Author Archives: Thomas J. Mertz

Special Education Budget Amendment: Helping Hands

0203efa3dbf81c72d17b80b06e5db76f--picasso-sketches-picasso-drawing

Owen Gray — Give a Helping Hand (click to listen/watch).

On Monday, October 30, 2017 (6:00 PM, Doyle Bldg. Auditorium), the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education will finalize our 2017-18 budget.  Late information received from the state shows that based on the expenditures from the Preliminary budget passed in June, our district will have about $3.7 Million in unused revenue authority, and significantly lower property tax increases than anticipated (2.96% vs 3.97%).  At the October 23, 2017 Operations Work Group meeting, this information was discussed, and there is interest among some of the Board in using some of this authority to increase Special Education expenditures, specifically to add Special Education Assistants, or SEAs  (video here).  I intend to support (or propose) a budget amendment to do this.

It is probably worth noting that prior to passing the June budget, the Board passed an amendment devoting up to an extra $1 million to class size reduction, but because the terms of that amendment, the delay in passing a state budget meant that this money was not spent.

At the October 23 meeting I said I was comfortable using about half of the authority, or about $1.8 Million total (there was also some support for collecting and “banking” some of the revenue for future use, and for applying to physical plant maintenance).  We are still waiting for some more information on current special education staffing and recent trends; based on the information I have now, I am thinking in the $750,000 to $1,000,000 range for special education staffing, which would mean about 15 to 20 FTE SEAs.

In posting a news story related to this on Facebook, I wrote that I “have been hearing from both staff and families that the unmet needs are greater than they have been in the past.,” since that posting I have heard much more.

I am not under the illusion that this increase will allow all needs to be met (we are far from that), but I do think it will help in multiple ways.

I also fully understand that these kind of last minute budget fixes are not a good practice, and that real help (and good budgeting) involves deliberate analysis, redesign, and implementation.  This is in the works, with a Special Education Delivery redesign process (including money for those — often correctly — dreaded consultants) in the budget.  I hope that process brings improvement, but right now we know there are needs, and have the means to address some of those needs.  I think we would be remiss if we did not do this.  What follows is some background and more detail on why I believe this, why I support using some of this revenue authority for special education staffing.

Staffing Trends

Fiscal Year Special Education Assistants (SEA) Special Education Teachers (District and School) Special Education Teachers (School Based) Special Education Students
2014 318.06 337.66 3,936 (January)
2015 333.05 331.76 3,965 (January)
2016 341.65 326.04 281.3 3,891 (January)
2017 292.53 351.50 287.4 3,935 (January)
2018 (proposed) 289.24 356.46 293.6 (?) 3,973 (September)

Data taken from October Budget UpdateApril Budget Book, and MMSD (internal) DataDashboard.  The school based teacher staffing is an estimate, no data is readily available for 2014, and 2015.

The most obvious trend is a shift from SEAs to teachers, resulting in fewer total school based staff, despite generally increasing numbers of special education students (FY 2017 to 2018 doesn’t fully fit this trend, if my estimate is correct, with a total staffing increase of 1.37, for an increase of students of 38).  This appears to be deliberate, and also appears to be based on (among other things) a misapplication of the work of Special Education Scholar Michael Ginagreco (more on that below).

The April Budget included an increase of 7.7 EAs, the June budget had a net cut of 13 EAs (this includes all categories of EAs, not just SEAs), this is a reduction of 57 from 2015-16.  As of the 2017-18 third Friday count there were 82 more special education students than there had been in January of 2016,  and 38 more than in January of 2017. 

This, from a 2011 Wisconsin State Journal article (discussed in this AMPS post) provides some longer term context:

4e0f9a9970e82.image

Graph from the Wisconsin State Journal, click image for accompanying story.

Why SEAs Matter and Why this Can Help

Probably best to start here with a disclosure: my spouse is a SEA in MMSD.  Chris Rickert and others of his ilk may think that because of this I should not involve myself in this area as a Board Member.  I disagree.  If this amendment passes, the odds are it will have little or no direct impact on my spouse’s working conditions (the program she works with is extremely unlikely to see any staffing changes), and even if it does have a small direct or indirect impact, it would not be anything that could be considered special treatment based on our relationship.  There would be no monetary impact for our family.

The staff in our schools and the families of students in special education can do a much better job explaining why this matters than I can (please do let the Board hear your stories); their direct experiences are much more powerful than my observations and interpretations.  That said, I would like to try.

Safety: All students; all staff.  Whether it is students who “run” from classes, buildings and playgrounds, or students who express their frustrations in physical ways,  experienced SEAs who know their students can be a key factor in keeping students and staff safe.

Well-being: All students; all staff.  With students, some of this comes down to having basic needs (feeding, toileting….) consistently attended to.  This is not happening with some students now.  With all — students and staff — the stress factors related to understaffing are huge.  It is no accident that we had an approximately 20% turnover of CC teachers last year.  I don’t have a figure on SEA turnover, but I know more than a handful of good, experienced SEAs who burned out and left.  Additionally, about 40% of Cross Categorical (CC, Special Education) teachers hired last year lacked full certification (they were working on emergency permits), and over 25% of those hired did not have general education certification either (emergency licenses). The presence of unqualified and inexperienced CC teachers increases the workload and stress of our experienced staff, making other supports more necessary.  SEAs can help.

Student learning. Unless safety and well-being are taken care of, learning is going to be minimal.  One of the criticisms of SEA staffing is that they end up doing teaching work that should be done by highly trained and qualified teachers; I know in some of our classrooms we have highly qualified teachers doing support work that should be done by support staff.  This is not a good use of our resources, either human or fiscal, and it is not good for our students’ progress.

Relationships:  Relationships are a point of emphasis this year in MMSD, and this could be a good thing.  Common sense and solid research shows that strong relationships between staff and students, and among staff can contribute student and staff well-being, staff retention, and most important student academic progress.  I anticipate hearing from our administration that there is already enough staffing/money in the budget, and the current system of plugging in emergency and short term staff to address crises is working.  Even if by deploying in this manner we do have enough staff, it goes against everything we know about the importance of relationships.  It isn’t a good idea to move staff in and out of schools and classroom, and this is especially true in relation to students with complex needs, that often include great unease with change.   Adding staff will allow more of the late allocations to be permanent, and subject fewer students and staff teams to instability.

The Misuse of Research

It is no secret that much of the consulting class and the professoriate  are hostile to Educational Assistants (what they tend to call paraprofessionals).  Bottom line minded budget-cutting hacks, find Special Education in general, and EAs in particular easy targets.  Others appear to be out of touch with the realities in our schools, and/or over reacting to past or isolated mis and overuse of Educational Assistants.  Michael Giangreco, who was one of the keynotes for the MMSD Summer Teaching & Learning Institute, appears to be very well-intentioned, but somewhat out of touch and in the over reaction mode.  Unfortunately, it also appears that MMSD staff have not realized the aspects of his work that make it problematic when applied to our district and have been using it to justify cuts to SEAs (accompanied by reallocations to Cross Categorical teachers).

I have been digging into his work, and there is much to like.  Generously he links to many of his articles and materials on his website (see the link with his name); I have also explored some things that are behind firewalls.

One of the big lessons from his work is that staffing for inclusion should be done with a whole school approach (General Education and Special Education), and that it should be done by design, not through piecemeal tweaks.  I know that the special education budget amendment will be a tweak, but I also believe the shifts that contributed to the need for this amendment were done piecemeal.

For what follows I am going to (mostly) rely on the article that was linked in the Summer Learning Institute materials, “Precarious or Purposeful? Proactively Building Inclusive Special Education Service Delivery on Solid Ground” by Michael F. Giangreco and Jesse C. Suter.

Here and elsewhere, Giangreco does a fine job identifying (what I would call) preconditions for successful inclusion models; delineating the interactions of various factors tied to creating positive school cultures and successful student learning; offering multiple measures useful in assessing staffing allocations, and much more; in this article he includes these measures for what he calls “the exemplar model.”  I am confident that a school that both met his preconditions and followed his model would be a wonderful school for both students and staff.  Unfortunately, MMSD is very different than the exemplars.

At the October 23 meeting (and previously in private conversation) Anna Moffit alerted me to one issue, that of class size.  Giangreco’s exemplar (K-8) has class sizes of 17-21.  MMSD has some very small classes, but many, many well over 21.  Elsewhere — in an article titled “Constructively Responding to Requests for Paraprofessionals: We Keep Asking the Wrong Questions” (behind a firewall) Giangreco and his co-authors write about Middle and High School teaching loads:

Research in middle and high schools suggests understanding total student load (TSL, i.e., the total number of students with whom a teacher interacts) is a service delivery variable of importance related to teacher–student interactions and achievement (Ouchi, 2009). TSL levels about 80 allow teachers opportunities to know their students, respond to student work, and have sufficient time out of the classroom to make themselves available to students for individual assistance. This allows students to know their teachers understand and care about them—a key foundation of the learning process and ultimately to student achievement. Exploring general and special education service delivery variables allows schools to establish a baseline and provides a wealth of information in considering how they might contribute to school system health.

All good and true.  I believe MMSD High School TSLs are generally over 120, or half again as large as Giangreco recommends.

Also of note are the demographics for his Exemplar.  Here is a comparison with MMSD (September 2017,  third Friday count):

Exemplar MMSD
Minority 10.97% 57.3%
Free/Reduced Lunch 35% 45.9%
English Language Learners 6% 28.3%
Special Education 14% 14.5%

MMSD is significantly higher in all but one measure.

Leaving aside these other factors, the kicker is that the exemplar model calls for huge increases in SEA, Cross Categorical, and General Education Assistants.  Huge.

Exemplar MMSD Current MMSD with Model MMSD Increase
Total Students 433 27231
SPED Students 60.62 3931
CC Teacher FTE 7 293.6 561.57 267.97
CC Teacher Caseload 8.7 13.39
CC Teacher Density 1:63 1:93
SEA FTE 10 289.24 648.68 359.44
SPED Student to SEA 6.06 13.6
SEA Density 1:43 1:94.15
CC to SEA 1:1.4 1:1.02
EA total 15 439.7 943.34 503.64
EA to Student Density 1:28.87 1:61.93

Date Notes: MMSD date from (internal) Datadashboard (I used current instead of third Friday here), October Budget Update, June Budget, CC = “Cross Categorical.” MMSD school based CC estimated, and this estimate was used for caseloads, ratios, and density.  Caveat, the Exemplar model should be compared at the school level, it was done here at the district level because time and data access limitations did not allow for a school by school analysis.

So to meet the exemplar model, MMSD should add 267.97 school based Cross Categorical teachers, and 359.64 SEAs (along with 144.2 other EAs).  OK, let’s do it!

The one thing MMSD should not do based on this model is to cut small numbers of SEAs to allocate even smaller numbers of Cross Categorical teachers, but that is exactly what has been done.   We are and were relatively more understaffed with SEAs and EAs than we are and were with Cross categorical teachers (according to this model).  Adding some SEAs for the short term seems like a reasonable correction.

Conclusion

The Board has an opportunity to make investments NOW that will improve the experiences, safety and well being of or students and staff.  The scholarship that has been used as one of the justifications for decreases in SEA staffing was misapplied.  Allowing things to continue to deteriorate will only make implementing systematic changes more difficult.  For these (and other) reasons, I will by supporting a special education staffing budget amendment.  When you can give a helping hand, you should.

Thomas J. (TJ) Mertz

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, Class Size, education, Equity, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, MMSD, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

Foot(note) Stompin’ — The IMA Proposal + Related Update

PYTHONTOTALRUBBISH

Update, 8/14/17, 1:14 PM: The Board just received an email that the IMA vote meeting will be rescheduled to 8/21/17.

Note:  I began this post in January 2017, and then set it aside.  As a result, some of the introductory material has been superseded.  For better coverage of events since January (and some prior to January), see this post and this one. More recently I finished the sections on footnotes 5 & 7, added the section on footnote 27, and wrote the conclusion.  I like the conclusion, so I am going to quote it here: “ If the people behind IMA can’t do better with their proposal, how can we trust them with our children and our money?

Update (8/13/17):  This week, the MMSD Board of Education will have at least one, and maybe two important meetings on Charter Schools.  On Monday 8/14 the Operations Work Group will be discussing a new, much more “Charter-friendly” policy.  It is being recommended that the Board approve this at the end of the month.  The last time the Board revised the Charter policy, it took six months and many meeting.  We may not want to take that long, but there are too many things  — involving both what is there and what isn’t —  that need examination and (Board and community) discussion to cover in two meetings, with a vote at the second.

