Category Archives: Gimme Some Truth

I’m Sorry (and a little bit more)

sorry_diamond_edit

Responding to a comment yesterday I wrote about standardized test scores at Nuestro Mundo, “everyone involved with NMI should be alarmed and ashamed by the performance of poor, Hispanic and ELL students.”  In doing so I fell into the trap of employing shame as an educational tool.

This is a practice that I think is wrong (see here and here) and I apologize for having done this.

I still believe that the scores at Nuestro Mundo are cause for alarm.

Standardized test scores are of limited utility in judging the quality of a school or assessing educational experiences, but they aren’t of no use.  I think of test scores as one tool that can indicate some success or call attention to problems.  Most of the time fair, good or even great test scores don’t tell us much but “proceed with caution,” (because caution is always in order when dealing with kid’s futures).  Sometimes the test scores tell us to slow down and pay attention, look for what is going wrong and for ways to fix it.  I believe that the results of Nuestro Mundo fall into this category.

On a related topic of using educational statistics, see Sherman Dorn’s recent post “Grokking Social Science Statistics” (well worth reading).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, education, Gimme Some Truth, Local News

Quotes of the Day — Standardized Tests “Insensitive to Instruction”

By Ricardo Levins Morales from the Northland Poster Collective, click on image for more information.

By Ricardo Levins Morales from the Northland Poster Collective, click on image for more information.

Most states’ NCLB tests are, sadly, essentially insensitive to instruction, that is, those tests are unable to detect the impact of improved instruction in a school or district even if such improvement is unarguably present. The chief cause for such instructional insensitivity stems directly from the test-construction procedures employed to create almost all NCLB tests. Those procedures turn out to make scores on NCLB tests more directly related to students’ socioeconomic status than to how well those students have been taught. Instructionally insensitive NCLB tests simply can’t distinguish between effective and ineffective instruction. (Emphasis added)

W. James Popham, UCLA, “AN AUTUMNAL MESSAGE: LET FLY THE AYP PIGEONS.

These profiles emerge as an artifact of how items are selected. Test developers include in their respective proprietary item pools only those items shown to sort students in the same relative order in terms of their likeliness of getting an item correct. (In other words, ideally for each item in a given area, Student Q should always be more likely to get it right than Student S.) When high-stakes tests are then assembled using only the items that fit with these internal sorting profiles, the tests themselves also end up being remarkably robust in keeping students in the same relative order in terms of their overall scores (Student Q’s overall test score is very likely to be higher than S’s).

Using this approach, test scores will continue to predict other tests scores in ways that will remain remarkably insensitive to the quality of content-specific instruction. And just one of the unintended consequences of this insensitivity to instruction may be that those schools feeling the most pressure to improve test scores will resort to emphasizing test-taking skills, as opposed to meaningful academic content, as a compelling alternative strategy for attaining immediate, if short-lived, results. (Emphases added)

Walter M. Stroup, “What Bernie Madoff Can Teach Us About Accountability in Education.”

I came across this phrase a few times recently and I really think it captures one huge flaw with the reliance of standardized tests.  By design they do not measure learning, instead they sort into a bell (or other) curve.  If all students learn something, no matter how important that something is, it will not be included on a standardized test because it doesn’t sort.

This inescapable truth seems to be lost on President Obama, Sec.  Arne Duncan and all those in Congress, state legislatures and local school districts who keep calling for more money to be spent on testing and data systems.  Although there is potential for better testing I fear that this will only expand the inappropriate uses of the existing testing, testing that for the most part hinders real accountability by this “insensitivity to instruction,” and harms education by wasting time and money on things that don’t help students be successful in anything but taking tests.  Garbage in, garbage out.

For more, see:

Dick Schutz, “Why Standardized Achievement Tests are Sensitive to Socioeconomic Status Rather than Instruction and What to Do About It.”

Deborah Meier, “‘Data Informed,’ Not ‘Data Driven.'”

Diane Ravitch, “President Obama’s Agenda.”

John Thompson, “God Does Not Play Dice.”

