Credit: Computer Vision Laboratory, Columbia University
I want start off with one of the most egregious aspects of a horribly underfunded public school system and what acts of desperations that can ensue, followed by some “respectable” examples of education reform percolating around the country and ending with the next big “shining object” that will command our full attention here in Wisconsin shortly, whether we like it or not.
We begin with Charlotte Hill’s recent reporting at the change.org site that highlighted a distressing development; four inner-city schools in Detroit are “partnering” with Walmart
to offer a course in job-readiness. Student participants earn school credit while learning how to hold down one of the superstore’s infamously low-paying positions. When the bell rings at 3:30, off the students go to their new entry-level jobs, where they work for minimal pay.
Their public school system, like the majority in the country, are struggling. They need money. Enter Walmart, licking their chops to come in and fill the breach. And in their world, students will be conditioned to accept a work environment that is “notorious for its low wages, discriminatory [in its] treatment of female employees, mass lay-offs and refusal to acknowledge, much less support, employee unions,” says Hill. 29 schools were closed this past fall, with 40 more due to be shuttered in the coming year – “financial need — not educational integrity — is driving the decision.”
At the end of the day, Walmart is the true winner in this partnership. Hill reported that
According to the Department of Labor, “Employees under 20 years of age may be paid $4.25 per hour during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.” From my calculations, 11 weeks of training amounts to just under 90 days of employment. Looks like whichever Walmart executive made the decision to partner with Detroit schools was just living by the corporation’s own slogan: “Save money. Live better.”
The real message goes more like: Your educational system has failed you. Because of mass class inequities, you will not be offered opportunities to succeed in life. In fact, we’ve so given up on you, that even though you still come to school, we’re going to turn school into training on how to hold down the worst job possible and suffer all sorts of labor abuses. Just in case you’ve made it to your teenage years without realizing this, know the world doesn’t care about you, and you might as well give up on your dreams now.
Proposals for enormous changes in the school system have always been a feature during times of economic crisis, but you have to stop and catch your breath at times when some of the more “throw the baby out with the bathwater” schemes get a serious airing from our self-appointed “out of the box” thinkers on education “reform,” or, as one of our local school board candidates would prefer, “transformation.” Take for example Utah state senator, Chris Buttars. He has introduced a bill that would eliminate 12th grade in all public schools in his state, saving, according to Buttars, $60 million dollars from a state shortfall of $700 million. You might say to yourself that such a large hatchet would appear to have a fairly minimal impact on such a large deficit, and would therefore be dismissed out of hand, but you would be wrong. Eight other states are contemplating similar moves. It also wouldn’t probably surprise you to learn that the Gates Foundation is providing the initial planning grant to get this initiative off the ground. And while the impetus for having a so-called board exam system in which students must achieve some core competencies, instead of seat time in a classroom, has some laudatory elements to it, the larger gorilla in the room is that it will take an enormous amount of one-time stimulus money just to get this initiative off the ground in these handful of states.
A question I continue to ask is: why, in all these reports on new initiatives for “reform” (or if you like “transformation”), is it rarely mentioned or raised as a concern, the issue of how these initiatives will be paid for in a long term, sustained way?
Getting back to the actual students who are at the center of this maelstrom of education innovation, as Jessica Shiller has noted:
Seems like the students that would benefit most from having public school for longer would get left out in the cold. Graduating in 11th grade and having to look for a job in a dismal market is not much of an option. Going to community college or a vocational program could offer more, but with graduation rates pretty low, around 25% — to the point that the Gates Foundation is getting involved to help community colleges do better by their students — this also doesn’t seem like a suitable substitute for a full high school education.
Students who don’t do well early in high school might be left with dead-end options. At least if those students have a couple more years, they can try and improve their grades for college, but under these grade elimination plans, there is no room for that. Young people will be sorted into vocational and college-bound tracks at age 15. No more messing around kids: decisions about your futures will be made very early on in life. So much for the late bloomer.
It is rumored that shortly the beautiful minds behind the Wisconsin Way initiative, will finally roll out their plan, one that will have been already largely crafted in the minds of its corporate interests from the get go when they first held their state-wide forums a couple of years ago. It is likely that the fait accompli plan will contain much that is good, some that seems “sensible,” inducing the pundits to skim past the troubling parts in their embrace of “transformations.” For an excellent primer on the Wisconsin Way, please reread the warning signs that Thomas Mertz was writing about already 2 1/2 years ago. Also, look for his excellent coverage of this roll out/fall out to come.
Meanwhile, it doesn’t take great creative thinking to know that the oxygen will be largely sucked out of all the hard work of analyses and stakeholder development that WAES has been engaged in for over a decade and its more recent Pennies for Kids initiative. Perhaps, when the chips are comfortably resting on the ground for a while, some parts or aspects of actual education finance/tax reform will get a hearing. But as we’ve seen in the past, nothing gets done in an election year. Sadly, the struggle for real finance reform, will continue for a long time to come.
Christo, "Package," 1963, fabric, twine, wire in painted wooden box
Only time for a quick wrap up of the Board of Education meeting. See here for what was “On the Agenda.”
The big and good news — from my perspective — is that the Board asked that portions of the Equity Report be redone, along the lines of and for reasons similar to those decribed here. They were nicer about it than I was, but at times those of us on the outside need to be direct and passionate in order to get attention and communicate how strongly we feel. The revamped report is due in June. The High School Initiatives has been moved to June (post-budget) also. I still plan to post on some Equity Report related things in the very near future.
At one point Marj Passman termed the weak portions of the report “Data, data, data and no conclusions.” I’d differ a little and say that one big problem was selected data points, no full data sets and no conclusions/analysis. This was true with both the achievement measures and most of the resource distribution information (with the notable exception of the programmatic resources).
Two other good things came out of the discussion. First, Lucy Mathiak asked that administrative proposals have attached in addition to a fiscal note some Equity assessment. The Equity Task Force had talked about “Equity Impact Statements” being required, but did not use that language. Instead we included this:
ConcludingStatement
Abide by these equity guidelines when considering new and evaluating or implementing existing policies and programs.
and some related things. This didn’t make it directly into the policy, but for the last couple of years it has been done informally via Board questions and discussions. Now it will be more formalized. This led Maya Cole to ask that the administration prepare a template for proposals and reports incorporating this and other ideas that have continually been of concern. Apparently that is already in the works. Progress both in terms of efficiency (answer the questions before asked) and the culture of governance.
Much of the discussion of the Budget gaps was Board members clarifying their understandings of the nature and sources of the budget shortfall. The discussion ended with Board President Arlene Silviera asking for an explanation in three sentences or less and using the word “gap” only once. Susan Troller has a piece in the Cap Times where Supt. Nerad and others give it a shot (much more than three sentences and I counted seven “gaps” in the body). “Tax Gap” seems to be one possible short hand. Here is an excerpt:
What’s commonly been defined as the district’s budget gap in the past — the difference between the cost to continue existing programs and salaries and what the district is allowed to tax under state revenue caps — is actually $1.2 million. That’s the amount the district would still have to cut if the board were willing to tax to the maximum amount allowed under the state revenue limits. But if you add in the drop in revenue from the state — about $17 million for the 2010-2011 budget — it’s a loss of $18.2 million.
It’s fair to ask then, what makes up the other $11.6 million that the administration calls the $29.8 million 2010-2011 budget gap? In a rather unorthodox manner, Nerad and company are including two other figures: $4 million in levying authority the district was granted through the 2008 referendum and $7.6 million in levying authority within the revenue limit formula.
Confused? You’re not alone. It’s got many folks scratching their heads. But the bottom line is this: Although the district has the authority to raise property taxes up to $312 on an average $250,000 home, it’s unlikely the board would want to reap that amount of revenue ($11.6 million) from increased taxes. Large property tax hikes — never popular — are particularly painful in the current economy.
The MSCR proposal did not get a good reception. There was a sense from some that much of what was included was there in an attempt to scare the Board off from any MSCR cuts. There were also differences among the Board members on what the district’s responsibilities are in terms of recreational and adult activities and how these relate to overall budget priorities, with most Board Members uncertain as to their position. Part of the distaste for the proposed cuts was that many of these cuts were in areas that are closest to the educational work of the district. The Equity issues were certainly present, particularly in regard to cuts to programing at high poverty schools and fee raises for Youth programs.
This was an initial set of proposals and the Board asked for a redo here also. New MSCR cuts and efficiencies will come back during the budget process and will be finalized along with the rest of the budget in the next two months. My impression is that many of the efficiencies (staff changes mostly) will remain, as will most of the Youth Fee increases and waiver cuts, that some programs will be restored and that adult Fees will be increased more in the revision. That was my read of the room.
