Category Archives: Best Practices

by | January 4, 2010 · 3:40 pm

Equity, Diversity and TAG in MMSD — What They are Reading and More

John Rury on Ruby K. Payne

(article being discussed is subscription only)

I’ve previously expressed my thoughts on the Madison Metropolitan School District’s Talented and Gifted plan and equity issues (here, here and Robert Godfrey also posted on this here).  At the January 4, 2010 meetings, the Board of Education received an update on the plan.  From reading this update, things are worse than I had feared.

Among the materials identified as being used for staff development is a book by Ruby K. Payne, whose other work is the subject of the video above.  They are also employing The Cluster Grouping Handbook by Susan Winebrenner and Dina Brulles.  I’d like to offer some relevant quotes:

“The typical pattern in poverty for discipline is to verbally chastise the child, or physically beat the child, then forgive and feed him/her”

—–

“The poor simply see jail as a part of life and not necessarily always bad. Local jails provide food and shelter and, as a general rule, are not as violent or dangerous as state incarceration.” (Emphasis added)

—–

“And one of the rules of generational poverty is this: [women] may need to use [their] bod[ies] for survival. After all, that is all that is truly yours. Sex will bring in money and favors. Values are important, but they don’t put food on the table—or bring relief from intense pressure.”  (Emphasis added)

—-

“Also, individuals in poverty are seldom going to call the police, for two reasons: First, the police may be looking for them; second, the police are going to be slow to respond.”  (Emphasis added)

All from Ruby K. Payne, A framework for understanding poverty.

“Throughout life we all seek like-minded people with whom to work and play; we are much more comfortable with people who understand and accept us as we are.”  (Emphasis added)

Susan Winebrenner and Dina Brulles, Cluster Grouping Handbook

“I have repeatedly pointed out that people prefer the company of people like themselves, that this is natural and healthy, and that we should organize our society on this assumption.”  (Emphasis added)

—–

“Assumptions about police bias are especially common among minority groups that have the most to gain from good relations with the police. Blacks, in particular, are convinced of police “racism.” In extreme cases, this belief leads to murderous rampages like that of Brian Nichols with which this report begins. It is not an exaggeration to say that his victims might be alive today if the facts in this report were widely known. In countless less severe cases, a belief in police bias leads to suspicion, resentment, and lack of cooperation, all of which make it harder for the police to do their jobs, and more likely that minorities will suffer from crimes that could have been solved or prevented. How often do assumptions about police—and societal—racism so anger blacks that they go beyond lack of cooperation to crime itself? It is profoundly destructive for minorities to have exaggerated resentments toward the society in which they live.”  (Emphasis added)

Jared Taylor, “Reply to Tim Wise,” and “The Color of Crime.”

The last two quotes — from Jared Taylor — are ringers.  MMSD isn’t using anything from Taylor (that I know of); that’s good because the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled him one of “40 to Watch” and described him as a “courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist.”  That Taylor, Payne, Winebrenner, Brulles all sound so much alike says much about the slippery slope of grouping, racism and classism; that MMSD’s work on TAG has taken us onto this slope is shameful and inexcusable.

Other than vague references to “research and review of support models” reading Removing the Mask: Giftedness in Poverty by Paul D. Slocumb and Ruby K. Payne is the only activity listed under the heading “Support for Underrepresented Populations.  I haven’t had a chance to read this book, but in fairness I should say that from the excerpts I’ve seen, it does contain some good things about the limited utility of standardized tests in identification.  That’s good, but I doubt it outweighs the attitudes and assumptions that are at the core of Payne’s work (a little more on Payne below).

The update also references the TAG Advisory Committee.  A membership list and , agendas, but no minutes have been belatedly posted.  It is clear that by any measure the closed appointment process fell short of the stated goal of  “reflecting [the district’s] demographic make-up.”  I’d like to particularly point out that it is very unlikely that there are any people in poverty or without college degrees represented; 47% of MMSD students are low income, 58% of district families have at least one parent without a college education.   Such gross under-representation in a committee that is supposed to address under-representation is not a good sign.   They can do better and perhaps would have done better if they had reached out beyond “people like themselves.”

That raises another issue with the Advisory Committee.  Of the 33 names listed, 11 work for the district, at least one other has a contractual relationship with MMSD via a grant, 3 others have professional lives associated with Talented and Gifted education.  I don’t think that any TAG or grouping skeptics have been included.  “People like themselves,” not representative of the community.

If TAG in MMSD is live up to the promise of equity,  identification is key (support after identification is also essential).  The sections of the update dealing with identification indicate that little or no progress has been made toward more equitable identification procedures.  We are talking more of the same:  biased achievement tests (MAP, under consideration is yet another inappropriate test, the CogAT tests also under consideration are a mixed bag) and referrals (which research shows are more biased than the tests).  The district needs to move from achievement measures to aptitude assessments and until it has been demonstrated that TAG can be equitable, they need to go slow with labeling and grouping students.  Maya Cole and Lucy Mathiak raised some of this at the meeting

There is one small positive sign in a related area.   For years I have asked for demographic breakdowns of students being served by advanced programs and participating in advanced classes.  I’ve been ignored, I’ve been told the data didn’t exist, Ive been told I would be given the data shortly…finally Superintendent Dan Nerad told me that the data on students being served by TAG (part of what I’ve asked for, but not all of it) exists but is of poor quality and would not be released (I guess I could do a Freedom of Information request).  The good news is that one of the proposed Strategic Plan Core Measures is “Advanced Course Participation Rate.”  I have been assured that this and all the student related performance measures (including TAG participation) will be reported with disaggregated demographic breakdowns.  At least then we will have a baseline measure and one that I hope will spur better and more urgent action.

I’ll leave the MMSD issues for now on a positive note and move to a very few words about Ruby Payne

Payne’s work is based on little or no research, perpetuates stereotypes and reinforces  middle class hegemony.  There are many good critiques of Payne, but most are under copyright restrictions.  These and other entries from the blog Education and Class and this from the Journal of Educational Controversy are  good places to start.

So much of the critiques go back to the critique of Great Society Culture of Poverty/Cultural Deficit approaches.  In the wake of the Black Power Movement it became untenable to equate difference with deficits, (as Payne does).  Resurgent pluralism demanded that the strengths of various cultures be recognized and respected.  This is subtle in practice.  Few dispute that schools should give children the tools they need to thrive in a culture dominated by “middle class,” liberal, capitalist norms and mores.  What Payne and other deficit practitioners do is go beyond this by elevating these norms  and mores as superior.  In the process, the liberatory potential of schooling is abandoned.  It should go without saying that this is in conflict with the Cultural Relevance program and other aspects of the Strategic Plan.   Payne, like KIPP, wants to teach poor children to “work hard and be nice” and not how to change the system that produces and reproduces inequality.