The second meeting, for a vote on the IMACS proposal on Wednesday 8/16/17  does not appear on the legal notice (despite my request to add it).  Board Members are now being told this may be rescheduled (to my knowledge no Board Members were asked about their availability before this meeting was scheduled by the Board President, and none have been asked about their availability in relation to a possible rescheduling).  At this time we the Board do not have any update on a revised contract in response to the votes in July (the language of those votes is here).  We have been told “The goal is to get a draft document out prior to the meeting,” but there is no guarantee that will happen (we have also been told by the President that no public comment will be scheduled).  I am not clear why there is a rush.  Our policy calls for contracts to be concluded about five months prior to the school opening, IMA will have about twelve months if approved.  I do know that it would be a huge mistake to approve any contract without sufficient time for the Board and community to review.  Stay tuned.

Foot(note) Stompin’ Post

Foot Stompin’ by the Flares (click to watch/listen)

During public discussions of the Isthmus Montessori Academy (IMA) proposal to open a charter school with the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD), I repeatedly stated that the matter before the Board of Education was the proposal submitted, not the role of charter schools, the value of Montessori education, or a host of other things.  Other issues may contribute to our thinking, but as a Board we have an obligation to follow our policy (possible revisions of the MMSD Charter School Policy are scheduled for discussion and vote in May — Note: Now August, see update at the top) and state statutes, which means considering each proposal on its own strengths and weaknesses, according to set criteria (the required National Association of Charter School Authorizers Guidelines here).  The majority of this post concerns weaknesses of the IMA proposal in the area of citation and footnotes, but first some background.

It is undisputed that the IMA proposal did not meet the established criteria (nor did the initial proposal meet the criteria to go to the next step). On this basis MMSD staff did not recommend approval (memo here, rubric here, minutes here).  However by a vote of 6-1 (I dissented) the Board (emphasis added)

[A]pprove(d) the proposal for the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter
School and that the District enter into a contract, consistent with applicable Board policy and state law, to establish the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School as an instrumentality charter school for a period of five (5) years from July 1, 2018 until June 30, 2023. Such approval shall be contingent on the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School supplementing their current proposal to address the following areas of concern by no later than May 31,2017:
● Student Body and Demographics
● School Data
● Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction
● Financial Operations

With a second vote (6-1 also, I dissented again), the Board took care of some housekeeping requirements, and set July 1, 2017 as the contract deadline.

[See the update and the linked posts at the top for more accurate information on how events have unfolded] This is where things stand now, by May 31, 2017 MMSD staff — without a formal role for the Board — will decide whether the requested supplementary materials are sufficient to meet the requirements, if they are deemed sufficient, contract talks will begin and prior to July 1, 2017 that contract will come to the Board for approval (not amendment, this is a yes or no vote).  Among my objections to this process was that many (perhaps all) of the criteria are subjective, and although I respect the professional opinions of our staff, with subjective criteria I believe the Board should decide.

The Board and the public have also been provided with only minimal information related to the staff analysis of the proposal (this is something I think we need to address in the looming policy revision).  In addition to the memo and rubric linked above, a three-page “Financial Analysis” and a one-page (financial) “Key Factors” document were distributed.  All total this comes to nine pages of analysis for a 121 page proposal (and given that the financials and rubric have much white space, that is a generous count).

The use of citations or footnotes is among the things not referenced in any of the materials provided.  As a college instructor and (recovering) academic, I can’t help but look at and consider the references and how they are employed (part of subjectivity is that different things are important to different people).   For me, footnotes serve two important purposes.  First, they allow the reader to verify the information provided in the main text.  Second, they provide some clues to the intellectual journey of the author(s).

On my second read of the final IMA proposal, I began making notes for myself on this topic.  What follows is revised version of those notes.

The general format is a cut & paste of the passage from the proposal that contains the footnote (because of formatting issues, these are mostly images, not text), the footnote with a link to the source material, followed by a brief discussion of the source material and how it does or does not support or shed light the passage (there is also a digression on Lumin Education included for reasons that should be clear).  Here we go.

Passage and Footnote #1

passage 1

1 Efimova, V., and F. Ratner. “Integrating the educational principles of Maria Montessori in the process of pedagogical support for pupils with learning disabilities.” International Review of Management and Marketing. (2016).

Discussion

For many reasons, the small study — 30 students, 80 minutes a week, for three months —  is not impressive.

The authors are Russian academics, and the journal appears on this list of “[p]otential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers” (see also the Calling Bullshit project). Although the Journal title indicates a marketing and management focus, they appear to publish in a wide array unrelated of fields.

In relation to the passage the footnote is applied to, there is nothing at all in the paper about “differentiated curriculum,” “well-rounded education,” “achievement gaps,” “socioeconomic status,” and very little about “self-initiated exploration,” or even “ability backgrounds” (the classification/definition of “learning disabilities” is limited to those without “any evident deviations in functioning of the nervous system, … no marked motor, sensory impairments or intellectual impairment”).

The “educational principles of Maria Montessori” used in the study are described here:

One section of the objective environment in Montessori approach to education was described as the exercises of practical life. The work of the child under the exercises of practical life program entails the fulfillment of various “household” affairs: Sweeping, washing hands, washing a table, shoe-polish and so forth. Any of these exercises mean the solution of direct and indirect tasks. Even if direct tasks (to learn to wash a table, to clasp buttons, to sweep away garbage from a table, to wash dishes, etc.) aren’t connected directly with educational activity, then indirect tasks solved in the course of a child’s activity, are important to the preparation for writing, reading and the development of other learning skills.

Among the conclusions of this “study” is that students with disabilities should be educated in “special centers.”:

The educational principles of Maria Montessori, in our view, fully meet the requirements of the new standards of education adopted in our country. However, the presence of the class-lesson system limits the possibilities for the application of the educational principles of Maria Montessori in a regular school. It seems to us that the process of pedagogical support for children with learning disabilities can be managed in a more flexible manner on the basis of special centers.

IMA has explicitly presented their version of Montesori education as inclusive for students with disabilities, (however it appears that some public Montessori schools in Milwaukee  employ staff for “More Restrictive Placements,”examples here and here).

I can discern no good reason why IMA included a citation to this article.

Passage and Footnotes #2 and #6

passage 2

2“[The Montessori] child-centered classrooms provide for a greater level of student engagement possibly due to more positive teacher-student relationships. It is also possible that students at child-centered classrooms participate at a greater proportion, complexity, and intensity in class work than students in more traditional educational settings do because alternative curricula provides more opportunities to develop higher levels of competency.” Franczak, 2016.

The full cite for Franczak appears elsewhere (the first use should include the full cite): Franczak, Iwona. “Comparative Analysis of Behavioral Engagement and Transferable Skills in Conventional and Montessori Schools.” 2016 NCUR (2016). The passage from the IMA proposal that cite annotates reads:

passage 3.png

Discussion

At the time of the study Ms Franczak was an undergraduate student at Eastern Illinois University, Charleston (the journal publishes the proceedings of an undergraduate research conference held annually in Asheville, NC). As far as undergraduate research goes, it is fine work. There are, however, a number of issues.

First, the study says nothing directly about “test scores,”or “achievement gaps,” or even “achievement” (it does make a case – based on other work – that engagement and transferable skills increase academic achievement), very little about “opportunities to follow their own interest and develop deep understanding,” but much on “transferable skills.”

With the second passage, the biggest problem is that this is not a “longitudinal study,” but rather for three non-randomly selected schools, “[o]bservations were conducted at site in three thirty minute intervals during the first three hours of a school day for five days.” Referencing observations that took place over five days as “longitudinal” is a big problem.

It should be noted that the statements on “self control, team work, and problem solving” in the study were not based on anything “measured,” (the word used in the IMA proposal) in the research, but rather are presented as “additional qualitative data” (teacher surveys – no survey instrument is provided – are said to “confirm” these observations, but elsewhere it is noted that there were no differences found among the schools in the parent survey). These are also big problems.

The quality of the research is questionable and IMA mischaracterizes the findings.

Passage and Footnote #3

passage 4

3 “[The] benefits of parental involvement in school… include: improved parent–teacher relationships, teacher morale and school climate; improved school attendance, attitudes, behavior and mental health of children; and, increased parental confidence, satisfaction and interest in their own education.” Hornby, Garry, and Rayleen Lafaele. “Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model.” Educational Review 63.1 (2011): 37-52.

Discussion

This is generally fine. The authors are recognized scholars, the journal is respectable, and the information being annotated is generally related to the source cited. The article itself says nothing about Montessori, so it is a little off,  but there isn’t anything egregious with this citation.

Passage and Footnote #4

passage 5

4  Abigail Jordan, Bailey Fern, Chelsea Morris, Rebecca Cross, and Smita Mathur,“Critical Thinking in the Elementary Classroom: Exploring Student Engagement in Elementary Science Classrooms through Case-Study Approach” Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies 5(2014) 6: 673-678, 665.

Discussion

Undergraduate research once more, this time published by an organization on the ““[p]otential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers” list linked above.

Again it is a fine as undergraduate research, but overall not very impressive, and it has little or no relationship to the passage it supposedly supports. The words/phrases “Montessori,” “customized learning plans,” or “systems of support” do not appear. The article does endorse “Constructivist” education, and the relationship between Constructivism and Montessori is complicated and controversial (see here). Here is the conclusion

Through our research, we have found that male students in the elementary classroom often need multiple forms of engagement to learn. Specific examples of engagement include physically stimulating opportunities and moments that involve emotional engagement such as personal connections to material. It is important for teachers to remember that behavioral engagement does not always relate to cognitive success. For students to truly understand and connect to science material, a layered engagement approach must be administered.

I can discern no good reason to cite this article here.

Passage and Footnote # 5 and Uncited Statistics

passage 6

5 See: www.public-montessori.org/sites/default/files/resources/EDCS%20Outcomes%20Charts%20and%20Graphs.pdf (note: The link from the application no longer works, the document has been archived here).

The “increasing research base” turns out to be two pages of a 2010 newsletter from an organization now called Lumin Education.   There is a “research base” on Montessori (parts of which appear elsewhere in the IMA application), but that’s not what this is.

The same organization and statistics from the same two pages appear elsewhere (without a citation) in the IMA application  to support of IMA’s projections for student achievement (I also covered this in an earlier post here). Here is that passage:

For the last thirty years a public Montessori Charter in East Dallas, where the area has a 50% high school drop out rate, has boasted third grade student math and reading scores in the top 36% nationwide, graduation rates of 94% of high schoolers, with 88% going on to college. The school has a higher than district-average percentage of ELL students and economically disadvantaged students, and  a per-pupil expenditure 14% less than the district level. IMA believes in the power of the method to produce similar results for Madison. For these reasons, our academic achievement goals are ambitious.

Lumin began 38 years ago as a small private (Montessori) school; in 1999 they opened a pre-K to grade 3 charter school. There was no Charter School 30 years ago.  They also operate two pre-natal to age three programs, one of which now has toddler and primary classrooms, and is slated to add elementary (as far as I can tell these are private, not charter or public).

Many more problems here. The first is that there is no source given for this data, no footnote, although it appears all of the figures are from the same 2010 newsletter cited above.. Next is the comparison of drop out rates with graduation rates, without defining either. There are many ways to calculate drop out rates and graduation rates, but only rarely do they lend themselves to simple comparisons between the two. This mistake appears to be the work of the IMA team, because the newsletter states both in terms of “graduation rates.” It isn’t clear from the source which schools or students are included (does this combine the private school with the charter, are any students who attended for any length of time included or only those who attended for a certain number of years), nor how data was obtained and for what percentage of students (neither school goes past 4th grade and it can be difficult to track outcomes for mobile students over time). All these things matter. One thing that distinguishes quality research from promotional materials is that quality research provides these sorts of details.

Whatever the sources or quality of data behind the assertion about graduation rates, the numbers involved appear to be very small. The private school currently has a total pre-K to 3d grade enrollment of 72, with only 9 3d graders. The public charter has 272 students with the vast majority in pre-K and Kindergarten and only 32 in grade 3 (the single tested grade).

The achievement statistics from the newsletter  — which form the basis for IMA’s aspirational projections —  come in two forms.

One is characterized as being based on “a ten-year study of standardized test scores (1993 – 2003),” with no further information given.  Since the Charter school opened in 1999, at most 3 years of this unavailable study could include that school.  Again, IMA misrepresents the figures they are citing.