And for a local angle:

Quotes of the Day” June 4, 2008, on the WKCE and Value Added.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, education, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, National News, nclb, No Child Left Behind, Uncategorized

How to Spin a Story — Jay Mathews on KIPP Problems

Robert Sollis, "Good News"

Robert Sollis, "Good News"

The short version is that the first step in spinning a story is to ignore any information that undermines your position; the second step is to include information that supports your biases, and throughout use every trick in the book to evoke sympathy for your cause.  This is to be expected from Public Relations flacks and political spokespeople.  It is more problematic when spin of this sort comes from one of the leading educational columnists in the United States, Jay Mathews of the Washington Post.  In a recent post that pretends to explore problems at Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools — including physical and emotional abuse, questionable financial management and insecure testing protocols —, Mathews does all of the above, with the twist of appearing to include and address the negative information.

It is no secret that Mathews is a charter cheerleader and champion of KIPP schools.  His columns and recent book have made that much clear.  Opinions and a viewpoint are to be expected from columnists.  However,  I think an ethical line is crossed when  —  as in Mathews “Turmoil at Two KIPP Schools” — that biased columnist leaves out crucial information while giving the appearance of examining developments contrary to his or her well-established positions.   It is a line of trust that is broken and line between journalist and flack that is crossed.

You can read the piece yourself for the rhetorical tricks like the introductory characterization of KIPP as the  “most educationally successful group of public schools in the country” (note that in the case discussed below, the Board of Education — the public school authority —  was powerless to remove the principal or require training by a psychologist  and that the local Charter Board was told by the KIPP national office that if they acted on their desire to remove the principal as they desired, KIPP would have the school closed, so “public” should probably be in quotes), and closing invocation of the “unrelenting stress” on KIPP “school leaders.”  I want to concentrate on what Mathews does and does not include in his treatment of the disturbing events at KIPP Academy Fresno in California.

Mathews can assume most of his readers are not familiar with the disturbing doings in Fresno and this allows him to pretend that he is giving and objective overview.  The national media has barely touched the story, but the Fresno Bee has been very thorough and Jim Horn at Schools Matter has been posting news and opinion on the case (Schools Matter is how I learned of the situation).

The basic story is that after extensive allegations of abusive discipline, punishments and practices by the principal, Chi Tschang,  and staff dating back to 2004; requests for help by the local Charter Board; the resignation of four of six Charter Board members,  an investigation by the Board of Education that documented many undisputed incidents of what read like psychotic abuses of power by an unstable control freak (the principal has disputed some of the allegations and given a blanket denial of all since the report gives indisputable documentation for many things the blanket denial lacks credibility), uncredentialed teachers, massive violations of mandated testing procedures including open access to tests by students. extra time given and teachers telling students to correct answers, not following rules for student suspensions,  and violations of student and family legal privacy rights;  the principal resigned and under a new KIPP appointed principal the school and KIPP are fighting to avoid closure.

I’m going to skip over most of the gory details (some will be included to document what Jay Mathews left out and you can read rest yourself by clicking the links above), but I do want to echo Jim Horn in noting that much of the abuse and deliberate humiliation reported at the Fresno KIPP school is only an extreme manifestation of the authoritarian KIPP philosphy and add that humiliation as an educational strategy is at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Early in the Mathews piece (before any details of the titular “turmoil”) we are treated to this report about academic achievement:

At the end of 2007, 80 percent of KIPP Fresno’s seventh-graders scored proficient or advanced in algebra, compared to only 17 percent of students in regular Fresno public schools. In English Language Arts, 81 percent of KIPP seventh-graders scored proficient or advanced while the regular students were at 29 percent.

Nowhere does Mathews even allude to the testing problems found by the Board of Education investigation.  These included (all quotes from the Notice to Cure and Correct issued by the Board of Education).

