Along with Joe Quick (Legislative Liaison for MMSD) and Rebecca Kemble (Parent Activist), I’m going to be on “A Public Affair” hosted by Esty Dinur on WORT at Noon today (5/19) talking about state and local school budget issues. Listen and call in.
Thomas J. Mertz
On Monday May 17 (6:00 PM) and Tuesday June 1 (5:00 PM), the Madison Metropolitan School Board will hold public hearings and meetings on the 2010-11 Budget. On June 1st they will vote to finalize the Preliminary Budget Both meetings are in the Doyle Building Auditorium and will be carried by MMSD-TV.
Many relevant documents can be found on the district Budget Page. Among those missing are the Amended Preliminary Budget (reflecting actions through May 4) and the Cost-to-Continue Budget partially incorporating the Reorganization.
In this penultimate phase of the budget process I will be proposing two budget amendments for the Board’s consideration (the ultimate phase comes in October when student counts, state aid and the property tax levy are all certified). I am asking other concerned community members to join me in supporting these, either by testifying at the hearings or contacting the Board (board@madison.k12.wi.us). The amendments and the thoughts behind them are explained in the open letter to the Board below.
Members of the MMSD Board of Education
These last months I’ve watched as you’ve struggled with the 2010-22 budget.
The seeming inability of our state officials to reform education funding combined with a cuts in state education aid by those same officials, left you in a difficult position, with no clear, easy choices.
I’ve listened to hundreds of community members asking you to not cut particular items and many of these ask you to not cut at all. The clear message from those who came before you was that tax increases are better than further cuts to our district.
This is the same spirit that animated 87,329 voters (over 68 %) to support the 2008 referendum. Now you are poised to enact cuts much greater than the $9 million anticipated had the referendum failed.
I have also witnessed your consistent efforts to act on the best information possible in order to maintain successful initiatives, leave core programs untouched, preserve jobs and avoid greater inequities. Although there is much about the process and the results (thus far) that I don’t like, you — along with administrators and staff — have earned respect and even a little applause for having evaluated almost $30 million in cuts, efficiencies and savings and arrived at over $13 million that could be trimmed with relatively minimal impact on the things that matter most. We shouldn’t fool ourselves or anyone else, there will be a negative impacts from the changes detailed in the Preliminary Budget.
Reflecting on this process three other things stood out. First and most generally, the idea of progress — moving forward, improving educational opportunities and governance — seemed to be lost in the efforts to maintain and preserve. Second, the Board throughout this budget (and at other times) has been hampered by inadequate information. Last, I continually heard “Equity” invoked as a rationale to keep budget items and occasionally heard it as a justification for cutting programs (as if the answer to inequity was to eliminate instead of moving or expanding something that was benefiting students); I never heard anyone talk about doing something positive to increase Equity.
These are the thoughts behind my proposals. I find it almost criminal that people like you who are committed to public education can enact cuts at this level and not at minimum consider reallocating from some of those cuts in ways that have great potential to improve our schools. I know I can’t sit by silently and allow that to happen.
I am proposing that you consider using $2.25 Million of the approximately $13 Million in revenue authority currently designated for property tax relief be used in the following manner.
- Budget $.25 million for improved data collection analysis and reporting as required in the Strategic Plan, TAG Plan, and Equity Policy, Literacy Education Evaluation and elsewhere. This should include the creation of a position working with the Board of Education to determine and meet their informational needs.
- Budget $2.0 million in Supplemental Allocations to high need schools via the Equity Resource Formula (or a similar criteria) and aligned with purposes identified in School Improvement Plans and consistent with the Strategic Plan and Equity Policy. Since SAGE and Title I do provide resources to high need elementary schools, it may be advisable to disproportionately target secondary schools with these funds.
A little more background and details on each of these.
Observers of and participants in this budget process have repeatedly expressed frustration with the quality of information available to base decisions on. The Strategic Plan, the Equity Policy, the Literacy Evaluation Initiative, the Talented and Gifted (TAG) Plan, the Culturally Relevant Education Program and much more all include evaluation and reporting components. These are all critical to bringing improvement to the district. Because of budget pressures the staff are being asked to do more with less. Reviewing not only the budget process, but also the State of the District Report and the draft Equity Report, it is clear that there is much room for improvement. This is an area where a small investment could have great effect.
