the school climate and hurt all students. The “Broader, Bolder” manifesto correctly stated, we need to recognize “the powerful impact on student achievement of numerous contextual and environmental factors such as early learning, parenting, health, poverty, and the cognitive, cultural, and character development that occurs outside schools” and address this via the very same types of social services now on the chopping block.
Last, but far from least is $106,000 cut in the the childcare tuition aid. Childcare is not education, but they can be mutually supportive. Childcare also relieves some of the stress of working and single parents, creating a home environment more conducive to learning. The worst case scenarios, which will no doubt be manifested in some households, are that the cuts in childcare tuition aid will leave some children without guidance or protection for significant time periods and/or increase the childcare responsibilities older siblings, distracting them from their academic work. Not good.
I believe that Mayor Dave is sincere in his desire to build mutually supportive structures and relationships among the school district, the city and the county. All of these cuts would move us further from that goal.
The first round of hearings has passed, but you can contact the Mayor and the Common Council to remind them that supporting education in all ways is essential keeping Madison a great city. Don’t forget to mention that the city has a much freer hand with taxing authority than the revenue-capped school district.
[There are three parts to this post: A news roundup, an explanation and analysis of the administrative proposal and my thoughts on why the first year of the referendum should be $6 million instead of the $5 million proposed. Although they are intertwined, the bulk of each part is presented in the order listed. — TJM]
Some clarifications on this report. Marjorie Passman is incorrectly identified as Lucy Mathiak. The “list of potential cuts” mentioned is very, very, very initial. It is a first effort to identify general areas that may be discussed for cuts. I heard more than one Board member grumble about what was in the list. Board President Arlene Silviera has promised to schedule a discussion of this list and potential cuts in general at a future date. I suggest all hold off on critiquing or complaining till that discussion takes place. We all know that $6 million to $8 million in cuts would be painful. For now, let’s just use our imagination as to where this pain would be experienced.
Some clarifications on this report. First the use of $2 million from the Fund Balance in the first year is based on an estimated $4 million growth in the Fund Balance as the 2007-08 year is closed out (more below). The “other” $2 million from the Community Services Fund (Fund 80) Fund Balance as part of the plan to minimize the tax impact, is actually a plan to decrease the Fund 80 levy by that in amount in 2009-10 and use excess money previously collected instead to fund on going Fund 80 programing.
That said, Madsen has a quote from Superintendent Dan Nerad worth citing:
We’re about two things here: one is ensuring that the needs of our kids are met to be educated well and the other is to be sensitive to taxpayers going forward.
And Hall quotes Marj Passman with a sobering reminder of what this is about:
[W]e’re desperate and we need this passed and even if it is passed we’re not adding anything back.
Supt. Nerad is calling this a partnership. So what’s the partnership and what’s the plan? The partnership is an addendum to the deal that was struck long ago when public education was established. At that time and since, our society has entrusted our children, our tax dollars and our futures to public schools with the understanding that the schools with the help of community members will educate the rising generation, create a society based on opportunity for all and be good stewards of the public funds provided for this most important work. While asking the voters for more funds via a referendum, Supt. Nerad demonstrates good faith and worthiness in two ways. First, the request is substantially less than is needed for “cost-to-continue” budgeting and there is a promise to meet these shortfalls by finding new ways to do things without sacrificing (and maybe improving) the quality of education. Second (but not unrelated), Supt. Nerad and Assistant Supt. Erik Kass have sought and found ways to minimize the impact of exceeding the revenue caps on local property tax payers. In other words, the addendum might read: “In exchange for a small increase in our revenue authority — less than 1.5% — we promise to use this increase responsibly to educate while doing our best to minimize the burden placed on local property taxpayers.”
This sounds like a pretty fair deal. I think it would be a better deal for our community if we upped the “small increase in our revenue authority” a bit.
