At 5:45 on Monday, May 8, 2017 the Madison Metropolitan School District Operations Work Group will hold our first extended discussion of the the 2017-18 Budget since receiving the draft Budget Book. Also on the agenda is the first of two scheduled discussions of possible changes to the Behavior Education Plan (summary here, many other related files attached to the agenda on BoardDocs, linked above). It will be a busy evening.
In anticipation of these meeting, and this phase of the budget work, I sent two communications to the rest of the Board, and the Administration (here and here). The first concentrates on some of the areas where I am thinking about offering amendments (there may be other areas, but I wanted to start with these); because the it appears the meeting will focus on the administrative “Priority Actions,” the second is on these.
In the interest of transparency and public awareness, I am posting these here, annotated with some extra commentary, notes, and links. First up are the “Questions Related to Possible Budget Amendments.”
- What would be the cost to provide all Wright staff with 3 shirts/tops, 2 pair of pants or skirts, and one sweater or fleece in compliance with the uniform policy and the Handbook requirement that “In the event that any employee shall be required as a condition of his/her employment to wear any particular kind of uniform or other special clothing…clothing….shall be furnished by the District”?
- What would be the cost to provide all Wright students with 3 shirts/tops, 2 pair of pants or skirts, and one sweater or fleece in compliance with the uniform policy?
I was one of two votes against this policy, but believe that if this is the will of the Board the burden should not fall on the staff and students. As far as staff goes, I am not inclined to revise the Handbook to exempt Wright. With students, despite the claims of the uniform industry, the best academic research I could find indicates that school uniforms do not save families money through decreased clothing purchases. Wright is our highest poverty school, imposing added costs on the school’s families renders a bad idea even worse.
- What would be the costs and the additional FTE required to achieve each of the following class size caps:
- AGR (formerly SAGE) schools, K-2, leave as is (soft cap at 20, hard cap at 22).
- Non-AGR schools, K-2, soft cap at 22, hard cap at 23.
- AGR schools 3-5, soft cap at 23, hard cap at 24.
- Non-AGR schools, 3-5, hard cap at 25.
- MS, English and Math, soft cap at 27, hard cap at 29.
- HS, English and Math soft cap at 30, hard cap at 32.
- Note: My understanding is that initial allocations are done based on the soft cap and projected enrollments, but that additional staff allocations are not done unless the hard cap number is exceeded. This may not be exactly how it works, and any corrections would be appreciated.
Class size matters; it matters for academics, it matters for behavior, it matters for family involvement, it matters for climate, it matters for working conditions and retention…class size matters. There is a growing recognition in Madison (thanks Cris Carusi), that too many classes are too large. These questions are intended as the beginning of a conversation about class sizes, not an end point. I would like smaller classes across the board (all subjects, all grades), and even smaller classes in high poverty and/or struggling schools, but you have to start somewhere.
Here are some links that provide important local context for these questions:
- January and February Operations Work Group Presentations with discussions of staffing process.
- “Equity Charts” showing current (2016-17, not projected for the 2017-18 Budget…updated staff projections have been requested) staffing, as well as which schools receive state Achievement Gap Reduction program and federal Title I funding, as well as other information.
- Tableau interactive presentation showing Fall 2016 class sizes with filters for schools, subjects, and more. The questions I asked concern the maximums allowed, but the distributions are of interest too.
The other items on this list are less concrete and don’t contain questions. They were shared with the Board and the administration in order to alert them to possibilities that may develop into proposals/amendments. They also are not exhaustive; the “Line Items” could lead many places and there are things like the “Special Assistant for Equity and Innovation” position, that I am not sure what to try to do about (I heard interviews were done last week, but no hire is final till the Board approves).
- BEP Staffing and Implementation (including PBIS, Social Emotional Learning, Security…)
- The May discussions of the BEP and answers to some of the questions on Priority Actions may lead to a proposed amendment. I continue to see a need to have more consistent professional supports and educational services available for students who have been removed from classes (suspensions, and less lengthy removals).
Not much to add to this, except I would love to hear ideas for how we could better deploy the millions of dollars we are spending on BEP implementation and related things.
- Title I
- The current Title I school Budget Allocations use Direct Certification and shift about $120,000 from K-5 to Middle Schools. Some of my Priority Action questions address district level Title I spending. Upon receipt of answers to those questions, I may want to work with staff to develop an alternate plan.
I have a lot to say here, but I am going to try to keep it brief.
Title I is a federal program that provides funding to improve the education for children in poverty. Within the Title I regulations, districts have some choices on how this funding is used. These choices include which schools are designated Title I (and receive funds), how those funds are allocated among the schools, and what measure of poverty is used in these processes (other choices include some of the “Reservations” and district level expenditures, some of which are related to the questions in the “Priority Actions” section).