I want to make it clear that by data, I include qualitative assessments of programs and practices. I would also encourage the use of some of this money to move forward with assessments other than the WKCE. the limits of that tool are well known. More generally, a word of caution about the utility of any and all assessments and analysis is in order. Data should not and cannot drive policy, but good information, well presented should serve to guide decisions. I have included the recommendation for a position working with the Board for two reasons. First, I think that the Board knows best what information they would find useful and should be able to have a clear means of getting that information. Second, in too many instances those directly involved in programs have been the sole source of information and evaluations resulting in a lack of perspective, objectivity and the very real possibility of conflicts of interest.
Much of my involvement in education advocacy stems from my 2005 appointment to the MMSD Equity Task Force. This is an issue that is close to my heart and central to my advocacy at the local, state and national levels.
After much work, in 2008 the Board of Education enacted a policy based partially on the recommendations of that Task Force. Both the Task Force and the policy recommend where appropriate “unequal distribution of resources and services in response to the unequal distribution of needs and educational barriers.” This is how schools can seek to combat societal inequality instead of reproducing it.
Before being decimated by budget cuts, MMSD used to do this through what were called “supplemental allocations,” which provided extra resources to our highest need schools. Instead we rely on the limited and inadequate state and federal SAGE, Title I, IDEA, ELL and the like for limited and inadequate Equity based allocations.
We do nothing or next to nothing beyond what is required by law with general funds (as you know, the legal mandates for Special Education students and English Language Learners can only be met by supplementing with general funds); Title I and SAGE do nothing for students in our Middle and High Schools.
Little progress is being made in the achievement gap. African American and Hispanic students are almost twice as likely to drop out as they are to participate in programs for the “Talented and Gifted.” 166 African American or Hispanic drop outs/90 receiving any attention from the TAG staff. All parts of that statistic are ugly. There is much room for improvement here and in other areas of concern for Equity.
Bringing back some form of Equity directed supplemental allocations would be an important step forward. I am asking that you to consider taking this step.
In closing I think it is important to recall that for 16 years the state imposed revenue caps have forced painful cuts and made progress and improvements difficult. As one of you said “We’ve given up on dreaming.” Too much time and energy has gone into deciding what to cut and not cut and too little into making things better. Recent state actions and inaction left the Board with difficult choices involving further cuts and significantly increased property taxes. More time and energy spent deciding what to cut or not cut and how much to tax; very little spent trying to make our schools the best they can be. Without the initiatives I’ve proposed others like them, the district is projected to levy about$13 million less than is allowed by the state. In the service of dreams and Equity, it is imperative that some of that authority be used to move forward, to improve, not just maintain and preserve.
Sincerely
Thomas J. Mertz
In the 2009-11 biennial budget, Wisconsin was forced to reduce state general school aids by $147 million each year compared to FY 2009. Despite increasing poverty and rising fixed costs, the level of general aid available to Wisconsin school districts for the 2010-11 school year is roughly equal to what it was five years ago.
Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers in letters to Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold in support of the Harkin Education Jobs bill.
To learn more about the Harkin bill, see here and this New York Times editorial: “Saving the Teachers.” I also liked Harold Meyerson’s recent Washington Post op ed, “Deficit hawkery’s harsh impact on education” (although with most states deficits aren’t allowed and much of it is about the equally insidious budget hawkery).
USA Today is reporting that:
Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
So there is plenty of reason and room to be talking about real tax reform that makes needed adjustments and provides necessary revenues.
While on that topic, the Penny for Kids campaign is going strong. Join the thousands calling for an sales tax increase dedicated to education in order to meet the crisis and start Wisconsin back in the right direction.
Following Evers lead and contacting our Senators would be a good idea:
Madison Office
14 W. Mifflin St., Suite 207
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 264-5338
Fax: (608) 264-5473
Middleton
1600 Aspen Commons
Middleton, WI 53562-4716
(608) 828-1200
TDD (608) 828-1215
Fax (608) 828-1203
If you want to hit State officials too, all the info is here.
Last, WisPolitics is reporting that Supt Evers also broached some school funding reform ideas around the Levy Credits (no link). Addressing the levy credits as the property tax relief they are, instead pretending that they are education aid is a great start, but much more is needed to take our state where it should be and offer a quality education to all.
Thomas J. Mertz
This is late and is going to be quick.
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 Superintendent’s Announcements include:
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.
Thomas J. Mertz
If you live in the 78th Wisconsin Assembly District, your Representative Mark Pocan wants to hear from you and he wants to hear from you about the “revenue crisis facing our schools.” He’s listening; it is time to speak loud and clear.