I’m going to close with another video discussing Ruby Payne, this one from 14 year-old John Wittle (worth watching).

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized

by | December 7, 2009 · 4:55 pm

4K “Surplus” and other Board of Education Agenda Items (With Live Blogging)


Note: Because I was writing this as the meeting was going on, I did some live blogging.  I’ve taken out those portions of the post and linked them here.  They are mostly on the Reading Recovery report and proposal.  Some interesting things.  Worth reading or watching the video when it is up. — TJM

Please also note a correction/expansion in the Reading recovery section (12/08/200. 10:45 AM).

Monday, December 7 will be a very busy evening for the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education.  Tonight, among other things they will consider 4 year old kindergarten implementation plans and costs; Reading Recovery matters; a 3% total package increase for District Administrators; and Strategic Plan Performance Objectives and Measures, Core Performance Measures and First Priority Action Steps (with costs).  Unless I am mistaken, these will be discussed in Committees tonight and then come back to the Board for action next Monday and some, like 4k even later.  That’s the new system.

4 year Old Kindergarten

Since the Wisconsin State Journal article is misleading, I’ll start with that one. The headline calls 4K a “Junior Mint” (bad pun) and the article includes this passage:

Under state funding rules, the Madison School District would not be fully reimbursed for its 4K expenses until the third year of the program, when the district would actually reap a surplus from the state.

So during its first year in Madison public schools, 4K would run an estimated deficit between $2.64 million and $3.87 million. By year three, however, the program would show a surplus of close to $4 million. (emphasis added)

The big problem with this framing is that the projected surplus is not in state funding but in revenue limit authority and last I checked well over 80% of MMSD’s revenue limit authority is collected via local property taxes.

It makes a big difference which stack the coins come from, such a big difference that cuts in the state share induced the Madison Board and many others to not use all of their authority this year.  They thought that property taxpayers couldn’t or wouldn’t stand for it.  As a result, MMSD will not be doing maintenance projects that had been previously funded via a voter approved referendum.

I don’t see any discussion of where the start up costs  will come from (maybe I missed it), but my guess is the district’s growing Fund Balance.

One thing I will say for the MMSD is that they used a conservative (and depressing) $200 per pupil annual revenue limit increase for their projections.

I don’t know enough about costs to judge those projections.  I’m a little skeptical of the surplus in general because almost across the board, across the state revenue limits do not keep up with cost-to-continue.  I do know that we should try to move 4k forward if we can afford it and these look like viable options.

Reading Recovery

There is a long and controversial history with the Reading Recovery remediation in Madison.  I’ve always been supportive of the program, but a bit skeptical of the claimed local “success” rate (if the reality was anywhere near what was being reported, then much good and even “bang for the buck” was happening).  The report linked above gives some better data, a lower “success” rate and some options for the future.  I’m very glad to see this level of analysis.  I haven’t had the time to do more than skim, but I’m more confident of the conclusions than I was previously.

With that in mind, I would tentatively support the third of the three options offered (the administration recommends the second).

I especially like the pre-K to 5 continuity and the inclusion aspects.

Correction/Expansion:  I confess to having only skimmed when I posted earlier.  Having looked closer I see I misunderstood option 3.  Now that I am clearer, I support option 2. This is the one that takes the Reading Recovery that is working — full implementation with wrap around supports and followup —  and puts it in the neediest schools and eliminates the partial and unsupported implementations.  I would prefer to expand the version that is working, but that is not an option before the Board (I misunderstood #3 to be that option).

Administrative Pay and Benefits

The proposal is for 1.48% pay increase and a 3% total package increase to cover (1.52%) increased benefit costs.  There is something unseemly about administrators getting a pay increase at a time when we aren’t taxing to the max, aren’t doing maintenance and will be looking at program cuts in the Spring.  I know most work hard and most do a good job…but…. times is tough all over and most of these people earn in the six figure range.

No cost estimate is included.  There should be.

My gut reaction is give them the benefit costs increase and not the salary.  Times is tough.

Strategic Plan

When I first read these I had some concerns about the possible lack of  disaggregated reporting called for.  The “Core Performance Measures” draft says “All measures related to students will be disaggregated…” but there is no similar statement for the non-performance (ie participation) measures in the big “Strategic Objectives Performance Measures” and in places specific disaggregations are identified (Special Ed for one).   I was given assurance that the intent is to have all of these disaggregated and that in some manner that will be made part of the public record at the meeting.

I’ve posted requests and discussed the issue on this blog, asked in public and private, as an individual and as an Equity Task Force member for disaggregated data on participation in advanced and other programs.  We can’t know how we are doing on removing barriers to educational opportunities without this information.  I do hope that after all these years we get it and on a regular basis.  Let’s see how bad the disproportionalities are and then see how the efforts to address these are working.

On a related note, I’ve been told that the required Equity Report information will be included in a broader January report.  I’m glad something is happening and appreciate those on and off the Board who have pushed.

This is very late for an annual report (it will be 21 months since the policy was enacted) and not ideal.  If the intent was to have at least one meeting  a year where the focus was on equity measures, placing this in a larger report will not achieve this goal.

I have some similar concerns with the “Core Performance Measures” and the lager (200 item) “Strategic Objectives Performance Measures.”  Ideally the Core items will give the “forest” and the larger ones will be for those of us who like to get lost in the trees.  There is no doubt in my mind that the items on that larger list will get very little attention from the Board…information overload.  This makes it crucial that the Core list include the right things.

I don’t think it does that.  Here is the list:

I see a lot of use of the WKCE, probably too much.  I also don’t see anything about how well we are doing changing district culture and school climate, increasing participation in anything but the ACT, direct evaluation of any Strategic Plan associated initiatives…This isn’t a whole lot different than what NCLB requires.  In fact some of these have the NCLB fiction of 100% proficiency as the goal.   Not good.

Take a look at some different things in the big list and think about what you’d like to see included.  Post in comments if you want.  I’d especially like to hear what members of the Strategic Plan Team.  I plan to try in the next week or so…time is tight so I might not get a chance to do much.  One idea is to look at the effects of the Individual Leaning Plans that will be piloted.

One more thought on the big list for now and then a a little more.

