Category Archives: Equity

by | November 4, 2007 · 7:10 pm

Education DINOS

DINO is an acronym for Democrat in Name Only. We are seeing a rise in the activism of education DINOS. Education is an issue that hits close to home and forces people to confront the depth of their beliefs in things like “the common good” and “equality of opportunity.” These ideals are often abandoned when forced to compete with the promise of political gains or their desires for the specific needs of their children. So we get self-justifying stories about abandoning urban schools and advocacy for charters and ability grouping among those who desire to maintain some relationship to the public schools.

This consumerist stance pays only lip service to both Democratic and democratic values.

Phillip Kovacs of the University of Alabama and the Educational Policy Blog has a great post up about two of the biggest DINO players in the education policy and politics; Democrats for Education Reform and The Education Sector

Here is how he ends it:

At present organizations such as these dominate policy making. I’m interested in ending that dominance. Perhaps the problem is that we have not pushed ideology enough. The belief that education should serve democracy is an ideological position, is it not? Perhaps we need to do a better job of marketing that brand…

Marketing is part of it, but I think we need to do a better job in our schools and homes teaching the privileged to understand and work for equity and justice and equality. Tom Beebe of the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools closes his emails with this quote:

“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped,” — Hubert Humphrey, 1976

I’d like to see that idea included in state and national standards.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Elections, Equity, Gimme Some Truth

by | October 17, 2007 · 6:37 pm

Six Months and Counting

Yesterday marked six months since the Board of Education officially received the report of the Equity Task Force. At that meeting the Board noted the report required follow up. It remains listed as a priority for this year.

I understand the Board is busy, but six months is a long time.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Equity, Local News

by | September 20, 2007 · 11:38 pm

My Superintendent Profile Form

The whole thing is linked here (I know I didn’t spend enough time on the rankings). Previously I wrote that I was struggling with number 5. This is what I came up with:

Madison Metropolitan School District
SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH
LEADERSHIP PROFILE ASSESSMENT
Attachment
5. Tell us your vision for the School District for the future.

I believe that public education is our best means of creating a better future; a future with less inequality, more understanding, greater prosperity and a stronger sense of citizenship. I also understand that fulfilling this mission – especially at a time when public education is under attack from many quarters and under a state finance system that values tax relief more than education – is and will remain an ongoing struggle. Districts like MMSD have an important role to play in the national debates over the mission and assessment of public education. We are a district of high expectations, high needs and great inequalities. We are also a community that supports our schools and believes that students of all backgrounds can and must be successful. Like other districts in the Minority Student Achievement Network (the first place I would look for candidates), we are a proving ground and have the great opportunity to demonstrate that public education can fulfill its mission, can provide opportunities for all, and can create a better future.

The best statement of what the next steps in this direction would be can be found in the work of the Equity Task Force (http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/equity/). I would ask that all finalists read and respond to the Final Task Force Report (and appendices).

At minimum, the profile should reflect a commitment to the Task Force’s definition of equity:

Equity assures full access to opportunities for each MMSD student to achieve educational excellence and social responsibility.

I attended one of the focus groups this afternoon and thought that the consultant did a very good job.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Contracts, Equity, Local News

by | September 15, 2007 · 4:34 pm

3 Books to Add to Your List

I found three great books at the library’s new nonfiction section.

“Can we talk about race?”, by Beverly Daniel Tatum (Beacon Press, 2007). Prof. Tatum is the President of Spelman College and author of the recent book, “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” This book has a strong emphasis on education, and it is a great one to raise awareness on racial issues in general. I’ll try to post a bit of a review in a few days.

“The Last Word: The Best Commentary and Controversy in American Education”, Education Week, Jossey-Bass Press (2007). This is a set of essays from Education Week from a wide range of perspectives. Topics include The Art of Teaching, Equity and Social Justice, Testing, Curriculum, Technology, Democracy, Reform, Charter Schools, and Leadership. Writers include John Hope Franklin, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Diane Ravitch, Pedro Noguera, Dorothy Rich, Alfie Kohn, Bill Clinton, Theodore Sizer, Edwin Delattre, John Goodlad, Adam Urbanski, and others. How can you call yourself a school policy wonk if you didn’t read this book?

