Author Archives: Robert Godfrey

by | March 9, 2008 · 1:47 pm

Get-er’-done

tomorrow.jpg

State Senator Kathleen Vinehout offered some of the most compelling testimony I’ve ever witnessed this past November before the Wisconsin Senate Education Committee hearing on the Pope-Roberts/Breske School Finance Reform Resolution. Her no nonsense, “get er’ done” plaint to the committee, was direct, compelling and simple. Unfortunately, no one in a “leadership” position is prepared to listen, let alone act on her simple plea. (See her testimony at the bottom)

Senator Vinehout offered three fundamental problems with the school funding system that have to be fixed.

1. There’s a fundamental disconnect between what drives school district revenues and what drives school district costs. She gives an example; when 3 students leave from a class of 20, we cut nearly 15%, but the cost of teaching a class of 17 is almost the same as teaching a class of 20.

2. The school funding formula assumes that every student costs the same regardless of background, capability or language skills.

3. The school formula assumes that every school has the same cost structure regardless of whether it has 300 or 3,000 students and regardless of whether it covers 15 square miles or 150 square miles.

These three things work together to provide severe financial problems, particularly for those school districts I represent, the small rural communities that are dealing with declining enrollment and increasing property values.

She goes on to cite some places in her district that suffer disproportionately because they are penalized for having higher than average equalized property values but more than 40% of the student body are from lower middle class households and more than 50% of the community is low income. But under the current formula, those communities are considered wealthy, when in fact they are far from it.

Rural schools are losing ground and they’re facing two choices. They must either spend more out of local resources to provide basic education programs or be satisfied with limited educational opportunities. And the reality is that many of these school districts are so poor, that the first option is not available to them. And sacrificing educational quality should not be a choice.

Vinehout says that not only must Wisconsin be committed to the 2/3rds funding of our schools, but it must also address the long term equity problems with the school funding formula.

School funding reform has to be a priority. We need to put aside our partisan differences and we need to work together to find a plan that puts forth real reform.

-She lays out 4 essential elements for real reform:

1. We have to reduce our reliance on property tax.
2. We have to recognize that some students cost more to educate than others.
3. We have to recognize that school districts in different situations face different costs.
4. And finally, the results have to based on an adequacy study or real costs in specific circumstances.

. . . the information is out there [on how to do this], what’s missing is a commitment to finish the final assignment. We need to make that commitment as a legislature. We cannot afford to let our schools go down. Good schools prepare our children for productive lives, they make for a vibrant economy, they support vibrant communities . . . we can do a better job.

Glen Grothman, arguably the most regressive member of our state legislature, attempted a rhetorical broadside to Senator Vinehout, one that he had leveled earlier in the hearing. Suggesting that Wisconsin was one of the highest spenders on education in the country, he added further that since our income was lower than average “that would seem rather generous.” But it’s false. Based on income, Wisconsin ranks closer to the mode for all states at 17th. A number of our regional neighbors, for example, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana (all not exactly swimming in wealth) spend more on education than we do.

Her response to Senator Grothman was one that has stayed with me for these past couple of months. It’s the kind of response, in both it’s passion and simplicity, a directness that quickened my pulse, a retort that I wish we would see a lot more of from our elected leaders, starting with our Governor and our Senate and Assembly leadership, a riposte that boldly stands up to all the special moneyed interests in this state who are determined to balkanize and weaken our public school system.

The purpose of the bill that we’re looking at today, is what I call, a get-er’-done bill. It doesn’t solve the problem. It says we need to get the problem solved. The first step is to make the commitment to get together to look at the research and say we are going to solve that. . . and were saying let’s talk about this plan, let’s have those hearings, let’s have those discussions, let’s decide as a state if we want to make the commitment to increase the amount of money or if we want to make the commitment to change the formula, we can do this. I’m not going to sit here and say what the solution is . . . we have a problem and we need to solve it. Let’s get our sleeve’s rolled up and get to work.

I’m sorry to write this, but I don’t feel we have the leadership in our state to “get er’ done” for the 2009 budget. I know plenty of folks will take issue with this, but I don’t see any hope for our deeply challenged schools for the 2011 budget cycle either, unless there is the political will to take on a fundamental re-thinking of the way we fund our state government. Property tax reform must happen; but the political capital that will be needed to be burned for such an effort on the part of our leadership – in both parties – is far too much for them to contemplate. Frankly, I think another Progressive Era-type movement will have to take hold before any real action will take place to reform our state’s funding priorities. And that seems too far off into the future for my liking and for the future of the many hundred’s of thousands of our state’s children.

Robert Godfrey

Video from Wisconsin Eye — the full November 15 hearing can be accessed here — , excerpts posted via YouTube, playlist of all Senate hearing videos posted previuosly, here (because of length, this video could not be posted on YouTube). h/t to T.J. for putting the video up.

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, education, finance, Pope-Roberts/Breske Resolution, School Finance

by | January 30, 2008 · 9:22 pm

UW Instruction expert: Don’t delay school entry

kindergartners.jpg

UW researcher Beth Graue suggests that if you are thinking that it might be better to delay your child’s entry into kindergarten for another year, don’t.