This one is personal.  On page 11 there are three items about Community Engagement.  All simply ask for number counts of community members at engagement sessions, on advisory groups…  There needs to be something about the quality of the experience.  Having attended too many engagement sessions and served on Task Force, I can tell you that these experiences can and do produce disengagement.  This needs to be addressed, the quality needs to be improved and counting numbers of participants won’t even put the problem on the radar.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, Contracts, education, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | December 5, 2009 · 7:03 pm

Mark Pocan in the Lions’ Den — Last Monday’s MMSD Board Meeting

State Representative Mark Pocan met with the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education on Monday, November 30 to discuss “K-12 Funding in Wisconsin and the Impact of the State Budget on School District Finances.”  (State Senator Mark Miller, who was also expected, was ill, Liz Stevens from his office attended in his stead).  The short version of what transpired is that although Pocan brought Bob Lang and Dave Loppnow from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau as support, they were unable to “shut the lions’ mouths” and the Board got a few nips in.  Beyond that, Pocan explained the intent and context of the budget “fix,” emphasized the importance of addressing revenue issues, gave some thoughts on school finance reform, defended parts of his record and more-or-less split the blame for everything bad between Governor Jim Doyle and the economy.

I have to give Pocan some credit and respect for facing the lions and for being very forthright and forthcoming.  I’ll even go beyond that and say that when he was talking about what can and should be done and why, he showed understanding and that he cared.  It was words, not actions, and I want action from my State Rep.. But at least he didn’t shut the door on action.  Let’s help him open that door (more on that below, but think Penny for Kids).

You’ll have to rely on my memory and notes for the longer version, because as I anticipated, the meeting was not broadcast or recorded (Susan Troller, whose story inspired the meeting, was there for most of it, but I don’t think it is the kind of story that the Cap Times covers these days).  That’s too bad, because some interesting and maybe important things were said.

Pocan began the meeting by asking to speak separately about the recent state budget and school funding in general (or what he refers to as “the formula”).  This division was mostly followed, but the two cannot be absolutely separated.  One big link between them, and an issue that came up again and again, was revenues.  The recently completed state budget was made tough because of a lack of revenues; positive school finance reform requires adequate, sustainable and equitable revenue sources.  Pocan said as much more than once.

The 2009-11 State Budget and the “Fix”

During the discussion of the state budget, most of the talk was about about the “fix” that came after the April revenue numbers called for further cuts.  The fix included $147 million in cuts to school aids. This was dampened partially through an attempt to share the bleeding, by including provisions to limit resulting cuts to 10% for any particular district.  Madison’s overall cuts came in at about 15% and people were not happy.  According to Pocan, the 10% figure only applied to the new cuts caused by the $147 million loss and not the aggregate cuts from the entire state budget.  Fair enough, and yes, some of the displeasure was due to a misunderstanding of this distinction.

But really this was, and is, a distraction.  Most of the displeasure wasn’t about how the last round of cuts were handled.  It really was about how much total money was invested in education; capital provided at levels well below cost-t0-continue; and a cut in state aid, while, at the same time, big property tax increases were passed on to many school districts.

On both the big picture and on the particulars of the “fix,” the issue is revenues.  Pocan talked a lot about revenues, tax fairness and tax reform.  He said good things.  He made the point multiple times that if the discussion of taxation and revenues had been left to the Grover Norquists of the world, then public education, and much of the other good that government does, would continue to die the death of a thousand cuts; the “beast” will be starved.  He’s right.  It is happening everyday.

He also defended his record and the recent state budget by pointing to the tax increase on the highest earner bracket, the closing of the so called Las Vegas loophole, and some improvement on capital gains taxation legislation.  All good and Pocan does deserve credit.  Still, at the end of the day, our state was left with a budget that did not adequately fund education and other essential investments and is not sustainable. The thinness of the hopes Pocan expressed about the prospect of avoiding a budget reconciliation after the April 2010 tax collections — translate as more cuts — is sufficient evidence that he knows this isn’t sustainable.

Doyle No Friend of Education

It was on the topic of revenues that Pocan threw Governor Doyle under the bus, repeatedly.  Most of this happened in the context of the budget “fix.”  Because much of what Pocan described occurred in private conversations and the Caucus meeting where Pocan’s and Doyle’s position may have been discussed with other Democrats, and were closed to the public, we have only Pocan’s word to go on.  Pocan’s version does agree with the public record (as far as that goes) and also explains Doyle’s contemptuous dismissal of calls for a more public budget process.  I believe him, but continue to think that the more that public policy making occurs in public the better.  Voters shouldn’t be left with any doubts about things this important.

The story, as Pocan told it, is that when the April, 2009 revenue shortfall happened, Doyle was in public and private talking about 5% or greater cuts in school aids (shared revenues for municipalities were also discussed,  but this is an education blog so I’m leaving that out).  Pocan said they (Miller, and maybe others implied, but Liz Stevens didn’t confirm that) met with Doyle and pushed to have new revenues as part of the fix.  Pocan seemed to favor the expansion of the sales tax to cover services (what I think of as the Erpenbach proposal from a few years ago) and more action on capitol gains, but he may have also had other things in mind.

Shortly thereafter Doyle made a public statement that as far as he was concerned, revenues and tax reform were off the table as part of the solution.  Pocan says that, as Doyle was making the statement, he became so angry that he called the Governors office to cancel their next scheduled meeting.  Good for Pocan — at least in private he showed some backbone.  It would have been nice if he’d showed it in public at the time.

As Pocan described it, the choices were limited.  The possibility of overriding a Gubernatorial veto was nonexistent, so all they could do was negotiate.   Apparently the 10% cut ceiling was part of these negotiations.  The “balance” between state aid and revenue limits was also part of the negotiations.

Later, when asked by Board member Beth Moss about the lowering of the revenue limit increase — from $280 to $200 —  that was also part of the “fix,” Pocan revealed that in exchange for a higher revenue limit, Doyle demanded at least a 4% cut in state aid; the $200 limit increase came with with only a 2.5% cut in state aid.

When Bob Lang joined the conversation to explain that the desire was to limit property taxes, Pocan stepped in to make a point that this was part of the Governor’s agenda, not the Democratic Party, and added, “The problem is when we take the Grover Norquist part of the debate we can’t talk about it …. tax fairness, … we need a civic debate about revenue.”

Pocan ended the exchange saying “Schools did way better than if the Gov had sole control.”  Keep all this in mind next time Doyle prefaces his Race to the Top (RttT) inspired proposals with references to his record as a friend of education.

School Finance and Reform

From there it was on to a more general discussion of school finance.  Pocan hit all the usual notes about the complexity of the system, how tinkering can create unintended consequences, how any change may have winners and losers, and the political difficulties of that, and made generally discouraging noises about the difficulty of real positive change.  There wasn’t much new here, but there were some things I’d like to highlight.

First and foremost is Pocan’s championing of tax reform and the need to talk about revenues.  This is great to hear.  I do think he gets it, and expect to hear more from him on this in the coming months. I have some small hope that the talk will be linked to action.