This is good time for a reminder about the Budget time-line. Board members will get about $30 million in cut options from the Administration on Thursday and then the fun really gets rolling. Here is the full time-line again:
I urge the district to make all information — cut options, Board questions, administrative responses, new projections, … — publicly accessible on the website in as close to real time as possible. In other words, if the Board gets the options this Thursday, so should the public; if the Board gets an answer to a question on Saturday, so should the public.
There was lots of time devoted to the Reorganization (memo, revised appendix one, appendix two) and to be honest after all that discussion, I’m still not clear on many things. I’ll admit to not being clear on how many things work now, I know that many of the “how will this look/work?” questions can only be answered after implementation, but it is clear that there are many aspects where decisions have not been made yet and the vision isn’t clear. If you want to spin that nice, call it flexibility.
My impression is that this is driven by a combination of big concepts (most good, some not so good), slotting existing staff where they will be better, budget savings (which apparently were not part of the original concept but are now) and change for the sake of change. All of these are reasonable (I don’t like the last, but it isn’t unreasonable). The result is something less than elegant.
The financial, contractual and job posting aspects got much attention in the Q&A. The “savings” are as described here, some of the issues around the new “Teacher Leaders” have not been resolved but only two positions changes will require new job postings.
There was much concern about the relationship between existing professional development personnel and resources and the new structure. It seems departmental/disciplinary budget lines will remain, but the new structure will coordinate among them via the “Clusters” and other means. It seems. July is the planned start of the changes.
On the big concepts, Supt. Nerad cited Atlanta and the University of Washington numerous times, so I’m going to close this part with some links to that work.
Probably more on this later as I dig into the linked material and follow the trails.
I almost forgot the Badger Rock Charter School Planning Grant Application. Some new financial information was presented. This is a very together group. Impressive. They will certainly get Board approval for the planning grant application, but some issues do remain. The grant approval is not the same approval for the school. I’d say the odds are in favor of that too, but you never know.
Update: The High School Report and the Infinite Campus proposal to increase usage are off the agenda due to time considerations. There is also a new Re-Organization Budget (appendix A) updated with corrected calculations showing different “savings” figures.
The week starts bright and early with a Monday, 8:00 AM visit from the Madison Legislative delegation to Falk Elementary School. This is something Board Member Maya Cole has been pushing. The idea is to bring those in control of school funding into the schools to witness and here about the difficulties their actions and inaction have created. Beyond actually getting the legislators there and listening, the key to success is to find the right balance between “we are doing a good job” and “the children’s education is suffering.” Professional educators have a lot of trouble with the latter. Here is a guide to a similar exercise from the Illinois Education Association, the key point they make is to stay on message.
This is a Committee meeting week. Most items are first presented this week to the Board — meeting as Committees — for discussion and then return next week to the Board — meeting as the Board — for votes. The Committee meetings are consecutive and commence at 5:00 PM in Doyle Administration Bldg., 545 W. Dayton Street, Room 103. Like almost all Board meetings, these will be carried by MMSD-TV. Public appearances for all items and committees are at the start of the first meeting.
This week, the first Committee is Planning and Development. Here is the agenda.
The big idea is to align the structure with the Strategic Plan.
The “side by side” is nice, but comparative organizational charts would be useful too. You really can’t tell the players without a scorecard.
What might be the biggest change is the adding Chief Learning Officer to the title of Deputy Superintendent and changing the duties and structure accordingly. I say might, because it is difficult to see how this will not continue to be a primarily administrative (as opposed to educational) position. Steve Hartley who holds the position now is retiring. I’ve heard nothing about who might be filling the revamped position next year.
The other big change involves what is now Teaching and Learning. A new Department of Professional Development is being created, moving this out from under Teaching and Learning.
Teaching and Learning will be re-dubbed Curriculum and Assessment.
TAG moves to the Elementary and Secondary departments (I’m not clear on waht that means or who they will report to).
The Special Asst. for Race and Equity becomes the Assistant Director of Equity and Parent Involvement, in the Curriculum and Assessment Department, with Cultural Relevance Resource Teachers and Minority Service Coordinators in the new division. The emphasis on Parent Involvement in the new name doesn’t jibe with the new organizational home. Come to think of it, it also doesn’t jibe with the definition of Equity in the district Policy (curriculum and assessment are only two parts of that and not — in my opinion or as reflected in the policy — the most important parts.
In a related matter, the Affirmative Action officer will be moved Superintendents officer with duties involving Community Partnerships.
Although Community Partnerships are being moved, the Public Information Department becomes the Public Information and Community Engagement Department. Partnerships to the left, engagement to the right?
There are things going on with a “Cluster Program” that I’m not clear about. It appears to be about delivering central office support services via quadrants or clusters, but also appears to be headed by the a principal of Shabazz, with support by principals from small elementary schools and I’m not sure how that will work in practice. I think I’m missing something.
As part of a related restructuring, Alternatives becomes Alternative and Innovative Programs, with some new duties for the director and day-to-day responsibilities for the students and staff of the programs housed in Marquette and Lapham devolving to those principals. This is another one that doesn’t feel right.
MSCR will report to Asst. Sup for Business and Finance. I think this is to get control of things.
The Lead Elementary Principal postilion has been axed, replaced by Director of Early and Extended Learning (4K, after-school, Summer…).
The net cut is (I think) five administrative positions.
The savings figure ($556,439.50) includes positions that have been eliminated but due to continuing contracts the personnel involved will remain on the payroll in temporary positions and the proposal calls for Fund Balance money to be used for their salaries and benefits. This totals $337,538.3, leaving a little under $220 Grand in savings for the 2010-11 budget. As the Board looks at the 2010-11 Budget, these kind of deceptive labels need to stop.
A lot of people are being asked to do more, some with less to work with.
Much, much more on rationales, leadership councils, renamed departments and positions…I get some of it, but am not clear on the what, or why with much.
Lets’ start with the projected deficits (the gap between allowed revenues and cost-to-continue):
These are with 4K. That’s about $19.5 million in savings, efficiencies, program and service cuts over four years (on top of whatever is saved/cut in 2010-11). Yow.
The projected levy and tax impact numbers are another “yow.” Some of these come in with 4K and without 4K versions. These don’t reproduce well, so some just selected parts, figures and notes.
One interesting thing is that they are based on an assumption of no property wealth growth. My guess is that property wealth in Madison will continue to grow slowly (easing the burden on individual taxpayers), but will grow faster than the rest of the state (leading to cuts in state aid). How this balances out, I don’t know except that recent history inclines me to believe that Madisonians will be hurt more than helped.
In the “with 4K” projections, if the district taxes to the max and the deficits are met with Fund Balance spending and not cuts etc, the district goes broke in 2014 (no “without 4K version on this one). Our younger son would be in Middle School that year.
Here is what the tax-to-the max mill rates and taxes look like for 2011-12 through 2014-15(with and without):
The current mil rate is 10.18 (on page nine of the linked document there is a fuller chart, with projections for homeowners that did not reproduce well enough to post). These are huge tax increases. Talk about unsustainable.
MSCR is an orphan. Some with the school district believe that it is outside the “core mission” and this is true if you look at the strategic plan. It isn’t true if you look wider and note that MMSD has accepted the taxation authority and responsibility for providing recreational programing. I wish there was a Parks & Recreation Department in Madison (not necessarily under Kevin Briski), but there isn’t. There is a hodge-podge and some of it is the the responsibility of the district. Quality of life in Madison depends in part on a wide variety of recreational activities accessible to all and like other quality of life matters this means that it is proper for tax dollars to be used to create and to some degree subsidize these activities. There are a couple of places in the document with asides like (paraphrased) “based on fees, more like the YMCA” or “maybe the Boys & Girls Club will do something.” To me this is shirking responsibility. Maybe not in every case, but as an attitude.
My impression is that there are real savings and efficiencies to be found, some justifiable cuts and fee increases, but a real need to keep opportunities and keep them affordable for all.
The total savings is $1,838,928. Some big items (dollars and impact, no order):
Discontinue after-school contract for low income at Red Caboose and YMCA (my note: the variety of after-school programs and varied costs of these needs to be addressed).
Reduce School Year and Summer Transportation (my note: all good, except many parts of the city have no or almost no MSCR programing, I’d like to see this addressed also).
Increase staff to student ratio by 2.5%.
Shift Safe Haven Fee Waivers to Dane County Childcare Assistance (does the County know? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?).
Reduce Fee Waivers (adult and youth).
Raise Program Fees (some big and OK, some small, some seem too big).
Reduce Programing (Middle School, Summer, Penn Park, after-school enrichment, adult…)
Discontinue Safe Haven at Lindbergh (this isn’t sitting well with that neighborhood).
