The meeting schedule is a little confusing. It begins in open session at 5:00 PM (Doyle Bldg. Auditorium) with “2010-11 Layoff of Employees in the Madison Teachers, Inc. (MTI) Teachers Collective Bargaining Unit,” then goes into closed session for two items — Superintendent Employment Contract Modifications and Compensation, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§19.85(1)(c) and (e) and Conferring with legal counsel concerning strategy and legal options with respect to litigation in which the District may become involved regarding contracts held by the Board, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §19.85(1)(g) — then back to open session at 6:00 for the remainder of the agenda. The Superintendent contract issue is intriguing. It is also the last item on the open meeting agenda.
I assume that like most meetings, both portions of the open session will be carried by MMSD-TV. There will be public appearances.
The first item is the election of officers. The President and Vice president have in practice been decisive in setting the agendas, so this is important. Although I don’t like the way the Budget work evolved into cutting this to add that, if she is willing I’d like to see Arlene Silveira continue as President.
Next are the President’s announcements:
The Student online election for Student Representative and Alternate Student Representative to the Madison Board of Education will take place from May 19 through May 21, 2010.
District Participation in the Global Academy Cooperative Multi-District Program and Options for Funding Student Participation—Appendix LLL-11-7
District Participation “Race to the Top” funding via Memorandum of Understanding—Appendix LLL-11-9
Quick takes, one at a time.
Literacy Evaluation
The Hanover Report isn’t much more than a literature review, with some references to other districts that have done evaluations. I hope we didn’t pay much for this (I can’t find an expenditure).
As to the next steps, there is much that is worrisome here. First, the primary assessment tool recommended is the WKCE, with a classroom level Value Added Analysis employed. Leaving aside the limits and inappropriateness of the WKCE, the numbers just aren’t there to do a meaningful classroom level analysis of anything. The noise to signal ratio is too high because the data sets are too small. This would be a waste of resources.
More generally, I hope the Board has a thorough discussion of what they want from this report and clearly state their desires before authorizing anything in the way of concrete next steps, particularly if the direct cost is in the $100,000 range and the indirect cost in staff time is also large.
My advice would be begin by looking at the districts mentioned in the Hanover Report, find out what they did and what was useful and what wasn’t. That would be a great starting point.
Strategic Plan Update
Scheduled for May 26 before something called the Strategic Plan Steering Committee. I can’t find any listing of members of that committee. I do hope that the community is well-represented, because sine the second phase things seem to be all staff all the time.
Global Academy
A good program. There is a reference to a budget document that is not included. Since we are counting our pennies these days, it would be good to have that.
Race to the Top
The memo is interesting, like a train wreck is interesting. Wisconsin isn’t going to win and if we did MMSD won’t be able to fulfill the terms (nor should we want to). Time to drop out of this race; past time.
There are a few things worth mentioning on the Consent Agendas.
From Organizational Support:
It is recommended that the Board approve contracts with UW Sports Medicine and Capitol Lakes for the use of the warm water and/or lap pools on their premises for MSCR Goodman Rotary 50+ Fitness Aquatic programming. The total expenditure at UW Sports Medicine shall not exceed $34,000, and at Capitol Lakes $21,000, for a grand total for both contracts of not more than $55,000. . Funding for these contracts shall be collected through participant fees during FY2010-11.
At a time when money is so tight that the Board is cutting left and right, $55 Grand seems like a lot.
Many moves, retirements and separations in the Human Resources report, the biggest being the separation on Building Services honcho Doug Pearson. Also of interest is that the Substitute contract is up for approval. there is no copy linked and I can’t find anything on the MTI site. I’m curious whether this is a 0% increase contract?
I always like the legislative advocacy, here are the items:
Legislative Liaison Report
1 MMSD Representation on WASB Policy Committee for Fall 2010
2 Focus of MMSD Lobbying Efforts to the Madison Area Legislative Delegation
3 Future Middle and/or High School Visit by Madison Legislative Delegation
In light of MMSD quitting WASB, I’m not clear what the representation item is about.
The last item is “Modifications to the Superintendent’s 2009-11 employment contract and establishment of the Superintendent’s salary for the 2010-11 contract year.” Again, there is nothing linked. Supt Dan Nerad was given an extension and a raise recently. By my tally, the reorganization shrinks his responsibilities to some degree. I don’t believe an annual evaluation has been completed in the almost two years he has been here; I know none has been made public. I’m interested to see what this is about.