The other statistics are clearly from the state TAKS tests, however there is also some confusion and misrepresentation with these.  This graph from the newsletter does not indicate whether the data is from the Charter or the Private school, or a combination of the two:

edc 1

Further investigation appears to show it is from from the Charter.  In 2008-9 there were 20 students from the Charter tested in reading, so the number was very small.  Further investigation also reveals how this graph is misleading.  Note that the Charter students are all in grade 3, but the comparisons are to the “Sum of all grades tested.” If you only include 3d grade, in Region 10 for 2008-9, the percent meeting standard was 94%, or within 1% of the Charter school.  This fits with a 2011 study by NWEA which showed that the TAKS cut scores were generally very low, and that 3d grade had some of the lowest.  It is also worth noting that the newsletter says nothing about math scores, probably because only 76% of their students met the standard in 2008-9 (compared to 84% in Region 10).  Add to this well-reported findings that “suggests they [the TAKS tests] are virtually useless at measuring the effects of classroom instruction,” and problems present become even greater.

It should be noted that those who “analyzed” the IMA materials  for the Board displayed little or no awareness of any these issues with the single newsletter IMA referenced as an “increasing research base” (nor any of the issues raised here with any of the other citations)  That’s a problem too.

Passage and Footnote #7

imacs foot 7

7. Sara Rimm-Kaufman and Lia Sandilos,“Improving Students’ Relationship with Teachers to Provide Essential Supports for Learning” American Psychological Association, (2011).

Discussion

This is another case of a perfectly fine presentation, by respected researchers, published on a respected forum, being presented by IMA as supporting assertions about Montessori, when the article says nothing about Montessori.  Nothing.

As far as attribution and “increased achievement” goes, here is what the authors have to say “Solely improving students’ relationships with their teachers will not produce gains in achievement. However, those students who have close, positive and supportive relationships with their teachers will attain higher levels of achievement than those students with more conflict in their relationships.”

It would be fine if the authors of the IMA proposal took Rimm-Kaufman and Sandilos’ work and in a systematic way drew parallels between their findings and Montessori practices.  Failing this, it would be acceptable to simply include something in the footnote like “for more on relationships and child-centered environments in general, and outside of Montessori, see:…).  To imply that these authors “attributed” “increased achievement” to the “Montessori method,” is dishonest.  See also the section on footnotes #2 & #6 above.

One More, Passage and Footnote #27

Note:  When I was first drafting this post back in January, this is where I intended to stop (at some point you hit diminishing returns, and it becomes increasingly clear that you have put more work into critiquing the research cited than went into doing the cites in the first place).  However, in recent weeks I found one more instance I would like to include.

IMA 27

27 Diamond, A., “The Evidence Base for Improving School Outcomes by Addressing the Whole Child and by Addressing Skills and Attitudes, Not Just Content.” Early Education and Development, 2: 780-793. (2010)

Discussion

On the surface this is simply (yet) another case of IMA placing a citation to a perfectly fine article as supporting evidence for assertions about Montessori that the article does not make (there are no mentions of Montessori in Dr. Diamond’s article).  Certainly misleading, and to me dishonest.  What makes this one special is that in the IMA proposal it comes with a “hot link,” that doesn’t take you to the article, but rather sends you to this (Walton funded) Public Montessori advocacy organization.  That’s a whole new level of misleading.

Conclusion

As Mark Twain wrote, “Let us draw the curtain of charity over the rest.”  After the citations examined here, I stopped my systematic researches.  With the others I did look at, I found some that were fine, and many that were problematic.  Regardless of what the scorecard for the entire proposal might be, the clear failings revealed in those covered here are beyond troubling.  If the people behind IMA can’t do better with their proposal, how can we trust them with our children and our money?

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, MMSD, Uncategorized

IMACS Contract(s) — Sorting Through the Mess(es)

Inspiration-Dirty-Kitchen-Sink-Nice-Kitchen-Designing-Inspiration-

Junior Wells — “Messin’ with the Kid”(click to listen/watch).

This is an almost everything, including the kitchen sink, post on updates for the Monday, July 31, 2017 Madison Metropolitan School District vote (agenda and materials here) on the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School Contract (previous post here provides essential background, I am not going to re-cover most of that material).   I am not making an attempt to link this all together or make it flow, only identifying some topics and providing information and opinions for each.  Here goes:

New Materials

There were some new materials provided to the Board after the last meeting and those have been posted as an update to my previous post.  This week we were given a new version of the contract; a draft version of the contract with IMA Inc (the private school); a memo/email from DPI on the 3K arrangements, lottery, attendance area and more; and a summary of contract changes.  Most of what follows is in reference to these materials, and is no real order (as I draft, I keep thinking of the Bob Dylan line — “I need a dump truck baby to unload my head“).

A New Budget?

The memo from DPI required a change in the language related to 3K payments from IMA Inc.  The contract now reads ” IMA, Inc. shall provide reimbursement to the District for one-third of the cost of the 3K-5K classroom including staffing costs, space rental costs and instructional supplies,” and there is a note that reads “Impacts the wording in the budget document.” I have asked three times since Thursday evening for a new budget, but less than 24 hours before the meeting I don’t have one [12:22 PM, 7/31/17, a budget has now been posted with the meeting materials, but both the language and the finances are unchanged).

The note indicates that they are only contemplating a language change, but this also necessitates financial changes.  The $53,901.33 in year one, and the amounts in later years, do not come close to covering the total costs for the 3K students.  My rough and conservative calculation for year one is as follows:

Count 3K and 4K students at the state count for 4K of  .6 FTE (although you could make a case that because the 3K and 4K students at IMACS will be in class about 40% more time than our other 4K students, that should be much higher, say .6 *1.4 or .84).  Using the .6 IMACS will have 174 FTE students in year one (150 K-9, 12 3K, and 12 4K).  Total budget for year one is $1,391,501.08, which produces a cost per student of $7997.13.  Multiply that by 12 (3K FTE) and you get $95,965.59, or $42,064.26 more than IMA has promised for year one reimbursement.

My guess is that any change will simply involve a shift from the “Financial Support from the parent organization, IMA, Inc” lines, but I would at least like that level of honesty and transparency.

What’s with the 3K Tuition Arrangements?

Even with DPI saying the arrangements are “OK” (in a memo that also says “DISCLAIMER: The content of this email is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice, including compliance with state and federal laws and regulations.”), major issues remain.  As before, for me the biggest one is a matter of principle — I don’t think MMSD should allow a third party to charge tuition to place children in our classrooms.  However, I also think the legal matters are still not clear.

I asked that the Board be given a draft contract with IMA Inc in order to understand what MMSD is selling them.  Strangely, the draft contract doesn’t really say.  It says somethings about what IMA will do (and therefore what MMSD will not be responsible for):

IMA, Inc. agrees to govern and oversee all financial aspects of the IMA educational facility and three – year – old kindergarten programs and afternoon four – y ear – old kindergarten wrap around care and programming . IMA, Inc. further agrees to incur all financial liabilities and costs associated with the IMA educational facility , three – year – old kindergarten program and afternoon four – year – old kindergarten wraparound care and programming.

And it says this about (part of) what MMSD is agreeing to do:

Three – year – old kindergarten: As set forth in Exhibit A (IMACS Five – Year Expenditure Budget Model) , IMA, Inc. shall provide reimbursement to the District for one – third of the cos t of the 3K – 5K classroom, including staffing costs, space rental costs and instructional supplies . The District does not provide three – year – old kindergarten and will not take on any financial responsibility for providing such programming. However, the practical considerations regarding hiring, evaluation and pay roll for this position have resulted in the District agreeing to perform the HR functions on behalf of IMACS. The amount set forth in Exhibit A in the row identified as “3 K Tuition/IMA reimbursement (cover 3K classroom %),” which shall be directly payable to the District, includes a two and one – half percent (2.5%) annual administrative fee. If at any point during the term of this Agreement, IMA, Inc. ceases offering three – year – old kindergarten programming, the Parties shall meet to identify budgetary and programmatic impact.

What is missing is anything about providing educational services, putting kids in classrooms, …how many kids? …how many hours? …what services?…what classrooms? …do teachers do conferences?…are the students enrolled in MMSD? …who will provide transportation? …do they have access to MMSD social workers? ..are they subject to MMSD rules? ….MMSD student and family rights? …who keeps their educational records?…who has access to those records?…what about liabilities other than financial?…I could keep going…

Leaving aside the bearing some of these questions have on the legality of the arrangements, as a Board Member, I want to know what we are agreeing to.  I would think IMA Inc. would also want to know what they are paying for.

I would not  find a reference to the detailed proposal satisfactory on this.  As a general rule, this is the contract and it should say what MMSD is accepting responsibility for.  More specifically, the detailed proposal was — in vague terms — found wanting, and has been (at least partially) superseded.  The detailed proposal says many things about 3K, but I don’t know which are meant to be implied by the contract.

I also think that if some version of an arrangement allowing IMA Inc to buy spaces in  MMSD classrooms and resell these spaces goes forward, MMSD should include in the contract some limit on how much of a markup they can take for this activity.

Why is the Charter School Policy Funding Formula Being Ignored?

I don’t know, but it is a bad practice and precedent.

The current IMACS 5 year budget projects expenditures $516,157.01 greater than the amount set by policy.

MMSD Policy 1000 reads in part

Charter School Funding Formula. All charter schools developed and initially chartered after July 1, 2013 shall receive annual funding pursuant to the following funding formula: The number of students (based on projected enrollment set forth in the charter contract) multiplied by the Department of Instruction’s open enrollment per student transfer amount.

There is no ambiguity, yet the MMSD administration found that a budget which included MMSD funding in excess of the open enrollment amount met expectations and satisfied the contingencies required by the January vote.

I went back and looked at the minutes and documents from the drafting and passage of the policy (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) to see if there was any hint that this was intended to be advisory or optional.  There was not.

In fact, the “Charter School Original Proposal Application Applicant’s Guide” says “In order to ensure sustainability and feasibility, budget proposals may not exceed the per pupil cost allocation unless accounted for by fundraising. ”  IMACS has not met this requirement.

This policy was passed by a 7-0 vote at the last meeting before I took office.  In the time I have been on the Board, I can recall no effort to change, or even a discussion of changing the Charter School Funding Formula.

A Board may change our policies, I guess we could waive a policy (but doing so in the middle of a process is a really bad idea), but I don’t think we can just ignore them or violate them.  Like I said, I don’t know what is going on with this.  I plan to try to find out at the meeting.

What about the Staffing?

There are two major, related issues with the staffing.  One is the waivers from Statutes and the MMSD Employee Handbook that are in the contract (this is new); the other is the mater of adequacy (which is continuing).  Here are the waivers:

20.01 Statutory Waivers: Pursuant to Wisconsin State Stat. sec 188.40(7)(b), “[e] xcept as otherwise explicitly provided, chs. 115 to 121 do not apply to charter schools. ” IMACS shall exercise the flexibility afforded by this statutory provision to offer special programming, including physical education, art and music, in an integrated, student – led manner. Additionally, such programming will be guided by Montessori certified staff. Such staff may or may not also hold additional DPI licenses and /or supplementary licenses.

20.02 MMSD Handbook Waivers : IMACS will provide a standard school day , except for early release days, and abide by the established District calendar. IMACS will not implement early release days at any instructional level as set forth in sections 4.01 (Middle and Senior) and 4.02 (Monday Professional Collaboration Time (Early Release)) – Elementary) of Addendum A of the District ’s Employee Handbook. This information shall be included in any postings for IMACS teacher positions.

Elementary – level teachers will have the amount of planning time set forth in section 4.02 (Planning Time) of Addendum A of the District’s Employee Handbook; however, the time may be divided into units smaller than thirty minute blocks.

The pedagogical orientation of the Montessori model does not rely on or use tradition al Carnegie units of instruction. The model relies on sustained work blocks. IMACS will not implement the teacher contact time limitations for middle school and high schools teachers as set forth in section 4.01 (Middle and Senior) of Addendum A of the District’s Employee Handbook. This information shall be included in any posting for IMACS teacher positions.

Parent engagement and parent – staff relationships are an important aspect of the IMACS school design. The eight (8) hour limit on evening parent – teacher conference time set forth in section 4.03 of Addendum A of the Employee Handbook shall not apply to IMACS. Information related to parent – conference participation shall be included in IMACS teacher position postings.

The first issue here is how this is being done.  In this post Act 10 world, the Handbook process is an essential part of the effort to create trust with our staff, and both the process and trust are very fragile.  With this contract that process is sidestepped, and trust is strained.

The second concerns the quality of education.  In general, teaching conditions are learning conditions, and things like planning time and some limit on workload are essential (the waiver eliminates the “the teacher contact time limitations for middle school and high schools teachers,” but does not establish new ones).