Much, much more.
Take a look yourself, but do keep in mind that if we want Madison to be a rich and attractive place to live, part of the price is public support for the things MSCR provides.
The last big item for this Committee is the budget time-line. Feast your eyes:
It looks like an intense and unpleasant couple of months.
Everything else is Bills, Purchases and Contracts, Other Financial Transactions as well as the Human Resources update, (with lots of retirements, including Debra Stanko who did more than right in recognizing and addressing our older son’s talents and needs at JC Wright).
The only reason that I can see to have an assessment app on a handheld device is to be able to assess while teaching, to enter assessment data while walking around the classroom. I want my teachers in the moment, teaching. This is the current obsession with data over teaching in a nutshell. If this is the future, I don’t like it.
Then it is time for the long awaited (well over a year and a half late) Annual Equity Report. A full consideration of this will appear in a subsequent post. My initial impression is that there is one part part I think is based on a very good concept, but overall it is more than a day late and more than a dollar short.
The lateness and shortness are related significant failures. The idea was to measure progress or document the lack of progress and the not only has much time been lost in setting the benchmarks, but the shortness has to do with the reports failure to provide those very benchmarks.
First the part I like conceptually. The final portion of the report takes strategies recommended by the Equity Task Force and links them to things the district is doing, “Programmatic Resources.” . This is very interesting and useful. I’ve got some doubts about some of the links and there is a certain impression of “we’ve got this covered” that can lead to complacency where urgency is needed. Still I like the idea and much of the execution.
Administration will report on an annual basis to the Board of Education the extent of progress on specific measures in eliminating gaps in access, opportunities and achievement.
Obviously with the first report, progress will be difficult to report (that timing issue again); because of the lack of specific measures it will also be difficult with next year’s (the shortness).
At this time I’m not going to question the measures chosen for achievement, but rather criticize the presentation of the data related to these measures. There is no raw data, no analysis (statistical or otherwise). Instead we are given selected factoids (the State of the District presentation which serves as the basis for much of the report suffered from a similar lack of information and rigor).
For now a couple of examples will suffice.
Is there any possible way to use this to measure progress or lack of progress? Remember, this isn’t the analysis of the data presented, this is totality of the data. They aren’t all that bad; this one is more typical:
At least here there are some numbers.
The other reporting requirement reads:
Administration will develop an annual report that will provide data on the distribution of staff, financial, and programmatic resources across all schools.
As I said above, the programmatic portion is a positive thing. The staff and financial parts are another story. Instead of looking at the staffing at particular schools (as was done for middle schools in 2006) or reports on diversity in various jobs or schools (there was a Human Resources Report about 6 months ago that did the former, I’ll link to it when I get a chance) we get this:
There is no there, there. Factoids. Nothing to work with.
In terms of resources, we are given explanations of the Equity Resource Formula and Title I, but no “data” on how these are distributed “across all schools.” Information is similarly lacking in other areas: the goals of the Technology Plan are presented with an Equity framework (good), there is no information on the technology in or slated for particular schools and how that related to Equity (bad); The School Improvement Process is sketched and funds are mentioned (good), but there is no accounting of those funds (bad); Professional Development and Indigent Bus Passes are also mentioned. More than a dollar short.
In closing this topic, I was recently reminded that the Board accepting a report is not the same as approving it. I understand that, but think that this report should not be accepted. It is unacceptable. It does not meet the requirements of the Policy by any stretch of the imagination and does not provide a basis for assessing the future success or failure of the district’s Equity work. We’ve waited long enough and can wait longer if we must; there is no excuse for not doing this right.
The High School Initiatives agenda item has much of interest on the REal work, the ACT/Eplore initiative, AVID, and the Individual Learning Plan implementation. I’m not sure how much is new here and don’t have time to dig tonight.
The other meetings this week are the Common Council/BOE Liaison Committee, Wednesday 5:30 PM at the City/County Building and the Superintendent’s Human Relations Advisory Committee, Thursday, 1:15, Doyle Building room 103 (agendas on the Weekly Notice).
A couple of days ago, Governor Jim Doyle announced a grant from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to improve the state’s telecommunications network. The goal of the award is to bring fiber optic broadband to 380 Wisconsin communities. The $28.7 million BadgerNet project will expand infrastructure for rural schools and libraries, via phone lines, throughout the State.
Access to the Internet in the U.S. is about as common as having cable TV. Unfortunately, it’s still a luxury many families cannot afford. The ongoing cuts in work hours and benefits, or loss of a job altogether, is of course tragic. For many of us, access to technology is something we tend to take for granted. In our increasingly technology-dependent age, access to a computer and the Internet is becoming quite essential. But many of our low-income families cannot afford a computer or Internet access in their home. Many low-income families are fighting hard just to maintain basic living standards. With education becoming more dependent on the Internet, it’s even more critical that we level the playing field for all students and families.
But, as Mike Ivey of the Cap Times pointed out in his story this week, the reality is that Madison’s poverty rate is climbing — rising nine times faster than the rate of other U.S. cities, according to a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, cited by Ivey. Since 2000, the poverty rate (defined as a family of four with an income under $21,800) in Madison has jumped from 15 percent to 17.7 percent. That’s one in every six residents. One of every two students in the Madison Metropolitan School District is now considered “low income” using the free and reduced lunch standard. In 1990, just one in five Madison school kids qualified. According to the American Community Survey, an annual estimate from the Census Bureau, Madison added nearly 8,400 residents living below the poverty line between 2000 and 2008, a 29 percent increase. Ivey cited the report’s prediction that “Madison will likely see its poverty rate jump another 1.1 percent this year, surpassing the average poverty rate for the 95 largest U.S. cities.”
In addition to BadgerNet, our school district is also trying to improve the various schools’ access to the internet and to better define its uses as a communication tool. This access needs to be extended to the families of the students it services. Jeff Richgels at the Cap Times reported yesterday that due to cost and a lack of digital literacy, over a third of the country does not have high-speed Internet access in the home (defined as non dial-up service). Broadcasting & Cable reported on an FCC consumer survey that found that “more than a third of the non-adopters (28 million adults) said they don’t have broadband because the price of service is too high (15%); they can’t afford a computer; installation costs are too high (10%); or they don’t want a long-term service contract (9%). According to the survey, the average monthly broadband bill is $41.”
A recent story done by WKOW pointed to the conundrum, “a hard copy of the monthly school news letter is becoming less common these days. That’s one reason why Madison School leaders say they need to change with the times, and find new ways to communicate with parents and community members.”
MMSD posts plenty of information online in the form of press releases, a monthly newsletter, and a video of school-related interest. They also have Infinite Campus so that parents can keep in touch with what is going on with their child. Infinite Campus is a district-wide student information system designed to manage attendance, grades, schedules, test scores, and other information about the students in the MMSD. The Parent Portal is a confidential and secure Web site where you can get current information about your child’s school attendance and grades. E-mail hyperlinks facilitate communication with classroom teachers. In addition, schools post important information on the home page, such as events, notices, etc,. Attendance information is also available. The Parent Portal allows report cards to be viewed online and printed.
My concern is that in our move to a more online world, we are ignoring a large amount of low income and minority families that do not have an email address. One example of this came to mind recently. Every year, MMSD asks parents to voice their opinions about the “climate” or feeling at their children’s schools. They use the survey results to assist with the school improvement planning process. This survey is available on the MMSD website although, it seems it was never sent out as a press release or included in the MMSD newsletter. The School Climate Survey was sent to the parent’s email address list as generated by each individual school. Surprisingly, this list is apparently not very comprehensive; two of our PTO officers were not on the list, despite having filled out the forms at registration and regularly receive emails from school personnel.
I hope that computers and the internet become as inexpensive as televisions and basic cable service. Until they are affordable, MMSD cannot rely on the Public Library to be the way for low income families or minority families to access the internet and communicate with their children’s school district.
Jackie Woodruff
(Editor’s Note: We apologize for not crediting Mike Ivey’s fantastic reporting in this post in an earlier iteration posted yesterday)
The main Madison Metropolitan School District meeting this week is on “Branding.” The other meetings noticed are of the Four-Year-Old Kindergarten Advisory Council (Monday, 9:00AM at 4C, 5 Odana Court), the Wellness Committee (10:00 AM Tuesday, Hoyt Building) and the Talented and Gifted Advisory Committee (Tuesday, 4:00 PM at Lapham).
Hosted by the Board of Education, the Engagement Session is an early step in the development of a communications plan aimed at ways to focus on positive branding of the MMSD school experience and to publicize the benefits of graduating from the MMSD.
The overall goal – from the school district’s new strategic plan — is to identify ways the MMSD can actively promote the benefits that all students derive from the challenging, respectful, inclusive education that Madison Schools provide.