“In Code: A Young Woman’s Mathematical Journey”, by Sarah Flannery (Algonquin Books, 2002). Ok, this one isn’t new, but it was to me. It’s Sarah Flannery’s account of her passion for mathematics (especially cryptography) and winning Ireland’s Young Scientist of the Year award in 1999, a the age of 16. I wasn’t so fascinated by the award – someone had to win it, right? I was fascinated by her writing and enthusiasm for the math. She walks you through the world of prime numbers, Fermat’s Little Theorem, and much more. Although she had some help on the book from her dad, David Flannery from the Cork Institute of Technology, her voice and story really do rise to the top.

Happy reading!

– Jerry Eykholt (TJ let me log-in as him so I could post – let’s see if this worked!)

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Equity

by | September 7, 2007 · 8:12 pm

When Race Matters

As Susan Troller recently explored, the demographics of MMSD continue to move toward more minorities and more poverty (the story was quite good and the comments are worth a look too). This essay from the Teacher’s College Record by Sean P. Corcoran & Jennifer Booher-Jennings of New York University offers a nice overview of research that demonstrates the continued salience of race in the quest for equity or equality of educational opportunity — particularly in reference to teacher “quality” — in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision.

Excerpt:

The Court’s decision to ban the use of race in school assignment may only serve to exacerbate the unequal distribution of teachers across schools. Through teachers’ “preference for home,” the nation’s residentially segregated communities are already mirrored in the segregation of teachers and teaching talent across schools. Where racially isolated schools serve as a deterrent to new teachers, any decision that further isolates minority students in individual schools will only accelerate the loss of talented teachers from high-minority schools. In integrated schools, children of color benefit from a cadre of higher-caliber teachers they simply would not have access to were their schools racially segregated

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Equity, National News

by | July 8, 2007 · 9:16 pm

Bad Idea

Announced Madison school board candidate Ed Hughes had a guest column in last Sunday’s Wisconsin State Journal suggesting that MMSD sell the naming rights to the new school. For many reasons, but mostly because of the messages this sends our children, our citizenry and our elected officials, his is bad idea.

US Court of Appeals Judge Joseph Blocher has written about the first amendment issues involved in the policy Hughes supports. Blocher predicts a coming “wave of school naming rights cases,” maybe Madison would have nice ride, but the possibility of wiping out exists. Hughes blithely asserts that the Board could not accept purely commercial names, but Blocher indicates that once naming is put out to bid the allowable restrictions are not clear. Even if the rejection of crass commercialism is allowed, the Board could be faced with a situation where the supporters of Vang Pao or much worse were the highest bidders. That’s a hornet’s nest I don’t think we want to enter.

During the Marquette–Lapham controversy, Paul Soglin noted the futility of one time sales of assets in order to meet operating expenses. Although I am less absolute than Soglin on this, he makes a good point. Hughes imagines interest from the money going for a literacy coordinator. Assuming this is feasible, I think the experience of the Overture Centure should have taught us about relying on projected endowment earnings for operating expenses. What happens when the money is gone? I suppose that the “one time” aspect could be circumvented by leasing naming rights or selling them piecemeal – so much for the auditorium, so much for the principal’s office, so much for the computer lab – in order to keep the money flowing. This would make a bad idea worse. Our Board has enough to do without going into the auction business and each sale would compound all the negatives discussed below.

Hughes draws upon the example of the Atwood Community Center being renamed the Goodman Atwood Community Center, but neglects to mention an important distinguishing characteristic. The Goodman Atwood center is a private entity, the public schools are not.

Given the state of school finance, I understand the pragmatic desire to secure funding wherever possible, but with funding comes control. Whatever their failings, I prefer control remain with the voters and our elected board. Thanks to a successful referendum, the construction for the new school in Madison school has already been secured but in other districts naming rights are being sold in order to fund construction. Madison will need other new schools in the coming years and it doesn’t take much imagination to see that right to name a school in a wealthy area will bring more than the right to name a high poverty school and in this manner and whatever the real needs private funds could easily become part of the equation. Most of the districts that have put naming rights on the market have also sought monies for specific programs or facilities, like the The Electronic Arts (video game company) Learning Center in Belmont Ca, Acuity Auditorium in Plymouth, WI or the Shoprite playgound in Brooklawn NJ. Compter labs, playgrounds and auditoriums are great, but how many corporations or individuals would pay to have their name attached to school psychologist office or remedial math programs? I don’t want our school’s priorities shaped by wealthy (any more than they already are).

Back to Hughes’ literacy coordinator, maybe there are other schools in the district with a greater need for this position but Hughes attaches it to the new school. Tough luck for those kids in the schools with nothing desirable to sell.