More specifically, the statutory waiver has great potential to marginalize Art, Music, and Physical Education by placing the burden for these on non-specialist classroom teachers.  As I noted in my previous post, my broad but unsystematic survey of staffing at Public Montessori schools found that almost all included Art and Physical Education teachers.  A 2012 Evaluation of Montessori schools in Milwaukee said this:

mke review 2012

Which brings us to other major staffing issue, which is the lack of Assistants in the budget.  In a move reminiscent of Kellyanne Conway citing alternative facts, the contract simply eliminates the Assistants from the AMI Standards (the budget still includes the minimal and likely insufficient BRS and SEA allocations).

assist

Wow.

Attendance Zones, Transportation Zone, and Demographics

When IMA was being considered in January, multiple Board Members stressed the importance of the potential to serve a diverse population, with an emphasis on our low income students and students of color.  With a Charter School it is impossible to absolutely control who applies and enrolls, but there are ways that we can influence this.  The most effective way is by creating an attendance zone that is dominated by the target populations.  Instead the contract for IMA declares the entire school district as the attendance zone (this was done in part in response to a new understanding of lottery rules, but it is not required by that understanding).  Another, less effective way is to only provide transportation within an area dominated by the targeted population.  The IMA contract makes a half-hearted attempt at this.  If this is to go forward I think we should try to do better.  My first move in that attempt would be to eliminate Maple Bluff from the transportation zone.

How Will the Success (or Failure) of IMA Be Judged?

As I detailed in my previous post, the IMA contract does not meet the requirements in this. I have also pointed out that I don’t particularly like this requirement.  I have been thinking more about this, and have a little more to say.  I still don’t like it, but have come to understand that the need for “Performance Based Contracting” is intrinsic to Charter Schools.

…[C]harter contracts that plainly:

• Establish the performance standards under which schools will be evaluated, using objective and verifiable measures of student achievement as the primary measure of school quality;

• Define clear, measurable, and attainable academic, financial, and organizational performance standards and targets that the school must meet as a condition of renewal, including but not limited to state and federal measures;


Charter Schools are based on a market vision of education (which I don’t like either).  Experience has taught that low quality education often does not discourage enrollments in Charter Schools, so the market needs another mechanism.  Performance Based Contracting is that mechanism.

 



What Now? What Next?

The meeting and vote will be this evening.  As far as I can see, with how the item is on the agenda, there are few different things the Board can do in the short term, and more in the longer term.

 

The first is we could approve the contract.

 

We can’t change the contract from the floor of a meeting.

 

If we don’t approve the contract, the options expand.

 

We could simply send our staff and IMA back to the negotiating table.  I don’t think that is a good idea.

 

We cold send them back to the table with instructions for what we would like changed.  This is better.  However, I think those instructions need thought and clarity, and I don’t believe the Board is prepared to create that clarity this evening.

 

An even better option would be to refer to a future meeting (here is no ticking clock), and at that meeting draft and approve instructions for negotiations.

 

If the contract is not approved tonight, we could — at a future meeting where it is properly noticed on the agenda — consider rescinding the contingent approval from January.  This would be my preference.

 

TJ Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

[Update] — Still a Sow’s Ear — Isthmus Montessori Academy Contract

61rMMB84X7L

Pigbag — Papa’s Got a Brand New Pigbag (click to listen and watch).

See here for the latest.

Update #2:  I had read the recent documents as making 3K as well as 4K wrap around services provided by IMA Inc optional, and from that reading assumed that this meant that 3K students — like 4K students — could attend the morning, MMSD portion of the day without paying tuition.  Based on this understanding I asked some questions about admission to the morning, MMSD, 3K portion of the day.  The response from MMSD staff, indicated that neither of these may be true, that wrap around  and/or tuition may be required for 3K students to access an MMSD school, that at this time — 6 days from the vote — there is not clarity.  This means that the 3K portions of the Tuition section of the  initial post may not be moot.

I also received information from MMSD staff that Federal guidelines exempt preschool and childcare subsidies from the requirements which would exclude undocumented students (I had based my assertion on state guidelines).  I am confused by this apparent conflict, but accept that 3K and 4K IMA Inc students will not be excluded from obtaining subsidies based on immigration status.

 

 

Update: Yesterday evening the Board was provided with a number of new documents related to IMA. Among these is a different (or clarified) plan for 3K and 4K which renders moot much (or all) of the section below on Tuition.

I have not looked at all of the rest yet, but am posting them here, now: Memo, Budget, Cost Per Pupil, Enrollment Model, Attendance Area.

I will probably be posting on these — especially the attendance area transportation issues — within the next week.

Monday July 31, 2017, The Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education will consider and vote on a contact for an Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School (IMACS).  This will be the third time the Board has voted on a version of this proposal.  The previous two times the Board and the Administration agreed that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the MMSD Charter School policy (related concerns about state statutes were also expressed by some Board Members).  Each time, a majority of the Board voted to advance the proposal in order to provide opportunities to address the shortcomings (I voted no each time).  Among the questions before the Board on July 31 is whether this has been accomplished; whether a sow’s ear has been transformed into a silk purse.  I think it is still a sow’s ear.

In this post I detail how I reached that conclusion by looking at three big areas: charging tuition to place students in public school classrooms; a staffing plan that does not meet Association Montessori International standards (and perhaps violates state Administrative Rules; and most importantly, will not serve students well), and a budget that is not sustainable.   These overlap with, but are not identical to the areas where the Administration and the Board previously concluded that the proposal did not meet expectations.  It should also be noted that it is my understanding, and according to MMSD policy, all proposals must meet the terms of our policy and statutes. They are minimum requirements, and are not the basis for an automatic approval. There are other aspects of the proposal that I find wanting. But these are not the focus of this post.  Before proceeding, some background is in order.

Where We Are, and How We Got Here

The first time the Board voted on IMACS was on September 26, 2016 (minutes here, Initial Proposal here, memo here, reviewers’ rubric here, budget key factors here, video here;  related September 19, 2016 Operations Work Group minutes here, video here). Contrary to the Administrative recommendation, by a 5-2 vote (Anna Moffit and I voted no) the Board requested that IMA develop a “Detailed Proposal” to be submitted by November 1, 2016.  According to the MMSD policy, the detailed proposal is to be analyzed by a (staff) Charter Application Review Committee, and forwarded to the Board, along with a recommendation, for a January vote.  Many of the areas of concern identified in September — finances, staffing, attendance area,  transportation, inclusion of 3K and secondary students, services for students with special needs, services for English Language Learners, enrollment…  — remained areas of concern in January, and — for me — those concerns have yet to be satisfied.

IMA was given two opportunities on the detailed proposal, an initial version due at the deadline set by policy, and a revised or final version due three weeks later. There is nothing in the MMSD Policy either allowing for two detailed proposal submissions, nor explicitly disallowing. But this seems to be contrary to the intent of the policy (“Detailed Proposals must be filed in the Office of the Secretary to the BOARD by 3:00 pm on the due date set forth in Section II.A, above. No exceptions shall be made to the timeline. Late submissions will be returned unopened to the applicant”).   Memos on IMA refer and link to a “revised charter school process,” and that document does include an opportunity to revise, but it has not been approved by the Board.

A version was submitted on November 1 (at the time, my requests to district staff and IMA for a copy of this version were refused; it was only provided to the Board after I made an open records request).  This version was found to not meet expectations in 9 categories: Vision, Mission Goals; Values and Instructional Theory; Student Body/Demographics; Academic Achievement Data and Analysis; Student Access to Opportunities; Curriculum; Instructional Design;  Financial Operations; and Facility Plan (rubric here, letter here).  The subsequent version is the one the Board considered and voted on in January.

Confusingly, the subsequent and “final” version of the proposal also bears the date “November 1, 2017.”  This proposal also did not meet the established criteria ( (memo here, rubric here, rubric including both the November 1 and the “final” version here).  In 5 of the areas the reviewer found the changes made to be sufficient, in the areas of Student Body/Demographics, Academic Achievement Data and Analysis, Instructional Design, and Financial Operations, the rating remained “Fails to Meet Expectations.”  Based on this, the Administration memo from Superintendent Jennifer Cheatham stated that she “cannot recommend that the Board of Education approve the IMA application for school year 2017/18.”  However, the memo continued:

Should the Board choose to move forward with the IMA application, in concept, the Administration recommends that the Board of Education only consider approval for the school year 2018/19 contingent on the submission of an updated plan which addresses all areas of the rubric that do not meet expectations by May 31, 2017. Those areas of the application are:
●Student Body and Demographics
●School Data
●Curriculum Assessment & Instruction
●Financial Operations

This is the what a majority of the Board chose to do (see below, I was the lone no vote).  It should be noted that as with a second detailed proposal, the MMSD policy neither explicitly allows nor disallows contingent or delayed approvals, and this action took us into uncharted territory outside of our policy.  Because of this, it is essential to look closely at all the documents and records, and what actions the Board has taken so far.

There were two votes related to IMA on January 30, 2017.  Here is the wording for first (from the minutes):

[A]pprove(d) the proposal for the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School and that the District enter into a contract, consistent with applicable Board policy and state law, to establish the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School as an instrumentality charter school for a period of five (5) years from July 1, 2018 until June 30, 2023. Such approval shall be contingent on the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School supplementing their current proposal to address the following areas of concern by no later than May 31,2017:
● Student Body and Demographics
● School Data
● Curriculum, Assessment and Instruction
● Financial Operations

and the second:

It was moved by Ed Hughes and seconded by James Howard that, consistent with BOE Policy 10,000, the Board of Education approve the following actions:
1) upon the successful satisfaction of all outstanding contingencies, the
District will notify the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of its
intention to establish the Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School
as an instrumentality charter school on or before March 1, 2018;
2) by no later than July 1, 2017, the Board will approve a contract with
Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter School to operate the charter
school for a five-year period beginning with the 2018-2019 school
year;
3) the District will collaborate with Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter
School to minimize expenditure impacts on the District’ budget and to
maximize revenue-generating opportunities including grants, state
aids, and other sources resulting from the implementation and operation
of the charter school; and
4) the District will collaborate with Isthmus Montessori Academy Charter
School to assist the school with its planning and preparations in order
to ensure the successful implementation and operation of the school
consistent with the terms of the charter (contract).

At some point in the discussion, I (informally) proposed inserting a step in the process to allow the Board to review the staff determination on whether the contingencies had been met, and then based on this review decide whether to go forward with the contract negotiations (or not).  This received no apparent support, so I did not make a motion to amend, and I did vote against the second motion (which passed 6-1).

Part of the reason I floated this proposal was because the nature of the identified failures to meet expectations and the standards used were (and are) lacking in detail.  The Board and the public had been provided with only minimal information related to the staff analysis of the proposal (this is something I think we need to address in the looming policy revision).  In addition to the memo and rubric linked above, a three-page “Financial Analysis” and a one-page (financial) “Key Factors” document were distributed.  All total this comes to nine pages of analysis for a 121 page proposal (and given that the financials and rubric have much white space, that is a generous count).

This is a crucial issue.  If the contingencies aren’t clear, then it is extremely difficult to determine if they have been met  Since the Board vote only identified general areas, I don’t have any easy answer, but would suggest reviewing the relevant documents, and meetings to get a sense of what the concerns were.  In addition to the materials linked above, I would add the minutes from the January 23, 2017 Operations Work Group, the memo from that meeting, as well as the January 23 and 30th videos.  State statutes (especially Chapter 118), and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers Principles and Standards (which state law requires the Board to “adhere” to), are also relevant.

The supplemental materials submitted in response to the contingencies are a Special Education additionan ELL addition,  a revised Budget, a (confusing) Enrollment Model,  and a (achievement) Data Update. I will cover some of these materials below, but in sum the changes in relation to Special Education and English Language Learners mostly concern schedules and professional development; the revised budget and enrollment model call for a slightly smaller school, lower (lead) teacher/student ratios, higher special education teacher ratios (and lower special education assistant ratios), designates Bilingual Resource Teacher and Specialist allocations (these were folded into other categories in the January version), a slightly smaller school, and a 5 year budget shortfall that increases from $58,681.36 to $516,157.01; the Data Update does little but relabel unrealistic “Goals” as “Aspirations.”

The Administrative review of these documents concluded that the contingencies and expectations had been met.  I disagree (and will explain some of that disagreement below); you can draw your own conclusions.

At a Special Board Meeting on July 10, 2017 (video here), the Board was presented with a draft contract (memo here), and discussed the contract and supplementary materials.

As stated at the top, on July 31, 2017 the Board will vote on a (revised) contract.  That’s where we are.  Now to dig into three areas where I believe large problems remain: Tuition, Staffing and Finances.

Charging Tuition to Attend an MMSD School?

Much of this section is about legal issues, which are significant and complicated; some of it is about financial issues, which are also significant; but for me the most significant issue is one of principle, and that is whether we want to be a district that creates a situation that requires some students to pay tuition in order to be in a MMSD classroom.  I don’t.