The session is open to the public. Parents of MMSD students are particularly welcome.
After a short introductory presentation, attendees will break into smaller groups for discussion, followed by a brief report-out period. The session will be facilitated by Superintendent Dan Nerad and other district leaders.
The desire to spiff up the public perception of Madison schools came out of months of discussions last year as a community team formed a five-year strategic plan for the district, said Superintendent Dan Nerad.
“There was a strong feeling that, one, we have a lot of positive things that need to be more proactively discussed,” Nerad said. “And two, as we face our challenges, (such as) becoming a more diverse School District and needing to meet the needs of a broad range of learners, it is even more important that we do this work.”
….
The district has given marketing firms until March 1 to apply for a two-year contract, at $43,000 a year, to create a communication plan. Monday’s public meeting is billed as an “early step” in the process, and officials said they have no idea what form any branding efforts might take.
….
Part of the message that needs to get out is how well Madison schools prepare students for college, said School Board member Ed Hughes.
“The benefits of going to a diverse school are really apparent to our graduates once they’re out in the world,” said Hughes. “But we could be better, I think, in communicating those benefits to people.”
Counteracting “street-corner conversations” is another hurdle, he said.
“You hear a discussion about school safety issues and concerns about academic rigor, and I think a lot of those are based on less than a full understanding of what’s really going on in our schools,” Hughes said. “The problem is that there is some kind of information that is kind of sticky – people hear it and that’s what they remember. If there’s a fight in the school, that’s what they know about. And how you get over those images and get people to take a fresh look at what’s really going on in the schools is a challenge.”
This school year alone, 589 students living in Madison opted to attend a different school district, while 172 students living outside the city’s boundaries asked to attend a Madison school.
Meanwhile, online schools run by districts throughout the state have ramped up their advertising in the Madison market, which only raises the stakes. For every student that leaves the district, it loses $6,443 in state aid.
My own thoughts are that A) With the contact pending the session this week is putting the horse before the cart; B) The RFP could be more about enhancing communication with families with students in the district — something that has a direct effect on climate and achievement — and less about spreading the word to others; and C) I am glad this is getting some attention, think a consult is agood idea but am skeptical that the potential will be realized.
The 4K group will be reviewing “output” (input?) from forums (I believe these are forums with providers) and setting a time-line for the next year.
I got nothing on the Wellness meeting.
I got lots on the TAG meeting agenda, but no time to write some of it up. Unfortunately, I will not be unable to attend, so there won’t be a meeting report ( I can’t attend the “Branding” meeting either).
I am glad that they are starting with improved identification procedures. As I have said, a successful and equitable TAG program must begin with purring in place procedures that are much, much better than those that have been used.
The work by Peters that I have had a chance to review holds some promise and serves as a reminder of why this is and will be difficult.
The key difficulty is that there is no real definition of giftedness; no scientific, professional or lay agreement about who should be receiving gifted services or interventions (much less what those services, programs or interventions should consist of). Note I phrased this as “should be” not “would benefit from.”
I firmly believe that almost all students would benefit from most of the services, programs or interventions in place or contemplated for those classified as “gifted.” This isn’t to deny that there are some students who “need” these services, programs and interventions or that there are some who are “profoundly gifted” and I agree that it is the duty of any responsible educational institution to recognize and address this.
There is a related difficulty and that is that gifted programs have historically been disproportionality populated by white, middle and upper class students (for an exploration, see: Barlow and Dunbar, “Race, Class, and Whiteness in Gifted and Talented Identification: A Case Study“). This has become politically untenable and has been morally indefensible. For advocates of expanded TAG programing and those in the gifted industry (like Peters), the lack of a definition provides a way around or out of the problem of disproportionality.
Whether it is by promising to recognize giftedness in multiple domains or — as Peters’ work does — improve teacher referrals, the lack of a definition means that there is a lot of room to work with. Gifteness is whatever they say it is and with that as the first principle it is possible to say 1% or 30% or 99% of students are gifted and locate giftedness among diverse students in any proportion you desire.
Of course in these days of data fetishes, it helps to have some numbers to crunch. Peters crunches numbers and crunches them very well. With the Hope Scale, he has produced an instrument for teacher referrals that is consistent and clean internally and demonstrably nearly sociio-economically non-discriminatory (his sample had very few African Americans and he presents this as a work in progress). See his “Initial Validity Evidence for the HOPE Scale: New Instrumentation to Identify Low-Income Elementary Students for Gifted Programs” for some fine number-crunching and note that the “validity” in the title is internal validity because with no definition there is no possibility of external validation.
Lohman’s argument is thus that the more specific the norm group used for comparison, the better. This is true for groupings such as income, race/ethnicity, as well as school or grade-level groups. The use of narrowly defined comparison groups allows educators to see which students are achieving or have the potential to achieve given similar background and circumstances.
I have to think about this. On one hand, I appreciate the recognition of bias and the desire to overcome it. On the other hand I see something like “she’s smart, for a poor girl” happening and I don’t like that. I have to think about it.
I have friends who say that whenever I write about TAG issues it is overwhelmingly negative. I like to think of it as more skeptical than negative (and in this post also observational/analytical), but they do have a point.
With that in mind, I want to close by emphasizing how happy I am that MMSD is trying to improve identification, repeat that despite my criticisms I see promising things in Peters work and am glad that MMSD has the benefit of both his general knowledge of the field and his ongoing research, and once again say that I support efforts to improve transparency, consistency and services in the TAG area (not every manifestation, but the some and the idea of doing these things).
On an unrelated topic, Lucy Mathiak’s “The Edgewater TIF. Or, Can I Use My MasterCard to Pay My Visa Bill???” is a must read (I don’t know when the Edgewater TIF will go before the Board of Education — not “on the agenda” yet — but Lucy Mathiak is the Board rep to the TIF Board).
Bob Herbert of the New York Times has been doing an admirable job of outlining the human costs of our neglected infrastructure in his weekly columns. On Saturday he highlighted the conditions in schools throughout the country. And while he noted that getting the nation’s schools up to date is a huge undertaking, it represents only a small part of the overall infrastructure challenge we face as a nation. While highlighting a school in Pennsylvania built in 1861, with asbestos encrusted walls and dodgy electrical wiring, he noted the difficulty in getting good data on the physical condition of the country’s schools.
Lawrence Summers, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, has said that 75 percent of the public schools have structural deficiencies and 25 percent have problems with their ventilation systems.
But how to pay for this? Herbert made the point that:
right now there are not enough people at the higher echelons of government trying to figure out the best ways to raise the enormous amounts of money that will be required, and the most responsible ways of spending that money. And there are not enough leaders explaining to the public how heavy this lift will be, and why it is so necessary, and what sacrifices will be required to get the job properly done.
Suggestions have included such institutions as a national infrastructure or regional infrastructure banks that “would allocate public funds and also leverage private capital for the most important projects.” His larger point was that top governmental leaders should be seeking all kinds of solutions that are both solid and creative, while quickly implementing the best of them.
Which brings us to this next item, one with twist and turns not completely understandable at this point, but certainly not held up by people like myself as a model of how to “get the job properly done” — to use Herbert’s words.
Diane Ravitch, an intellectual on education policy, difficult to pigeonhole politically (appointed to public office by both G.H.W. Bush and Clinton), but best described as an independent, co-writes a blog with Deborah Meier that some of our readers may be familiar with called “Bridging Differences.” This past week she highlighted a possibly disturbing development in the Race to the Top competition program of the Department of Education, that dangles $4.3 billion to the states with a possible $1.3 billion to follow. Ravitch’s critique suggests that this competition is not run by pragmatists, but rather by ideologues who are led by the Bill Gates Foundation.
If this election had been held five years ago, the department would be insisting on small schools, but because Gates has already tried and discarded that approach, the department is promoting the new Gates remedies: charter schools, privatization, and evaluating teachers by student test scores.
Two of the top lieutenants of the Gates Foundation were placed in charge of the competition by Secretary Arne Duncan. Both have backgrounds as leaders in organisations dedicated to creating privately managed schools that operate with public money.
So, why should it be surprising that the Race to the Top reflects the priorities of the NewSchools Venture Fund (charter schools) and of the Gates Foundation (teacher evaluations by test scores)?
But here’s where the weirdness of this story enters.
Marc Dean Millot, a writer on education policy and someone who has not been overly critical of charter schools and their “education entrepreneurs” in the past, was contracted for 6 months to write on the Scholastic blog, “This Week in Education.” Millot had the temerity to pose some questions about those conflicts of interest at the Department of Education and had asked Sec. Duncan to nick this issue in the bud quickly.