Seeking this kind of funding also undermines the efforts for tax fairness and adequate funding of education. By definition, individuals and corporations who can afford to purchase the honor of naming a school have accumulated excess wealth. It would be swell to see some of that wealth go to public schools but I much prefer that it go their via taxation and not in order to market a product or as a purchased ego trip. And with each sale the anti tax people and the privatizers gain momentum: “Why should we pay taxes when there is unrealized revenue from naming rights? Why have public schools at all, let’s let those who can afford it decide what kind of schools we should have?’

All the above recommend at very least a more thorough exploration of the issues involved than Hughes seems to have made and in my opinion provide sufficient grounds for the Board to not go into the business of selling naming rights, but the primary reasons I hope the Board rejects this out of hand are more basic to the purpose of our schools.

Our schools are there to transmit knowledge and values and the knowledge and values inherent in the selling of naming rights are not the ones I believe we should be transmitting. My elementary school was named after Martin Luther King Jr. To this day, I take pride in that and I believe that my values have been shaped by the impression made on my young mind by my community’s choice to honor King. The odds of anyone ponying up a cool million to name a school after MLK are pretty slim. Selling the naming rights takes away opportunities of this sort. Assuming Hughes is right and commercial messages could be avoided and that names of insufficient honor could be rejected, resulting in a bought names that were “less prominent but still honorable,” the message remains that ours is a society where honor is for sale. Is this what we want to teach our children? Do you want to explain that Rev. JC Wright dedicated his life to our community and he is being honored for that and Joe Schmoe was an OK guy who made a killing in real estate so he gets a school named after him too? I don’t.

Our schools should represent the best of our society, our hopes and aspirations for the future, our quest for equity. Everywhere, inequality is in control, wealth is celebrated and rewarded and there are too few places where other values get their due. The schools should be one such place. Our schools are far from perfect and their quest to live up to these ideals will always be a work in progress. Still, we lose much when we were to sell any portion of that vision. Schools should not be for sale, not to the highest bidder, not to the highest non-commercial or “less prominent but still honorable” bidder.

Some ideas are so bad that their failings are apparent at a glance. Selling the naming rights falls into that category for me. Still, I can respect others who are less certain and want to explore the possibilities (if they do, I hope the issues I have touched on here are part of the discussion and I’d be glad to consider what others have to say). I have more trouble with a school board candidate who is so dazzled by the possibility of “easy” money that he has given no apparent attention to the difficulties inherent in and the possible negative consequences of his proposal. Maybe Hughes has considered these and come to an opposite conclusion. Even if that is the case, his simplistic boosterism is not the sort of public discussion our schools benefit from. We need leaders who understand that very little in educational policy is simple and demonstrate a willingness to transparently grapple with the complexities.

The Board of Education will decide on a process for the naming on Monday. Let’s all hope that they don’t end up with something like Hughes has proposed.

Some additional links (more food for thought and discussion):

Law Professor Anne Bartow: “Trademarks of Privilege: Naming Rights and the Physical Public Domain”

Savvy School or Capitalist Tool? (Wired)

Commercial Alert (education issues)

Commercialism in Education Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University, Tempe

Campaign For A Commercial-Free Childhood

In Public Schools, the Name Game as a Donor Lure (New York Times)

2 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, Equity, Local News, School Finance

by | June 15, 2007 · 5:23 pm

Above the Line/Below the Line

A recent story be Doug Erickson in the Wisconsin State Journal covered MMSD’s implementation of a “new” approach to behavioral issues. No program is perfect and even the best programs can suffer from inconsistent application. I’ve heard mostly good things from staff and parents about Above the Line/Below the Line, so I hope that our community recognizes the limitations of what any approach can accomplish and gives this sufficient time before making it the focus of a “moral panic.”

A friend and colleague from the Equity Task Force, Jackie Woodruff, related her experiences in a message to the AMPS listserve. I think they should be part of the discussion and with her permission, I’m posting them here:

As a parent of twin second graders at Falk Elementary School I have been using Above the line, Below the Line for three years. It was our former Principal Jerry Tollefson that pushed to get the program used districtwide as our school has a high transient population and his staff was educating all students that transferred in to the school throughout the year. The fix it plan has received a very bad name in the past few weeks. The fix it plan is designed to have the children involved come up with a way to fix the problem, come up with a consequence and then the offending party has to come up with something positive they can do to the offended party to make amends. For my children in kindergarten they wrote pictures to explain their plan and then had the plan approved by the teacher. The whole point is that the children are learning a life lesson using conflict resolution skills to solve problems they encounter. It is a foundation to build on throughout their school experience as they grown and their understanding broadens. My children have used fix it plans with the children in the neighborhood to solve problems they encounter.