I want to go through the details of the plan and my thoughts in three parts. First, what is (and is not) proposed for the referendum, then the ways that the costs to property taxpayers will be mitigated. Finally some words on why I think that the district should ask for more money in the first year. There will be some overlap.
The (Proposed) Referendum.
Three year, recurring.
$5 Million year one (projected gap, $8.11 million).
$4 million year two (projected gap, $4.37 million).
$4 million year three (projected gap, $4.26 million).
Recurring means that it is cumulative. The authority to exceed the revenue cap the second year will be $9 million and the third year and beyond $13 million. The advantages of a recurring referendum are two-fold: It allows for better long-term planning and it minimizes the gap and probable cuts to meet that gap in subsequent years. The disadvantage is that recurring referenda are more easily demagogued. I’m not sure why this is so, except that the words “Permanent Tax Increase” carry some emotional weight. Of course the same people who use this appeal complain about the lack of long-range planning. Consistency is rarely the strong suit of the complaining classes.
What isn’t proposed is preserving everything the way it is now. There will be cuts or reorganizations or reallocations each of the three years. They won’t be huge, they probably won’t be too divisive, but they will happen each year.
I value the fresh perspective and approaches Dan Nerad has brought. I am glad that there will be comprehensive strategic planning and that new ways of doing things will be implemented. I understand that this is being connected to asking for less than the gaps in the referendum and that is a legitimate connection.
I don’t think asking for this much less than the gaps is for the best. I think that in order for our children to realize the full benefit of contributions of the new administration we should authorize resources at least equal to a cost-to-continue budget. I’m not advocating keeping things as they are; I’m advocating reforms without cuts. I’m advocating $6 million for the first year (because of the recurring formulation, this also funds the subsequent years). This money can be used to do things like restore Ready-Set-Goals, revitalize the equity work of the district, expand funding of supplemental positions via something like the equity resource formula, fix some of the problems with class size and specials, initiate world languages in the early grades…and most importantly implement initiatives identified through the strategic planning processwith less pressure to defund existing programs.
I think that as a community we can afford this. That brings me to the tax impact parts of the plan.
Mitigating the Property Tax Impact
As presented by Dan Nerad and Erik Kass, the tax impact mitigation plans have little directly to do with the referendum itself. It is likely that most of these would be implemented even if there was no referendum. However, they are indirectly related in two ways. First, they are a demonstration of the partnership principles that Supt. Nerad has articulated; second, in very real ways they make a referendum more affordable to the local taxpayers. I want to start this part of my consideration with a some charts from the administration’s presentation.
Mill Rate History and Projections without a Referendum
Mill Rate History and Projections With A Referendum, Other Administrative Proposals and Renewal of Maintenance Referendum.
Mill Rate History and Projections with A Referendum, Other Administrative Proposals and Renewal of Maintenance Referendum
The first chart is the status quo. If there is no referendum and nothing else changes mill rates (taxes per $1,000 of property value) will resume their significant downward trend. With the exception of a very slight up-tick in 2007-8, the school mill rate has fallen steadily since 1992-3. For 2008-9, it is less than one half of what it was in 1992-3!
If there is a referendum and the proposed changes are enacted, the downward trend will also continue with the exception of another slight up-tick for 2009-10 (charts 2 and 3). The calculations I’ve seen say that for $250,000 home taxes will drop about $27.50 from the current rate in the second year and about $100.00 in the third.
This will be accomplished in four ways. First, by not seeking revenues to the amount of the projected gaps. Second, by slowing the rate of growth of the operating Fund Balance (Fund 10) and using some of the Community Service (Fund 80) Fund Balance to lower that levy without cutting programs. Third by moving money to a Capital Expansion Fund (Fund 41) which shifts the responsibility for some revenue from local taxpayers to the state (I’ll offer a more complete explanation at a later date). All of these are fiscally sound practices. The last piece is a conservative projection of 4% annual growth in the total value of property in the district.