The last two iterations of the IMA proposal have referenced 3K students paying tuition; the budget in the recent submissions includes a “3K Tuition /IMA Reimbursement payment (cover 3K classroom teacher %)” of $53,901.33 in the first year (it increases slightly each year).  Discussions have also included references to 4K students paying partial tuition, but at this point it isn’t clear what ,if any, plans there are for that.

Since state law and MMSD policy are clear that “A charter school governing board may not…1. Charge tuition, except as otherwise provided in s. 121.83(4)” (WI Statutes 118.40); and “A charter school shall not: …Charge tuition” (MMSD Policy 10000), IMA has proposed that the private school (IMA Inc) charge the tuition, and — in the latest version — turn some (but it doesn’t appear all) of that tuition over to MMSD via the “Reimbursement payment” referenced above.

There is much wrong with this arrangement; some that is legal, some of that financial, and some based on principle.

The MMSD Charter Policy only allows for “Instrumentality” charters, which means — among other things — that “the school board shall employ all personnel for the charter school.”  The classrooms that 3K and 4K students would attend, are the same classrooms 5K students would attend, taught by MMSD employees.  The supervision of these employees, and the other supports for these students would be provided by MMSD employees.  These classrooms would be sublet by IMACS and MMSD (see the contract), from IMA Inc.  (Almost) all the liability for these students would be MMSD’s (there may be a little that is IMACS), so far there has been no indication that IMA Inc. would take on liabilities, but we don’t — yet — have a contract with the organization (for this and other reasons — see below — I have requested that we review a draft contract with IMA Inc prior to voting on the IMACS contract).  In every way, these would be MMSD classrooms and MMSD students.

With that in mind, how can a private school charge these students tuition?  I don’t think they legally can, but since it isn’t 100% clear, it is worth looking at statutes and precedents.

First, there appears to be a distinction between 3K and 4K (there are also some differences for children with disabilities that I am not going to cover, except to say that I can’t find any circumstance where tuition may be charged for educational services provided to “Residents 3 to 20 years old” in these instances.  Chapter 121.77 states: “Every elementary school and high school shall be free to all pupils who reside in the school district.” 115.01 says “Where reference is made to “elementary grades”, the reference includes kindergarten, where applicable. Where reference is made to “kindergarten”, the reference includes both 4−year−old and 5−year−old kindergarten, except as otherwise specifically provided.”   Reading these together, I don’t think MMSD can collect or authorize the collection of tuition for 4K students in our classrooms.

However, in Chapter 120, the enumerated powers of school district governments include
(13) PREKINDERGARTEN CLASSES. Establish and maintain classes for children less than 4 years of age under such regulations as it prescribes. The school board may accept and receive federal funds for such purpose and expend such funds in conformity with the purposes and requirements thereof. The school board may charge a reasonable fee for attendance at such classes but may waive the fee or any portion thereof to any person who is unable to make payment.

and 120.14 has a similar provision for “Child Care Programs.” Districts may charge tuition for 3K or child care.

But the IMA proposal does not have MMSD charging tuition, it has IMA Inc. charging tuition for MMSD classrooms and services.  Nothing I can find gives the district the power to make that arrangement.  I don’t think the power exists, and I don’t think the power should exist.

This is probably as good a place as any to note that in my research I found one instance of a charter school in Wisconsin charging tuition for 3K.  The school is Downtown Montessori a 2r (non-intrumentality) charter authorized by the City of Milwaukee (you can look at the contract here ,and tuition page here).  This appears to be in violation of the following provision “charter school governing board may not…1. Charge tuition” provision quoted above, but as 2r charter Downtown Montessori is also a Local Education Agency (MMSD would be the LEA for IMACS), and this may allow them to take advantage of the provision that empowers the school district to charge tuition for 3K.  It may not.  It certainly doesn’t serve as a precedent for allowing IMA Inc. to charge tuition for district classrooms.

Some people have referenced community based 4K services as a precedent for what IMA is proposing, but there are key differences.  In those arrangements, MMSD staff come into private preschools and provide educational services for a few hours a day (I think, but I may be wrong).  These services are free to all.  Some, but not all, students who receive these services also pay tuition to the private provider for the remainder of the day, and other services.  This is different from the IMA model in two huge ways.  First, the private schools provide services and coverage, in the IMA model all of this is being done by MMSD.  Second, students may access the MMSD portion of the day without paying for the other portions.

I don’t think what is being proposed is legal, but for the purposes of looking at the finances of the arrangements, I am going to set that aside.

IMA proposes setting the “3K Tuition /IMA Reimbursement payment (cover 3K classroom teachers)” at 2/3 of the cost of a teacher, or $53,901.33 in the first year.  The thinking appears to be that 1/3 of the students in the 3K to 5K classrooms will be 3K students, there will be two of these classrooms, therefore 2/3.  This leaves out all the other costs associated with the school, or more accurately shifts them to other funding sources, by far the largest being local property taxes.  This is a bad deal for MMSD.

It may be even worse, if IMA intends to charge what they are charging now.  Current 3K tuition at IMA is $995/month.  20 students at $995/month, for 9 months = $179,100, which is $125,198.67 more than IMA wants to pay MMSD for these students.  $125,198.67 for processing 20 applications, cashing some checks, and pointing the students toward an MMSD classroom (IMA promises an annual, additional “Financial support payment from the parent organization IMA Inc.” to MMSD, but these do not appear to be linked to 3K or 4K and only in year one do these payments approach the projected tuition collection surplus).  Nice deal for IMA; not so nice for MMSD.  If they intend to charge partial tuition for 4K students, it gets even worse.

Tuition related concerns about accessibility and equity have also been raised.  IMA currently participates in the state Wisconsin Shares program, which provides some tuition assistance, based on qualifications and needs.  Although this does improve equitable access, eligibility is limited, payments may be partial depending on circumstances, and undocumented students are not eligible.  More importantly, I don’t think the arrangement IMA has proposed — collecting tuition to send children to public school classrooms — would allow them to qualify for the subsidies.  The program has extensive requirements for providers (and here).  Among other things, this process requires submissions on the qualifications of the teachers.  IMA Inc. will not be employing any 3K or 4K teachers (they will be MMSD employees), so I don’t see how they can claim MMSD employees as their teachers (and MMSD classrooms as their classrooms) in order to receive state funding.

Will the Staffing Plan Provide Quality Education?

Leaving everything else aside, I don’t think we should create a new school unless we believe that it will be successful for our students.  Staffing is a key part of this. The changes in the staffing plan since January are relatively extensive, but still — in my opinion — insufficient to create that confidence.

The January staffing plan was a bad joke.  By my estimation (see pages 12 & 48 of the Proposal) in year one they had 7 classrooms, 223 students (ranging from 27 to 35 students in each classroom), and 5.8 teachers, (including an unspecified number of Bilingual Resource Teachers, but not the 2.3 Special Education Teachers).  Apparently one or more classrooms would not have had a teacher.

The above referenced Association Montessori International standards require classes of 28-35 children, with one “AMI trained teacher,” and one “Non-teaching assistant” for each class.  The proposal voted on in January had for year one, a total of 1 “Educational Assistant, incl BRS,” and 0.8 Special Education Assistant (like Special Education Teachers, and Bilingual Resource Teachers, BRS, and SEAs have specific responsibilities and they can not be used as general “assistants”).  At best, this staffing plan was also short 6 assistants.

The new plan is in some ways an improvement.  For year one, there are now 6 classrooms, 190 students (ranging from 30 to 36 in each classroom), and 6 classroom teachers.  In addition, there are 1 BRT, 0.5 BRS, 1.5 Special Education Teachers, and 1.2 Special Education Assistants. There are no “Non-teaching assistants”in the plan.  The standards call for 6.  The estimated cost to add these would be about $300,000 in the first year, and over $1.5 million over five years.

The staffing is so inadequate, I am not clear how the could manage the required “duty-free lunch” periods. The Special Education Teacher to student ratio is worse (assuming 14% of the student population receive special education services in both versions), going from 13.57/1 to 17.73/1, while the SEA to student ratio improves from 39.03/1 to 22.16/1.  If the students are very low needs, this may be adequate.  If the students are higher needs and this is not adequate, MMSD is obligated to provide additional staffing and services, at additional costs.

There are no Arts, Music, World Language, Computer, or Physical Education teachers, nor a budget for these.  All of these are problematic, and the lack of certified physical education staff appears to be contrary to Wisconsin Administrative rules.

I have not done a systematic analysis of the staffing at public Montessori schools in Wisconsin, but among those I have looked at, many seem to employ Art and Physical Education teachers, most seem to have a classroom teacher to student ratios in the mid to low 20s, all seem to have sufficient classroom assistants (some data here if you are interested, but note that I have found that this file often does not match the information from school and district directories).
Despite the lack of adequate staffing, IMA continues to put forth delusional projections for student achievement; and these continue to use one 2010 excerpt from an annual report, from one 3d grade class, at one small 3K to 3d grade Texas school as the primary reference point (there is also a reference to another source, which in turn references a flawed 2006 study of one Milwaukee school...don’t get me started on the offensively bad use of citations and “research” in many parts of the IMA proposal, I started but never finished a long post on that…maybe next week).
[As an aside, and in light of the discussion above, I want to note that Texas school currently has a 19.35/1 student teacher ratio (IMA projects 22.35/1 when Special Education and Bilingual Teachers are included), and employs 9.83 Instructional Aides for 272 students (IMA projects 1.7 Aides– all either Bilingual or Special Education — for 190 students).]
IMA is correct to note that it is difficult to project student achievement data for a school that does not yet exist (state law actually requires that these projections be done and incorporated in charter contracts, see below).  However, it isn’t difficult to produce more realistic projections than those IMA offers.  Here is one section of their updated data projections.
IMA Map Data
I am not going to make projections myself, but I will offer some data for context and critique.
MPS MMSD IMA compare

All data is from WISEDash or DPI Report Cards (spreadsheet here).  The “Closing Gaps” measure compares value added scores between subgroups, using statewide data for the higher scoring subgroup and school data for the lower, relevant school subgroups are combined (more here).  The Milwaukee schools are all the public Montessori schools in that city; the Madison schools are from the IMA “transportation zone.”  As with any standardized test based data, it is important to keep in mind that these are very limited measures, and do not come close to providing a full picture of students or schools.  In this case, it is also worth noting that a number of schools had significant percentages of students who were not tested.  The projections from IMA are based on MAP and this data is from Forward, but the cut scores MMSD uses for MAP are relatively well aligned with the Forward cut scores.

Before going forward,  look at the chart — especially columns 3,4, and 6 — and take a minute or two to reflect on how bad (almost all of) our schools — Madison and Milwaukee — are doing with disadvantaged students.  We need to do so much better.

Just a couple of observations on this data.  First, there is no “Montessori Miracle” happening in Milwaukee; some schools are doing well, some are even doing well with disadvantaged students, but some are not doing so well, and only one — Fernwood — shows results that are similar to those IMA projects (and even that one is not “closing gaps”).  Second, the demographics of the Milwaukee Montessori schools — with very few exceptions — are much less challenging than Milwaukee as a whole, Madison as a whole, and the Madison schools in the transportation zone; lower poverty, fewer students with disabilities, almost no English Language Learners.
One last thing on student achievement data.  The Principles and Standards that state law requires the Board to “adhere” to, call for
…[C]harter contracts that plainly:
• Establish the performance standards under which schools will be evaluated, using objective and verifiable measures of student achievement as the primary measure of school quality;
• Define clear, measurable, and attainable academic, financial, and organizational performance standards and targets that the school must meet as a condition of renewal, including but not limited to state and federal measures;

The proposed contract does not do this.  Instead it lists many possible measures, and leaves target setting to the SIP process.

The SIP goals currently used by MMSD are subject to revision, and include inappropriate comparisons between grade cohorts that are very problematic for a small, non-attendance area school. They briefly measure goals such as “% proficient grades 6-8.” These can fluctuate greatly if there are significant differences between the outgoing 8th grade class and the incoming 6th grade class, even if there is no change in achievement with the advancing 6th to 7th grade, and 7th to 8th grade.  This is problematic for all schools, but much worse for small non-attendance area schools, and even more problematic with small subgroups.  We have seen this with Badger Rock as well.

Without clear targets and standards, the renewal process gets very, very messy.   I think the best way around this is to have cohort based growth goals (but not the MAP growth measures as used by MMSD, those essentially label students who are not falling behind their peers who started at the same RIT score as meeting targets, which in relation to our students who are struggling amounts to a pat on the back for continuing to be well behind).