In his latest mailing to constituents the last question of his survey reads:
Given the revenue crisis facing our schools, how would you direct additional funding towards K12? (please select one)
____Increase property taxes
____Increase sales tax by 1c under a “Penny for Kids” proposal
____Close corporate tax loopholes
____Redirect current revenue collections towards K12
____Other
Other than the “please select one” this is great (I think closing corporate tax loopholes and Penny for Kids should both be in the mix).
If you threw your copy out already, you can download the survey here and mail it to the address included. You can also email him: rep.pocan@legis.wisconsin.gov. Do sign the Penny for Kids petition too.
If you don’t live in his district, think about doing it anyway, but indicate where you live or send it to your Rep (Pocan cares — maybe too much — what voters outside his district think).
Don’t let this opportunity go to waste!
Thomas J. Mertz
Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, Elections, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized
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.
……….
There are about $5.37 Million in cuts and efficiencies offered by the administration left on the table, plus amendments from Board Members.
……….
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.
……….
Brenda Konkel got it right on the “secret straw poll” distraction. Here is what I posted in the comments on the Cap Times editorial:
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.
……….
I think some clarification about schedules and process is in order. The calendar on the district web site has been out of date for some time, so here’s my attempt.
| 05/03/10 | Board of Education Meetings | 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.
………
Remember you can contact the Board at board@madison.k12.wi.us and please, please sign the Penny for Kids petition so there is some chance that we never have to do this again.
Thomas J. Mertz
Catching up on some links and stories. Some new, some old.
The initial Milwaukee Public Schools budget is out: FY11 Budget Proposal; Superintendent’s detailed overview; What’s happening in other districts?
. $33 Million in cuts and 682 jobs on the line.
Two Stories from Education Week: School District Funding Woes Increase and Districts Report Grim Outlook as Stimulus Fades.
A couple of letters to the editor with the right ideas: Richard Banks, “Invest in schools now, not prisons later” and Jane Albert, “Pass extra sales tax to support schools.”
Along the same lines as Jane Albert’s letter, Matt Hrodey on the Milwaukee Magazine NewsBuzz site writes all about “Our antiquated sales tax.”
As I’ve said many times, the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools‘ Penny for Kids campaign is the best thing going in school funding action. Sing the petition; get involved.
The Wisconsin Way “Blue Print” is out. It is a decidedly mixed bag, but does call for a sales tax bump to fund education.
The Reedsburg Times-Press asks “What now for schools?” and the Oshkosh Northwestern provides a reality based answer: “School closings, budget decisions fueling distrust between parents and districts.” Depressing, but true.
In Oshkosh the problems also include “crowding, mold, mice.”
In the Dells, “School board hears warning of budget cuts.”
One more, on a hopeful note: “Sen. Harkin proposes $23 billion bailout for schools” (estimates of Wisconsin’s share here and here, about $400 Million). Diluting that hope is the fact that Wisconsin — like many other states — basically used the ARRA state stabilization funds to replace state aid, resulting in a net loss for schools and that big funding cliff referenced in the second set of links.
Thomas J. Mertz
[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.
Also for the record, the tally of Board Member “yeses, nos and maybes” has been posted (without attribution). On to the amendments. As I said before, read them yourself, they aren’t that long. I’m just going to hit the highlights and lowlights.
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?).
Maya Cole’s amendments are the most thorough and the ones that least reflect the “if we are going to fund A, we have to cut B” fiction I complained about earlier. Throughout the Budget process Maya Cole has been particularly concerned about long term sustainability and you can see some of that in her ideas.
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.
Cole also supports discontinuing the Value Added consultant contract. I’m with her 100% here. Her rationale is the WKCE is on the way out and that’s the basis of this work. My rationale is that the information provided is almost useless.
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.
Insert obligatory Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and Penny for Kids links along with discretionary School Finance Network link.
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.
Thomas J. Mertz
Proposed budget amendments from Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education Members and administrative responses have been posted here (further administrative responses are expected) Thus far only Ed Hughes, Lucy Mathiak and Arlene Silveira have submitted amendments. [Update: Maya Cole and Beth Moss now have amendments posted.]
With Mathiak’s amendments and most of Silveira’s cuts in one place are linked to funding items in another place, with some of the items being funded ones that have already been “taken off the table” and some of the items cut being things that were not originally among the Budget Options (Ed Hughes does some linking too). [Update: Beth Moss follows a similar pattern of linking savings to expenditures. In Maya Cole’s very extensive and detailed amendments, the individual proposals mostly stand alone.]