  • “They stated that tests were not placed in a secure environment.”
  • “Robin Sosa, a teacher at the Charter School, stated in an interview that in the first couple of years, tests may have been left out during the day and the tests were stored in Mr. Tschang’s office, but that they have since corrected this.”
  • “Kim Kutzner and Marcella Mayfield stated that the school adopted a policy that students were required to check their answers again and again after they had finished their tests and were not allowed to do other activities.”
  • “Ms. Kutzner also witnessed teachers record students’ answers during testing, review students’ tests, and tell students which page to correct.”
  • “Mr. Tschang stated that he possibly gave students extra time on more than one day on a test that was to be completed in a single sitting.”
  • “In a staff meeting in May of 2006, Ms. Kutzner, who had five years of experience as a test-site coordinator, reviewed with the entire staff the violations that she had witnessed during testing and presented the written testing protocol materials to Mr. Tschang. The staff actively opposed any changes in procedures which would potentially lower lest scores, and Mr. Tschang and Mr. Hawke slated that the legal and ethical requirements for testing were, in fact, only guidelines that could be ignored”(emphasis added).
  • “The violations were knowingly in disregard of state testing procedures in that Mr. Tschang signed the STAR Test Security Agreement and the Charter School’s teachers signed the STAR Test Security Affidavit in which they agreed to the conditions designed to ensure test security. Mr. Tschang also failed to report the testing irregularities to the District STAR Coordinator.”

Much of the case for KIPP, as made by Mathews and others, rests on standardized test scores (at one point in this piece Mathews writes: “All they have to do is show, with test scores, that their students are showing significant achievement gains that will put them on a path to college”).   If the Fresno KIPP “actively opposed” following the required protocols because of the potential to lower scores then I believe it is inappropriate to use these tests results  in defense of that school and unethical to boast of the test scores without giving this context, as Mathews does.  I’ll also add that when the policy — be it KIPP’s or California’s or the NCLB’s  —  is all about test scores and not education,  that some unscrupulous people would willfully disregard procedures in pursuit of higher scores is to be expected.

I’m going to give Mathews full paragraph on the “turmoil” in Fresno and follow it with some more quotes from the “Notice to Cure and Correct.”

At KIPP Fresno, school leader Chi Tschang, who founded the school in 2004, resigned in January in order, he said, to remove himself as a barrier to the school’s continued operation. Shortly after the Fresno school district released a report based on interviews with current and former parents, students and KIPP board members accusing Tschang—among other things– of making a student crawl on his hands and knees while barking, keeping students outside in the rain as a disciplinary measure and yelling “all day” at students caught shoplifting near the campus. Tschang told me these accusations were either false or ripped out of context. Many of KIPP teachers and parents have backed him up. But national KIPP leaders have not criticized the district’s report and instead have supported the school’s new leader, William Lin. The school district has the power to close the school by refusing to release a letter KIPP Fresno needs to access a state charter school facility grant. As of yesterday, the district had not issued the letter. [Editors Note: The letter has been issued, but it contained “qualifications” that the KIPPsters are not happy with].

Mathews makes it look like the accusations are serious but also raises doubts in numerous ways.  He also does not touch on the actions of the Charter Board (including mass resignation), the questionable financial practices, the interactions with the Board of Education prior to the report, the problems of authority among KIPP, the local Board and the school district or any other of the facts that would reflect badly on KIPP or the idea of charter schools.  He also glosses over much of the abusive behavior.  Here are some allegations Mathews left out (names of students and parents deleted).