Pocan spoke from the heart about the needs of students in poverty as well as the diverse needs of other students and displayed his understanding that any positive reforms must address these needs, either via categorical aid or a foundation plan.  The positive duty to address the needs of these students highlighted in the Vincent v. Voight decision also makes this is a Constitutional matter.  It is also the wise and right thing to do and it was good to be reminded that Representative Pocan knows that.   This of course requires investments and revenues.

His repeated references to Andy Reschovsky were also heartening.  I like Andy and think he is one of the best experts on taxation and school finance that Wisconsin has.

Pocan also expressed the view, held by many, that school finance reform needs to be done as a stand alone, not as part of the biennial budget process.  That means that now is the time to get moving.

In response to Lucy Mathiak’s query about just that point — why isn’t there movement, if now is the time? — Pocan said that “The executive [Governor Doyle] has things stalled around the MPS restructuring.”  I tell you, Doyle’s RttT lottery ticket purchase proposal is the gift that just keeps on giving.

School Board Members React

At this point Superintendent Dan Nerad and the Board asked questions and made comments and engaged in some back-and-forth with the guests.  Before covering a little more of what was revealed, I’d like to offer some words from the Board to give the tone of their reactions.

Beth Moss  — “This is difficult to swallow and really quite ridiculous.”

Lucy Mathiak — “I didn’t ask about the Executive level, I asked about you…somebody has to start.”

Marj Passman — “Show courage.”

Maya Cole — “What kind of economy are we growing…we have to invest in the future.”

Johnny Winston Jr. — “I’m disappointed, a couple of years ago when we were talking about closing schools, you sent us a letter and told us not to, that if the Democrats were to gain control you’d fix this … Madison is changing, has changed, and if we can’t afford to maintain schools and education it will keep changing till it is like Milwaukee … what do you tell a middle class family thinking about moving here when they ask about cuts to education?”

As I said at the top, they got some nips in and maybe broke some skin.  Good for them.

Equalization, Equity and Tertiary/Negative Aid

There was a strange set of exchanges inspired by Ed Hughes’ complaint about tertiary/negative aid (whereby Madison and other high spending districts lose progressively more state aid the higher they spend).  What was strange to me was that everyone seemed hostile or confused about the basic concept that this is a way to equalize educational opportunity across the state, that it is important that kid’s futures are not determined (or less prescribed) by where they live.  I think how Wisconsin implements this policy could be improved, however, I retain my belief in the goals and ideals of this policy.  There have been complaints about this for years; the complaints may be louder this year because the cuts in state aids have further exacerbated this and other flaws in our school finance system.

Of course, as Dave Loppnow pointed out, negative aid is also intended as a disincentive to raise property taxes. However, in practice, I’m not sure it works that way, because when a district like Madison goes to referendum, it includes these costs into their calculations and in fact asks for a higher amount, i.e. higher property taxes.  This makes it harder to pass referenda, but they do pass and at higher amounts.

Loppnow also conjectured that because revenue caps already limit property taxes, this disincentive was not necessary.  That may be true. But it is also true that the combined disincentives have not equalized spending and opportunities around the State.  Something has to be in place to make sure the opportunities for kids in Whitefish Bay and Rhinelander are at least in the same ball park.  That means either much more state aid via a foundation guarantee or some form of negative equalization.

Ed Hughes asserted that there was “no necessary connection between property value and willingness to spend.” I’m not sure this is true and intend to run some numbers — when I find the time —  the Lake Districts and some others obviously support this idea, but in the aggregate it might not be the case.

Either Lang or Loppnow responded, in part, by saying that attempts had been made to use income instead of property wealth in equalization and that “it didn’t work.”

I’ve heard this from others, but have to ask: What we are doing now doesn’t “work” either, so what do you mean when you say it doesn’t work?  Is this timidity and inertia or a real analysis?

This and That

A few more observations:

A Penny for Kids — Prospects and Action

Despite the relative silence on the topic, I left the meeting feeling a little better about the prospects of the Penny for Kids campaign (although not any better about the prospects of full comprehensive school funding reform in the near future).

I heard one of the legislative leaders say repeatedly that revenue options need to be on the table and advocated for. Penny for Kids is a viable revenue option, it is gaining support and nobody else is talking revenues.  If Pocan was sincere, he has to give the proposal serious consideration and should give it his support.

I heard one of the legislative leaders speaking about the need to fund the education of children in poverty.  Part of the Penny for Kids proposal creates and funds a categorical aid for low income students.  The proposal also increases aid to other high needs students.  If Pocan was sincere he should embrace these positive steps toward comprehensive reform.

Mostly I heard a legislative leader who was frustrated and looking for a way to help the schools, to do something he believes in (he was a bit defensive at times as well).  Penny for Kids is a way to meet the crisis in education funding and move toward an equitable and sustainable educational investments.  If Mark Pocan is looking, I think Penny for Kids is the best thing he is going to find, at least in the short term.

It isn’t easy to move elected officials from words to action.  One thing that helps is a show of public support.  You can do this in two ways (do both):  First go to the Penny for Kids website and sign the petition; second, send Mark Pocan a quick email saying you support Penny for Kids and he should too.  You don’t even have to explain why — he gets it.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, education, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | November 27, 2009 · 3:07 pm

Equity Report — Tired of Waiting

Salvador Dali, "The disintegration of the persistence of memory" (click for more information)

The Kinks, “Tired of Waiting for You” (click to listen or download).

It has been almost 18 months since the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education enacted a new Equity Policy (policy here, minutes here, video here).  The policy included the requirement that:

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.

Administration will develop an annual report that will provide data on the distribution of staff, financial, and programmatic resources across all schools.

19 months.  No report.  I’m tired of waiting.

In the Strategic Plan and the Talented and Gifted Plan, much has been made of the reporting requirements.  Some good things were included in these requirements.  I hope they decide to follow their own rules on these, unlike they have on the Equity Policy.

Much more on what I think the Equity reporting should include here.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized

by | November 4, 2009 · 6:53 pm

The Cost of Commitment

Commitment

President Obama gave a speech at Wright Middle School in Madison today (text here) outlining his education reform initiative for the nation’s schools, called “Race to the Top,” sometimes referred to by some of his critics as the “Race off the Cliff.”

As Thomas Mertz has pointed out earlier, the amount of funds being discussed here for Wisconsin are relatively meager.

Make no mistake that this is cake, a treat, not life-sustaining bread.  The amount being discussed for Wisconsin is $80 million and this relative pittance would all be targeted for specific programs and when the $80 million is gone, Wisconsin would be stuck with more things that we can no longer afford.