I have now heard the same thing from three independent credible sources — the fix is in on the U.S. Department of Education’s competitive grants, in particular Race to the Top (RTTT) and Investing in Innovation (I3). Secretary Duncan needs to head this off now, by admitting that he and his team have potential conflicts of interests with regard to their roles in grant making, recognizing that those conflicts are widely perceived by potential grantees, and explaining how grant decisions will be insulated from interference by the department’s political appointees.
For his troubles, he was immediately sacked and the offending post removed. Fortunately, nothing is completely lost on the internet and you can read a cached version of his “Connect the Dots” piece here.
Even more chilling is Diane Ravitch’s predictions for the future, regardless of whether Secretary Duncan cleans up this apparent conflict of interest.
As hundreds and possibly thousands more charter schools open, we will see many financial and political scandals. We will see corrupt politicians and investors putting their hands into the cashbox. We will see corrupt deals where public school space is handed over to entrepreneurs who have made contributions to the politicians making the decisions. We will see many more charter operators pulling in $400,000-500,000 a year for their role, not as principals, but as “rainmakers” who build warm relationships with politicians and investors.
When someday we trace back how large segments of our public school system were privatized and how so many millions of public dollars ended up in the pockets of high-flying speculators instead of being used to reduce class size, repair buildings, and improve teacher quality, we will look to the origins of the Race to the Top and to the interlocking group of foundations, politicians, and entrepreneurs who created it.
We indeed are entering another chapter in the deepening decline in support for public education. Our looming deficit in Madison is just one example of many across the country. What we shouldn’t have to battle so vigourously is our elected and unelected “advocates.” Sadly, this also includes some of our own friends in the state capital.
The video at the top is from the 2006 Madison referendum campaign, since the voter turnout on Tuesday is expected to be small I thought a little shame might help bring people out.
We are in a new era of referenda. Referenda for building purposes remain much the same, except in many districts property tax increases to make up for drops in state support have made passage more difficult. Operating referenda are also more difficult for the same reason, but there is a twist. Previously the biggest financial issue was that rising costs — many of them mandated or near mandated — outstripped allowed revenue increases (the revenue caps). This problem remains, but in many districts it has receded in importance because the drop in state support has made simply taxing to the max — using all the allowed revenue authority — and the large property tax increases that result intolerable to many voters and Board members. According to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, a recent record 98 out of 427 districts — including Madison — did not tax to the max for the current year. Every indication is that the percent will be higher this year. For these districts, increased revenue authority via a referendum is irrelevant. These districts have to cut to address the gap between allowed revenues and costs (like always) and are cutting to limit property tax increases. It is a new era.
It is this situation that leading our schools into crisis and making our schools the center of conflict instead aspirations. It is this situation that inspired the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools to launch the Penny for Kids campaign to increase state education funding and improve how it is allocated. Click the links, find out more and sign the petition.
On Tuesday, eight districts will have a total of ten referenda before the voters; four for construction borrowing, and six for operating expenses (one recurring and five nonrecurring). You can see all the referenda details here.
The Bangor district is asking for $580,000 in demolition and construction debt authority (for the old high school gym, this would be a no interest ARRA loan) and three years on additional revenue authority at $350,000 a year. The district referendum page is here. Here is what the LaCrosse Tribunereported on the operating referendum:
“We’ve pared things down, and even if this one passes we will still have to look at ways to reduce our budget and conserve our expenses,” Superintendent Roger Foegen said. “But the board felt in these tight economic times we couldn’t ask for any more than we are currently getting.”
The district is in the final year of a three-year $350,000 operating referendum, he said.
Without renewal, it will face a $400,000 to $450,000 deficit next school year.
The district already trimmed $600,000 from its annual budget before going to the public three years ago, Foegen said.
“Because of the state funding formula and the things that go into it, we need to maintain it if we are going to keep our current programs and personnel,” he said.
Foegen said the plan will cost the owner of a $100,000 property an estimated $78 in 2010-11; $39 in 2011-12; and $13 in 2012-13.
The Brodhead district has a four year non recurring measure on the ballot. Here is how it breaks down:
2010-2011 $635,000
2011-2012 $810,000
2012-2013 $855,000
2013-2014$1,285,000
Total $3,585,000
The district has a nice referendum page here. It includes a list of cuts made sine 2003-4, which is good reminder that the current crisis comes on top of 16 years of cuts because — by state design — revenues have bee kept below cost-to-continue. You can read the whole list at the link, here are the programs:
Programs or Activities Eliminated
– Jazz Band II eliminated – FHA (Future Homemakers) eliminated
– FBLA (Future Business Leaders) eliminated
– drivers’ education eliminated
– District funding for 7th grade camp eliminated (still runs thru funding by student activity account)
– access to HSED/GED programming at BlackHawk Tech reduced and restricted
– greenhouse no longer heated by District funds (now provided by FFA Alumni)
– eliminated French as an elective class at the HS
The School Board has identified staff and program cuts that will be necessary to balance the budget without a successful referendum. These would include: three elementary teaching positions (moving all grades to three sections, regardless of the number of students in the grade); three teaching positions between the high school and middle school, plus two elective programs (and their teachers) at the high school and middle school; one guidance counselor; two administrators; the high school adventures class; the long-distance learning program; and ALL extra-curricular positions at the high school and middle school. These cuts would be phased in over the next two years.
And, what is the impact of these cuts? Class sizes in the elementary school would increase from the current 18-23 students, to classes in the high twenties. Class sizes in the high school would increase from the current mid-twenties to around thirty, with some classes pushing thirty-five students. With the larger class sizes, students would receive less of the individual attention many of them need to be successful in school. Curriculum development and innovative new programs would fall by the wayside. Students would have less access to advanced coursework, at a time when they most need it to compete with graduates of other schools. And, access to some elective programs that prepare students for specific career fields might be eliminated altogether. Students having problems at school or home would have less access to a counselor.
Remember that Governor Jim Doyle and the Democratic leadership continue to boast of having “protected education.” With “friends” like that — who look the other way while cuts like these are on the table — education doesn’t need enemies.
The Janesville Gazette reports another factor at play in the Bradhead and other votes on Tuesday (the Beloit Daily News includes similar observations):
District officials have “real serious concerns” if the referendum fails because families will have three days to file by the state’s open enrollment deadline to attend different districts, [Superintendent Chuck] Deery said.
“I’ve been hearing from quite a few families that that’s exactly what they’re going to do,” he said. “They won’t wait around (to see the board make the cuts). They want those activities for their kids.”
This is the death spiral. State policies and budgets force program cuts, enrollment declines as temporarily better off districts poach students, accelerating the cuts.
general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $7,600,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of remodeling existing physical education facilities for use as performance center/auditorium, constructing replacement physical education facilities, adding additional elementary classrooms, renovating and remodeling food service and music facilities, and acquiring equipment
Green Lake has the only recurring measure this time around. For reasons that should be obvious recurring referenda make more sense. The Bangor situation described at the top of this post is a perfect example. Three years ago they went through the work to pass a nonrecrring referendum; now three years later they are having to ask again. The reality of a system that does not provide for adequate revenues isn’t likely to change soon (here are those links to help work for change: Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools, Penny for Kids, School Finance Network and the AMPS “Take Action” page) and districts and communities repeatedly “going to referendum” is a divisive waste of resources.
The open enrollment issue is part of this story too. Green Lake has implemented environmental education and International Baccalaureate programs in an attempt to reverse the demographically-driven declining enrollment by attracting new students.
QUESTION: What happens if the referendum vote is no?
ANSWER: The district would have to cut $660,000 in the next budget, and there would be no additional funds for maintenance or technology. This would be followed by more cuts each year after that. There would be program and staffing reductions. Suffice it to say, the school would not be the same as it is today.
QUESTION: Has the district made cuts?
ANSWER: Yes, in the past four years the cuts have totaled over $600,000. This has allowed the district to extend the 2001 referendum extra years beyond the five years it was predicated to last.
[U]pating classrooms; adding a new science wing; converting the current instructional media center and science labs to a larger library and media area and computer classroom; and upgrading heating, ventilation and air conditioning.
This is really the basic essentials, and if we turn this down I don’t know where we will go,” said Hilbert Supt. Tony Sweere, expressing hope that more voters “can get behind this.”
“It amounts to a 25- to 30-year fix for the middle/high school campus, which hasn’t been touched since it was built in 1974-75,” he said. “This will upgrade everything.”
A larger construction referendum failed by 89 votes in November 2008.
Rhinelander is another district with both construction and operating expenses on the ballot (referendum page here). The state finance squeeze has been particularly tough on Rhinelander. They’ve tried repeatedly for relief from referenda without much success. Since 2005, four construction debt referenda have failed, as have five operating votes. The only one to pass was an HVAC upgrade paid for by a one-time operating levy increase.