  • “In her interview, Kia Spenhoff stated that she witnessed Mr. Tschang put his hands on students. She witnessed Mr. Tschang pick a student up off the ground, hold the student by the neck against a wall, and then drop the student. When asked about this incident Mr. Tschang stated, “I don’t remember picking up and dropping a student, I do remember shaking a kid.”‘
  • “_____ mother of student _____ witnessed Mr. Tschang push her son’s face against a wall.”
  • “_____ also reported witnessing Tschang push another student’s face against the wall and saying, “Put your ugly face against the wall, I don’t want to see your face.”‘
  • “Student reported witnessing Mr. Tschang draw a circle on the ground and force a student to stand in the circle for two hours in the sun during the summertime.”
  • “____ reported that Mr. Ammon admitted to intentionally humiliating her son and that in a meeting between Mr. Ammon, Mr. Tschang, and _____ Mr Ammon said, “I thought he needed to be humiliated, that it is my job to do this.” and “I just really think he needs to be humbled, he reminds me of me at that age, and I know he has no dad at home.” When asked about the incident, Mr. Tschang stated, “No, I don’t remember this. What I do remember is that _____ was repeatedly acting in a defiant and disrespect way [sic] to Mr. Ammon and other teachers.'”
  • “Parent reported that Mr. Tschang took student glasses away from him because _____-was constantly adjusting his glasses. _____-is totally dependent on his glasses and cannot see without them. Mr. Tschang admitted to taking _____-glasses away.”
  • “Vincent Montgomery, former Chief Operating Officer for the school, reported that he observed several incidents in which he felt Chi Tschang was emotionally abusive toward students, such as requiring students to stand outside in the rain. Mr. Montgomery also stated he felt that any gains made by kids were offset by the emotional abuse they experienced.”
  • Student reported witnessing Mr. Tschang draw a circle on the ground and force a student to stand in the circle for two hours in the sun during the summertime.
  • “_____ of _____ stated that _____began to get physically sick from the abusive discipline and a counselor told her to get out of KIPP.”
  • “When asked about his yelling at students Mr. Tschang stated, “If parents are not happy with the school program, it is a school of choice.'”

Mr Tschang is correct that it is “school of choice,” but it is also a school paid for by taxpayers.  These excerpts are just the tip of the iceberg of the allegations in the report.  I don’t know if the allegations are true, but I do know that the School Board thought the evidence was sufficient to demand Mr. Tschang’s removal or that he attend very extensive training in child and adolescent development, psychology, anger management and unlawful harassment  before having any further role in discipline at the school and the Board also required extensive changes in and monitoring of school operations.  You wouldn’t know any of this or the extent of the allegations from Mathews’ spin job.

Instead, Mathews vaguely notes that the Fresno superintendent “has praised KIPP’s achievements” and later falsely asserts that “all sides appear to support what KIPP has been doing to raise student achievement to rare heights” (no one who has read the district report can possibly believe that this is a true statement).

It took almost four years to his rein in the excesses while Tschang resisted the efforts of local Charter authorities and the local school board to exert control and find remedies.  Part of the “public” in public education is public accountability; with Fresno KIPP the only accountability for principals was to the corporate office and all they apparently cared about was test scores (however they were “achieved’).

The press is also part of the system of accountability.  I respect Mr Mathews freedom to make the case for what he believes in (as I make the case for what I believe in here), but I also expect something more than unrelenting spin from a major newspaper columnist.  I guess my expectations are too high.

For the response from the flacks who are actually on KIPP’s payroll, see here (scroll down).  Although basically “no comment,” it is more honest than what Mathews wrote.

Thomas J. Mertz

13 Comments

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, Gimme Some Truth, National News, nclb, No Child Left Behind, Uncategorized

Elephant in the Room

elephant-in-the-room

Maya Cole, Madison School Board member, wrote an op-ed for the Cap Times that provided an excellent piece of analysis on the current state of play at the Capital; the tired old dance routine between the governor and the legislature over how to finance our schools. But this budget season, the sound track has been suddenly revved up due to the stimulus money on the horizon.

The predictable talk of paying for education plays to the citizenry. Don’t raise taxes and do more with less — it’s the same old dichotomy. Lately there’s new irony, as suggested by Gov. Jim Doyle, that school boards should go to the table with “more creative ways” to bargain and without the QEO (qualified economic offer).

As Cole rightly pointed out, this “more with less” canard is trotted out in other guises such as a “creative teacher compensation package.” This meme of, “get more creative,” is meant to be compensation for the often referred to “three legged stool” of the Wisconsin school finance system: 2/3 funding from state revenues (1/3 from local and federal sources), the QEO to limit teacher contract costs and the revenue caps to limit local property taxes. She also astutely noted that the current system originated as a short term plan 16 years ago, and asks, when will it be revised?

Several years hence, the elephant in the room (school finance reform) stands on stage taunting school boards across the state. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards, a member of the coalition of the School Finance Network, has one approach — it’s not in the script this year. We are asked by the governor to accept a watered down plan and continue to be mired in the same old strategies.