These choices became more complicated when MMSD was able to enroll some schools in the “Community Eligibility” program that provides free lunch funding for entire schools that are high poverty. One result is that the numbers and percentages of families at those schools filling out the Free/Reduced lunch paperwork decreased compared to other district schools. Upon the recommendation of DPI, MMSD began using what is called “Direct Certification” for the Title I poverty counts (MMSD still uses “traditional” poverty counts for things like achievement data, adding to the confusion). Direct Certification involves cross checking enrollments in other state and federal programs and using the result to estimate poverty counts. Among other things, this produces much lower counts (when Milwaukee went to Direct Certification the percentage of students in poverty dropped from 82.7 to 67.3). It also changes the distribution among schools It isn’t clear what accounts for these changes. I looked at the possibility that Direct Certification results in an undercount of undocumented students, but the results were inconclusive and indicated that although that may be part of the answer, there are other things going on. More on Community Eligibility, Title I, and Direct Certification, here and here, plus a post by me from last year covering some of this.
Here is some information I sent to the Board and administration earlier this year, highlighting the impacts of the choices made on borderline schools (and the possibilities of using a different poverty measure):
Note that any changes would involve altering the “dollars per Title I student” numbers and levels, and unless there are reallocations from the district level Title I spending, “cuts” to some schools. I am not committed to making changes, but I would like to explore the possibilities.
The “Possible Budget Amendments” note ended with this:
- Line Item Issues
- I will be setting up an appointment to meet with [Assistant Superintendent for Business Services] Mike [Barry] on some line item questions (like the shift of Salary Savings budgeting between Fund 10 and Fund 27, the budgeting for Substitutes…I don’t have the whole list yet). My guess is Mike’s explanations will satisfy my curiosity and concerns, but if they don’t, I may make some requests or amendments.
Nothing to add at this time.
That leaves the questions on “Priority Actions.” Before sharing the questions, I’d like to offer some context. The Board consideration of “Priority Actions” began in November 2016 (minutes here). In part because of the inclinations of Board Members, in part because of the Budget process, and in part because the way Health Insurance issues have dominated meeting after meeting, the “Priority Actions” have thus far received little sustained attention from the Board. That should change at the May 8th meeting.
The discussion of “Priority Actions” begins on page 24 of the Budget Book. Here is a chart from the Budget Book:
Here are the questions I submitted (some items — including big ones like $625,000 for the Tech Plan — I had no questions for), with some links inserted (and dollar amounts added where appropriate).
- Intensive Support for Reading Intervention (LEXIA) – $190,000.
- Can we get an update on current implementation (which schools, which students, how often…) and results?
- Which schools (specific names)/students would this expand to if funded?
- [Related] – Can we get a detailed accounting for the use of Title I Reserved Funds, highlighting any changes from the 2016-17 Budget?
- In the past we have been told that MMSD does not use or classify LEXIA as an “Intervention” as defined by Response to Intervention mandates, has this changed?
- Race and Equity Professional Development — $200,000, $80,000 new.
- What are the associated release/sub costs for this (days and dollars, in total, inclusive or exclusive of the item under Accelerated Priorities)?
- [Note: The Board was provided with a proposed process/method for assessing the impact/success of this work, but we have not discussed or approved this, yet.]
- Principal Leadership Coaching
- It isn’t clear how much of this is for “online module” development and deployment, and how much is for “face-to-face coaching,” nor who will be doing the work. A budget or a more detailed description which addresses these is requested.
- New Teacher Mentoring and Forward Madison Sustainability Plan — $350,000 total.
- What 2016-17 Title II activities/programs/personnel will be re-purposed or cut in order move $200,000 to this?
- Is the March/April summary evaluation report referenced here available?
- Bilingual Education and ESL Support — $349,000 total.
- If the 2 OMGE Teacher Leaders are approved, would they only be working with Title I DLI schools?
- See note above about changes in Title I Reserved Funds budgeting.
- The deadline for DLI and the Lakeview Hmong program applications was 4/28. Can we get an updated estimate for transportation costs and numbers of students, including home school and school they applied to attend?
- Middle School Report Card Redesign and Infinite Campus Customization — $40,000 total.
- Why are we doing this before (very) possible broader Middle School redesign, not after?
- AVID Expansion — $40,000.
- What are the projected class sizes for AVID sections with and without this increase?
- School Based Support for Implementation of Personal Pathways — $460,000 total.
- Are the Learning Coordinator Learning Liaison positions 0.2 at each high school, or single district positions?
- Will the ACP Coordinators serve all students, or only Pathways?
- Is the Lead Counselor position 0.0825 at each school, or a single district position?
- Is there a projection for how these positions will increase as Pathways expands (can we expect to add the equivalent each year in proportion to new students entering Pathways)?
- What are the current FTE’s devoted to Pathways for the people listed here (some appear to have partial Pathways assignments and partial assignments in other roles): https://pathways.madison.k12.wi.us/contact-us
- Pathways Professional Development — $200,000 total.