The current construction ask is for ‘for remodeling and repairing existing buildings” and would also take advantage of the ARRA interest savings.
“The way the state’s school aid formula works means that every school district in the state eventually will go bankrupt, some sooner than later. In time, every district will need to go to referendum, asking residents to exceed the revenue caps,” she said.
State aid to the Rhinelander district has dropped precipitously in the past decade. In 2000-01, state aid was $13.2 million, approximately 52 percent of the general budget. By 2008-09, state aid had dropped to $7.7 million, approximately 28 percent of the general budget, requiring residents to shoulder more of the cost of running the district. State aid is estimated to be at zero for this district in four years. The adjacent graph charts the decline of state aid to the district since 2001 and the corresponding rise in property taxes.
Year Property Taxes State Aid
2000-01 $12,035,267 $13,249,469
2001-02 $13,460,627 $12,387,722
2002-03 $14,108,872 $12,145,111
2003-04 $15,351,872 $11,337,277
2004-05 $17,012,020 $10,089,233
2005-06 $15,613,885 $11,693,310
2006-07 $16,560,823 $10,859,344
2007-08 $18,600,885 $ 9,314,011
2008-09 $19,875,455 $ 7,721,621
The district’s annual budget from state aid and tax revenues for 2008-09 was $27.59 million, down $317,820 from the previous year. Comparatively, in 2001-02, the annual budget from these sources was $25.84 million.
Here are the proposed cuts if the referendum fails (click on image for pdf):
Closing schools, cutting extra-curriculars, raising class sizes, stopping book purchases….throwing the future in the trash.
Shiocton is another example of the false attraction of nonrecurring referenda, compounded by the squeeze of state defunding. Their four year referendum is expiring but because of state cuts in education investments, they had tor raise property taxes last year by 20%. The plan now is to ask for another nonrecurring operating referendum below cost-to-continue and combine that with cuts (this is similar to what Madison did with the “Partnership Plan“).
The referendum asks voters’ permission to exceed state revenue limits by $500,000 for the 2010-11 school year, $600,000 for 2011-12 and $700,000 in each of the following three school years.
Shiocton school Supt. Chris VanderHeyden said the district faces a $900,000 shortfall next school year if it does not take this step to help balance the budget by covering the cost of preserving district education programs.
Regardless of whether the referendum passes or fails, the school district of 790 students in pre- kindergarten through grade 12 will need to cut $400,000 to stay in the black, VanderHeyden said.
About 65 percent of the $400,000 will come in staffing cuts, he said, which includes a reduction of 3.5 teachers and two paraprofessionals. The rest will come from such areas as departmental budgets, athletics, staff development, textbook adoptions and food service. “We will make the cuts but we also need the referendum to balance the budget,” he said. …
The increase this year was up nearly 20 percent. Either way, the tax rate will drop next year, VanderHeyden said. If the referendum passes, property taxes will drop $107 for the owner of a $100,000 home. If it fails, the property taxes will drop $278 for the owner of a $100,000 home.
So if it passes, there will be major cuts and taxes will go down. If it fails, there will be even larger cuts and taxes will go down more. Where is the choice for fully funding education?
Last but not least is Three Lakes. This is one of those districts caught in declining enrollment and relatively high property wealth. It also another district in the last year of a nonrecurring operating referendum. Three Lakes is in worse financial shape, has been squeezed harder, have been cutting for years; according to the district figures, without a successful referendum they will run out of money in February 2011.
Therefore they are asking:
…that the revenues included in the School District budget for three years beginning with the 2010-2011 school year and ending with the 2012-2013 school year be authorized to exceed the revenue limit specified in Section 121.91, Wisconsin Statutes, by $1,517,469 a year, for non-recurring purposes consisting of funding operating expenses.
Three Lakes District Administrator George Karling said the override voters are being asked to approve is necessary to fund current programs and amounts to about half of the annual revenue that has been lost, compared to 10 years ago.
With about $900,000 in the district’s general fund, Karling said Three Lakes would only have funds available to operate through February 2011 absent approval of the override.
Informational material the district sent to voters indicates the district is not allowed to operate at a deficit and would “become insolvent and close in the near future” if the referendum fails.
School Board Clerk Tom Rulseh said the district’s budget is “really tight,” with the budgeted expenditures of $10,507,798.50 for 2009-10 down about $80,000 from the previous school year, while the revenue override is necessary to continue to operate.
“I don’t know where the money would come from” if the referendum fails, Rulseh said.
…When asked whether it would be necessary to approve another revenue override three years from now, Karling said he hopes state lawmakers change Wisconsin’s school funding formula by then to provide more money for Three Lakes, which is considered a “property rich” district and receives little state funding.
He said proposals on the state level to boost funding for K-12 education include an additional 1 percent sales tax, which is known as “A Penny for Kids” and backed by the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools, and a “65 percent hold harmless” provision to lessen the amount of lost revenue because of declining enrollment.
They also note that dissolving the district would likely lead to even higher property taxes.
That’s the roundup. More votes in April. Before closing I wnat to again share something and suggest you follow my lead. When I do these posts that involve districts all over the state, I often take a look around their web sites. I am always struck by the good work being done, some traditional, some innovative but all a source of pride for the students, the educators, the families and the communities. All the sites are linked at their names, so I suggest you do the same. It is a good reminder of why education is so important and why we need to do better recognizing that. When you are done, help Wisconsin do better by getting involved for change.
The main Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education meeting this week will be in closed session. There are some other Board related meetings this week that are open. The full notice of all the meetings is here.
Here is what the closed session notice says:
Monday, February 15 5:00 p.m. Special Board of Education Meeting in Executive Session
Renewal or Non-Renewal of the Contracts of Individual Employees pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§19.85(1)(c) and 118.24
Potential Reorganization within the District Affecting Individuals’ Employment and Employment Contracts, including Extensions or Non-extensions of said Contracts, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§19.85(1)(c)
Adjournment
There are very specific statutorily required procedures for renewal/non renewal deliberations and a closed session is part of them (a non-renewed employee may request a subsequent public hearing).
I’m not sure on the closed session “potential reorganization” discussion as a legal matter or as policy. Not feeling qualified to offer much more than my doubts on the legal issues, I’ll stick to policy, where everyone is qualified to offer an opinion (ain’t America grand?).
There are two parts to the policy issue.
The first is whether all discussions of a potential district reorganization should be had in public. I think they should. I think the public should know what our employees and our elected officials are saying about the current organization and how it might be improved. I always side on more openness.
The second is whether decisions about the structure of an organization of the size and complexity and MMSD should be based on the skills, knowledge, competencies and incompetencies of current employees. I think the answer is no. If these are not part of the decision-making , then there is no reason (certainly no legal justification) for a closed session.
Employees come and go and can be let go (in Wisconsin administrator contracts are limited to two years); the district goes on. Plugging individuals in or unplugging them is not a long-range organizational strategy. Decide what works from a structural point of view and then find the people for the slots. If current employees don’t fit the slots, they should not be renewed, but defining the slots should be prior, separate and public. Even worse is designing the slot to fit an individual’s skill set. The individual will not be there forever and then the organization has an unfillable hole.
So I’d like an open session on reorganization, hope that nothing substantive of the reorganization is discussed in closed session and understand the need for closed sessions on employees. Maybe I’m just curious about the reorganization.
For the other meetings, on Tuesday at noon there is a meeting of the ad hoc Board Committee on revising the Ethics Policy (nothing linked the week, but this from last week); on Wednesday at 8:00 AM the School Food Initiative Committee will discuss ‘”Lunch Lessons” covering all aspects of MMSD food service” (I can’t find any official reference to this group except this from the week of January 25 meeting notice); and on Thursday at 1:30 (at building services on Plaum Rd), the 4-Year-Old Kindergarten Subcommittee on Curriculum will meet. The first thing on the agenda for the last is “Open Meetings Laws,” and that’s a good thing. N o info on the sub-committee, but the main 4K page is here and the Advisory Council page is here (with only the January 26 minutes posted, although they have been meeting for over a year). I do want to note that the times and/or locations of these meetings are not the most accessible. That will happen sometimes but you want it kept to a minimum.
I guess the theme this week was open governance, open meetings and open records. I’m glad to make that the theme, these are essential to democracy.
One good thing about the school governance schedule this week is that everyone can make time to attend the Progressive Dane School Board Candidate Forum, Sunday February 21, 1:30 PM at JC Wright Middle School, 1717 Fish Hatchery Rd. (info, fliers to print and post, and more, here). See you there!
Just some of the stories about the budget struggles of Wisconsin districts in the last week or so (linked and excerpted with emphases added). Bad all over.