So what type of reform would we be getting in this initiative, along with the modest dollars to come our way, and what would we be giving up in return? That was the crux of a letter sent yesterday by State Senator Mark Miller, chair of the Joint Committee on Finance, to Secretary Arne Duncan. He is worried like others in similar policy positions, that with all the current economic challenges out there blowing huge holes in states’ budgets across the country, that:

We do not have the fiscal resilience to sustain another long-term financial commitment based on the mere possibility that we may be awarded one-time federal dollars in the future. Once these proposed educational policy and fiscal changes are enacted into law, Wisconsin legislators and taxpayers will be responsible for the accompanying financial commitment regardless of the outcome of Wisconsin’s Race to the Top application. This promise to fund new requirements without the promise of federal dollars puts at risk other social safety net programs that rely on adequate state funding to operate.

He cited the example of costs associated with the implementation of a “Children’s Zone” in Wisconsin based upon a model developed for Harlem that could ultimately have ongoing costs to Wisconsin of more than $400 million. If you make such financial and policy commitments you must be able to have some good assurances that you can continue to pay for them. He likens the exercise in not knowing how the grant dollars will be allocated and for how long, to a gambler “trying to draw to an inside straight.”

The National Academy of Sciences recently issued a report offering recommendations on how to revise the funding guidelines and regulations of Obama/Duncan’s $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” grant program, and is well worth a read. Interestingly, the report all but neglects to mention charter schools, which are a major component of RTtT. You can read something I wrote on that subject the other day, here.

In a press release for the Academy’s study, they applauded the step of encouraging states to create systems of linking data on student achievement to teachers, since, as they noted, it is essential to conducting research about the best ways of evaluating teachers.

One way of evaluating teachers, currently the subject of intense interest and research, are value-added approaches, which typically compare a student’s scores going into a grade with his or her scores coming out of it, in order to assess how much “value” a year with a particular teacher added to the student’s educational experience.  The report expresses concern that the department’s proposed regulations place excessive emphasis on value-added approaches.  Too little research has been done on these methods’ validity to base high-stakes decisions about teachers on them.  A student’s scores may be affected by many factors other than a teacher — his or her motivation, for example, or the amount of parental support — and value-added techniques have not yet found a good way to account for these other elements.

The report also cautioned against the use of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federal assessment instrument. While effective at monitoring broad trends, it will not be able to detect the type of specific effects of the targeted interventions that the RTtT hopes to fund. This infatuation with data can lead reformers, philanthropists (case in point, Bill Gates’ team up with RTtT-type initiatives) and bureaucrats to become unquestioning supporters of using test scores as indicators of real learning and teaching. As the study pointed out:

The choice of appropriate assessments for use in instructional improvement systems is critical. Because of the extensive focus on large-scale, high-stakes, summative tests, policy makers and educators sometimes mistakenly believe that such tests are appropriate to use to provide rapid feedback to guide instruction. This is not the case.

The report also urged caution when trying to apply such a blunt instrument towards making international comparisons.

We note that the difficulties that arise in comparing test results from different states apply even more strongly for comparing test results from different countries.

They conclude the report with a reiterated point, “careful evaluation of this spending should not be seen as optional; it is likely to be the only way that this substantial investment in educational innovation can have a lasting impact on the U.S. education system.”

And in another side note related to federal education financing, the Obama administration’s latest and most detailed information yet on the jobs created by the stimulus, noted that of the 640,239 jobs recipients claimed to have created or saved so far, more than half — 325,000 — were in education. Most were teachers’ jobs that states said were saved when stimulus money averted a need for layoffs.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, AMPS, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, finance, Gimme Some Truth, National News, No Child Left Behind, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | November 4, 2009 · 5:03 pm

Obama at JC Wright, Quick Take

c1e82cf6-c97e-11de-a2ef-001cc4c03286.image

I spent the early part of the day at the Books not Bombs action with about 250 others and then went home to watch President Obama’s  speech at James C. Wright Middle School in Madison on television (transcript, here).  Here are some reactions.

The inspirational message, especially the words directed at students and parents was very good.   He was utterly right about the need to seize opportunities, value and support leaning and the importance teachers and parents working to have children internalize pride in academic achievement.  One of the best teachers my children have had  moved our son from racing to get his work done as fast as possible to completing assignments in a way that he could be proud of. Thanks Mr. Waters and thanks President Obama for this message.

He was also very good about the need to make education central to our national agenda.  A little too much about the economic aspects and too little about building an engaged citizenry for my taste, but good to hear.

As many speakers at the Books not Bombs made clear, this is not happening and as I observed in an earlier post the desperation of states for Race to the Top funds is ample evidence that we are not investing in education as we should.

This raises a basic contradiction between the rhetoric in the policies:  If education is as essential to our nation’s present strength and future well being as President Obama says it is, why must states compete for one-time grants to fund only a portion of the needed investments?  What about the states that don’t get grants, are their futures less crucial, are their children less deserving of educational opportunities.?

If we can spend $4 billion a week to keep the military in distant countries we should be able to fully fund the education of every child in every state.  When we spend billions on bombs, we shouldn’t have to ask for Pennies for Kids.

There were also some contradictions within the four core ideas behind Race to the Top that the President delineated.  Again, he was absolutely correct about the need for better assessments (I have doubts about the role of national standards in this process, but that is another issue), however Race to the Top is built expanded use of the inadequate assessments we have now.  Linking teacher pay to flawed tests doesn’t make sense.  Let’s work to create real, balanced and useful assessments first and then discuss what we should do with them.  Prioritizing data collection has similar problems.  We can have the best system for collecting and analyzing data, but if the data is bad to begin with, what is the point?  The old computer programmer phrase comes to mind: Garbage In, Garbage Out.  Obama is right that our current state assessments are near garbage; I just don’t understand how he can know that and still want to expand their use as the basis for decision-making.

It also bothered me that the President seemed to paint a picture of teacher’s currently making no use of assessments or feedback in shaping their teaching.  Every teacher uses many forms of feedback everyday; they see the looks on children’s faces and change their mode of explanation or offer words of encouragement; they grade homework and know what they did well and what they need to do differently; they evaluate exams and decide how to move forward.  This is basic to teaching and happened long before there was any talk of standardized tests and longitudinal data systems and will continue to happen whether the Race to the Top agenda is enacted or not.

President Obama is also correct about the need to attract to and keep the best in our classrooms.  My opinion is that the way to do this is to respect them as professionals, listen to them and not dictate reforms from above.  Recognize that perhaps the teacher who spends hours with students every day might have a better grasp of what is needed and a deeper understanding student progress than anything that will show up in a Value Added Analysis.   It isn’t that I think the data and analysis is useless, it is that I fear that by elevating data above humans we will shut our ears to those whose voices need to be heard and we will make teaching a less attractive vocation.  I’m looking for a better balance.