Mitigate and Do the Right thing
I fully support all of these ideas for mitigating the tax impact, including not seeking the full gap amount. Where I differ is that I think we should seek closer to the gap and ask for $6 million in the first year. Our schools and our children are worth it.
The projections for what this will cost get very complicated. If my calculations are correct adding $1 million to the first year would produce the following mill rates:
Year 1: 13.24
Year 2: 11.54
Year 3: 10.68
The highest of these puts about where we were in 1999, when the revenue caps had been wrecking their damage for four years. By year three, mill rates would be back at 2005 levels.
I haven’t had a chance to project the tax impact on a $250,000 home for all three years (too many variables), but my initial calculation is that in the first “worst” year it would be $36.30, or about $9.00 more than what the administration proposed. For something as important as education, I think we can afford that much.
I want to leave numbers aside and talk about three things that I observed and heard today while registering my son for first grade. They are minor and they are indicative of what happens when we neglect our schools, or try to do things on the cheap.
On the entrance to the playground there is a ramp with concrete walls on either side. On one side the wall has crumbled and rebar is sticking out. The rebar is covered by empty plastic soda bottles taped on.
While on the playground, I spoke with the custodian. We talked about lots of things. My spouse asked if wood chips had been ordered (they are badly needed). He said they had, but the amount sent in the last few years has not been sufficient for all the surfaces that need covering.
We also spoke about snow removal. Apparently due to budget cuts, there are no longer removal crews assigned to specific schools (in all cases). Each snowfall brings different crews. Before this was the case, there was good communication about the particular characteristics of this school site and the crew knew where to plow and where not to, where to pile snow and where not to. Now it is random and the school custodians spend time each snowfall taking care of what was not done correctly.
A crumbling wall with dangerous metal protruding, a short load of wood chips and not staffing consistently aren’t huge things. Still they are things we should be able to afford to do right. I know we can’t afford them or many other things. I know we still have some Windows 98 computers in our schools.
What does this say about us that we haven’t cared enough to demand that this situation be fixed? What does it say about us that our school officials think that in order to get us to pass a referendum they need promise further cuts?
I’m not sure that the referendum as proposed will change any of this. It may help with some of these. It will keep things from getting (much) worse and that is very important.
I truly believe that quality public education is what creates and preserves prosperous and enjoyable communities; that public schools are the best tool we have for creating opportunities and overcoming inequality; that if we want the next generations to live in a better world our schools are the best tool we have for making that happen.
(If this passes) There won’t be another operating referendum for some time (maybe never if the state finance system gets fixed). Let’s do it right this time.
One more million in the first year and loads of possibilities open up. We can dream a little again. Wouldn’t that be great?
I’ll be working hard in support of a referendum as proposed by the administration (find out how to help by visiting Community and Schools Together), but I’d have a bigger smile on my face as I worked if the Board and the administration would askfor some more opportunities to dream.
Share your thoughts in the comments here and let the Board know what you think. Come to the Board meeting Monday, August 25 (last I heard, there will be public testimony) or write: comments@madison.k12.wi.us.
Thomas J. Mertz
[Slightly revised, 11:50 AM and 12:48 PM, 8/22/08]
In another arena, another school district is facing breaking up. Wausaukee residents will vote Aug. 19 to see if they can afford to keep operating. Recently, two referendums failed in Arbor Vitae.
Rhinelander voters on Sept. 9 will be deciding not on an operating budget per se, but rather whether the 1950s-era school buildings need remodeling.
I didn’t see anyone from the Department of Public Instruction with Doyle on the trip north, probably because of the reception they would receive. The current funding formula leaves the schools here against the wall. But the legislature seems ho-hum about the situation.
We hear about Wisconsin values, traditions and quality of life. Support for public education must be at the base of who we are and who we want to be. From the Northwoods to Milwaukee, schools are essential to preserving and expanding everything that we value about our communities and state. The people of Wausaukee figured that out. I think the people of Madison will come to a similar conclusion in November. I hope our elected officials join them and improve the school finance system in the next legislative session.