The Madison School District is facing a $30 million budget hole for 2010-11, a dilemma that could force school board members this spring to order massive cuts in programs, dramatically raise property taxes, or impose a combination of both.
District officials will unveil a list of possible cuts — which could include layoffs — next month, with public hearings to follow.
“This is a big number,” School Board President Arlene Silveira said. “So we have to look at how we do business, we have to look at efficiencies, we have to look at our overall budget, and we are going to have to make hard decisions. We are in a horrible situation right now, and we do have to look at all options.”
…
“I think what’s happened is the state of Wisconsin has effectively passed along the tax problem to the local level, in terms of either we raise taxes to support public education, or public education isn’t going to be supported,” said Erik Kass, assistant superintendent for business services.
“We’re going to have to start cutting some of these more main items,” [Superintendent Craig] Bender said, adding that every dollar in the budget is important to someone. “We didn’t start this process because we thought this was the best way to improve education, but we’re doing it though believing we’ll try to make it better wherever we can.”
“We can address things one-by-one as we have been,” he [Board member Sean McNevin] said, “or we can take a top-down approach,” and hand the administration a set number of cuts with which to grapple.
“Every fiscal cut we make tends to lay us on the road of mediocrity … but at some point it’s going to have to happen.”
[Baraboo High School Principal Machell] Schwarz said the district had been dealing with slim budgets for the past 10 years, however.
“We need to continue looking at the big picture, and stop focusing on money, and focus more on kids,” she said.
The Monona Grove school district is scrambling for ideas to plug a budget hole of about a million dollars, including a proposal to consolidate the Monona community’s two elementary schools, Maywood School and Winnequah School.
…
“We have to look at every option. We have budgetary problems just like everyone else because of the state funding system and the poor economy,” [District Superintendent Craig] Gerlach noted in a phone interview on Thursday.
…
“I don’t want to close a school. But we have a predicted $1 million deficit every year for the next five years. We can’t balance the budget without threatening programs in our district that people have come to expect. In the long run, we can’t afford the luxury of this school,” he [Peter Sobol, Monona School Board vice president] said, noting that $250,000 in annual savings could keep four or five teachers in the classroom.
But, nearly one in four districts, including Oshkosh, chose to tax below their caps this year despite the budget squeeze. The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, an independent research group,reports 98 out of 427 districts did not tax to their revenue limits.
…
The change, he [Dale Knapp, research director for the Taxpayers Alliance] said, likely stems from a significant financial shakeup in the thick of a floundering economy. State lawmakers last summer cut aid to schools for the first time since the state’s education funding system was established in 1993. Local property tax payers were left with the burden of making up the difference if districts didn’t cut spending.
…
“When you talk to residents about the cuts being made to your school programs and then ask for a 10 percent or higher increase in the school levy, there’s a disconnect there, and that’s hard to take in,” Knapp said.
…
Many parents and educators in the district, along with some board members, have complained that cutting more than necessary only exacerbated today’s budget problems.
“It’s time for us to tax to the full levy. I’ve thought about that for a long time,” board member Karen Bowen said during a January school board discussion about the issue. “I don’t see how we can do good things for our kids if we just slash and burn.“
More from Oshkosh. First, some videos from WBAY-TV (I’m not sure of the right order, but they are all worth a watch).
For those who don’t watch, here’s the basic situation as described in this story:
The Oshkosh School Board had some difficult decisions to make Wednesday night — facing a multi-million dollar budget shortfall and making unfavorable cuts. The district faces a $4 million deficit.
In a late-night vote, after hours of discussion, the school board voted to increase the student-teacher ratio at North and West high schools to 25-to-1. This effectively eliminates an estimated 35 or 36 teaching jobs.
However, the school board rejected a plan to consolidate five of its middle schools into four buildings. Two elementary schools would close, and Perry Tipler Middle School would become an elementary school. Now, Tipler will remain a middle school.
The board took no action on the possibility of raising taxes.
A big crowd was on-hand for the school board meeting. About 80 people spoke out — many endorsing a double-digit tax hike to avoid drastic cuts.
The emotional audience was mostly teachers, parents, and students. Many said the cuts being proposed were too much.
“Some of the cuts are catastrophic,” high school senior Derek Maters said. “If you look at the depth of them, it’s reaching from people who are looking at a tech career to people looking at a college career.“
High school students easily accounted for most of the crowd at Alberta Kimball Auditorium at Oshkosh West High School, where hundreds gathered to hear the results of the meeting. One student presented the school board a petition with more then 480 student signatures opposing the cuts.
“For those who are not able to escape the district, you’re condemning their success,” said high school student Dereck Mathers, referring a report created by the high schools’ assistant principals detailing the impact of teacher layoffs on course offerings.
The report lists 43 West High classes and 67 North High classes that would no longer be offered next year if the resolution passes. The report predicts 787 West students and 1,142 North students would be impacted
“The problem with this is that if these courses are cut, many students will have to compromise for a lower level (education),” said Connor Schroeder, vice president of West High School’s student government.
West High School junior Ryan Steffen said he believes the cuts would create more impersonal relationship between students and over-worked teachers.
“I would like to speak for all the teachers because I’d like to not see them cut,” he said. “I know the passion they bring into work.”
Reading and hearing these students made me think of our older son. He is at West and MMSD high school students are in the process of choosing classes for next year. I told him that it is very possible some of the classes he picks will not be offered due to budget pressures. Hard to tell him that. He’s volunteered on referendum campaigns and for school board candidates. He did this because we taught him that being involved was a way to preserve and expand educational opportunities. We’ve won those battles, we even won the battles to “Take Back the Assembly,” but the Assembly took back the victories. Hard to tell him that too.
Budget forecasts suggest the Kimberly Area School District could have a $3.1 million structural deficit in five years should factors including state aid and teacher-to-student ratios remain unchanged.
…
[Scott] Gralla, [a consultant with PMA Financial Network] said there’s optimism that legislators will eventually restore higher funding levels to schools. Kimberly isn’t alone in the depth of deficits projected.
“This is not out of the norm at all for districts your size,” Gralla said.
About $720,000 worth of reductions are planned for next school year, about $485,000 of which will come from the removal or reduction of 11 Nekoosa School District teaching staff members, according to documents provided to the public at Tuesday’s Nekoosa School Board meeting.
The plan includes eliminating a math and technical education teacher position from Nekoosa High School, a first-grade teaching job at Humke Elementary because of enrollment numbers, and English and social studies teachers at Alexander Middle School.
Several other positions are likely to have hours reduced, including choral music and art at Alexander, and business education and family and consumer education at the high school. A high school counseling position being vacated this summer because of a retirement also will not be filled.
“We are absolutely in financial crisis,” Superintendent Wayne Johnson said. “Virtually every school district in the state of Wisconsin is a little worse or a little better off than we are. The state funding formula is flat-out broke.”
“We had cut as much as possible without cutting education,” he [candidate Joe Kasle] said. “We did not cut the arts, feeling that is part of having well rounded students. We had fund balance left to get through only 18 months. If the referendum had failed, we would have had to go to referendum again. After 17 years of 2 percent funding from the state and 4 to 5 percent increases in costs, there was just no money.”
That’s it for now. I have more links and stories, but this is too depressing to do all in a couple of sittings.
Week two of the agenda rundown experiment. The big important things are the La Follette Area attendance info (now including East Area and West Area) and the Budget Timeline.
As explained in the first post in this series, the Madison Metropolitan School district Board of Education first sees most agenda items when meeting in committee and then meets the following week as the Board of Education to reconsider and take action. Last week was a committee week and this week is a Board week. I’m not going to repeat the commentary from last week — I suggest reading that post if you haven’t already —, but will give some updates — big updates on the La Follette Area assignments, ones that stretch into the West and East Areas — and add a few things. There are also some new items to cover (and one In missed).
The Board will meet at 5:00 PM in closed session to consider an extension of Superintendent Dan Nerad’s contract and student disciplinary matters. The contract extension will be voted on at the open meeting.
The open meeting will begin at 6:00 Pm, Monday February 8, 2010, Doyle Administration Bldg. 545 W. Dayton Street Madison, WI 53703 in the Auditorium. There will be public appearances at the beginning. Like almost all Board meetings, these will be carried by MMSD-TV. Here it is.
BOARD PRESIDENT’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
The Foundation for Madison’s Public Schools Employee Giving Campaign is underway
The Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation calls for applicants for its College Access Champion Award for teachers
Eleven Madison students have qualified as Presidential Scholar Finalists
The Schools of Hope 5th Annual Multicultural dinner will be held on March 3, 2010
SUPERINTENDENT’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
*A Proposed Board Policy Modification regarding Public Appearances at School Board Meetings (Board Policy 1222)—Appendix LLL-8-26.