Will IMA Be Financially Sustainable?

No.

Even with the insufficient staffing, problematic tuition reimbursement payments from IMA Inc, the other payments from IMA Inc., probably unrealistic fundraising promises, the budget does not balance in any of the five projected years, and there is no indication of how it would balance in subsequent years. As I noted above, the version voted on in January had a five-year deficit of $58,681.36 (and this budget was found to not meet expectations); the supplemental materials increase this to $516,157.01 (but apparently met someone’s expectations). At times people have asserted that the deficit is offset by adding “value” and/or attracting “new” students to the district.  This is worth examining.  There are three major categories of students who might attend IMACS: MMSD resident students currently enrolled (or who would enroll) in MMSD schools, non-MMSD resident students currently enrolled in other school districts or private/homeschooled, and MMSD resident students currently not enrolled in MMSD schools (private school students, homeschooled students…).  The financial implications for each are different.

For MMSD resident students currently enrolled in MMSD schools, there will be no offsetting increase in revenue limits or state aid.  Because IMA would be realitively small, and will draw students from many MMSD schools, offsetting savings elsewhere are likely to be very small, or nonexistent.  Taking 5 or even 55 students from a variety of grades at another school will only rarely change the staffing needs of that school, and will do nothing for the fixed costs.Non-resident, open enrolled students create a net loss for MMSD.  A balanced budget for IMA would have public funding equal to the open enrollment payment amount.  The IMA projected budget averages about $525/student/year more than this.  So MMSD would subsidize each student who open enrolls in MMSD by that amount.  There is no increase in the revenue limit for these students.

Resident students who are not currently attending MMSD are more complicated.  For simplicity’s sake I am going to use a figure of $7,500 per student, per year for the costs of IMA students to MMSD (I am also rounding other numbers).  For the 2017-18 budget a good estimate of equalization and per pupil state aid, per student,combined, for MMSD is $2,100.  One way to look at the cost of these students to the district is the difference between these, or $5,400 per student.  However, these students would also increase MMSD’s revenue limit by an amount greater than the $7,500, a difference of about $4,200.  This money, if MMSD taxed to the max, could be spent on other MMSD students, and in some senses represents a net gain to the district.

Before closing on the budget and finances, I want to say a few more things about the donations and fundraising.  I called the fundraising projections unrealistic based on tax documents filed by IMA, that show they have never raised over $10,549 a year, and are now promising $60,000 or more annually.  IMA has secured one pledge of $100,000 (see here, page 90), via an individual who opposed building apartments in Shorewood because “This project increases the voting rolls by 20 percent with people who have different values – I’m not saying bad values – but different values from what we have here.

Which brings up the issue of “Leverage Philanthropy,” whereby individuals and groups with money use (relatively) small donations to leverage (relatively) large amounts of public money for ends that are not aligned with and may be opposed to the public good.  It is not unheard of for charter schools to receive support from those who desire the end of school districts.  I am confident that the founders of IMA are sincere in their stated desire to expand accessibility to what they believe is a beneficial system of education, and to do so within a public school context.  I am not so sure about their potential donors, and am generally uncomfortable when people use the promise of funding to sway the decisions of governmental bodies.

The last thing on fundraising concerns the contract.  As currently drafted the contract only allows a good cause termination if payment and fundraising promises are not met two consecutive years.  I think it should be one year, or at very least two years without the consecutive.  The draft contract also reduces district support the following year when these promises are not met.  I don’t like that because it punishes the students.  I already think the staffing is much to small, any further reduction would only decrease the likelihood of students being served well.

Conclusion
Unless there are radical changes between now and July 31, I will be voting no on the IMACS contract.  I believe it is the Board’s role and responsibility to only move forward charter schools which at a minimum, we believe meet the standards and requirements of  our policy and state law, and that:
In making its decision, the BOARD shall, at a minimum, consider the information included in the detailed proposal, the information provided by the SUPERINTENDENT, whether or not the requirements of BOARD Policy have been met, the level of employee and parental support for the establishment of the charter school, and the fiscal impact of the establishment of the charter school on the DISTRICT. [from MMSD Policy 1000]
This is our job, and if we do not find the supplemental materials and the contract satisfactory (which I do not), our obligation is to vote against the approval of the contract.
TJ Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Budget, education, Equity, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, MMSD, Uncategorized

Class Size Budget Amendment (Annotated)

vegan-meat-alternative-sausage-onion_1

I had joked that the previous post should have been illustrated with a picture of sausage being made, but that I didn’t want to alienate vegans and vegetarians. The amendment is now finished, and the sausage pictured here is vegan.

“Step by Step” — The Boyer Brothers (click to listen/watch)

Yesterday afternoon I submitted the final version of an amendment on class sizes to the Madison Metropolitan School District 2017-18 Preliminary Budget.  The Board of Education will consider and vote on this (and other amendments), as well as the Budget at our meeting on June 26, 2017 (6:00 PM, Doyle Building Auditorium).  In my previous post I presented my then current thinking about the amendment and asked for feedback.  This post is a brief walk-through of the final version, highlighting (and to some extent explaining) changes.

In general, the legislative process requires compromise, and tempering idealism with realism.  I have tried to keep that in mind throughout the budget work, but at this penultimate step compromise and realism become more prominent.

From top to bottom, excerpts followed by comments.

Amend the 2017-18 MMSD Preliminary Budget by immediately allocating an additional $500,000 to expand the number of budgeted unallocated classroom teacher positions, and

Dependent on the per pupil categorical aid provisions of the biennial Wisconsin State budget allocating up to an additional $1,000,000 to expand the number of budgeted unallocated classroom positions proportionately with no additional allocation if the categorical aid increase is $100 or less, up to $1,000,000 if it is $200 or more, and

Both compromise and realism are present here.  Reviewing the Budget, previous and pending actions; talking and listening to budget staff, Board Members, community members, I have concluded that the present Budget can support targeted class size allocations of $500,000, and that a favorable State Budget would justify an increase to that amount of $1,000,000.  I am sure we will hear more on this from all parties prior to and at the June 26 meeting.

I try to be forthcoming and transparent, so I want to acknowledge that the best projections indicate that spending the $1,000,000 which is dependent on the State Budget will push the property tax levy increase beyond the 3.97% projected in relation to the November 2016 referendum, to approximately 4.3% (there won’t be final numbers till October).  I should also note that my proposed increase in levy is only one half of the projected $2,000,000 that would be available.

One other thing of importance here is the shift from talking about the number of positions to talking about dollars.  Being a budget amendment, that is necessary.  Translating dollars to FTE is an inexact calculation.  MMSD makes wide use of a figure of about $80,000 to budget full time teachers, inclusive of benefits, payroll taxes and everything else.  However, teachers hired late tend to be less experienced, have lower levels of post-graduate education, and are less likely to enroll in “family” insurance plans, making them somewhat cheaper.  If I had to guess, I would say that the probable cost per FTE hired under this amendment would be about $60,000, so $1,500,000 would yield 25 FTE, but it could be higher and the yield could be fewer than 20.

Establishing the following guidelines for the prioritizing the allocation of these new positions to schools: setting standards, but allowing for flexibility based on unique circumstances, local knowledge, and professional judgment, with primary consideration to be given to allocating positions to meet the standards in the order listed below:

  1. High Poverty, K-3 not to exceed 18 students.
  2. High Poverty, 4-5, not to exceed 23 students.
  3. Other Schools, K, not to exceed 20 students.
  4. Other Schools, 1-3, not to exceed 22 students.
  5. Other Schools, 4-5, not to exceed 25 students.
  6. High Poverty, 6th Grade, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), not to exceed 25 students.
  7. Other Schools 6th Grade, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), not to exceed 27 students.
  8. High Poverty, 7-8, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), not to exceed 27 students.
  9. Other Schools, 7-8, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), not to exceed 29 students.
  10. 9th Grade Core Academic Classes (Reading/English, Math, Science, Social Studies), not to exceed 28 students.
  11. 10-12 Grade Core Academic Classes (Reading/English, Math, Science, Social Studies), not to exceed 30 students.

For the purposes of this amendment designating the following schools as High Poverty:

K-5 (non-AGR schools marked with *; non-Title I schools marked with #)

Allis Elementary
Emerson Elementary
Falk Elementary
Glendale Elementary
Gompers Elementary
Hawthorne Elementary
Huegel Elementary#
Kennedy Elementary*
Lake View Elementary
Lapham Elementary*#
Leopold Elementary
Lincoln Elementary*
Lindbergh Elementary
Lowell Elementary
Mendota Elementary
Midvale Elementary
Muir Elementary#
Nuestro Mundo Elementary
Orchard Ridge Elementary
Sandburg Elementary
Schenk Elementary
Stephens Elementary*#
Thoreau Elementary#

6-8 (non-Title I schools marked with #)

Badger Rock Middle
Black Hawk Middle
Cherokee Middle
Jefferson Middle#
O’Keeffe Middle
Sennett Middle
Sherman Middle
Toki Middle#
Whitehorse Middle#
Wright Middle

There are two significant changes here.  The first is in the composition and ordering of the priorities. The second is moving from “hard caps” to “guidelines” or “standards.”

On the presentation of the priorities, the feedback I received was crucial.  Overwhelmingly, people were most concerned about the early grades in high poverty schools, and advocated a “the smaller the better” policy for these grades.  My personal preference for something more nuanced (read complicated) and giving more attention to (what I consider) extremely large classes in some of our lower poverty schools remains, but these are compromises I can endorse.

Budgeting hard caps is difficult, amending a budget that wasn’t built on hard caps is even more difficult (especially when proposed hard caps are smaller than the numbers used to make initial allocations).  Going forward, revising the current (weak) MMSD Class Size Policy, and giving more attention to class size at every stage of the budget process may create a more favorable environment for hard caps in future budgets, but not this one.

While understanding that (almost) any absolute rule will on occasion lead to less than optimal choices, I am wary of calls for flexibility.  Some years ago I wrote about the introduction of “flexibility” in SAGE and other policies:

Remember warnings about your face getting stuck in some ugly expression? I think the champions of “flexibility” in Wisconsin and elsewhere need loud and repeated warnings that their “flexibility” in educational policy (along with privatization, cuts in funding, destruction of local control…) in fact constitutes a possibly permanent acceptance of declining educational quality and is an ugly betrayal of our traditions and our responsibility to our children. They are bending our schools out of shape and our children will be stuck with it.

The events of the last six years have only reinforced my wariness.

My ideal method for balancing mandates and flexibility is to mandate default choices, but simultaneously create a process by which deviations from the default are justified and approved.  Although the amendment doesn’t go that far, I do think the reporting requirements (below) embody some of this concept and will create opportunities for accountability.

Requiring that public reports be made to the Board of Education, which include the amount of funds remaining from this allocation, the number of sections or classrooms added to date from this allocation for each of the listed priorities, the number of sections or classrooms remaining that exceed the guidelines for each listed priority based on then current enrollments.

At minimum three public reports be made,

  1. A Baseline Report to be issued as soon as possible after the passage of the Preliminary 2017-18 Budget, but no later than July 14, 2017.
  2. A Start of School Report, to be issued no earlier than the completion of registrations (August 21, 2017) and no later than the end of the second week of school (September 15, 2017).
  3. A Report, to be issued with the October/November Enrollment Reports.

I hope these reports accomplish two additional things.  First is increased transparency in school and classroom staffing.  I think these are the most important part of our Budget, and MMSD has been more translucent than transparent with them.  Second, I think the reports will contribute to the ongoing discussion of the costs and impacts of spending on class size reduction.

Before closing I want to note that I left out any mandate tying the allocation of the new positions to specific dates.  The main purpose of that was to give greater weight to the highest priorities, but the process was awkward, and the reconfiguration of the priorities accomplished some of this.

In closing I am going to cut-and-paste the closing of my previous post, once again urging participation in this process:

If you think I did more right than wrong, please let the Board (and the world) know about your support for the amendment.  As usual, you can email us [board@madison.k12.wi.us], or testify at the June 26th meeting where we will be voting on this and the entire preliminary budget.  Talk to your neighbors, co-workers, and friends, write a letter to the editor, post on Facebook. Instagram, or tweet something, draw something, dance…be creative.

Thanks in advance for the feedback and support.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Best Practices, Class Size, education, finance, Local News, MMSD, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

Notes for Final Class Size Amendment

Betty Everett — “Getting Mighty Crowded” (watch and listen).

On Monday June 12, the Operations Work Group of the Madison Metropolitan School District received an update on the 2017-18 budget, and discussed amendments submitted by Board Members (video here, meeting materials may be found at BoardDocs, here; it appears a second cost analysis on class size prepared by the district has not been posted on BoardDocs, it may be found here, a cost analysis prepared by community members is somewhat lower).