One other meeting this week. The Educational Services Advisory Council(another group that I can’t find a membership list for) is meeting Wednesday at 3:30 at Urban League of Greater Madison (2222 S. Park St.). The agenda includes Professional Development, work on various grants, Dual Language Immersion and assessment initiatives. I’d like to know more about who this is and waht they are charged with.
I’ve got both SAGE and Budget posts in the works, but very little time at the moment for blogging. Check back.
Just some things that have been on my mind as this budget process unfolds.
……….
The November 2008 referendum that many of us worked so hard for was a waste of time and effort. There was no way of knowing that at the time and it doesn’t have to be that way, but as of now that’s the reality. Last year the referendum added $4 Million to the Revenue Limit, but the district levied at least $6 Million under the limit (it gets complicated when you figure in Fund 80 — which has no limit — and the 2005 maintenance referendum and other factors…). This year the 2008 referendum adds $8 Million in revenue authority; the Board of Education has already “decided” to levy $10,570,692 less than they are allowed. The cuts and efficiencies already decided are $2.5 Million greater than those the referendum sought to avoid.
The funding for a 1/2 time Albanian Bilingual staff member (item 61) which was cut on Monday was projected to cost the owner of a $250,000 home 38 cents a year. The same is true for the Korean position (item 62). Maintaining current levels of service for Hmong Bilingual staff (item 63) — which has not been decided yet — would cost that same home owner $3.01 a year.
……….
For 2009-10 the English Language Learner division staff to student ratio was 18.85/1. In 2005-6 it was 16.26/1. One FTE has been cut already; 8.5 are pending. These are the Hmong BRS (item 63) and High School allocations (item 60). The ELL population is projected to grow.
……….
The proposal to make staffing levels contingent on pay freezes is an example of the Board of Education (or at least some members) attempting to avoid responsibility (Board Amendment here; news story here). Proper staffing levels are a policy decision; we elect the Board to make these decisions. The Board has more than sufficient revenue authority to fully staff at the recommended levels and give raises. They are welcome to cut staffing levels if they think that is best and they are welcome to attempt to negotiate a contract with no raises, but these choices are theirs and not the unions’. Assuming this goes forward and the unions choose raises over staffing, who would bear the responsibility for a student who was injured because an under-staffed security team could not respond fast enough? In my book it would be the Board of Education and their desire to not use the full revenue authority.
……….
On this and related pay freeze proposals, it should be kept in mind that the projected health insurance savings mean that for all staff total compensation packages are below those budgeted. A pay freeze combined with these savings would mean a decrease in total compensation.
……….
MMSD should keep the Legislative Liaison position, especially since the district voted to leave the Wisconsin Association of School Boards on Monday. Recent state action and inaction may make it seem like having a liaison has not been effective; believe me, without that voice and expertise, things would be worse.
As one who follows these things closely, has attended every budget-related meeting of the Board of Education and has long advocated greater openness in all governing activities, I have to say this is being blown out of proportion.
The tally or “straw poll” was not secret nor was it a vote. It was discussed repeatedly in open meetings prior to Board Members participating. Upon request copies of the tallies were given to me and at least one other community member at the conclusion of the first meeting where it was used. A check of the tallies and the subsequent votes would reveal that they don’t match, that Board Members did change their positions when items were the subject of open deliberations.
I would have preferred that copies were public prior to, not at the conclusion of the meeting where it was first employed, but that was a logistical issue.
……….
I was at a meeting of Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools people yesterday. Some of the people there were amazed at the hundreds of Madisonians who came out to tell the Board of Education that they preferred tax increases to further cuts. Some of the people were also perplexed that with this kind of support the Board of Education is cutting and considering cutting at the levels they are. I’m perplexed too. I’m also disappointed.