This isn’t wrong by any means, but it strikes me as strange. In the past the revenue limits required that for everything added back there be something cut (or budget estimations for things like salary savings be adjusted). There were no other choices. This year the tax authority is there and it isn’t necessary to “find the money” to pay for restored items.
I also think it confuses matters — not only in terms of the nature of the budget situation re. tax authority and the old revenue limit gaps — but also in terms of creating unnecessary and false connections between unrelated budget items.
I think proposing cuts that the Administration did not include is good, but I’d like to see these as distinct items. There is no reason to make cuts to to travel budgets contingent on restoring IRTs or restoring IRTs contingent on cuts to travel budgets.
No time for further comments. Read them yourself, they aren’t that long.
Thomas J. Mertz
Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, finance, Local News, School Finance
The most important Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education meeting this “week” is Sunday’s Budget Hearing (April 18th at 1:00 pm at Warner Park Community Recreation Center — 1625 Northport Dr). Read more about it and some calls for action here. An extra meeting prior to Monday’s District Awards Ceremony has been called to wrap up some loose ends and possibly move budget matters forward.
The meeting commences at 5:30 and the Award’s Ceremony is scheduled for 7:00. Here are the details: Memorial High School, 201 South Gammon Road. Madison, WI, Room 500. As of last Monday, it appeared that MMSD-TV would be covering the Ceremony, but not the meeting. If I hear different, I’ll post.
The first item on the agenda is “Position Descriptions for Deputy Superintendent/Chief Learning Officer; Director-Professional Development; Director-Early and Extended Learning; Executive Director of Curriculum and Assessment” and this comes with some new information, as requested by the Board. The related documents are: Position Descriptions; Organization Chart; and an updated Reorganization Budget (what was previously presented as the Side-by-Side). There are a couple of other related items that have been received by the Board but do not appear to have been posted yet on the district site. The first is a new memo on the Reorganization from Superintendent Dan Nerad. The second is a new version of the Department and Division Reports portion of the Budget Book (old version here), with at least some of the Reorganization interpolated in Budget Figures but not in the narratives or organization charts. I haven’t had the time to do a page-by-page, so I’m not sure what has been changed or what still needs changing. I am sure that the that the “Proposed Expenditures: Summary by Department” reflecting the Reorganization (beginning on page 5 new Department and Division Reports pdf), along with the Reorganization chart, is very useful in getting a handle on both the Reorganization and the budget.
Some things to note from this set of documents.
First, there are lots of vacancies in important positions and not all are Reorganization related. This brought to mind that Arlene Silveira and Lucy Mathiak, now poised to begin their fifth years of service, are the longest serving Board members. Maybe we were spoiled and some may say that turnover is good, but there does seem to be a deficit of the kind historical memory that long-serving Board members and administrators provided.
I’ve been trying to figure out the new Talented and Gifted arrangement. Direct supervision of the Coordinator is split between Elementary and Secondary Assistant Superintendents (serve two masters?) and I think the budget lines for the TAG IRTs appear as Elementary Bldg Support and Secondary Elementary Bldg Support. Talented and Gifted is one area where the narrative has not been updated in the new documents.
I also want to repeat three things. 1) This Reorganization seems to me to also change the job description of the Superintendent and that remains unexamined. 2) There has been some complaining about adding the Chief Learning Officer position at a time of budget difficulties, but the salary and benefits lines for that position replace the Chief of Staff and only add about $6,000 in projected expenditures. 3) The matter of using Fund Balance money to pay for the remaining contracts on eliminated postilions remains unresolved and the larger discussion of best practices on Fund Balances and debt refinance that I’ve been calling for the last year and a half does not appear to be part of the plan.
The next item is the “Legislation relative to the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program.” This really deserves a post of its own as a state matter, but that hasn’t happened. I did write a long comment and I’m going to cut-and-paste that and add some things.
I’ve been meaning to post on this, but haven’t found the time.
The proposal is to raise SAGE class sizes to 18. It is part of a series of band-aids in a package from the Rural Caucus. Most of them are fine, but they are pretty minor. Tom Beebe from WAES made that point in his testimony at the Assembly Education hearing. (full hearing video here). The bill itself is here; the press release on the Rural Caucus package is here; and there are news stories here and here and here.
Most of the package is fine, too little, but fine. I have mixed feelings about the SAGE part. Many districts are faced with the prospect of giving up SAGE all together (as Madison gave up fully locally funded class size reductions a few years ago). 18 is better than 22. For more on the economics of SAGE as an underfunded program, see these this post: SAGE Thoughts.