In fact, as urban school districts go, Madison stands out — in the best sense.
This district still believes it is possible to tackle the big challenges and meet them. And the continued success of its students is proof that this belief is anything but naive.
But greatness is achieved only by those who are vigilant about maintaining strengths and addressing areas of vulnerability.
It is safe to say that any serious approach to this district’s future involves asking the voters of the Madison Metropolitan School District to endorse a funding referendum to avert anticipated budget shortfalls of $8.2 million for the 2009-10 school year, $6 million for 2010-11 and $5.1 million for 2011-12.
That’s a lot to ask of taxpayers who are feeling stressed by a tightening economy.
But education is not a cost, it’s an investment. And the crowds that showed up at forums that the School Board held earlier this month on the question of how to address the projected shortfalls displayed a clear understanding of this subtlety.
There appears to be a good deal of support for going to referendum this fall. And we think the board should do just that.
Balancing the MMSD budget now would make it possible for the district to see its way through a rough stretch without unreasonable cuts and to implement initiatives that would ensure Madison schools continue to set the standard for quality and achievement in Wisconsin and nationally.
Unless the board comes up with an ill-thought-out proposal, we’ll urge a “yes” vote on the referendum.
But even those who might oppose a referendum should be in favor of board action at this point.
If the board moves now, the referendum question can be on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Because the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain is expected to draw a record voter turnout on that day, there could be no better point at which to assess the level of support for the school district in general and the current board’s strategies in particular.
Wisconsin has a great tradition of involving all taxpayers in the process of setting and supporting education priorities. We keep the decision-making process at the grass roots level. We elect school boards. We put major spending and building questions to the voters in the form of referendums. The system has worked well — even as state meddling in the structures of school financing has made things difficult. And it works best when referendums attract maximum participation.
Nov. 4 can and should be such a day.
I agree that high turnout elections are appropriate for school referenda. Where I disagree is in the implication that “the system” of requiring districts to go to referendum in order to simply meet rising costs or to fund even relatively small new initiatives has “worked well.” It hasn’t. No system that would require $8.2 million in program and service cuts from a cost-to-continue budget in Madison, push Wausaukee to the edge of dissolution, or compel over 150 districts to hold operating referenda in the last two years can be said to have “worked well.”
On Tuesday, August 18, 2008 the voters of the Wausaukee school district will for the third time in six months vote on an operating referendum. The first two failed. This time a failed referendum will likely mean the end of the Wausaukee school district.
Advocates for school finance reform in Wisconsin often refer to the current system of funding education as a “going-out-of-business plan.” Opponents may deride this as hyperbole, but it is literally true. Wausaukee is in critical condition, many other districts are in intensive care. Even districts in no immediate danger of dissolution annually suffer through divisive program and service cuts or the pain and strain of referenda, sapping the health from the hearts of our communities.
The Peshitgo Times has again done a great job reporting on all the dissolution, referendum and budget news in Wausaukee. Most of what follows is from their most recent report.
On the dissolution front, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Elizabeth Burmaster has appointed the Boundary Appeal Board members who will decide the fate of the district. Starting in August and ending in November, the Board will hold four hearings and review information on transportation, facilities, finances and more.
If the Boundary Appeals Board decides the school should be closed, the ruling will become effective Sept. 1, 2009. Students, assets and debts of the district, along with the properties that support the school, will be allocated to neighboring school districts. Those assigned districts will be allowed, without referendum, to raise their tax levies enough to offset the costs created by the influx of new students.
The Board will continue their work regardless of the outcome of the referendum, but a successful referendum will make dissolution unlikely.