In his confident words about expanding the use of data and other things, I believe that President Obama grossly overstated and in places mis-stated what the research indicates.  A good example of this is the idea of school turnarounds.  In Chicago, now Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pursued an aggressive school shutdown and turnaround policy.  Through Race to the Top he is trying to nationalize it.  Well, the first research is in and it doesn’t look good.  Here is what the New York Times said:

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presided over the closing of dozens of failing schools when he was chief executive of the Chicago public schools from 2001 until last December. In his new post, he has drawn on those experiences, putting school turnaround efforts at the center of the nation’s education reform agenda.

Now a study by researchers at the University of Chicago concludes that most students in schools that closed in the first five years of Mr. Duncan’s tenure in Chicago saw little benefit.

“Most students who transferred out of closing schools re-enrolled in schools that were academically weak,” says the report, which was done by the university’s Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Furthermore, the disruptions of routines in schools scheduled to be closed appeared to hurt student learning in the months after the closing was announced, the researchers found.

There is much more of interest on “turnarounds” in this week’s National Journal experts blog.

On this and many other aspects of Race to the Top,  from linking teacher pay to test scores to charter school expansion, solid research often contradicts the claims of this administration.  At best the jury is still out on the reforms they are pushing; at worst the evidence is that enacting much of their program will make things worse.

I share the President’s desire for every child to have access to full and rich educational opportunities, to move the United States toward a culture that values teaching and learning.  I worry his plan for making this happen will move us  further from realizing these ideals.

Time to go help our younger son with his homework.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, Budget, education, Local News, National News, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | November 2, 2009 · 6:20 pm

President Obama at James C. Wright Middle School — What Will He Say?

Obama QI don’t have any inside information about what President Obama will say when he visits James C. Wright Middle School in Madison on Wednesday, November 4, but I do have some thoughts about what he shouldn’t say, what I would like to hear him say  and some other things concerning his visit.

All indications are that Obama and Secretary  of Education are here to push Governor Jim Doyle’s Race to the Top (RttT) lottery ticket purchase plan.  This is wrong.  If  that’s what is going on then Obama and Duncan should be speaking to the legislature and not using the students and staff at Wright as props to lobby for their misguided reform incentive package.

I’d like to see the President come to Madison and announce a redirection of national priorities centered on full funding of education.  I’d like to see this President reallocate from militarism and Wall Street bailouts to investing directly in preparing the our children to build a better future.

If you’d like this too, I hope you can join us in a “Books not Bombs” action to be held outside the school at the intersection of Fish Hatchery and Wingra during the President’s visit, 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon.  Details here.

The whole RttT lottery is evidence of how far we are from full funding and making education the priority it should be.

The history of underfunded Federal mandates in Special Education, Title I poverty programs and programs for English Language Learners is well known.  As Robert Godfrey recently noted on this site, the stimulus package required state funding be only at 2006 levels, resulting in flat or shrinking general education funding levels made up in part by one-time federal dollars and in many places steep property tax hikes.   The state stabilization funding was accompanied by welcome  new Title I and IDEA money, but this too is a one-time deal and the regular funding levels remain woefully inadequate.

States are struggling to limit cuts to levels that won’t be disastrous and have all but lost sight of sustainable full funding.  Schools aren’t starving (yet) but they are mighty hungry.

With the Race to the Top lottery Arne Duncan and President Obama are waving a small piece of cake before these hungry schools and saying “if you jump through these hoops we may give some of you one bite each.”

Make no mistake that this is cake, a treat, not life-sustaining bread.  The amount being discussed for Wisconsin is $80 million and this relative pittance would all be targeted for specific programs and when the $80 million is gone, Wisconsin would be stuck with more things that we can no longer afford.

Yet Wisconsin and other states are running toward those hoops Duncan is holding, shouting “how high should we jump,” because they are desperate for any education funding, no matter how small, how misdirected or how ephemeral.  As I write this, the Assembly Education Committee is fast tracking the legislation to get Wisconsin through those hoops.  Only in times this desperate could the chance at so little leverage so much.

I hate to see the staff and students at Wright being used in this cynical game.  I’d much rather they heard Obama at his best, inspiring hope and aspirations; speaking of the power and joy of teaching and learning, reminding one and all that  our public schools are basic to the promises of equality of opportunity; praising our educators and students for their accomplishments; and most of all congratulating the Wright community for their good work and telling the world in some detail how these things are happening at James C. Wright Middle School, despite the odds.

Sadly, I doubt we will get much of this.  The Doyle, Duncan, Obama education agenda is tangential, irrelevant or counter to what makes Wright a school we should be proud of.

Our older son finished 8th grade at Wright last year and I participated in the School Improvement Process as a “friendly observer” so I write from experience and with Panther Pride.  Some background on Wright first.

Wright is a small school, with relatively small (if limited in their offerings) classes and  a “Social Action” focus.  86% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunches, 39% are classified as English Language Learners; the racial and ethnic demographics are 1% Native American, 38% African American,  37% Hispanic, 12% Asian and  13% White.

As measured by state standardized tests (with the notation that this is a very limited measure of teaching, learning and school quality) Wright does well by most students and better than most schools for poor and minority students.  here are some graphs:

CFT1103_1356442D7

From the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, click for WINSS site.

 

CFT1103_13565637

From the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, click for WINSS site.

There are still gaps in achievement and the test scores in other subjects are not as strong, but the general picture is of a relatively successful school.

In other areas, where data is of even more limited utility, Wright is a very successful school.  There is a sense of community and an atmosphere of caring that transcends (but does not obliterate) racial, ethnic and economic differences.  The staff function as a professional, collaborative team much of the time.  In general there is pride, Panther Pride that encourages all to do their best and encourages all to aspire to do even better.  Through the social action focus, Wright seeks to bring this “we can do better” message to the wider community.  I can’t write this without once again crediting Principal Nancy Evans and the entire staff for these accomplishments and thanking them for all they do.

Reviewing the Doyle, Duncan, Obama agenda, I don’t see much that would help Wright get better and I see some things that will make it harder for Wright to maintain the quality and qualities they have achieved.

Due to the cuts in education funding in the recent state budget, Madison — like so many other districts — is looking at a very difficult budget in 2010-11.  Doyle, Duncan and Obama aren’t offering any help at all with this.  A difficult budget will likely mean that small class sizes, particularly those at Wright where they are below the norm for the district, will be targeted.

The support staff at Wright is already minimal, with psychologists, social workers, librarians and others only in the school a day or two or three a week.  That too could get worse (see here for a report of what is happening in Minnesota).