The research on class size doesn’t make a big distinction between 15 and 18, but experience and common sense tell me that whatever the test score correlations, the quality of the educational experience is more likely to be higher in a smaller class. A bunch of links to research: Reducing Class Size, What Do We Know?; For African-American Students, Class Size Matters; The Benefits of Small Class Sizes.
It wasn’t in the MMSD Budget Options because it wasn’t on their radar.
As I said in the post, this is part of the “we’d rather lower our ambitions than raise taxes” mentality that is destroying so many good things.
The biggest thing missing from this comment is the part of the legislation that I think makes SAGE contracts available to more schools. I believe MMSD has 19 contracts and 25 elementary schools with poverty levels above 30% . If I read this correctly, the six non-SAGE, 30%+ schools would be eligible (MMSD used to do fully locally funded class size reductions for non-SAGE schools, but that fell under the budget axe three years ago). Expanding SAGE to more schools would be a good thing, but one with budget implications, requiring more local money too.
I also neglected to mention that coupled with the new 18/1 policy is the elimination of the DPI power to grant waivers. MMSD has registered in opposition to this portion of the legislation.
A quick recap of the economics of SAGE and this proposal is probably in order (fuller ones in this post and this one). SAGE is underfunded and the lower the poverty percentage in a school/grade/class, the more underfunded it is. You have to get in the 90%+ poverty range for state funds to fully cover the costs of lower class sizes. The class size limits also create sweet spots and sour spots. At 15, 30 or 45 (or any multiple of 15) is a sweet spot where SAGE dollars are maximized and local dollars are minimized (at 18 it would be 18, 36, 54…). The sour spots are all other numbers, but especially those just over the multiples of the limits. Under current law 30 kids in a grade means two classes but 31 means three classes. That’s a sour spot. raising the limit gives more flexibility and makes many of the sour spots less sour (under the new limit of 18, 31 kids wouldn’t be the sweetest spot, but it wouldn’t require a third class either).
As a general thing, I like the expansion of contracts and have mixed feelings about the higher limits. Many districts have been contemplating withdrawals from SAGE because they can’t afford it and while I believe 15 is better than 18, 18 is better than 22 or higher. In an ideal world (and in the plans put forth by the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and the School Finance Network), districts wouldn’t have to make these choices. Even the Pennies for Kids proposal includes a Poverty Aid that would address most of this dilemma. One friend suggested a local policy that would seek to keep the 15/1 at the highest poverty schools and use some of the flexibility at lower poverty schools. I like that.
The last item is “2010-11 MMSD Budget Reductions, Efficiency Options, and Other Measures for Addressing the Property Tax Impact of and Revenue Gap within the Projected Budget (action may be taken). ” The Budget Page is here (with a link to a summary of the actions they took last Monday, but not some of the documents linked above).
This is as good a place as any to say few words about the MMSD Budget article that appeared in the Isthmus this week (a very few words).
There is no question that there have been serious problems with the process this year. Some of this is because the the tax or cut decisions before the Board are very different from the traditional cut to meet the revenue limits decisions of the past. However, both the Board and the administration knew this in advance and I don’t think they fully thought out or implemented procedures that would make things as clear and smooth as possible. I hope some planning is done to make next year better.
There is also no question that the timing and quality of information provided to the Board and public has been lacking in some significant ways. Work needs to be done to tighten this up also.
The whole thing has the feel of a collective improvisation and a rushed one at that. This isn’t good.
The one place where I think the analysis presented in the article is wrong is on the nature and size of the gap and the problems with the confusion around that. I’ve said before, “tax authority is tax authority, is tax authority” and there was a an over $28 million gap between the authority exercised last year (the “no new taxes” level) and the allowed authority this year. I don’t like the “no new taxes” formulation, but till the Board decides otherwise (as they did on March 22), that’s the baseline.
There was also a slightly over $1 million gap between allowed authority and initial cost-to-continue estimates.
When presented with this information, the Board asked for $30 million worth of options for cuts, efficiencies and savings. This is what the administration provided and this is the source of the “sky is falling” ideas. You can watch the press conference when this was unveiled and see that every attempt was made to clarify things, but the reality is that $30 million worth of cuts were on the table and until the Board was clear that they would exercise revenue authority above last years level (raise taxes) a forecast of a falling sky was part of the picture that had to be considered.
A couple things on the Awards. I don’t know many of the recipients, but I want to give Sheryl Rowe (my younger son’s teacher this year) and Jill Jokela (who I often have disagreed with but have great respect for her dedication) special congratulations.
Thomas J. Mertz
Fund a Classroom Project in Madison
AMPS 