The district has a very good fact sheet posted. Here is how the Times explains the vote:
Tuesday’s referendum asks Wausaukee School District voters to allow the board to levy $675,000 over the state levy limits in school purpose property taxes each year for the next 10 years. If approved, the increase will cost the owner of a $100,000 property approximately $102 in additional taxes for each of the next three years. After three years the school building debt will be paid off, which will result in a savings of approximately $102 on a $100,000 property, bringing the levy back down to current levels. There appears to be no way to estimate tax increases that could be caused if the district is dissolved and reallocated.
Like many in the state, district officials and others in the community are also working to fix the state finance system so that others don’t have to go through this. District Administrator Jan Dooley, along with officials from neighboring districts recently met with representatives of Marinette County Association for Business and Industry to discuss school funding. On October 6 and 7, in conjunction with the Northwoods Summit Dooley will join other educators and business people to talk about the need for school finance reform. As Dooley noted, this is something that everyone needs to get involved in: “As the school goes, so goes the community.”
For those who think that the school funding has not hurt the quality of education in our state, some numbers in Wausaukee might serve as a reality check.
During the 2007-2008 school year the union support staff was reduced by 3.5 full time equivalent positions. Teaching staff for the 2008-2009 school year will be reduced from last year by 8.245 full time equivalent positions. The 38.875 FTE teaching positions is down from slightly over 56 positions in 2000-2001. In addition, teachers have accepted a two-year wage freeze and agreed to pay 10 percent of their health insurance costs. New hires will pay 20 percent of their insurance costs.
That’s a 17.5% reduction in teachers in one year and a 30% decrease since 2000-2001! Also note that even with pay freezes, health care cost reductions and other concessions that very few unions or individuals would agree to (and none are legally obligated to make) , the district still cannot balance their books without a referendum.
The cut that probably will resonate most with Madisonians is the elimination of the SAGE class size reductions. I’ve written before about SAGE as an underfunded program and the choices this forces districts — including Madison — to make. In Wausaukee they decided that they could not afford to keep their partially funded small classes for the early grades. DPI has extended the deadline in case they reconsider, but that does not appear likely.
The board decided to end the program because added cost exceeded the amount of added state aid, Dooley said, but that could change if there would be a large influx of students eligible for free and reduced lunches when school opens in fall. However, restoring the program even if that happened would mean they would either need to double up on some of their special classes or hire additional staff, and they could end up with three teachers to be laid off the following year. Despite the potential problems, she declared, “I want to walk with this.”
Research on the benefits of small classes for the early grades has met the test time and time again. If you want “research-based,” “data-driven” best practices, this is about as good as it gets. Unfortunately, the way the SAGE program and school finance in Wisconsin are set up this is increasingly becoming a practice that districts cannot afford to implement or keep. Sad. Shameful.
I hope that the referendum on Tuesday passes, that the district remains intact and that our elected officials are paying attention to what is happening with our schools in Wausaukee and around the state.
From Lakeview Elementary (MMSD) teacher Susan J. Hobart in The ProgressiveMagazine.
One Teacher’s Cry: Why I Hate No Child Left Behind
By Susan J. Hobart, August 2008 Issue
I’m a teacher. I’ve taught elementary school for eleven years. I’ve always told people, “I have the best job in the world.” I crafted curriculum that made students think, and they had fun while learning. At the end of the day, I felt energized. Today, more often than not, I feel demoralized.
While I still connect my lesson plans to students’ lives and work to make it real, this no longer is my sole focus. Today I have a new nickname: testbuster. Singing to the tune of “Ghostbusters,” I teach test-taking strategies similar to those taught in Stanley Kaplan prep courses for the SAT. I spend an inordinate amount of time showing students how to “bubble up,” the term for darkening those little circles that accompany multiple choice questions on standardized tests.
I am told these are invaluable skills to have.
I am told if we do a good job, our students will do well.
I am told that our district does not teach to the test.
I am told that the time we are spending preparing for and administering the tests, analyzing the results, and attending in-services to help our children become proficient on this annual measure of success will pay off by reducing the academic achievement gap between our white children and our children of color.