What really should keep lawmakers up at night is the dependent nature of these one time (maybe two) short term “fixes,” a “solution” in which Doyle hopes that school districts will remain under the revenue caps while spending federal dollars (TJ Mertz investigated the Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s newest numbers here). Cole instead called for a clear departure from the current process of having property owners paying the lion’s share of the costs for schools.

We must be bold and put our spending and revenue practices on the table. Districts across the state have been cutting budgets for over 10 years. Property owners have shouldered the costs to pay for schools. When we add in the confluence of federal mandates (unfunded), demographic shifts, and the dwindling manufacturing in the state, it’s clear we’re in the third act.

Doyle should take his own advice. A budget dependent on one-time federal money for education and transfers to plug holes in budget gaps is shortsighted at best

The Assembly Education Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday, April 21 1:00 PM at Room 413 North in the Capitol to discuss the School Finance Network education funding reform proposal.

Don’t forget too that on Wednesday April 1, 2009, 6:00 PM at Wright Middle School — the Madison School District will be hosting a “Legislative Informational Community Session” to “provide updates on school funding and state budget issues that affect the MMSD” and “discuss and share strategies on how the community can get involved in advocating for our schools.” More information on the MMSD Legislative Agenda can be found here.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, AMPS, Budget, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Pope-Roberts/Breske Resolution, School Finance, Take Action

Quote of the Day — Promises to Keep

logo_dpw_whiteonblue

From the 2008 Platform of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin:

Education, Labor, and Economics

Quality public education for all is critical to a healthy democracy and economy. Public funding for private schools diverts resources from and adversely impacts public schools. Increased governmental funding and financial aid is essential for all levels of public education. Nobody should be denied a quality education because of a personal lack of financial resources. The benefits of a quality education always outweigh the costs.

We believe that students have the right to receive their education in a safe, respectful, and nurturing environment, free from harassment or discrimination by teachers, staff, parents, or other students. We support fair and equitable funding for all elements of the curriculum, including art, music and physical education. A strong Wisconsin public education system builds a strong Wisconsin.

Wisconsin‘s current educational funding system has failed. The law allowing a limited qualified economic offer has caused diminishing compensation for teachers. Teacher compensation must keep pace with costs of benefits and inflation. Public school teachers must not be taken for granted. They deserve tremendous respect for their work educating our youth under challenging circumstances.

Revenue caps on school districts and other local governments must be eliminated. State or federal governments must fully fund their mandates (emphasis added).

The Democratic Party now controls the Assembly, the Senate and the Governor’s office in Wisconsin.  Time to keep the promises they made in order to gain that control.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Budget, education, Elections, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, Quote of the Day, School Finance, Take Action

Stimulus Money: Issues and Confusion

From Critical Exposure, By empowering young people to develop skills as documentary photographers and advocates, we expose citizens and policymakers to the realities of our current two-tiered education system as seen through the eyes of the students who confront those realities each day...works to secure policy changes in order to ensure that all children have access to an excellent, equitable public education, fulfilling this nation's promise of providing all children with an opportunity to succeed. Click on the image to learn more.

From Critical Exposure Click on the image to learn more about this great project teaching students to use photography to document and advocate.

There is a story in the Wisconsin State Journal on the stimulus money and education that covers some of the key issues but also perpetuates  the confusion surrounding how states and schools may and may not use this money.

To be fair, some of this confusion is understandable.  The stimulus package was put together quickly, portions of it are not very clear and much of the education portion reflects contradictory thinking.

However, much of the confusion is inexcusable, especially the omission of any explanation of the structural gap between costs and allowed revenues that is an essential part of the broken “three legged stool” of Wisconsin education funding.  Reporter Mark Pitsch should have read his former colleague Andy Hall’s “Squeezing Schools,” and incorporated some of that material.

Also difficult to understand is the repeated confusion about different aspects of the stimulus school funding and how they relate to the revenue caps.  More below, with clarifications

Before looking at the State Journal article and related issues, I want to make one basic truth clear (and get on my soapbox a little):  The money in the stimulus, for Title I (targeted for schools with high poverty concentrations), IDEA (money for special education) and even the general purpose money flowing through the states only temporarily makes underfunded mandates less underfunded.