Give me five is a way of reminding the children what behaviors are acceptable and how one can act appropriately. Class discussions include identifying things that are above the line versus below the line. It is a way to open a discussion between the teacher and the students at whatever level they are at. The students learn responsibility with the ability to earn courage coupons for being caught doing something right by a grownup outside their classroom or doing a specific job within the classroom. The class combines their coupons and cash them in for things like a movie party to reward and celebrate the good behavior. The students reinforce and encourage each other to behave above the line for the good of all in the classroom. They are also quick to help each other solve problems and make amends after they students involved come up with a solution to their problem. Obviously not all problems can be solved with fix it plans. More severe behaviors of a violent nature need to be and are handled directly with the teacher and the support staff with parent involvement as in the past. The fix it plan is then made with the student, the teacher and the principal with some form of apology to the wronged party and some type of restitution to the offending student. This reinforces the life lesson of a consequence to an action. Nothing is perfect, but the more this policy is used and modified to be applied in the building, the more effective it becomes. As a parent, I am happy my children are being taught life skills to resolve day to day problems. To me learning life skills is a vital part of their education.

Jackie Woodruff

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Equity, Local News

by | June 13, 2007 · 10:58 pm

Letter to Board of Education on High School Redesign

As part of my job, I recently attended a national conference from the Dept. of Education on effective transition for students with disabilities. A major part of the two-day conference focused on high school redesign and how the researched elements of redesign dovetail with what we also know is important to the successful transition of students with disabilities.
In looking at the national data, students in poverty, students of color and students with disabilities are all facing similar hurdles: lower than normal graduation rates, lower literacy levels when leaving school, less experience with rigorous coursework and lower employment rates (with corresponding lower wage levels).

As a member of the West High community, I want to applaud its success in implementing small learning communities and a rigorous core of courses for freshmen/sophs (along with freshman advisory, lunch-and-learn tutoring, noon clubs and other initiatives designed to engage students and elevate achievement). My sophomore, who has taken the embedded honors in English and Western Civ, in addition to an honors math sequence, has loved her classes, learned to think critically, shared perspectives with students from around the world and from all economic levels, and has appreciated making friends by having many classes with the same cadre of students in her SLC.