I am told a lot of things.
But what I know is that I’m not the teacher I used to be. And it takes a toll. I used to be the one who raved about my classroom, even after a long week. Pollyanna, people called me. Today, when I speak with former colleagues, they are amazed at the cynicism creeping into my voice.
What has changed?
No Child Left Behind is certainly a big part of the problem. The children I test are from a wide variety of abilities and backgrounds. Whether they have a cognitive disability, speak entry-level English, or have speech or language delays, everyone takes the same test and the results are posted. Special education students may have some accommodations, but they take the same test and are expected to perform at the same level as general education students. Students new to this country or with a native language other than English must also take the same test and are expected to perform at the same level as children whose native language is English. Picture yourself taking a five-day test in French after moving to Paris last year.
No Child Left Behind is one size fits all. But any experienced teacher knows how warped a yardstick that is.
I spent yesterday in a meeting discussing this year’s standardized test results. Our team was feeling less than optimistic in spite of additional targeted funds made available to our students who are low income or who perform poorly on such tests.
As an educator, I know these tests are only one measure, one snapshot, of student achievement. Unfortunately, they are the make-or-break assessment that determines our status with the Department of Education.
They are the numbers that are published in the paper.
They are the scores that homebuyers look at when deciding if they should move into a neighborhood.
They are the numbers that are pulled out and held over us, as more and greater rigidity enters the curriculum.
I was recently told we cannot buddy up with a first-grade class during our core literacy time. It does not fit the definition of core literacy, I was told. Reading with younger children has been a boon to literacy improvement for my struggling readers and my new English-speaking students. Now I must throw this tool away?
In an increasingly diverse public school setting, there is not one educational pedagogy that fits all students. We study and discuss differentiated curriculum, modify teaching strategies, and set “just right reading levels” to scaffold student learning. But No Child Left Behind doesn’t care about that. It takes no note of where they started or how much they may have progressed.
As a teacher, I measure progress and achievement for my students on a daily basis. I set the bar high, expecting a lot.
I don’t argue with the importance of assessment; it informs my instruction for each child.
I don’t argue with the importance of accountability; I believe in it strongly—for myself and my students.
I have empathy for our administrators who have to stand up and be told that we are “challenged schools.” And I have empathy for our administrators who have to turn around and drill it into our teacher heads, telling us we must do things “this” way to get results. I feel for them. They are judged on the numbers, as well.
No Child Left Behind is a symptom of a larger problem: the attack on public education itself. Like the school choice effort, which uses public funds to finance private schools and cherry-pick the best students, No Child Left Behind is designed to punish public schools and to demonstrate that private is best.
But I don’t think we’ve turned a corner that we can’t come back from. Public education has been a dynamic vehicle in our country since its inception. We must grapple with maintaining this progressive institution. Policymakers and educators know that education holds out hope as the great equalizer in this country. It can inspire and propel a student, a family, a community.
The state where I teach has a large academic achievement gap for African American and low income children. That is unacceptable. Spending time, money, energy on testing everyone with a “one size fits all test” will not eliminate or reduce that gap.
Instead, we need teacher-led professional development and more local control of school budgets and policymaking. Beyond that, we need to address the economic and social issues many children face, instead of punishing the schools that are trying to do right by these students.
We’ve got things backwards today. Children should be in the front seat, not the testing companies. And teachers should be rewarded for teaching, not for being Stanley Kaplan tutors.
Ten years ago, I taught a student named Cayla. A couple of months ago, I got a note from her, one of those things that teachers thrive on.
“Ms. Hobart was different than other teachers, in a good way,” she wrote. “We didn’t learn just from a textbook; we experienced the topics by ‘jumping into the textbook.’ We got to construct a rainforest in our classroom, have a fancy lunch on the Queen Elizabeth II, and go on a safari through Africa. What I learned ten years ago still sticks with me today. When I become a teacher, I hope to inspire my students as much as she inspired hers.”