………
Near the conclusion of the April 26 Board meeting one Board Member explained voting to cut a program that “in ideal times” they would not vote to cut. The explanation included things outside the control of the Board– tough economic times, the state actions and inaction — but it also included something like “unfortunately we live in a time when people are reluctant to pay higher taxes for education.” The people at the hearings weren’t reluctant. I know that most of the people who worked to elect this Board Member aren’t reluctant. I don’t know what kind of emails the Board is getting, but I have come to think of this attitude on the part of elected officials — state and local — as the “Tea Party in their head.” Strong majorities of he people of Madison have repeatedly made it clear that they support tax increases for education, yet our legislative delegation and now our Board of Education instead listen to voices in their heads saying the opposite.
……….
Some of the savings and efficiencies are great. It would be nice there was some effort to allocate these to improving or expanding good things, instead of to avoid tax increases. With the partial exceptions of shrinking Strategic Plan funding, Fine Arts and Math Task Force funding, Culturally Relevant Education and Talented and Gifted (and maybe a some other small things), there isn’t much thought or talk about improvement, about progress. The achievement gaps continue. Avoiding tax increases is not going to bring about a positive change there.
……….
Strong statements about the harm done by cuts to programs and services from the administration and the Board have been much too rare. Everything they said back when they were talking about why a referendum was needed remains true, yet now we hear that larger cuts than were projected without a referendum are acceptable. If only in support of state level school funding reform efforts, the harm being done must be made clear.
Executive Session at 5:00 PM to discuss contractual matters and Legislative Liaison.
Open Meeting at 6:30 PM on Budget
05/04/10
Board of Education Workshop Meeting
5:00 PM. No public appearances. Last meeting before Preliminary Budget is Finalized. From this point forward further cuts are very difficult, especially those involving staff. Add backs are in theory easier.
05/10/10
Board of Education Meeting
6:00 PM. Regular Meeting, opportunity for Public Appearances. Budget will in all likelihood not be directly on the agenda.
05/15/10
Preliminary Budget Published
05/17/10
Budget Hearing
6:00 PM
05/24/10
Layoff Notices Due
This is the due date, but logistics dictate that decisions be made weeks in advance.
06/1/10
Statutorily Required Budget Hearing and Vote
The state requires advance publication of a the Budget and a hearing prior to the vote. This vote will be the last time that a simple majority can change things. After the (possibly amended) Preliminary Budget is passed, five votes are needed.
10/08/10
Revenue Limit Calculation from DPI
10/15/10
State Aid Calculation from DPI
10/25/10
Final Approval of 2010-11 Budget and Tax Levy
………
I don’t think I’ll be doing an “On the Agenda” post this week. The agenda is here. With one exception I think all the relevant documents are available on the Budget Page (there is a broken link in the agenda, so I’m not 100% sure). The exception is the Cost-to-Continue Budget, partially revised to reflect the Reorganization. That still hasn’t been posted by the district, but you can find it here.
[I was contacted by a Board Member with some clarifications, I only have time for some of this before teaching and will go back later with more.]
Still more Budget work for the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education.
This week the fun begins at 5:00 PM on Monday, April 26 in the Doyle Building Auditorium. James Howard will join the Board and Maya Cole and Beth Moss will also be sworn in to new terms. Then it is time to continue with the Budget work (agenda and other meetings this week posted here).
No public appearances (write the Board at board@madison.k12.wi.us to weigh in), but the meeting will be carried by MMSD-TV.
Lots of news and lots of news coverage this week. The biggest development was the submission of Budget amendments by five Board members. These and other developments were the topic of stories in the Wisconsin State Journal, on the Cap Times and an editorial from the State Journal. The editorial team for the State Journal seems to think that the way to “protect kids” is to keep taxes as low as possible by freezing the wages of teachers whose compensation had been limited by the QEO for a decade and a half. I certainly want to protect my kids from well compensated professional educators. Wacky bunch on that Editorial Board; much better at rhetoric than thinking through their positions.
Also lots of news on the SAGE reconfiguration legislation and lots of confusion. See here and here for news stories and this post and the links for some clarity. I’m working on a post on this, but haven’t had time to do much yet. Watch for it. For now I will say that it was nice to see Mark Pocan make an effort on behalf on MMSD, even if it was too late (and I don’t think it was Pocan who dropped the ball here, this legislation was designed to help districts keep a diluted version of class size reduction and the waivers MMSD had and the problems the legislation caused for them appear to have been unique).