Likewise, West has long included students with disabilities in a wide range of general education courses. Its transition program has one of the highest success rates in Wisconsin, successfully developing jobs for students, preparing them for community living, and enrolling them in tech school and other post-secondary options. However, I continue to be concerned with what I see in all four Madison high schools (which data also shows is an issue nationwide):
— Very few African American, SE Asian and Latino students in college-prep courses. (A friend of my daughter’s says he has ONE African American student a classmate across all 7 hours of his day.)
— Lower attendance rates among students of color.
— Less engagement in extra-curriculars and in student leadership roles by students of color and students with disabilities (I don’t think any of the Student Government members at West are African American or have a significant disability. Students with disabilities often are not included on field trips or in other extra-curriculars outside of school unless a parent comes with, which isn’t age-appropriate for high schoolers).
— Different expectations for students based on race and disability. As a member of the district’s Equity Task Force, I reviewed comments from more than 400 community members. ALL demographic groups mentioned differing expectations for students based on race. Students I’ve talked with at West agree, saying students of color are much more likely to be stopped in the hallways. Likewise, parents I know from several high schools in town have been told their children with disabilities can’t take specific honors classes, despite high test scores and past success in high-level courses. One was told that the high school doesn’t provide accommodations in honors classes. The other was told students with significant physical disabilities don’t take “those” kind of classes.
Some aspects of high school redesign that I hope the grant writers can include in their application include:
— Mechanisms for ensuring high expectations for all students. This includes students with disabilities. We need to see a broader range of students in a variety of leadership positions in the school. I’ve heard there will be advisory committees for each high school as part of the grant. I hope that creative recruitment and supports will encourage a wide range of students, particularly students who have not been as successful in our high schools, to be part of these leadership teams.
— Increased effective guidance counseling for all students. Often, students with disaiblities and students who don’t seek out college prep guidance counseling don’t have as much access to career assessment/planning, interest/aptitude inventories, course planning, etc. I know West High has fabulous guidance counselors, but not nearly enough staff or time to do what they need to do.
— Disaggregation of the data to pinpoint our greatest challenges. What do we know from MMSD data about how each group of high schoolers is doing? What is our participation rate in activities for each demographic group? What are the dropout rates? Post-school employment rates? College-prep coursework rates? How many students in specific groups (including those with disabilities) are leaving school with a regular diploma? How many are prepared for secondary education? How many students with disabilities have access to general education courses?
— Effective and adequate professional development. Learning to teach in different ways is integral to high school redesign. General educators need resources to know how to differentiate and provide modifications/accommodations in classes for students with diverse needs: high flyers, English Language Learners, students with specific disabilities, students who are not initially engaged, etc. Special educators should have knowledge about course content involved in general education courses. Both sets of teachers need training on team teaching and collaborative planning. All teaching is moving away from lecture-driven, didactic and passive instruction toward more engagement, collaborative teamwork and critical thinking and problem-solving in the classroom. Teachers need the time and resources to learn and practice new teaching strategies.
— Effective leadership. Will all our high school leaders have access to professional development and other resources to ensure that their staff understand inclusion/disability/diversity/cultural issues?
— Finally, all students, including those with disabilities, will need to be active, engaged members of their small learning communities if high school redesign is really successful. Students with disabilities should be part of the entire school community, not segregated into one small learning community or teaching team. Students of all backgrounds and abilities should be represented in extra-curriculars, student leadership, and decision-making at the building level. We should see all students feeling welcome and included at dances, school events, in clubs and engaged with lunchtime activities. Last week, national author and trainer Dr. Francie Kendall visited the University to talk about the absolute importance of a diverse workforce. Her specialty is technical assistance to institutions of higher learning and she does a lot of consulting for UW-Madison. She talked about the economic cost (dollars and cents) of being a homogeneous institution. One comment that stuck with our group was that an employee who does not feel welcome in the workplace spends 40% of his/her productivity/energy on coping with workplace factors, rather than on his/her job. Likewise, she cited research showing that today’s businesses have found it too expensive to hire college grads who have not had experiences working with ALL demographic groups. The best solutions to business challenges come from groups who represent all different economic, social, cultural and ability backgrounds. Her comments on what businesses and universities have learned about how to be profitable and successful seemed especially germaine to what our high schools need to have in place to support tomorrow’s work force.

Beth Swedeen

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Equity

by | May 2, 2007 · 4:34 am

Be Thankful for What You’ve Got

“Be Thankful for What You’ve Got” (listen) by William DeVaughn

There are many, many things about the process and the results of the April 30, 2007 MMSD Board of Education budget meeting that I am not happy about. From my emails this morning I know that I am not alone. I intend to write about some of these in near future. This evening I want put down a few words on things I am thankful for (in no order).

§ Lindbergh will remain open

This is a school that has achieved much, despite a high “at risk” population and inadequate facilities. I am glad that a majority of the Board recognized how fragile these accomplishments are and decided that the best chance of sustaining them would be by keeping the school open.

§ The alternative programs will no longer be paying rent; Space owned by the district will be used more fully.

I don’t think consolidation was the only way to make this happen, but it is hard to deny that this is a good thing. The consensus I’m hearing is that it is a good space for these programs and the potential benefits of having them together outweigh the potential problems. We shall see.

§ For the most part, the Board members were conscientious and respectful.

That “for the most part” is one of the things I’ll probably write about later. For now, I think that the preparation displayed in many of the questions the Board members asked, the obvious concern for their understanding of what was best for the students and the district, and the respect they (mostly) showed each other and administrative staff should be noted with pride.

§ Board members used the Strategic Plan and the work of the Equity Task Force to guide their decisions.

That is what they are there for and they are good. Read them, you will find it rewarding. Some might be upset that these were employed to further conflicting positions, but I’m OK with that. The point isn’t that these documents make the right decision easy or obvious. Their function is to identify the kinds of things people associated with the district should be thinking about and to give them some guidance on how to think about them. I know the Equity Task Force didn’t think there were any easy answers.

§ For the most part the administrative staff was thorough and professional.

There are some places where I think the information and analyses volunteered and given in response to queries were lacking, but overall the knowledge and talents of the staff were very impressive. I also think their dedication to our children and our community was on display.