Last week, I received a call from Niecy, another student from that class ten years ago. She was calling from southern Illinois to tell me she was graduating from high school this month and had just found out that she has won a scholarship to a college in Indiana. I was ecstatic in my happiness for her. We laughed, and I told her I was looking at a photo of her on my wall, building a pyramid out of paper bricks with her classmates.
I also had a recent conversation with Manuel in a grocery parking lot. He reminded me of my promise eight years ago to attend his high school graduation. I plan to be there.
Cayla and Niecy and Manuel are three of the reasons I teach. They are the reasons that some days this still feels like a passion and not a job.
When I pick up the broom at the end of the day to sweep my class due to budget cuts, I remember Cayla.
When I drive home demoralized after another meeting where our success is dissected with a knife manufactured in Texas, I remember Niecy.
When another new program that is going to solve the reading disparity, resulting in higher test scores, is introduced on top of another new program that was supposed to result in the same thing, I remember Manuel.
They are the fires that fuel my passion. They are the lifeboats that help me ride this current wave in education.
Eight or ten years from now, I want other former students to contact me and tell me a success story from their lives. I don’t want to be remembered as the teacher who taught them how to sing “Testbusters” or to “bubble up.” I want to be remembered as a teacher who inspired them to learn.
Susan J. Hobart, M.S. Ed., is a National Board Certified Teacher living in the Midwest.
Stories in both newspapers and on the radio and television, another presentation to the Board of Education, referendum talk everywhere.
In the State Journal Andy Hall set the table with a report over the weekend and followed up with a story on Monday. Tamara Madsen of the Cap Times had the story on Tuesday. With the exception of Johnny Winston Jr. — who Andy Hall quotes as saying ” “Gotta have it…We can’t wait for the state to help us out” — all the other Board Members seem to be playing things close to the vest (to one degree or another). I think Johnny Winston Jr, is right. The dollar figure might not be settled and the case has to be taken to the people, but as Board Members who have extensive knowledge of the the district’s finances it should be clear to one and all that some operating referendum is the right thing to do. The longer it takes them to come out and say that, the less time we all have to convince those who don’t know as much about the situation and the harder that job becomes. Let’s move beyond the “if” and get to the “how” the “how much” and the “for what.”
The Monday, August 4, 2008 Madison Board of Education meeting was mostly devoted to further presentations by Supt. Dan Nerad and Eric Kass on the past, present and future. The materials from these presentations and information on the next week’s public forums have been posted on the MMSD site under the heading “Current Financial Condition.” I’m going to highlight some of the things there.
The “Current Options to Address Fiscal Situation” is the “master narrative document,” with the others mostly expanding on things outlined there. It gives the big story, and the details are in the accompanying documents. It moves from the state finance system, to what Madison has done in the way of savings and cuts, to the possibilities of further cuts and savings and referendum options. One thing I liked is that in this document (and the one from the previous week) Supt. Nerad began with an introductory quote from the Vincent v. Voight school finance decision:
Wisconsin students have a fundamental right to an equal opportunity for a sound basic education. An equal opportunity for a sound basic education is one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally.
A not-so-subtle reminder that that school finance in this state violates the spirit and maybe the letter of the law.
The “Effects of Reduction” is a partial assessment of the impact that previous program and service cuts have had on the education of our children and the functioning of the district. More detailed budget line listings are in the Historical Budget Reductions 1993-2008 by Category and Historical Budget Reductions 1993-2008 documents. As a friend pointed out in an email to me today many “important existing and proven successful programs and personnel” have been cut over the years and that as we talk about a referendum it makes sense to look toward not only preserving what we have, but also to restoring what we have given up (I’d add expanding in new directions too). The class and a half arrangements for specials and the general loss of locally funded class size reduction is a recent cut that appears to be putting a strain on teachers and students. Three other things really jumped out at me from this document. First is the “Ready, Set Goals” conferences. Every teacher and parent I’ve talked to found these valuable and at $84,000 it seems like something we should be able to afford. The second is the loss of 32 FTE positions in Student Services and Alternative Programs (psychologists, social workers, nurses…). Last, I’d note the cuts of 157 FTE (teachers and SEAs in Special Education).