Before digging a little deeper into the amendment material, a little catch up from Monday’s meeting (preview and more links here). Gayle Worland’s WSJ story covered the removal of the Lindbergh and Penn Park Summer programs from the cut list. Some Board Members made it clear that there support was due to the timing and in the future they would be open to cutting these if sufficient notice were given. SAGE was also discussed and the Reorganization Job Postings were approved. For the record, the item numbers of the cuts approved are: 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, and 187 (membership dues, office supplies and the like). 109 (recruiting expenses) and 226 (Emerson after-school) were offered and then withdrawn.
I guess I’ll do them in alphabetical order (the admin responses are incomplete — check for updates — and have a numbering that begins with Ed Hughes followed by Lucy Mathiak and then Arlene Silveira; with the later posting of Maya Cole’s and Beth Moss’s offerings, Cole’s are now listed first and Moss comes before Silveira…confused yet?).
Three of the first four deal with administrative and professional pay freezes. There is lots of confusion on this. Item 191 in the budget options was labeled “Administrative Salary Freeze.” The response to a question on this made it clear that the listed $163,925 represents only a partial roll back of step and merit increases and does not touch the across the board 3.0% package (1.48% salary) raises given in December (without a fiscal note or any discussion). If I read these correctly, Cole is asking for a true freeze, step, merit and a repeal of the December increase. Total savings = $644,427. Cole offers furloughs as an alternative. The rationale cites a 2005 study that places some MMSD administrative compensation as above peer districts (referenced here, I can’t find an electronic copy to link and haven’t dug through my files for a paper version).
At the time I was opposed to the salary portion of the December increase. I support these amendments. I think that the vast majority of administrators work hard and do a good job, but times are hard all over and those who are compensated the best are those who will feel the least pain from freezes.
[Lots of confusion here on my part, I’m still not clear on all of it. Much of the savings and difference came from an initial assumption of a 1% pay increase in the cost-to-continue budget when in fact that budget included a 2% increase. More on this whole thing later.]
Cole also suggests a $200,000 savings in professional dues and subscriptions. The $200,000 seems like a lot to be spending, but zeroing this out seems wrong too.
Her next amendment has to do with how to pay for the last year on the contracts of eliminated administrative positions. She suggests the WRS savings. I don’t care much, but would prefer using tax authority instead of fund equity, contingency monies or other things that may be needed in the future.
Cole’s Amendment VI reclassifies the head of Public Information from an administrative slot to non-union professional. I think this is in part inspired by the creation of the Chief Information officer in the Reorganization and the consequent shift of the Superintendent’s duties toward Public/Community Relations. As Superintendent Dan Nerad himself noted at last Monday;s meeting the implications of the Reorganization for his job duties have not been fully spelled out, but the talk so far has been in that direction. $30,000 is the identified savings and although like so much with the Reorganization the unknowns are huge (and like some other items Cole proposes it may be premature), i can support at least exploring this.
Amendment XIII from Cole cuts Reading Recovery positions. I disagree here. The Board has initiated a process of evaluating and perhaps reforming all reading instruction in MMSD and I think that the previous decisions on Reading Recovery should stand till that is completed. I also think that the statement “RR as implemented for the past several years is not working” is an overstatement of the conclusions and the definitiveness of the recent report. In Cole’s defense, what she proposes is using the expertise gained from years of Reading Recovery to transition to something more efficient and one would hope at least equally effective. I still disagree.
Cole also wants to so fund Hmong BRS positions, use ARRA money for Assistive Technology, pay for staff development on the Middle School Standards Based Report Cards, restructure Planetarium fees, add a 430,000 a year “out reach” to “families of color” position and introduce a sliding scale for bus passes whereby “reduced lunch” students pay at a reduced level and (I assume) free lunch students would be unaffected. With one exception these make sense. I don’t like the last. On the second to last, I think the idea is good — we’ve lost many family outreach positions over the years – but at this pay level it appears to be a “second class” position. I’d also add that I’d prefer targeting low income families of every background.
Ed Hughes’ amendments are up next (administrative responses here). Hughes wants to cut the Legislative Liaison, negotiate pay freezes for Painters, Custodians, Clerical positions, Educational Assistants and Security positions with cuts the other option, cut Board compensation by 5%, reallocate some of the savings from the Legislative Liaison position to Community Engagement and Outreach and raise MSCR adult fees by 30%.