The WSJ got this right with their headline: “Stimulus can’t solve schools’ shortfalls.”

School “shortfalls” are structural.  The continued underfunded mandates from the Federal and State governments, in Wisconsin a broken system that requires districts to cut programs and services by between 1% and 2% annually are structural faults.  Structural failures require structural solutions.  Sign on with the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and the School Finance Network to work to fix this in Wisconsin.  Let your Senators and Representative know that educational opportunity should be a civil right and educational mandates need to be fully funded.

The stimulus money creates a “funding cliff.” Once the money is gone — absent Federal and State initiatives to fully fund education — schools are in danger of falling off the cliff.  This would mean massive program cuts and layoffs in a couple of years.  Like a nonrecurring referendum, this sort of education funding is not good policy.

Robert Manwaring at the Quick and Ed has a very good discussion of the complexities of deciding what to do with this one time funding.

Interestingly, the guidance goes out of its way to emphasize that this is short-term money, and that districts and states should use it for shorter-term investments, so there isn’t a “funding cliff”. But on the flip side, the guidance makes clear that the stimulus funds’ goals are to help create or maintain jobs. (Those two priorities seem in conflict, since hiring or keeping a teacher is more of a long-term investment.)

The guidance McNeil refers to was released by the Department of Education on March 7.  That is the same day the Pitsch’s State Journal story was published.  However, this time line does not explain the confusion in that story.

In discussing Title I funding, Pitsch writes:

The stimulus addition should allow the district to divert general fund money to other programs.

Both the Title I and IDEA funding continue the “supplement not supplant” policies in place for those programs, meaning that the funding cannot, except under very special cirumstances be used to replace general fund money.  Here is what the Department of Education says about the Title I Part A funds:

Fiscal Issues

  • Maintenance of effort: With prior approval from the secretary of education, a state or LEA may count expenditures of SFSF used for elementary or secondary education as non-federal funds for purposes of determining whether the state or LEA has met the Title I, Part A maintenance of effort requirement. This may reduce the incidence of LEAs failing to maintain fiscal effort and the need to seek a waiver from the Department.
  • Supplement, not supplant: the Department may not waive the Title I, Part A “supplement, not supplant” requirement. Note, however, that in certain circumstances, including cases of severe budget shortfalls, an LEA may be able to establish compliance with the “supplement, not supplant” requirement, even if it uses Title I, Part A funds to pay for allowable costs that were previously paid for with state or local funds. (For additional information, see Title I Fiscal Issues Non-Regulatory Guidance, available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.pdf [PDF, 256K].)

On related issues with IDEA, EdWeek’s Christina Samuels, who blogs  at On Special Education wrote

The maintenance of effort provisions that currently exist within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will apply to stimulus funds. That means that you can’t take all of your stimulus money and use that to pay for your current special education programs. There is SOME flexibility in the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA to “supplement, not supplant” provisions, though. If the federal government allocates more money to a district from one year to the next, the district is allowed to take the difference between the two allocations, halve it, and use that figure to reduce their own funding requirements.

So some stimulus Title I  and IDEA money may be used to supplement, possibly allowing general fund money preciously used for Title I purposes (to make up for the underfunding) to be used elsewhere. This is very different than what Pitsch wrote.

Pitsch’s section on Governor Doyle is also full of misinformation and confusion:

Doyle said in an interview that most of the federal stimulus money wouldn’t be subject to state revenue caps for school districts. But he urged them to remain under the caps even as they spend the federal dollars. If they don’t, they’ll face big budget holes in future years and possibly anger homeowners if property taxes go up too much.

“School districts would be very, very well advised to take that money and keep their spending under the revenue caps,” said Doyle (emphasis added).

Doyle appears to be referring to the Title I, IDEA and other special purpose funds, which do not count against revenue caps (he also appears to be telling them to violate or take advantage of the loopholes in the “supplant not supplement” provisions).  However, most of the stimulus money schools will receive comes not from these funds, but from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.  This is the flow through money that Doyle used to supplant state money in his budget.  To the Governor’s credit, he went beyond the 81.8% required by the law to limit property tax increases and district budget cuts to more -or-less the usual, unacceptable levels.