§ Some locally funded class size reductions will remain in place.

The benefits of reduced class sizes in the early grades are as well established as almost any educational practice. Preserving a portion of this in lower poverty schools is particularly important because all our schools have children who are poor or are “at risk” for one or more reasons. Low poverty schools get less help from both the federal government and the state (and to declining degree from the district). A poor child in a “rich” school does not have it easy and this will help. Additionally, this should help bolster the faith of middle class families in our schools.

§ There is a growing realization that the primary sources of MMSD’s budget problems are at the state and federal level.

Almost all the Board members and staff described almost all the cuts, fee increases or means of saving as difficult or seeking to do the least harm. This can only help energize the growing activism for reform in Madison and around the state. Lots of local action, please join us, join the ABC Madison list and watch this space for more opportunities.

§ The deeply offensive and patently absurd tactic of painting those who point to state and federal policies as the primary sources of our budget problems as somehow unwilling or unable to govern and budget responsibly is waning.

Ruth Robarts departure has something to do with this, but last night’s budget meeting (like many before) is evidence of the speciousness of this slander. Good riddance.

§ A referendum on the ballot in February of 2008 seems certain.

As long as we have to function under the current state finance system, referenda are the only tools we have to meet the needs and expectations of our community. Madison is a high needs district with high expectations for our schools. Due to this combination we are and will be a “high spending” district. I think we should be proud of this, that we as a community have made education a priority. A referendum will give the electorate a chance to provide the funds to meet these needs and expectations and reaffirm our commitment to education. We are going to need lots of help to make this happen. I’ll be posting updates here.

§ Almost all the good things about our district will continue.

I’ve been thinking about posting something longer on an essay by the educational historian David Tyack called the “A Conservationist Ethic in Education Reform.” Tyack’s point is that in search of the new and better, reformers often lose track of the need to preserve what is good and working. Tyack has certainly informed my unwillingness to embrace “innovation for the sake of innovation.” At this time I also think it serves as a reminder that despite the losses many in our community are feeling, there is much good that remains in place.

I’m sure there is more we should be thankful for (please add your thoughts to the comments). As I said at the top, I’m not at all happy with many of the things that happened, but I’m trying to temper my anger and disappointment and looking for things to be thankful for seemed like a good way to start.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, Equity, Local News, Referenda, School Finance, Take Action

by | April 30, 2007 · 5:32 am

Things to Think About (Budget Issues)

The MMSD Board of Education will be attempting to reach an initial balanced budget on Monday (the final budget is done in October). The Board members and many in the community have been thinking, writing and talking about the budget for months. With less then 24 hours to go, I’d like to put forth some questions and thoughts that I think would be beneficial to contemplate. No polemics or easy answers, but some ways of thinking about things.

1. On all the cuts or consolidations, which would be seriously considered if there weren’t extreme budget pressures?

I said extreme on purpose because there always are and should be budget pressures and those pressures should always be part of the calculations. I understand that there are potential benefits to the consolidation plans and even some of departmental and program reconfigurations, but I am asking how these would weigh or appear if the district could afford “cost to continue” or faced much smaller cuts. This question doesn’t provide much guidance for decision-making, but I do think it shines a light on how our thinking has become dominated by the pressures of a deeply flawed school finance system.

2. What’s wrong, right and true about political pressure?

I’m starting this with the last, because it is the easiest. A look at election results and district maps makes it pretty clear that neither in this budget cycle nor in previous cycles can the decisions of Board members (including on consolidations) be accurately attributed to pandering to bases of support (geographic or otherwise). To state or imply otherwise is an insult to past and present Board members. Three recent examples should suffice to demonstrate how absurd this idea is. Of all the recent Board members Arlene Silviera is the only one who can reasonably be said to have won her seat on the basis of Isthmus area support (and the reality is more complicated, but it is reasonable to say that). Arlene is on record as favoring consolidating Isthmus area schools. Strike one. Strike two is that Johnny Winston Jr. was the only candidate this spring to express a willingness to close schools, was re-elected overwhelmingly (garnering majorities in all parts of the district) and is now working to avoid consolidation. If you want a strike three, the strongest voice against consolidation, Carol Carstensen has stated she will not run for re-election.

What is wrong and right is complex. I don’t think any of us want Board members who cravenly count votes and shape their actions to please some portion of the electorate. I also think that we want Board members who are responsive to the expressed desires of their constituents. The balance between these is hard to describe.