The admin response describes 50% of the Legislative Liaison’s work as Community based. As noted above, the Reorganization has many implications for Community Relations (including a reassignment of the Affirmative Action Officer with new duties in this area. The real question is if in this budget context is the Liaison position a luxury we can’t afford or a necessary part of bringing about the state action that is needed. I lean toward the latter, but could see the balance of duties being adjusted or split with at least a .25 FTE working on state matters.
I admire the willingness of Hughes to cut his own compensation, but need to note that this would make serving even less possible for many in the Community who do not enjoy his affluence. In fact. I’d support higher compensation and if any or all Board Members want to quietly donate any or all of their pay to the district, that’s great.
I strongly oppose targeting the lowest paid employees for wage freezes. I should say at this point that my spouse is an SEA with the district, so I have an interest. This is more of a general thing about inequality and the growing distance between the haves and have nots. I can’t support freezing the wages of the have nots. I’ll add that the contracts were negotiated in good faith and that the Board has the tax authority needed to honor those contracts; there is something unsavory about seeking these changes in order to provide tax relief.
[The contracts in question are currently under negotiation and the amendments would not roll back raises, but would not include any raises in the 2010-11 year. It should also be noted that food service workers — the absolutely lowest paid — were exempted.]
This may sound hostile to Ed Hughes, but it isn’t meant to be. I think he’s searching for answers to difficult matters, trying to do the right thing and simply ended up in a place that I strongly oppose. I admire the effort and disagree with the proposals. The same is true with the proposals from other Board Members that I oppose.
The Administration responses to the pay freeze proposals suggested they be taken up outside the public view in executive sessions. I’d like as much as possible concerning these and other contracts to be handled in public.
On to Lucy Mathiak’s amendments (some administrative responses here and here). Mathiak’s cuts and choices to fund are all linked, but I’m going to list them separately. The cuts are $1.2 Million from the Teaching and Learning supply budget, the Expulsion Navigator position, travel and conference costs, and a 10% cut to supply budgets other than T&L. These cuts would be used to fund Instructional Resource Positions, Special Education Assistants, Painters, Facilities, the Omega School, and the Penn Park and Lindbergh Summer Programs. It should be noted that many of these have already been “taken off the table” and all could be funded with plenty of room to spare by using the tax authority granted by the voters of Madison and the state. There is also a shift from unallocated Title I positions to IRTs.
I can see some cuts to supply budgets but the T&L one is too extreme by a mile. No real opinion on the travel budgets. I don’t think that the Title I and IRTs should be an “either/or” but a both and if we have unallocated federally funded positions that are supposed to serve our neediest students the answer is to use those positions, not reallocate. Take look at the achievement gaps and tell me we are doing all we should.
On the Omega School, the Summer programs and so much more, I return to the fact that the tax authority is there to support these worthwhile programs and positions. Use it!.
Beth Moss has two amendments covering multiple items. She wants to Fund Schools of Hope (item 168) and the Omega School (item 162). To do this she proposes cutting CESA dues, Lighthouse Project (Board development) spending and $85 in WASB conference fees.
First I have to say that the whole idea of the Board and the Administration deliberating over $85 is the height of absurdity and an illustration of how bad things have gotten.
I’m all in favor of funding Schools of Hope and the Omega School. With the CESA, Moss states we aren’t using the membership. Before supporting this I’d like to explore if the better option would be to get more involved with the CESA. I like the Lighthouse Project as a source of ongoing research to draw upon, but I think most of the benefits can be accessed without fees or participation. I refuse to comment further on the $85 WASB fees. You have to draw the line somewhere.
Last, the amendments from Arlene Silveira (some administrative responses here and here). Silveira also links cuts/savings to funding choice and I’m going to separate them too. The cuts are Outside Legal Consulting, confirming the $43,000 saved by not funding the Communications Consultant and taking an additional $25,000 from Strategic Plan initiatives, increases to Planetarium fees. a $.9 Million cut to supplies and materials, increases to MSCR adult fees in the 30% to 40% range (the latter for non-residents), some cuts to the Athletics items with the discretion given to Athletic Directors, and consulting fees. Silveira’s amendments fund the School Forest, Engagement Coordinators, Library Pages, Security Assistants, Educational Assistants, GLBTQ Resource Teacher, Media Clerk, The Planetarium and IRTs. Silveira also directs the use of the Microsoft settlement money.