Here is a chart from the Wisconsin Association of School Boards:

Federal Program

2008 Actual Allocation

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (estimated amounts as of 2/19/09)

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund

——–

$876,940,096

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies

$199,030,396

$147,696,280 Individual District Estimates

Education
Technology Grants

$3,443,011

$9,170,493

IDEA, Part B:
Grants to States

$197,853,865

$208,200,108

IDEA, Part B:
Pre-school Grants

$9,322,204

$9,827,791

IDEA, Part C:
Grants for Infants & Families

$6,984,803

$6,999,614

The non revenue cap monies total about $381 million; of the $876 million in flow through, Doyle has called for $291 million to be spent on general aids in 2008-9, $277 million in 2009-10 and $221 million in 2010-11, for a total of $789 million.  $789 million is more than twice $381 million; more than twice as much stimulus money is under the caps than is not.

School finance can be confusing, but misrepresentations of simple facts and omissions of key contexts like those in the Wisconsin State Journal article render what is challenging almost impossible.  How is the public supposed to develop informed opinions when our reporters fail in their duties?  In the coming months, Boards of Education around Wisconsin will face difficult choices regarding the use of the non capped stimulus funds.  The public needs to be part of this process and in order that to happen in any productive way, the media needs to do much better in explaining the issues.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

The Charter Choice in Madison and the Nation

schoolbudgets

On Monday, March 9, 2008 The MMSD Board of Education will consider an application from the Nuestro Mundo community to begin the process of chartering a dual language immersion secondary school.

Although the application is very impressive and Nuestro Mundo appears to be a good and well run school, I urge the Board to turn away this effort to expand charters in Madison.  MMSD is initiating an elementary  non charter dual language immersion program and there is talk of a non charter dual language middle school also.  I believe that this is the the better path.

In an editorial today the Wisconsin State Journal puts forth self contradicting nonsense in favor of the charter proposal.  In a letter to that paper last week, Nuestro Mundo parent Judith Kujoth employed questionable and unsupported assertions of causality to advocate for the middle school proposal.  I’m just going to hit the low lights.

The editorial begins:

Madison needs to get past its outdated phobia of charter schools.

Charter schools are not a threat to public schools here or anywhere else in Wisconsin (emphasis added).

Later in the editorial they note the President Obama has pledged to double the Federal money for charters and note that the group hopes to get $1.1 million in Federal planning grants.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Obama’s funding of charters, like that of George W. Bush, will divert money from traditional public schools.  That $1.1 million that they hope to get is $1.1 million that isn’t and won’t be available for our underfunded district schools.  Yes, charters are a threat.  An insidious threat, because regardless of the merits of a particular proposal or the drawbacks of charters as a policy choice, cash strapped state and local decision makers are easily seduced by the promise of this money.

The editorial continues:

They are an exciting addition and asset to public schools — a potential source of innovation, higher student achievement and millions in federal grants.

And when charter schools do succeed at something new, their formula for success can be replicated at traditional schools to help all students (emphases added).

This is exactly what has happened in Madison.  Nuestro Mundo pioneered dual language immersion, the district saw good things happening and they are now in the process of “replicating.”

Apparently the State Journal doesn’t really believe this because later they opine:

The School Board should reward their success by opening the door to a charter middle school. Instead, too many board members seem bent on keeping any dual-language middle school within the framework of a traditional school.

So it isn’t about what is best for the district and the students at all, it is about “rewarding” certain people.  This goes to the heart of one big problem with charters:  They divide; they Balkanize.

What is good for the district as a whole and most children can easily get lost when well organized charter groups advocate tirelessnessly for their “rewards.”  This is true at the state and national levels also.  This is another way that charters threaten public education.

Even the most optimistic charter advocates must recognize that there is no realistic scenario where most children will not be in traditional public schools.  The Board’s job is to do what is best for all children; in practice they must make the utilitarian calculations about what is best for most children and that means doing everything they can to strengthen the district schools most children will attend.  This may include limited charters for purposes of innovation and to address persistent problems, but it certainly does not include “rewarding” anyone at the expense of the district as a whole.