The demographics of the school highlight the importance of funding for students in poverty and English language Learners.  The state of Wisconsin provides no poverty aid beyond the limited SAGE program for the early grades, state reimbursements for English Language Learners as a percentage of costs have been falling for over a decade and the Federal money in both these areas remains small.  None of the current proposals from Doyle (or Duncan and Obama) do anything to fix this.

Much of the agenda they are pushing has to do with more data and more uses of data.  It is hard to be against better assessments, better collection of data and better coordination in the use of data; but most of this is a distraction and is linked in their agenda to misguided noti0ns of national standards and expanded use of flawed test data to make decisions about almost everything, including teacher compensation (Doyle’s legislation on the last, here).

One at a time on data issues, mostly in the “for further reading” mode.

On National standards, I recommend reading what what Deborah Meir wrote here and checking out what William A. Proefriedt has to say to understand how the standards movement is working to undermine the engaged democratic ideals at the base of Wright’s social action mission.  This recent report that the development of standards development is being shaped by profit motives of the participants is also worth a look.

On the limits of data and data analysis and their potential for abuse, the recent letter to Secretary Duncan from the Board on Testing and Assessment of the  National Research Council is a must read.

Linking teacher compensation to test scores is wrong in so many ways.  Just three things for now; it prioritizes test scores in selected subjects as the be-all-and-end-all of education, shunting aside all those things Wright that make it not just a “relatively successful school” but a great school; it has great potential to undermine collaboration and professional relationships; and it doesn’t appear to work, even by the crude measures of standardized tests.

Duncan, Obama and now Doyle like charter schools and Wright is technically a charter school.  Technically is the key word.  There is nothing about the governance of Wright that is any different than any other school in Madison.  The charter status is a historical artifact.   If they want to use Wright to make the case for charter expansion, they picked the wrong example.  Expanding charters won’t help Wright and it probably won’t help create more Wrights.

While on the topic of charters, it is also worth noting that the pedagogy and curriculum of one of Duncan’s favorite charter groups — KIPP — is the exact opposite of the engaged, questioning, challenging lessons that Wright teaches as the basis for social action.  Jim Horn has posted on this aspect of KIPP many times, see here, here and here for examples.

A few last words on Mayoral control and some other ways that the Doyle, Duncan, Obama agenda is working against the ideal of an engaged citizenry having a voice in public education, how what they are pushing and how they are pushing it undermines the social action ideas of Reverend James C. Wright and the school that bears his name.

Mayoral control and the pending legislation for State Superintendent takeovers of districts “in need of improvement” (no further requirements spelled out. just that the State Superintendent says they need improvement) if implemented will make it more difficult for activists to be involved in their schools.  School Board campaigns are local, grassroots efforts.  Mayoral and State-wide campaigns are mostly about money and advertising.  In the first, candidates meet people and listen.  In the latter they craft messages based on polling.

Once in office,  School Board members are relatively accessible; Mayors and State Superintendents are busy and difficult to reach.  In practice, the public has an opportunity to testify at most Board meetings.  Mayors tend to listen to power brokers and though I like Tony Evers (and even met with him once), I don’t believe he has held any public “listening sessions.”

These proposals won’t completely shut the public out, but they will mute the voices of the grass roots.

The voices of the grass roots have also been muted in the way the RttT legislation is being handled in Wisconsin.  Governor Doyle  issued general outlines a couple of weeks ago with few of the all-important details.  The first batch of legislation was introduced Friday 10/29 and the first hearing was scheduled for today (Monday, 11/2).  As of this morning there weren’t even Legislative Fiscal Bureau notes attached. Full floor votes in both houses may be scheduled before the end of next week (the session is scheduled to end Friday, but will likely be extended).

This isn’t enough time to analyze, much less organize and mobilize.

I’d like to hear President Obama and Governor Doyle explain to the students at Wright how this accelerated schedule serves the democratic process and why it is necessary to make it so difficult for students and others concerned with the future of education in Wisconsin to have their voices heard.

This is no more likely than the promise of new priorities and pledge of  full educational funding I wished for at the top of this post.

So in closing, I’ll express my hope for one thing that I think may actually happen:  President Obama, please be sure to spend some time with “Mother” Jacqueline Wright and share some of the stories of Mother and Reverend Wright’s activism with the world.  If, as you do this  you are reminded of why it is so important that voices from the outside be heard in the halls of power and have some second thoughts about the rest of the agenda for your visit, please heed those thoughts.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", Arne Duncan, Best Practices, Budget, education, finance, Local News, National News, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | October 29, 2009 · 5:40 pm

Reform Is In The Air

reform1832

Mike Rose at Truthdig has noted that following the extensive and unprecedented federal reach of No Child Left Behind, the Obama administration is attempting to extend this iniative further by putting some some serious money behind a number of education initiatives that invite states and districts to compete for federal dollars. In the K-12 education world, they want, in part, to stimulate better state standards and tests, including the better measurement of teacher effectiveness, while turning around failing schools. One way they want to accomplish this is through an increase in the number of charter schools. At the same time, a third initiative wants to spark innovation and scale up the best of local academic programs.

As Mr. Rose acknowledges, this is a moment of real promise for American education, from kindergarten through college. But he also sounds a note of caution.

Reform is in the air. But within many of these reforms are the seeds of their undoing.

He pointed out that the Education Department has put a lot of stock in charter schools as “engines of innovation,” while noting, importantly, that DOE will not consider a state’s funding proposal if that state has a cap on charters.

Yet a number of research studies — the most recent from Stanford — demonstrate that charter schools, on average, are no better or worse than the regular public schools around them. To be sure, some charters are sites of fresh ideas and robust education, but so are magnet schools, and, lest we forget, so are our regular public schools, ones with strong leadership and a critical mass of good teachers. For the “reformers’” however, charter schools are the recipients of the highest accolades, the rest – not so much.

The Stanford University study shattered the myth of charter school superiority. According to Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, students at only 17 percent of charter schools do better on math and reading tests than their demographic peers in regular public schools. Thirty-seven percent do worse, while 46 percent of charter school kids, almost half, perform at approximately the same level as their traditional public school counterparts.

The author of the report concludes:

This study shows that we’ve got a 2-to-1 margin of bad charters to good charters.

The results are especially significant, given that charter schools have built-in advantages – starting with parents that are engaged enough in their children’s education to put them there, in the first place. Yet the actual outcomes, in most cases, fail to live up to the hype.