All the things Silveira funds are good (and many have been “taken off the table” already. The cust to supplies seem more reasonable than Mathiak’s, the Consultant cuts are fine (with the exception of the Communications consult that I still think is necessary), and the MSCR and Planetarium fees aren’t too burdensome. I don’t like the cut to the Strategic Plan funds; this is our main hope for improvement and should be fully funded.
Many of the savings and efficiencies identified by Board Members (and by the administration previously) are good things;; some aren’t. As these come under consideration I think key parts of the big picture don’t get lost. The biggest of these is that significant investments in education are essential to address inequality, keep democracy healthy, and creating a strong economy.
More directly, at two budget hearings hundreds of citizens took the time to let the Board know that increased property taxes were preferable to most of the cuts they were considering. (Almost) nobody likes the increased reliance of property taxes to fund education but the state passed the buck on adequately funding education. State officials have been criticized by the Board and others for their reluctance to raise taxes in order to preserve beneficial expenditures. If cuts go too deep, the Board of Education will criticized for the same reasons and will lose much of the high ground and maybe their local support in their efforts to bring about state reform.
Two other meetings this week. The 4K Curriculum Sub Committee at 8:00 AM Monday (4C
5 Odana Court, Madison, WI) and the Talented and Gifted Advisory Committee at 4:00 PM Tuesday (Lapham Elementary School, 1045 E. Dayton St., Madison, Library). Glad to see the $K going forward. Much to say about the TAG work, but that will have to wait till post-Budget. It is worth noting that with 8.5 FTE serving as of last count 896 students — many only by placing in existing advanced Math classes — both the Administration and Board Members have exempted TAG from Budget scrutiny. I don’t support cuts to TAG, but I also don’t support cutting many of the other things on the chopping block.
It is a full meeting this week (Agenda here) but this is going to be a quick post. After an Executive session on litigation issues (Federal — ?! — and personal injury), the main meeting commences at 6:00 PM (Doyle Administration Bldg. 545 W. Dayton Street, Auditorium). Like almost all Board meetings, this will be carried by MMSD-TV.
Budget matters (all the district info linked here) are last on the agenda but first on everyone’s minds, so I’m going to start there.
As noted previously Board Members agreed to work through the remaining Budget Options and share their “yes, no and maybe” lists. These were due last Friday. because of open meetings concerns, these have not been shared, but may be available to Board Members (and the public I hope) at the meeting.
There has been one update to the Board/Admin Q&As since March 29 on Discussion Items 201-228 (I actually don’t see anything new, but the section is dates April 12).
I also don’t see any updates or much needed fixes to the Budget Book as of this writing.
The very last item on a full agenda is “2010-11 MMSD Budget Reduction and Efficiency Options for Addressing the Property Tax Impact of and Revenue Gap within the Projected 2010-11 District Budget.” It is starred for possible action.
Now from the top.
First is a resolution of thanks to Johnny Winston Jr. This is his last meeting. Thanks Johnny (a fuller thanks here).
Next, Public Appearances. It will be interesting to see if people show up en masse on Budget things, or if they wait for the Public Hearing on Sunday (April 18th at 1:00 pm at Warner Park Community Recreation Center — 1625 Northport Dr).
Board President’s Announcements follow, including the receipt of a $10,000 Toyota TAPESTRY grant for excellence and innovation in science education by one of my favorite activist teachers, Troy Dassler. Congratulations!
Two important items in the Superintendent’s Announcements and Reports. First is the Board of Education/Superintendent Communication Goal Action Plan. It looks like some minor modifications from the March version. Some thoughts on that version in this post and this one too. Things like the facilities matter mentioned above and the Budget Book problems (as well as some of the back-and-forth at recent meetings) indicate that the communications issues are pretty bad right now. The plan is start, but not a panacea.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I also want to highlight the most important and exciting item: the “Pennies for Kids” dedicated sales tax campaign. This is a major initiative to try to get our state lawmakers to enact a new revenue source for investments in education. Although not the “big fix” comprehensive reform so many of us have been working for, it would provide crucial resources to meet the growing crisis caused by decreased state aid and rising school property taxes, while simultaneously moving Wisconsin closer tor adequate, equitable and sustainable school funding. Watch for more in the coming weeks and months (Disclosure: I am on the Board of WAES).