- Can we get a breakdown for how much of this is release time/extra time (Summer?)/subs, how much is contracted services, how much is other?
- Is any of this covered by the Joyce Grant?
- Experiential Learning Coordination and ACP Support — $90,000 total.
- Can we get a budget that breaks down student transportation, release time, and other?
- Is there any evidence that the GMCC [Greater Madison Chamber of Commerce] Foundation has improved their work on behalf of our students since the November 2016 update?
- Developing Future Teachers — $18,000 total
- Approximately how many students are expected to be enrolled in TEEM in 2017-18?
- Who is doing this work now?
- Who is expected to fill these Coordinator roles (current positions if MMSD employees)?
- As TEEM takes on new cohorts is it expected that the stipends will increase?
- Expansion of Grow Our Own— $100,000 total
- What are the 2016-17 allotted and expended budgets for each of our “Grow Our Own” programs (I know there is one for staff wishing to become teachers, and at least one for teachers seeking Special Ed, ESL, or Bilingual certification; I don’t know if there are others)?
- What are the numbers and demographics of 2016-17 participants in each?
- I know there was a problem and the Fall cohort for one program were told they had to wait. Can we get an update on that (is this budget line related to that issue)?
The Budget Book designates some of the “Priority Actions” as “Accelerated.” Here are my questions related to those:
Accelerated Priority Actions
- Quarterly Grade Level Release for Teachers — $100,000 total.
- Is this in addition to the $135,000 for Intensive Support Schools Quarterly K-2 release days approved as a Priority Action in the 2015-16 budget?
- Can you confirm that the $400,000 increase under Required Allowances is separate from this and other Priority Action Substitute budgets?
- Are this and other Priority Action Substitute expenditures reflected in lines 3 and 122 of The Fund 10 Expenditures?
- Reading Software to Supplement Core Instruction for Students — $60,000 total.
- See the question above under Intensive Support for Reading Intervention, requesting updates on LEXIA use and results.
- Student Led Conferencing — $116,000 total.
- I think projections are for 305 non-Pathways 9th Graders at East, and 479 Pathways 9th Graders district-wide, yet the Funding for East non-Pathways is more than double the district-wide Pathways funding. Is there a difference in design that accounts for this?
And last comes “Innovative Priority Actions.”
Innovative Priority Actions and TID #25
- Reservation for Innovation Opportunities
- Note: Here and elsewhere a $800,000 multi-year reservation for “innovation opportunities” is mentioned. This concept was presented at the 10/17/16 OWG meeting, but neither my memory nor the minutes reflect a consensus in favor of this.
- If we are going to set aside a reserve sum for Innovation Opportunities to be funded this year, there should be a process for proposals and decision-making.
- TID #25 Budget (p 152)
- Can we get an update on expenditures to date for the items listed for 2016-17?
Here is the TID #25 Budget from the Budget Book:
A few words on the TID #25 funds and “Innovation.” First, the rule of thumb with one-time funds like the TID #25 money is that you don’t spend them for ongoing operating expenses. In general, that makes sense, except it fails to account for the uncertainty around all school funding. This week possible cuts to Medicaid reimbursements are in the news; a couple of weeks ago it was Community Learning Center funding, nobody is confident the proposed $200 per student categorical aid increase will survive intact till the end of the state Budget process. Uncertainty everywhere, yet because we know it will eventually run out, TID #25 money is in some ways treated as more uncertain than money we may never see. The other side of the picture is that what is an ongoing expense is also uncertain. Yesterday’s “Strategic Priority Action” may become tomorrow’s ongoing expense, or it may end up a one-time experiment. With all that in mind, I believe we should be cautious when using one-time funds for what we believe to be ongoing expenses, but not categorically eliminate this from consideration.
Generally, due largely to my training as a historian, I am an “Innovation” skeptic and a firm believer in “The Conservationist Ethic” in education reform. As David Tyack wrote:
In reform circles enamored of change and inclined toward Utopian solutions to improve schooling, a belief in progress can obscure the task of conserving the good along with inventing the new. In mitigating one set of problems, innovations may give rise to new discontents.
This skepticism is reinforced when the attraction of “Innovation” leads to a lack of critical thinking and careful vetting.
More specifically, I am not clear how the notion of dedicated “Innovation” funding (and the whole TID #25 budget) came to be included in the Budget. Hence, my question.
On to next steps.
After Monday’s discussion, and receiving answers to my questions, I will start working on any Budget Amendments I would like to have considered.
Feel free to contact me (firstname.lastname@example.org) or comment here with any questions or thoughts.
As with any matters before the Board, there are opportunities to make your voice heard. Take advantage of them.
- Write the Board — email@example.com
- Use the comment form on the Budget web page
- Come and testify at one of our meetings
These our your schools; make your voice heard!
Thomas J. Mertz