An amendment I submitted establishing “hard caps” on class sizes, and differentiating among classes and schools by grade span and a different poverty calculation than participation in the state Achievement Gap Reduction program (AGR, formally SAGE) has garnered much attention and more than a little support.  My amendment, with an explanation of poverty measure may be found here (a little more below).  The next step is preparing a “final” amendment for submission and vote (with the understanding that the amendment may be amended at the June 26, 2017 meeting, prior to a vote).  That process is the topic of this post.

The intent of my initial amendment was three-fold.  First, I wanted to get some sense of the costs involved.  Second, I wanted to shift thinking away from average class size to maximums, and away from AGR as the only means to differentiate between high and low poverty schools in this context.  Last, I wanted to give people opportunities to think, and talk, and write about class size in our district.  The numbers I used were not my ideal class sizes, and not intended to be final.

I have learned a little more about costs; made some impacts in how class size is being considered; and learned much about all aspects of class size impacts from the many staff, parents, and teachers who have opined in public and private.  Thank you all.

I want this discussion to continue, but soon the focus must shift to making concrete progress in addressing the most important class size issues in our district.  To do this I have to draft a budget amendment, and try to get it passed.

This involves prioritizing among the many issues and actions that have been discussed, and finding mechanisms to budget according to those priorities.  In an effort to be transparent, and as a plea for one more round of feedback and ideas from our community, I am presenting here what I see as the choices involved, and much of my current thinking.

Big Picture — Class Size Matters (in a Multitude of Ways)

No single education policy or practice will fix every area of concern with our schools, but research and experience have consistently demonstrated that small class sizes can help bring improvement in many of the most important areas, including student achievement, opportunity gaps, behavior, school climate, inclusion and differentiation, staff morale and retention, and family engagement.  This isn’t the place to work through the research, but I do want to point people to the Class Size Matters web site; recent local op eds from Cris Carusi, Andy Waity, and Jennifer Wang; and offer one excerpt from a recent evaluation of the SAGE program by the Value Added Research Center of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (if any of the people who have written the Board or testified — or others –would like to share your communications wider, I encourage you to use the comments on this post):

When comparing characteristics of students in SAGE versus non-SAGE schools, the Value-Added Research Center (VARC) observed large differences in their respective demographic profiles. The selection process into the program explains these differences and precludes simple comparisons across the two groups. Thus, VARC used statistical methods to control for these differences with the goal of estimating the impact of the SAGE program on student growth in mathematics and reading. Results from the statistical analyses of growth yield:

• An estimated positive effect of the SAGE program on reading academic growth in kindergarten as compared to students in non-SAGE schools, and

• An estimated positive effect of the SAGE program on mathematics and reading academic growth from kindergarten through third grade as compared to students in non-SAGE schools.

New to this year’s evaluation is an analysis of the effect of SAGE on students’ high school completion outcomes and on their choice of dropping out of high school. The results show:
• A positive effect of the SAGE program on students choosing to stay in high school in both ninth and tenth grade, and

• A positive effect of the SAGE program on students completing high school and not dropping out for students from African-American and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Finally, this year’s SAGE evaluation also included results from the SAGE End-of-Year Report survey to examine non-academic outcomes. The results from the survey show increased flexibility with classroom design, benefits for students unrelated to standardized testing such as having more individual time to work with students, and benefits for teachers in recruitment and retention.

Choice # 1 — How Many Positions (FTE — Full Time Equivalent)?

It is clear that at this point in the budget process it would be impossible to reallocate or find enough money to achieve what I would consider reasonable class sizes throughout the district.  The best option seems to be to offer an amendment budgeting an increase in the number of unallocated classroom positions and setting rules for how they are to be allocated.  I need to do some more digging and thinking, and have some more conversations with budgeting staff and other Board Members before arriving at the number for the final amendment.

What happens with the state budget — especially the “per pupil categorical aid,” but also equalization aid — will make a huge difference.  For that reason, I am leaning to linking the number of unallocated positions in the amendment to state budget provisions.

Choice # 2 — Where Are Class Size Limits Most Needed and What Should They Be?

This is where the feedback I have heard has been most valuable in opening my eyes to the myriad of experiences, viewpoints, and ideas.  It is also where I most want further feedback.  If we can’t do everything, what should we do first (and second, and third…)?

Everything here begins with the assumption that previous allocations remain in place (hold harmless), and that existing guidelines or standards are not preempted in order to achieve the new priorities.   I am not proposing that already allocated positions be moved, but that new allocations be used in this manner.

Below is my current list of priorities, in order.  Whatever the number of unallocated positions added, or the mechanism used to allocate them, it is highly unlikely that any will end up being allocated for any of the priorities after #5 or #6 (maybe not even these), but I do think it is essential to be comprehensive, to make a statement about (almost) every class in every school. All are for maximum limits, or “hard caps.” As before, it isn’t my ideal, and it isn’t final (but it does need to be final soon):

  1. High Poverty, K, 18 students.
  2. High Poverty 1-3, 19 students.
  3. Other Schools, K, 20 students.
  4. Other Schools, 1-3, 22 students.
  5. High Poverty, 4-5, 23 students.
  6. Other Schools, 4-5, 25 students.
  7. High Poverty, 6th Grade, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), 25.
  8. Other Schools 6th Grade, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies),  27.
  9. High Poverty, 7-8, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), 27
  10. Other Schools, 7-8, Core Academic Classes (Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies), 29.
  11. 9th Grade Core Academic Classes (Reading/English, Math, Science, Social Studies), 28.
  12. 10-12 Grade Core Academic Classes (Reading/English, Math, Science, Social Studies), 30.

These priorities recognize the research that has found differential impacts of class size reduction, with greater impacts for students in poverty and African American students, and in the early grades; as well as the general equity principal that resources should be directed toward higher need schools and students.  As mentioned above, I want the district to use a more expansive definition of “high poverty” than currently employed.  Here is the explanation from my initial amendment:

Defining “High Poverty”

The AGR designation does not reflect current demographics of our K-5 schools, and other than via Title I MMSD has not designated Middle Schools as “High Poverty.” MMSD currently uses both self identification (traditional) and Direct Certification to designate students as “Low Income.” These methods produce very different results (see spreadsheets here for K-5 and here for 6-8). It is impossible to say if one is a “better” measure than the other. I would suggest using an average of the two to rank our schools, and 35% (rounded up) as the “High Poverty” cut point for K-8.  By this method the following schools are designated ‘High Poverty”

K-5 (non-AGR schools marked with *; non-Title I schools marked with #)

Allis Elementary
Emerson Elementary
Falk Elementary
Glendale Elementary
Gompers Elementary
Hawthorne Elementary
Huegel Elementary#
Kennedy Elementary*
Lake View Elementary
Lapham Elementary*#
Leopold Elementary
Lincoln Elementary*
Lindbergh Elementary
Lowell Elementary
Mendota Elementary
Midvale Elementary
Muir Elementary#
Nuestro Mundo Elementary
Orchard Ridge Elementary
Sandburg Elementary
Schenk Elementary
Stephens Elementary*#
Thoreau Elementary#

6-8 (non-Title I schools marked with #)

Badger Rock Middle
Black Hawk Middle
Cherokee Middle
Jefferson Middle#
O’Keeffe Middle
Sennett Middle
Sherman Middle
Toki Middle#
Whitehorse Middle#
Wright Middle

Looking closer at the K-5 spreadsheet brings to light some of the issues involved.

K-5 Poverty AGR Title

First is that Lincoln — a high poverty school by any calculation — and Lapham, Stephens, and Kennedy — relatively high poverty schools — are left out of the AGR/Not AGR scheme, but included here.  Depending on how you count, these schools educated either 848 or 533 low income students last year.  This points to another observation, which is that there are a substantial number of low income students in our non-low income schools — by one method 180 at Chavez alone — and that these schools and students cannot be completely left out of our equity efforts.  It should also be acknowledged that one current AGR school — Crestwood — doesn’t make the cut.  I would be open to retaining that school.

Choice #3 — How To Allocate the New FTE?

If you want to make sure that the maximum number of the new sections go to the highest priority grades and schools, and maximize the likelihood that none of the classes in the highest priority categories exceed the designated limits, all allocations to lower priority categories would have to be delayed until after the Third Friday Count, and the end of allocations.  I am open to that idea (if you support it, let me know), but it isn’t my first choice (at this time).

In order to hire the best teachers, have the least disruption in class assignments, deal with physical and other logistics, best integrate faculty into school communities, and many other reasons, allocating earlier is better than allocating later.

What I am proposing for consideration here (and may end up proposing in the final amendment, depending on the feedback I receive), is an allocation process that seeks to balance the competing desires of maximizing addressing the highest priorities, and timing the additions in the way that makes the most sense.  Here goes version #1 (dates, details, and percentages, as well as the whole concept open for discussion and change).

  1. Beginning July 1, 2017 allocations of the new FTE will be made on a weekly basis, in order of and according to the priorities listed above, using then current enrollment or roster data.
  2. No more than 50% of the new FTE may be allocated prior to August 1, 2017.
  3. No more than 80% of new FTE may be allocated prior to the Third Friday Count.
  4. Middle and High Schools may address large sections via partial FTE and overload authorizations.
  5. The Board of Education will be provided bi-weekly updates on allocations made under this amendment, and any and all grades or courses at any school that exceed the limits above where there has not been an allocation made.  These reports shall be public.

I was tempted to make it even more complicated by having X% at this date, and Y% at the next date, and Z%, and on and on, with a new percent (almost) every week, but I decided not too.  I am still tempted to try to adjust the dates around the enrollment/registration week (August 14-18), or the opening of school (September 5 & 6).  As I said above, I am open to adjusting any part of this, or abandoning the attempt to balance.  I like it, but I don’t love it.

What Next?

To be fair to my fellow Board Members and our hardworking staff, I should finalize and submit this early next week (end of the day Monday 6/19 or mid day Tuesday 6/20 at the latest).

Between now and then, I hope to hear more from our well-informed and creative community (that means you!).  You can comment on this post, send an email directly to me — tjmertz@madison.k12.wi.us, or the entire Board — board@madison.k12.wi.us, I promise to read them all, but may not be able to respond individually.  You can even call me (the number is on the Board page).

Once I finalize this amendment, I will post it here, at AMPS.  Then you can weigh in and tell me what I did wrong.

If you think I did more right than wrong, please let the Board (and the world) know about your support for the amendment.  As usual, you can email us, or testify at the June 26th meeting where we will be voting on this and the entire preliminary budget.  Talk to your neighbors, co-workers, and friends, write a letter to the editor, post on Facebook. Instagram, or tweet something, draw something, dance…be creative.

Thanks in advance for the feedback and support.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, Class Size, education, Equity, finance, Local News, MMSD, School Finance, Take Action

2017-18 MMSD Budget Questions and Notes

money_question_istock_000010906232small

Chuck Berry — “Thirteen Question Method” (click to listen/watch)

At 5:45 on Monday, May 8, 2017 the Madison Metropolitan School District Operations Work Group will hold our first extended discussion of the the 2017-18 Budget since receiving the draft Budget Book.  Also on the agenda is the first of two scheduled discussions of possible changes to the Behavior Education Plan (summary here, many other related files attached to the agenda on BoardDocs, linked above).  It will be a busy evening.

In anticipation of these meeting, and this phase of the budget work, I sent two communications to the rest of the Board, and the Administration (here and here).  The first concentrates on some of the areas where I am thinking about offering amendments (there may be other areas, but I wanted to start with these); because the it appears the meeting will focus on the administrative “Priority Actions,” the second is on these.

In the interest of transparency and public awareness, I am posting these here, annotated with some extra commentary, notes, and links.  First up are the “Questions Related to Possible Budget Amendments.”

Wright Uniforms

  • What would be the cost to provide all Wright staff with 3 shirts/tops, 2 pair of pants or skirts, and one sweater or fleece in compliance with the uniform policy and the Handbook requirement that “In the event that any employee shall be required as a condition of his/her employment to wear any particular kind of uniform or other special clothing…clothing….shall be furnished by the District”?
  • What would be the cost to provide all Wright students with 3 shirts/tops, 2 pair of pants or skirts, and one sweater or fleece in compliance with the uniform policy?

I was one of two votes against this policy, but believe that if this is the will of the Board the burden should not fall on the staff and students.  As far as staff goes, I am not inclined to revise the Handbook to exempt Wright.  With students, despite the claims of the uniform industry, the best academic research I could find indicates that school uniforms do not save families money through decreased clothing purchases.   Wright is our highest poverty school, imposing added costs on the school’s families renders a bad idea even worse.