Board members should have a sense of trying to do what they were elected to do, of serving in a way that is consistent with how they campaigned. That has to mean that the desires of those who voted for them should be given more weight than the desires of those who didn’t. This is basic to governance by elected officials. More weight doesn’t mean that other views are ignored. I’m not a fan of most uses of the word “accountability” in educational policy, but the accountability of elected Board members to the electorate is one place I’m happy to employ it. Mostly we vote for Board members based on a sense of shared ideals or values and trust that person to use these to make the hard decisions. After three years the electorate gets another shot. A final word on this is that I think most of our recent and current Board members have been good about considering the diverse views of people in all areas of the district and think that electing the Board by geographic areas would induce the kind of narrow pandering that we have mostly avoided.

3. What are the appropriate amounts for the Fund Balance (that’s the state term, MMSD seems to use “fund equity”) in general and the “salary savings” calculation in this budget cycle?

These are obviously related, because a miscalculation of “salary savings” will result in a decrease in the Fund Balance account. The Fund Balance is the district’s long-term contingency, emergency, rainy day account. If gas prices triple or there are bad projections with the state or local budget the Fund Balance is used to make up the difference. In one sense it seems obvious that healthy Fund Balance account is good, you want to be prepared for emergencies and it can impact the bond rating. But is the desire for fiscal surety more important than the desire to educate our children the best way we know how? What level of risk can be justified? In Madison, over the last seven or eight years close to half of the Fund Balance has been spent. There was a period of aggressive budgeting — of prioritizing education over finances — that combined with some hits which could not have been anticipated and some that maybe should have (but weren’t) to leave the Fund Balance at little over 7% of the operating budget. I want to emphasize that although the money is gone, those of us who think the district does a good job with the core educational mission believe that it was well spent.

Still, as the account gets smaller it is appropriate to ask how small is too small? The DPI is little help:

The most commonly asked question regarding fund balance is how large should it be? Perhaps the best answer would be: “an amount sufficient that short term borrowing for cash flow could be avoided and would also allow the district to set aside sufficient assets to realize its longer range goals.” However, this may not always be practical or politically possible. The school board must make a policy decision as to the extent they will borrow for cash flow rather maintaining a working cash balance.

Obviously under the current state school finance system the idea of setting aside anything for long-term goals is a cruel joke. I don’t believe we have been forced into much (any?) short term borrowing, so we are good there. I’ve looked at other districts policies and some require a Fund Balance of between 10% and 15% of the operating budget. 15% seems excessive to me. In contrast, the state finance system and the failures of referenda have led Wisconsin Heights to run a growing deficit in their Fund Balance recently. I’d guess (and it is only a guess) that something about 10% of the operating budget is the ideal. I think that as the Board looks to a February 2008 referendum, dedicating some of the authorized money to building the Fund Balance should be considered.

The “salary savings” figure in the budget represents money budgeted for salaries but not spent. I think most of this comes from positions that go unfilled for a day or a week or months. In a large operation like MMSD this can add up. How much it adds up to is the question. In recent years the budgeted amount for “salary savings” has been about $6 million. The administration has not given (or their accounting does not produce) an actual figure for salary savings these years but points to the spending down of the Fund Balance as evidence that the budgeted amounts were too optimistic. Perhaps due to this, the administration used a $1 million figure for the current 2007-8 budget materials. $2 million was used in the “Parameters Used to Build” document earlier this year, so this doesn’t seem to be an exact science. The decreases in the Fund Balance are partially attributable to over optimistic “salary savings” projections (but also other factors such as unanticipated changes in state Special Education funding, tuition income…) and even if it was all attributable, the projections have not been off by $5 million a year (it looks like less than $3 million). I don’t have either the professional or elected responsibilities of evaluating this (I know it is much easier on the sidelines), but it seems to me that in light of what I do know, a “salary savings” projection of $3 million or even $3.5 million would not be unreasonable. Remember, it isn’t like the money will be squandered; the choice is between spending it to educate our children or keeping it to safeguard against emergencies.

I don’t claim that any of this – making decisions in order to do the least harm, serving those who voted for you and those who didn’t, balancing long-term security with pressing needs — is clear cut or easy. These are hard choices. I respect our Board members for their willingness to make them, and wish them all the best as they work through the conflicts and contradictions. I hope what I posted here (at my usual excessive length) may help either Board members or the interested public understand the choices (and how hard they are) a little better.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Budget, Equity, Local News