Two minor changes. One specifically bars people from ceding time to other people. All speakers are allotted 3 minutes, so this says that you can’t get a group of 10 and have one person speak for a half hour. The other encourages people who have written testimony to summarize and submit. Last time there were proposed changes, I protested vociferously.
These seem reasonable, but I do have two observations. Even worse than last time, these changes will be voted on with little or no opportunity for the public to weigh in. The first hint was the posting of the agenda after 5:00 PM on Friday and the vote is Monday….if you wonder why people feel alienated from the district, consider what it says to change the way public input is taken without giving the public a real chance to have their say. Second, it would seem to me that A) These have not been big problems in the past and the B) The administration should have much more important things to do than mess around with this (like the Equity Report, which has now been informally promised for March, 21 months late and right in the middle of the budget mess).
I said a lot about this last week, so I’m just going to offer a video on the use of Value Added in teacher compensation from Prof. Daniel Willingham and two semi related links on “standards” and “accountability.” Here is the video:
This comes with a recommended timeline and process that begins with hiring a consultant, continues with further outside services and ends with a report.
OK, I will repeat some things. I think the Core Measures are pretty good and it doesn’t look like there will be much more than conceptual guidance from the Strategic Plan process come budget time. This is good, bad and inevitable. Next year there will be some data on the Core Measures and other things, but this data will not give easy answers (see more here). I generally think this is good, data shouldn’t “drive.” The bad is that some will feel that it is a promise betrayed and tat it would be nice if there were easy answers, whether from data or elsewhere.
There was a lot of dissatisfaction with this at last week’s meeting, much of it for reasons similar to those I expressed. Here and elsewhere it was very heartening to hear Board Members cite Equity principals from the policy and event some concepts from the Equity Task Force that did not make it directly and explicitly into the policy. Lucy Mathiak deserves special mention and praise.
The two big equity things here are technology allocations and attendance assignments. The one real plan brought forward last week involved moving 155 students with 115 of those being low income. That’s 74% of the kids moved (the low income % for the area is 55%). Most of the low income students involved are from the Moorland and that area was to be split between two schools. No resident of that area serves on the committee. They had no voice in the recommendation to move their children. I say again, is it any wonder people feel alienated from the district.
We now have plans 17-24 (last week we only had plan 14). It isn’t clear if these have been reviewed by the committee. It is clear that there has been no opportunity for community input on these yet.
Plan 17 moves Nuestro Mundo to Lowell. I like that at least they are “thinking outside the attendance area.” Does next to nothing for socioeconomic disparities. About 1,100 students would change schools in this plan (that’s a lot); about 600 are low income. I don’t believe the Lowell (or any East Area school communities have been privy to this process).
Plan 18 is labeled “Balance Low Income” and it does that, greatly narrowing the disparities. 728 students would be reassigned of whom 342 are low income.
Plan 19 is “Pair Lowell Emerson, Move Nuestro Mundo.” Obviously this would mean huge changes for Lowell, Emerson and Nuestro Mundo. Not the kind of thing you rush into and unfortunately we seem to now be at the rush stage (unless they do another year of band aids). 1,078 students are reassigned; 653 low income. Overall, little or no change in income disparities among schools.
Plan 20 goes into the East and West Areas. In general I like the district-wide approach for exploring options, but you have to do these things transparently, publicly and with all parties at the table. This hasn’t happened. None of it.
On the table in addition to La Follette area schools are, Franklin-Randall, Marquette-Lapham, Emerson and Lowell. Some minimal changes to income disparity (with Franklin-Randall — one of the lowest low income school communities in the district — in the mix, I would have hoped for more, like maybe keep the Bay View kids in the pair and move some non-low income areas to the Lincoln-Midvale pair). 492 students are reassigned, 272 low income (quick note, I have not been listing English Language Learner numbers because availability of services can shape decision-making in ways that I’m not clear on).
Plan 21 is similar to Plan 20, with a choice component and some tweaks. It too involves moving Bay View from Franklin-Randall to Marquette-Lapham, current Allis students would go to Franklin-Randall, some Marquette-Lapham to Emerson and some Kennedy to Elvehjem. 242 stdenst involeved; 163 low income. Again, little change in low income disparities.
Plan 22 moves Schenk students to Emerson and Lowell and Nuestro Mundo to Schenk. 573 students involved; 387 low income; no real change in disparities (I’m tired of writing that).
Plan 23 moves Whitehorse to Sennett, Nuestro Mundo to the Whitehorse/Schenk Building. That looks like closing a Middle School to me. 893 students moved; 511 low income, no real changes in disparities.
Plan 24 is all within the La Follette Area. 166 students moved; 96 low income, some, but no much change in the disparities.
To be honest, I have only glanced at these plans, but I plan to study them and hope others will do the same.
There is no nice way to say this, but Supt. Dan Nerad has made a mess of the process part of his first Boundary change. It hasn’t been transparent, it hasn’t addressed equity, it hasn’t been thorough, it hasn’t been public and now that these matters are starting to be considered, the timeline is out the window. Any way you look at it this is going to be happening in the middle of an ugly budget season, unless there is a restart. That did not have to happen. The results may end up being very good, but much work is left to be done and the first steps were bad.
One last thing is that with the probable budget cuts, class size will surely be on the table (along with the allocation of SAGE contracts). I see no awareness of this in the planning and projections. Another mistake.
My summation thus far is first too little; now too much, too late and all too top down.
It isn’t clear at all what the next steps are. I think there needs to be tweaks to get through next year (if the class size stuff with the budget doesn’t take care of that) and a post-budget restart. Not a continuation, but a restart; everybody possibly involved at the table, very public, very transparent.
I missed this in last week’s agenda post. About $10,000 million over 4 years. For next year $700,000 comes from the last year of the referendum, which means mostly local tax dollars and $500,ooo each year comes from general operating budget (more local tax dollars). The rest is ARRA and other dedicated outside sources (including a Microsoft settlement!).
This is good stuff that needs to be done. There are other good things that also need to be done. We are going to find it difficult to do all the good things that need to be done.
I want also point out that Lucy Mathiak again raised issues of equity in the priorities and allocations. The answer was that all schools would be taken care of. A good answer, maybe not the best…the best would have been that we have prioritized some of our neediest schools.
Here is the proposed remaining schedule. It may be changed Monday by the Board, it may change for other reasons as things go forward. Sorry about the multiple images, it was the quickest way to include it in the post itself and I think that this is important enough to justify the aesthetic issues.
I’m not seeing much public outreach in the first phases, and I can’t help but notice that both “final Board approval of reductions” and layoff notices go out prior to the mandated public hearing. I don’t like it as policy and I don’t think Madison will like it as reality. At best, the meetings prior will be filled with very confused and angry public testimony. The anger is inevitable, but the confusion can be minimized if things are done right and the timing of the public input can be such that it maximizes consideration and interferes minimally with Board’s efficiency. I don’t see those with this schedule.
This is very bad and different budget. The revenue authority is there to keep cuts to a minimum, but the reductions in state aid mean doing that brings property tax increases that are hard to swallow. Consequently there will be up to $25 million in cuts on the table and likely cuts made in the $5 to $10 million range (this is guess work on my part). The results will not be good, but the process can be.
There was some good discussion last week about how to structure this and the balance between maximize savings and when that savings will do the most good. I expect that to continue this Monday. Hard choices and complex matters.
This allows Baird to consult with the district, do the bond/debt issues and bid on the bond/debt issues. I can see what is in it for Baird, not sure what is in it for us, unless the increased competition of one more potential bidder gets us better rates.
I’ll repeat that I think Dan Nerad more than deserves a renewal (yes I criticize, but the job is hard and criticism doesn’t mean I don’t like and respect him). I’ll also repeat that I think a pay freeze should at least be considered. And I’ll add that I would like to see at least portions of the Superintendent evaluation attached to this and discussed with this (I may well have missed it, but I don’t recall much public on that).
Also graduations and HS Equivalency Diplomas, Playground sign, Cooperative Gymnastics and Hockey Teams, Server Upgrade, the allocations for the Desktop Instructional Technology Purchases and theScholastic System 44 (reading remediation) Pilot Project and grants and donations.
I have no idea what this is about. I guess it can’t hurt to review, but it doesn’t seem pressing. With the district’s role in TIF’s some lobbying rules might be in order.
That’s all folks. Heck of a lot for one meeting. Diverse, complex and important work for the Board.
Last week one Board member thanked me for doing this. After saying you are welcome, I told him I thought that since most of this week’s agenda paralleled last week’s it would be an easy week for me to get the post done. I was wrong. Many changes that needed attention and explication. I hope next week is easy.
AMPS 