President Obama and his administration are committed to charter schools. In no small part this policy is driven by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who was a cheerleader for charters when he ran the Chicago school system, and has threatened to withhold federal education money from the 10 states that don’t yet have charter schools and the 26 other states that put limits on enrollment in charters. Such raw coercion, especially given the results of the Stanford study, seems strongly misguided. This comes in spite of the acknowledgement of the Stanford study on the part of Sec. Duncan, which, he suggests, merely points to the need for greater vigilance. “Charter authorizers need to do a better job of holding schools accountable.”

This administration has said that charter schools are key to educational “reform,” and provide “competition” for traditional schools. But that’s utter nonsense if the educational outcomes are no better, and in many cases worse, than in the regular public schools.

Speaking of “holding [charter] schools accountable,” one would of thought that that was a central argument for the need for charter schools in the first place, an institution free of those ill-principled and wretched teacher unions. Unionized teachers are blamed for much of the ills of education; it’s not a reasoned argument, but a matter of faith – and political prejudice. Charter schools are not private (at least not entirely, if you consider they are chartered by the state), but they are the privatizers’ foot in the door, a wedge issue to demonize unions. And that third leg of the reform movement, so to speak, measurement of teacher effectiveness, is also front and center (see the latest continued plea from the Wisconsin State Journal).

One approach being piloted in a number of education systems around the country is by the non-profit Hope Street Group, and developed by a team of teachers across the U.S., who have proposed recommendations for a smarter evaluation system, imploying more ‘objective’ measures of student achievement, ones that aim to attract and retain teachers, and put America’s schools back on top internationally.

“Policy 2.0: Using Open Innovation to Reform Teacher Evaluation Systems” suggests that in K-12 education, any teacher evaluation system should have the input of teachers and administrators and not solely come from researchers and policymakers. Their specific recommendations include the suggestion that evaluation systems should be frequently revised, that teaching advocates need to be involved in this process, and that any in-class observations for assessment must be done by teachers with sufficient experience.

Lets hope the coming “seeds of change” are not broadcasted, with great hope, onto marginal soil. There is too much at stake for education in this new century.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, Gimme Some Truth, nclb, No Child Left Behind, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | October 28, 2009 · 8:33 am

WAES School Funding Reform Update, the Week of October 26, 2009

waesgraphicFrom the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools. Table of contents below, with related material on AMPS linked to some items.  Click here for the full update.

  • WAES, others groups criticize Governor’s “funding plan”
  • Electors saying no to levy hikes resulting from state budget (and here and here and here)
  • Public, media understand the source of school funding problems
  • State of Washington wants pennies for its kids, too
  • Business leaders back expansion of early childhood education
  • WAES needs renewals, new members to continue work
  • Other states get it … what’s wrong with Wisconsin?
  • Colorado Supreme Court will hear adequacy challenge
  • WAES members take case on funding reform to the public
  • It’s time for America to pay attention to its schools again
  • Help WAES correct e-mail update glitch
  • School-funding reform calendar

    • The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES) is a statewide, independent, membership-based organization of educators, school board members, students, parents, community leaders, researchers, citizens, and community activists whose lone goal is the comprehensive reform of Wisconsin’s school-funding system. If you would like more information about the organization — or on becoming part of WAES — contact Tom Beebe at 920-650-0525 or tbeebe@excellentschools.org.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, education, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | October 23, 2009 · 5:52 pm

Education: Dressed & Ready for Stimulation

Photograph by David Wahl

Photograph by David Wahl

The National Access Network has highlighted the U.S. Department of Educations (USDOE) Office of the Inspector General’s report that has raised concerns over states’ use of stimulus funds.

The American Renewal and Recovery Act (ARRA) statute requires states to provide several assurances, including commitments to fund K-12 and higher education at least at FY 2006 levels and to promote reform in four areas, in order to receive these monies. The report noted however, that several states have capitalized on the flexibility of the funding requirements, to use stimulus funds to supplant rather than supplement education budgets. On AMPS we have highlighted this same issue for Wisconsin on a number of occasions, see here and here.

The department’s report contended that it has made an effort to close some funding loopholes by including funding maintenance as a consideration for awarding the so-called “Race to the Top” funds.

Equity advocates, however, have argued that this provision does not do enough, as the guidelines focus on proportional levels of funding rather than absolute figures. That is, the regulations leave the door open for states to cut the total budget from year-to-year and remain competitive applicants.

As the Access Network has noted:

The information the states have submitted raises serious questions about whether the stated purposes of the Act – stabilizing education funding, facilitating the continuation of equity and adequacy formula adjustments and promoting education reforms to boost student achievement – are being met. The goal of boosting student achievement is to be promoted through commitments from each state to promote four essential areas of reform: 1) improving teacher effectiveness; 2) making progress toward college and career-ready standards and rigorous assessments; 3) enhancing data systems to track educational practice; and 4) improving achievement in low-performing schools.

Only the first of these three goals appears to have been achieved. Virtually all of the states have stabilized their funding levels for FY 2010 at the previous years level, with the application of the federal stimulus funds. (In many instances, however, this flat funding will nevertheless result in substantial cuts in educational services since mandatory cost increases will not be covered.)

In the vastly underfunded state education systems throughout the country, stabilizing funding levels may have been

unduly emphasized at the expense of the equity and reform goals of the ARRA, as some states apparently increased their anticipated education deficits upon learning that substantial federal funding for education was in the offing, in order to limit planned cuts in other areas of the budget. Although some officials might argue that such maneuvers represented prudent budget planning, from the perspective the intent of the ARRA and the constitutional pre-eminence given to education in most state constitutions, such maneuvers clearly raise serious legal issues.

A number of advocates for educational equity have called on the DOE to require states to fund low performing schools at adequate levels. The way the current regulations are drafted, only one provision has a focus on this kind of funding. The Campaign for Educational Equity for example, has proposed a requirement that states need to provide data that shows to what extent the proportion of each state’s budget devoted to education for FY 2009 either increased, decreased or remained the same compared to FY 2008. The assumption is that those states who have maintained or increased educational funding during the last fiscal year would receive some favorable consideration in the review process for doing so. But additionally, the campaign has argued that any reform conditions that seek to assist struggling schools should include specifically the various resources identified through adequacy case law that are deemed necessary comprehensive services for students from poverty backgrounds. Further, they’ve advocated for the DOE to require states to increase their total and per pupil state and local revenues that meet the average levels of all states, or if the state is more affluent, then maintain their current funding levels. That requirement would also include states having to allocate higher levels of funding to school districts with higher levels of poverty. The DOE is meant to issue final guidelines quite shortly and grant applications will then be due and phase 1 monies will be distrubuted in early 2010.

Exactly where Wisconsin is on the supplanting vs. supplementing continuum remains to be seen. A report card from this July of each state can be found here. We’ll keep you posted.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, AMPS, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, Budget, Equity, finance, National News, School Finance, We Are Not Alone