Class Size

  • What would be the costs and the additional FTE required to achieve each of the following class size caps:
    • AGR (formerly SAGE) schools, K-2, leave as is (soft cap at 20, hard cap at 22).
    • Non-AGR schools, K-2, soft cap at 22, hard cap at 23.
    • AGR schools 3-5, soft cap at 23, hard cap at 24.
    • Non-AGR schools, 3-5, hard cap at 25.
    • MS, English and Math, soft cap at 27, hard cap at 29.
    • HS, English and Math soft cap at 30, hard cap at 32.
  • Note: My understanding is that initial allocations are done based on the soft cap and projected enrollments, but that additional staff allocations are not done unless the hard cap number is exceeded. This may not be exactly how it works, and any corrections would be appreciated.

Class size matters; it matters for academics, it matters for behavior, it matters for family involvement, it matters for climate, it matters for working conditions and retention…class size matters.  There is a growing recognition in Madison (thanks Cris Carusi), that too many classes are too large.  These questions are intended as the beginning of a conversation about class sizes, not an end point.  I would like smaller classes across the board (all subjects, all grades),  and even smaller classes in high poverty and/or struggling schools, but you have to start somewhere.

Here are some links that provide important local context for these questions:

  • January and February Operations Work Group Presentations with discussions of staffing process.
  • Equity Charts” showing current (2016-17, not projected for the 2017-18 Budget…updated staff projections have been requested) staffing, as well as which schools  receive state Achievement Gap Reduction program and federal Title I funding, as well as other information.
  • Tableau interactive presentation showing Fall 2016 class sizes with filters for schools, subjects, and more.  The questions I asked concern the maximums allowed, but the distributions are of interest too.

The other items on this list are less concrete and don’t contain questions.  They were shared with the Board and the administration in order to alert them to possibilities that may develop into proposals/amendments.  They also are not exhaustive; the “Line Items” could lead many places and there are things like the “Special Assistant for Equity and Innovation” position, that I am not sure what to try to do about (I heard interviews were done last week, but no hire is final till the Board approves).

  • BEP Staffing and Implementation (including PBIS, Social Emotional Learning, Security…)
    • The May discussions of the BEP and answers to some of the questions on Priority Actions may lead to a proposed amendment. I continue to see a need to have more consistent professional supports and educational services available for students who have been removed from classes (suspensions, and less lengthy removals).

Not much to add to this, except I would love to hear ideas for how we could better deploy the millions of dollars we are spending on BEP implementation and related things.

  • Title I
    • The current Title I school Budget Allocations use Direct Certification and shift about $120,000 from K-5 to Middle Schools. Some of my Priority Action questions address district level Title I spending. Upon receipt of answers to those questions, I may want to work with staff to develop an alternate plan.

I have a lot to say here, but I am going to try to keep it brief.

Title I is a federal program that provides funding to improve the education for children in poverty.  Within the Title I regulations, districts have some choices on how this funding is used.  These choices include which schools are designated Title I (and receive funds), how those funds are allocated among the schools, and what measure of poverty is used in these processes (other choices include some of the “Reservations” and district level expenditures, some of which are related to the questions in the “Priority Actions” section).

These choices became more complicated when MMSD was able to enroll some schools in the “Community Eligibility” program that provides free lunch funding for entire schools that are high poverty.  One result is that the numbers and percentages of families at those schools filling out the Free/Reduced lunch paperwork decreased compared to other district schools.  Upon the recommendation of DPI, MMSD began using what is called “Direct Certification” for the Title I poverty counts (MMSD still uses “traditional” poverty counts for things like achievement data, adding to the confusion).  Direct Certification involves cross checking enrollments in other state and federal programs and using the result to estimate poverty counts.  Among other things, this produces much lower counts (when Milwaukee went to Direct Certification the percentage of students in poverty dropped from 82.7 to 67.3).  It also changes the distribution among schools  It isn’t clear what accounts for these changes.  I looked at the possibility that Direct Certification results in an undercount of undocumented students, but the results were inconclusive and indicated that although that may be part of the answer, there are other things going on. More on Community Eligibility, Title I, and Direct Certification, here and here, plus a post by me from last year covering some of this.

Here is the most recent information given to the Board on the proposed Title I allocations.

Title I allocationsHere is some information I sent to the Board and administration earlier this year, highlighting the impacts of the choices made on borderline schools (and the possibilities of using a different poverty measure):

Title I tjm

Note that any changes would involve altering the “dollars per Title I student” numbers and levels, and unless there are reallocations from the district level Title I spending, “cuts” to some schools.  I am not committed to making changes, but I would like to explore the possibilities.

The “Possible Budget Amendments” note ended with this:

  • Line Item Issues
    • I will be setting up an appointment to meet with [Assistant Superintendent for Business Services] Mike [Barry] on some line item questions (like the shift of Salary Savings budgeting between Fund 10 and Fund 27, the budgeting for Substitutes…I don’t have the whole list yet). My guess is Mike’s explanations will satisfy my curiosity and concerns, but if they don’t, I may make some requests or amendments.

Nothing to add at this time.

That leaves the questions on “Priority Actions.”  Before sharing the questions, I’d like to offer some context.  The Board consideration of “Priority Actions” began in November 2016 (minutes here).  In part because of the inclinations of Board Members, in part because of the Budget process, and in part because the way Health Insurance issues have dominated meeting after meeting, the “Priority Actions” have thus far received little sustained attention from the Board.  That should change at the May 8th meeting.

The discussion of “Priority Actions” begins on page 24 of the Budget Book. Here is a chart from the Budget Book:

Priority Chart

Here are the questions I submitted (some items  — including big ones like $625,000 for the Tech Plan — I had no questions for), with some links inserted (and dollar amounts added where appropriate).

Priority Actions

  • Intensive Support for Reading Intervention (LEXIA) – $190,000.
    • Can we get an update on current implementation (which schools, which students, how often…) and results?
    • Which schools (specific names)/students would this expand to if funded?
    • [Related] – Can we get a detailed accounting for the use of Title I Reserved Funds, highlighting any changes from the 2016-17 Budget?
    • In the past we have been told that MMSD does not use or classify LEXIA as an “Intervention” as defined by Response to Intervention mandates, has this changed?
  • Race and Equity Professional Development — $200,000, $80,000 new.
  • Principal Leadership Coaching
    • It isn’t clear how much of this is for “online module” development and deployment, and how much is for “face-to-face coaching,” nor who will be doing the work. A budget or a more detailed description which addresses these is requested.
  • New Teacher Mentoring and Forward Madison Sustainability Plan — $350,000 total.
    • What 2016-17 Title II activities/programs/personnel will be re-purposed or cut in order move $200,000 to this?
    • Is the March/April summary evaluation report referenced here available?
  • Bilingual Education and ESL Support — $349,000 total.
    • If the 2 OMGE Teacher Leaders are approved, would they only be working with Title I DLI schools?
    • See note above about changes in Title I Reserved Funds budgeting.
    • The deadline for DLI and the Lakeview Hmong program applications was 4/28. Can we get an updated estimate for transportation costs and numbers of students, including home school and school they applied to attend?
  • Middle School Report Card Redesign and Infinite Campus Customization — $40,000 total.
  • AVID Expansion — $40,000.
    • What are the projected class sizes for AVID sections with and without this increase?
  • School Based Support for Implementation of Personal Pathways — $460,000 total.
    • Are the Learning Coordinator Learning Liaison positions 0.2 at each high school, or single district positions?
    • Will the ACP Coordinators serve all students, or only Pathways?
    • Is the Lead Counselor position 0.0825 at each school, or a single district position?
    • Is there a projection for how these positions will increase as Pathways expands (can we expect to add the equivalent each year in proportion to new students entering Pathways)?
    • What are the current FTE’s devoted to Pathways for the people listed here (some appear to have partial Pathways assignments and partial assignments in other roles): https://pathways.madison.k12.wi.us/contact-us
  • Pathways Professional Development — $200,000 total.
    • Can we get a breakdown for how much of this is release time/extra time (Summer?)/subs, how much is contracted services, how much is other?
    • Is any of this covered by the Joyce Grant?
  • Experiential Learning Coordination and ACP Support  — $90,000 total.
    • Can we get a budget that breaks down student transportation, release time, and other?
    • Is there any evidence that the GMCC [Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce] Foundation has improved their work on behalf of our students since the November 2016 update?
  • Developing Future Teachers — $18,000 total
    • Approximately how many students are expected to be enrolled in TEEM in 2017-18?
    • Who is doing this work now?
    • Who is expected to fill these Coordinator roles (current positions if MMSD employees)?
    • As TEEM takes on new cohorts is it expected that the stipends will increase?
  • Expansion of Grow Our Own— $100,000 total
    • What are the 2016-17 allotted and expended budgets for each of our “Grow Our Own” programs (I know there is one for staff wishing to become teachers, and at least one for teachers seeking Special Ed, ESL, or Bilingual certification; I don’t know if there are others)?
    • What are the numbers and demographics of 2016-17 participants in each?
    • I know there was a problem and the Fall cohort for one program were told they had to wait. Can we get an update on that (is this budget line related to that issue)?

The Budget Book designates some of the “Priority Actions” as “Accelerated.” Here are my questions related to those:

Accelerated Priority Actions

  • Quarterly Grade Level Release for Teachers — $100,000 total.
    • Is this in addition to the $135,000 for Intensive Support Schools Quarterly K-2 release days approved as a Priority Action in the 2015-16 budget?
    • Can you confirm that the $400,000 increase under Required Allowances is separate from this and other Priority Action Substitute budgets?
    • Are this and other Priority Action Substitute expenditures reflected in lines 3 and 122 of The Fund 10 Expenditures?
  • Reading Software to Supplement Core Instruction for Students — $60,000 total.
    • See the question above under Intensive Support for Reading Intervention, requesting updates on LEXIA use and results.
  • Student Led Conferencing  — $116,000 total.
    • I think projections are for 305 non-Pathways 9th Graders at East, and 479 Pathways 9th Graders district-wide, yet the Funding for East non-Pathways is more than double the district-wide Pathways funding. Is there a difference in design that accounts for this?

And last comes “Innovative Priority Actions.”

Innovative Priority Actions and TID #25

  • Reservation for Innovation Opportunities
    • Note: Here and elsewhere a $800,000 multi-year reservation for “innovation opportunities” is mentioned. This concept was presented at the 10/17/16 OWG meeting, but neither my memory nor the minutes reflect a consensus in favor of this.
    • If we are going to set aside a reserve sum for Innovation Opportunities to be funded this year, there should be a process for proposals and decision-making.
  • TID #25 Budget (p 152)
    • Can we get an update on expenditures to date for the items listed for 2016-17?

Here is the TID #25 Budget from the Budget Book:

TID 25

A few words on the TID #25 funds and “Innovation.”  First, the rule of thumb with one-time funds like the TID #25 money is that you don’t spend them for ongoing operating expenses.  In general, that makes sense, except it fails to account for the uncertainty around all school funding.  This week possible cuts to Medicaid reimbursements are in the news; a couple of weeks ago it was Community Learning Center funding, nobody is confident the proposed $200 per student categorical aid increase will survive intact till the end of the state Budget process.  Uncertainty everywhere, yet because we know it will eventually run out, TID #25 money is in some ways treated as more uncertain than money we may never see.  The other side of the picture is that what is an ongoing expense is also uncertain.  Yesterday’s “Strategic Priority Action” may become tomorrow’s ongoing expense, or it may end up a one-time experiment.  With all that in mind, I believe we should be cautious when using one-time funds for what we believe to be ongoing expenses, but not categorically eliminate this from consideration.

Generally, due largely to my training as a historian, I am an “Innovation” skeptic and a firm believer in “The Conservationist Ethic” in education reform.  As David Tyack wrote:

In reform circles enamored of change and inclined toward Utopian solutions to improve schooling, a belief in progress can obscure the task of conserving the good along with inventing the new. In mitigating one set of problems, innovations may give rise to new discontents.

This skepticism is reinforced when the attraction of “Innovation” leads to a lack of critical thinking and careful vetting.

More specifically, I am not clear how the notion of dedicated “Innovation” funding (and the whole TID #25 budget) came to be included in the Budget.  Hence, my question.

On to next steps.

After Monday’s discussion, and receiving answers to my questions, I will start working on any Budget Amendments I would like to have considered.

Feel free to contact me (tjmertz@madison.k12.wi.us) or comment here with any questions or thoughts.

As with any matters before the Board, there are opportunities to make your voice heard.  Take advantage of them.

These our your schools; make your voice heard!

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, Class Size, education, Equity, finance, Local News, MMSD, Uncategorized