The “Effects” document also addresses the gutting of the work in Parent, Community and Race Relations. I knew this had happened, but it took going through the line-by-line histories to appreciate how the district’s once concerted effort has eroded to almost nothing.
1997-98 Eliminate Parenting Classes.
1997-98 Eliminate Diversity Advocacy Positions.
1998-99 Eliminate Alternatives to Suspensions.
2000-01 $10,000 cut to “Staff and Student Equity.”
2001-02 Eliminate Two Minority Student Achievement support teachers.
2001-02 Eliminate clerical position in Race Relations.
2001-02 Project Bootstrap, Centro Hispano and Urban League Partnerships cut (moved to Fund 80?).
2002-03 Community Partnerships Coordinator moved to Fund 80.
2002-03 Parent Community Response Unit funding reduced $85,000.
2004-05 Race Relations Coordinator of Parent Relations Eliminated.
2004-05 .5 FTE Parent Community Relations Response Teacher cut.
2005-06 Eliminate Parent Community Response Department.
2006-07 Cut of $45,131 in “Race Relations – Supplies and Materials.”
2006-07 Eliminate Race Relations Special Assistant Supt.
2006-07 Cut $45,254 in “Minority Achievement Supplies and Materials.”
Keep in mind that this all happened at a time when our district was growing more diverse. I’m not going to defend every race or community relations program that has been cut, but I do think that this is an area where we should consider putting more resources, not fewer.
Off that soap box for now. One more item I want to highlight from the presentation materials is the “Examples of Efficiencies.” Art Rainwater used to say that the first couple of years under the revenue caps actually helped the district figure out how to do things better and these examples in areas like transportation and energy conservation show that this has continued. Supt. Nerad may find other new efficiencies, but we can’t cover the $8.2 million and growing gap through efficiencies.
From "Current Options to Address Fiscal Situation," MMSD.
One item listed is the much maligned Lawson Software system, which according to the current figure (as revised in the “Current Options” document) has led to $700,000 in annual staffing savings. It is also worth pointing out that a December 2007 article in the American School Board Journal praised the cooperation among area districts in purchasing and implementing the system and noted that the approach taken reduced both short and long term costs. I’m no expert on business operation software for school systems, but I do know that the ASBJ is a reliable source and I trust them more than I trust our local ranting and raving radio talk show host (listen here as Lucy Mathiak does her best to get a word in).
As families across our community begin preparations for the 2008-09 school year, the Board of Education is going out into the community to discuss the financial status of the district.
Two public forums are scheduled:
Tuesday, August 12at 6 p.m. in the WarnerParkCommunity Center, 1625 Northport Drive, and
Thursday, August 14at 6 p.m. in the JamesMadisonMemorialHigh School Auditorium, 201 S. Gammon Rd.
The forums will provide an overview of the district’s financial situation and a discussion of the Board’s options, including going to referendum this November.
The audience will be divided into small groups depending on the number of people attending. The small groups will be facilitated by members of the Management Team and a Board member will be assigned to each group. This will provide an opportunity for questions and discussion.
Key questions that will be asked each small group include:
Is there any additional information you need regarding the District’s financial situation?
What are your reactions to the options the Board is considering?
Are there other ideas you have to address the District’s current financial situation?
At the end of the evening, there will be a large group share-out of information from each smaller group.Notes from each group will be organized and posted on the website.
We encourage you to attend, so you are better informed about the fiscal issues confronting the school district. Please feel free to pass this information on to others.
AMPS 