If you have reservations about whether your son or daughter is ready for kindergarten, you’re not alone. Many parents agonize over concerns that their child might be among the youngest or smallest in the class. They often wrestle with doubts about their child’s social, emotional or academic readiness.

Her research has found that delaying entry — called “academic redshirting,” after the college sports practice of deferring eligibility for freshmen players — has few positive effects. Children who are older when they start kindergarten might experience initial academic and social advantages, but those generally disappear by the end of third grade. Meanwhile, “redshirts” have higher–than–expected placement in special education and more social, emotional and disciplinary problems.

“Readiness is a relative thing,” she says. “There are some kids who always color outside the lines, and that extra year will just make them bigger, not necessarily more ready.”

She has found that parents are less likely to delay entry for girls with fall birthdays, and these girls tend to do well. When entry is delayed, the consequences are similar, regardless of gender.

“We will always have some kids who are more or less ready, no matter what the cut–off date is,” says Graue.

Parents delay entry for a variety of reasons – most often for social, emotional, physical and biological concerns. They are usually trying to avoid something, such as their kid being the last picked for kickball.

Middle–class parents are more likely to be familiar with redshirting as a strategy from reading parenting magazines and blogs. These families are also better able to provide an enriching home environment. Working–class parents tend to want their kids in school sooner.

Here are a few tips from Graue on preparing your child to start school:

  • Reading to your child every day is the best foundation you can provide.
  • Make the most out of everyday tasks. For instance, having your child set the table with one fork at every place teaches such concepts of one-to-one correspondence and how to follow directions.
  • Give your child lots of play time with peers to practice in cooperating with others.
  • Tour the kindergarten your child will be attending; a prepared child will be more confident.

And yet, there has never been a moments doubt in our minds as parents that our younger daughter has benefited immensely by holding back her start into kindergarten. She seems to be right in the “sweet spot” of where she should be academic-wise and emotionally, seemingly well adjusted for her grade level. A tough one to call. The axiom that all children are different never seemed more apropos.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices

by | January 30, 2008 · 5:36 pm

Who’s Out to Get Public Schools?

girl-staring.jpg

Gerald Bracey has an interesting report out this morning.

When people think about the groups or individuals who wish to privatize public schools, they probably think of only a few foundations and people. The late Milton Friedman and John Walton and the living Paul Peterson; the Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, Hoover Institution, Heartland Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Goldwater Institute, Bradley, Scaife and a scattering of others.

This is a mistake. A recent study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy studying the years 2002 to 2006 identified 132 separate school choice organizations (www.ncrp.org, “Strategic Grantmaking”). One hundred and four of these 132 received grants from 1,212 foundations with total contributions exceeding $100,000,000 in some years. The Walton Family Foundation (Wal-Mart) dwarfed all others with grants often exceeding $25 million.

These foundations also funded candidates, political parties, political action groups and 501(c)4 organizations. Overwhelmingly, the recipients of this largess were Republican candidates and causes.

… [There’s] a common flaw in the reasoning of the privatizers: it assumes that there are enough private schools to go around. In fact, the existing private schools, even if they wanted these poor kids, which most of them don’t, could accommodate no more than 4% of students now in the public schools. In the early years of the privatization movement, analogies were often drawn to fast food restaurants—new schools would spring up as fast as McDonald’s or Starbucks. The privatizers have apparently gotten past that particular stupidity and realize that a school is a large and complex ecosystem which requires expert knowledge not needed for hamburger flipping.

The privatizers can be critical of how conservatives fund voucher movements. Many think it is silly to fund the large think tanks such as AEI and Heritage, because they end up forming partnerships with people whose primary interest is in maintaining the status quo. Many advocate small funding to, say, parents, who have a direct interest (it is alleged) in change. In fact some people have accused the large conservative think tanks with having a basic distrust of democracy. Giving money directly to parents, on the other hand, reflects a belief that parents can select the schools best for their children.

It is interesting in this connection that supporters of the oldest (18 years) and largest (19,000 students) voucher program in the country, that in Milwaukee, have just begun a million-dollar campaign to build support for the program. According to an article in the January 28, 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the group “will sponsor television, radio and print advertising over the next four months as well as undertaking other activities aimed at increasing positive opinions of the program.”

Of course, the simplest way to build support would be to show that the program works. This has not been done in Milwaukee or elsewhere (the alleged big gains Paul Peterson found for blacks in New York City disappeared when proper statistical techniques were used). Evaluations of the program after five years reached contradictory conclusions, the most reasonable one being, in my opinion, that the program had no impact on reading achievement and a small impact on mathematics achievement. The researcher, Cecilia Rouse of Princeton, observed, though, that voucher students attended smaller classes and that class size could easily be the source of the voucher students’ advantage. After that evaluation, voucher supporters in the legislature expressed their confidence in the program by killing any further funding for evaluations.

And of course the other meme that will come to be employed with increasing frequency in the future, is the one that says education evaluation is not a science and therefore can’t be trusted. Except of course when it’s your own think tank that produces the results that confirm the efficacy of the voucher program you hope to promote.

Robert Godfrey


7 Comments

Filed under Accountability, Equity, Gimme Some Truth, School Finance, Uncategorized