Here is what the WAES update has to say:
As crisis grows, WAES goes after “Pennies for Kids”
The crisis of funding in Wisconsin ’s public schools is so deep and so wide that immediate legislative action is needed to just protect the education our children have now─much less the education they deserve in the future.
To address that crisis, WAES has launched “Pennies for Kids,” a campaign to raise the sales tax one-cent to help fill the gap in public school funding created by the 2009-11 budget and to try to keep the lid on property taxes. At the same time, WAES will continue to work for comprehensive reform, understanding the long-term answer to the problem is a new, sustainable funding system that recognizes the needs of children and the goal of quality education for every student.
If passed, a one-cent increase in the sales tax will raise about $830 million annually. According to the plan being worked out by WAES members, the largest portion of that revenue would be devoted to children in classrooms through increases in categorical aid. Additionally, because it would increase the state’s share of school aid “Pennies for Kids” would slow increases in property taxes expected in the wake of the most recent state budget. To find out more about this new initiative — and to find out how you can get involved — got to http://www.excellentschools.org.
WAES School-funding reform update, week of Sept. 28
According to a Madison Teachers Inc. press release and NBC15, a tentative agreement has been reached between the Madison Metropolitan School District and MTI on the July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011 teacher bargaining unit contract. MTI members will vote on the terms October 15 and the Board of Education is tentatively scheduled to consider the settlement on October 19.
The base salary increase is 1%, the total package 3.93%. There appears to be some tinkering and savings, but no major changes in health insurance provisions. This is about what would have happened if the QEO was still in force.
Provisions to enable 4 year-old kindergarten are included.
The key players — Dan Nerad and John Matthews — had somewhat different spins:
Superintendent Daniel Nerad said, “I am very pleased that we have reached this tentative agreement after an extensive period of bargaining. We have addressed a significant number of contract language related items. A key example lies in the area of elementary planning time. Of greatest significance to the District is an agreement over language that would allow for the implementation of a four-year-old kindergarten program.” “Also, in working with MTI we have been able to provide a salary increase, in part, as a result of reductions in health care costs. I appreciate working with John Matthews in accomplishing these insurance savings. I look forward to presenting this tentative agreement to the Board of Education in the near future.”
John Matthews said, “But the economic provisions do not adequately reward those who have made the Madison schools among the best in the country. With the State usurping local control as regards to school funding, this is a matter that the State must fix; there is nothing local school boards can do, given the State’s heavy hand. The State must realize that their funding formula for education is inadequate, and that it is causing the dissolution of the great education once available to Wisconsin children. That must be fixed and it is up to the Governor and the Legislators to do it.”
One thing I like about John Matthews is that he always can be counted on to focus attention on growing need for our state government to enact comprehensive school funding reform. An agitator after my own heart.
As one who follows these things, I have to note that the press release includes MTI and MMSD contact info, but is only posted on the MTI site (not the MMSD, as of 4:30 PM, 9-25-09).
With much joy and no little fanfare, the preliminary budget passed by the Madison Metropolitan School District in May restored the “Ready, Set, Goal” conferences that teachers and parents found so valuable. With the opening of school less than one week away “Ready, Set, Goal” conferences are not on the schedule. At best they are on hold — perhaps until after the potential to shape those crucial days and weeks –; at worst they will not happen at all. Very disappointing.
Apparently there are contractual issues that have not been settled.
I don’t know what the issues are. I do know that with most of four months to work with, there should have been a way to make the conferences happen.
There had been or is a memorandum of understandingin place to establish “the terms… should finances become available to reinstate the program.” MTI included a desire to renew that understanding in an April 2009 negotiations update. I can’t find a copy of the memorandum, so I don’t know what those terms are/were. I also don’t know if one or both parties are seeking changes to those terms.
While on the topic of “I don’s know,” (lots of them today) I’d like to know what is being done with $267,000 cost included in the preliminary budget (since shifted to stimulus/ARRA sources).
This is late and is going to be quick.
According to a 
AMPS 