Kujoth covered  much of the same shakey ground as the State Journal, so I’m only going to touch on one paragraph in her letter that caught my attention.

Creating a charter school will have many benefits. The law affords charters greater flexibility to create curricula and measure progress. Students in these schools often have higher rates of achievement because educators have flexibility to design teaching methods that appeal to the needs of each student and to change modalities when they aren’t working without being constrained by traditional district practices (emphasis added).

Note the “often” before “higher rates of achievement. ”  In fact there is no consistent evidence that students in charters have any higher achievement, the best evidence is that achievement is about the same or slightly lower than in traditional schools.

I’m skeptical of standardized tests as a measure of achievement, but it worth noting that Nuestro Mundo students have performed below the levels of students in other MMSD and Wisconsin schools and that this difference is more pronounced for low income students (chart from DPI)

ns-read-w-state-and-district-cft0308_1848031bb

In the next sentence, also with no evidence what so ever, she asserts the cause for this nonexistent achievement gain to be the “flexibility to design teaching methods that appeal to the needs of each student and to change modalities when they aren’t working.”  Since some charters, KIPP for instance,  are infamous for their inflexibility (and resultant push outs of students), this is a laughable generalization about charters.

The last line, the final assertion that “traditional district practices constrain flexibility is also counter to my experience as an MMSD parent.  The teachers my children have had — good and bad — have been very flexible in their teaching.  Even if my experience is not typical and the constraints on flexibility are a real problem isn’t the answer to work to free all teachers from these constraints, not set up a charter where only some children benefit from flexibility?

If these represent the best case for the new charter proposal, the Board should have an easy time rejecting it, unless political pressure holds sway.  I urge the Board to do what is right, not what might be popular.

In the spirit of honesty, I must state that my older son attends James C. Wright Middle School, a charter, if in name only.  At an earlier point in the history of the school, charter status may have been important.  In the years that I know about, Wright functions as a district specialty school, not a charter in any meaningful way.  I would a support a change in status for Wright to reflect this reality.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Best Practices, education, Equity, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, Uncategorized

Education Tweak #9

Click on image for pdf.

Click on image for pdf.

All the Education Tweaks can be found at http://edtweak.org/.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, Gimme Some Truth, National News

Lunchtime Enlightenment

14526a1

Cap Times reporter Mary Ellen Gabriel does an extraordinarily thorough examination today of both the school lunch program and the efforts of University of Wisconsin-affiliated REAP program (Research, Education, Action and Policy on Food) to implement some changes in how we feed our children. It’s an issue I’ve had some involvement with for a number of years, including my current work with the Healthy Classrooms Foundation (more on this in a later post).

The piece, in part, examines the questions related to whether MMSD’s school lunch program is unhealthy for kids.

It depends who you ask. On one side is a well-trained food service department that manages to feed 19,000 kids under a bevy of guidelines on a slim budget. On the other is a growing number of parents and community advocates armed with research about the shortcomings of mass-produced food and race-to-the-finish mealtimes.

For critics there are a number of concerns.

A lack of fresh fruits and vegetables, high fat and salt content in items perceived as “processed” or “junk food,” little nutritional information on the Web site, too much plastic, too much waste and too little time to eat.

The piece is well worth a read in order to understand the challenges in trying to produce thousands of healthy and nutritious meals a day to students, more than half of whom qualify for free and reduced-price lunches, and to do it all with a shrinking budget. Groups have tried to step in and offer closer farmer to school efforts, a movement now in 22 states – but with some failures as well as successes. This is a noble project, still in its infancy in many ways, one that is trying to bring change to an important but constrained large institution. Let’s wish them well.

Robert Godfrey

2 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, Gimme Some Truth, Local News

Dr Seuss, Radical!

20518cs

8am203

In honor of Dr Seuss (Theodor Geisel’s) birthday (March 2), I thought I’d share a couple of his early, political works.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, education, Gimme Some Truth