Update: Still haven’t seen the details, but according to the Press Release, the answer to question number three is a partial yes, with calls for “full funding” of SAGE (it isn’t really “full funding,” see here on the complexities of SAGE funding), increased sparsity aid, increased Bilingual/BiCultural aid in the second year, increased special education aid in the second year, new grant programs around STEM and vocational education, “educator effectiveness, ” and more). No poverty aid. For overall state funding the combined “categorical and general school aid” Evers calls for would be “a 2.4 percent increase in the first year of the budget, the same as the Consumer Price Index, and 5.5 percent in 2014-15.” I don’t see anything on Revenue Limits. More later.
Update #2: From a second Press Release, on Revenue Limits: “The plan restores revenue limit authority to all districts. It calls for an increase in the per pupil revenue limit to $225 per student in the first year of the budget and $230 per student in 2014-15.” More details on Fair Funding and other matters in this Press Release also. A district by district tally may be found here.
1. How much of an increase in State Aid will Evers call for?
Wisconsin school have endured huge cuts in state aid in both the last budgets. Depending on how you count the combined dollar total is close to $2 Billion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the per pupil cuts in Wisconsin have been the fourth largest in the nation. Here is their chart:
2. What increases in Revenue Limits will Evers call for?
The FitzWalker gang essentially froze cut Revenue limits for 2011-12 and provided a $50/student increase for most districts for 2012-13. Revenue Limits matter. Higher Revenue Limits give local district the power to make up for lost state aid and more. To what extent will the DPI budget restore this local control? As the bar in expected achievement keeps getting raised, through a combination of state and local resources, we need to give the schools the resources they need to meet their challenges.
3. Will the DPI budget direct resources to those students and schools with higher needs?
One thing the new State Report Cards confirmed is that poverty is a great predictor of which students and schools are struggling. Will the Evers budget address this in a real way by providing additional resources instead of the property tax cuts to based on student poverty that have been in every other iteration of the Fair Funding plan? Property tax cuts don’t help students; students need help. For more on school funding “fairness,” see this report from the Eduction Law Center (Wisconsin doesn’t rank very well).
Those are the big three. I’ll also be looking at the size of the guaranteed state funding per pupil (which in essence replaces the levy credits in Fair Funding), what kind of “hold harmless” provisions Evers includes, and like all of us I’ll be looking at the impact of the package on my school district (along with a variety of other districts I’ve been informally tracking for years).
This is step one; the next steps involve key players like WEAC and WMC, advocates in general, the Governor and the Legislature. Much of what will happen with these is predictable. I can say with great confidence that I will consider whatever Tony Evers proposes to be better than what comes out of the Republican controlled budget process.
One thing I don’t know is how advocates and Democratic Legislators will react. If past actions and the recent press release from Senator Chris Larson are indications, they will follow Tony Evers lead and take up Fair Funding as their own. Depending on the answers to the questions offered here, I hope that people who care about our students, inside and outside the Legislature, keep an open mind to advocating for something better than Fair Funding, something that does make up the ground lost over four years of cuts, something that does give real local control, and most of all something that does a better job directing resources to the schools and students who most need the opportunities of quality public education. Penny for Kids would be a start, perhaps in conjunction with Fair Funding.
Educational “accountability” is in the news and on the agenda again this week. It seems it is always in the news and on the agenda these days. I have many problems with most conceptions of educational “accountability,” especially those that are based largely on standardized tests (a visit to the National Center for Fair and Open Testing is in order if you don’t agree, or even if you do) and are proudly dubbed “data driven,” (the link takes you to old AMPS posts, Esther Quintero has an important post up on the topic this week at the Shanker Blog: “The Data-Driven Education Movement,” read it). I’m not going to take on the big concepts here and now, but instead say a few things about the new Wisconsin Report Cards and offer some thoughts about imposing some accountability on those concocting and implementing educational “Accountability” systems, about cutting the barbers’ hair.
A school rating system like this should do three things. First it should with some accuracy and transparency rate school quality. Second, it should honestly and effectively communicate what the rating means and doesn’t mean to policy-makers, educators, parents, and citizens. Last — and assuming that the ratings are accurate — it should direct appropriate resources to those schools that need improvement. The Wisconsin system does none of these well. In fact, because of the complexities of assessing school quality, I don’t think it is possible to do all of these well and know that it is very difficult to do any of them well. The whole enterprise is in many ways a fool’s errand.
In the introduction to Glass’s piece Valerie Strauss calls the Report Cards “another cockamamie way to grade schools for “accountability” purposes.” Glass refers to the Report Cards as “a dog’s breakfast of numbers,” and writes:
The report card for Wisconsin K-12 schools currently making the rounds is a particularly opaque attempt to grade the quality of education that Wisconsin’s children are receiving at the hands of their teachers and administrators. It is as though the Department of Public Instruction has decided to weigh cattle by placing them on a scale to get their weight in pounds then combining that with the wealth of the farmer who raised them, the number of acres of the farm, and the make of car the farmer drives.
The Report Cards combine multiple and often complicated measures in complicated ways. It takes 62 pages to explain how it is all done. If in order to understand the choices made you want to dig deeper into the nature of standardized test construction (hint, they are designed to sort students, not measure skills, knowledge or ability), or the controversies over graduation rate calculations, or the limitations of the Student Growth Percentiles ( the link takes you to Bruce Baker posts on SGP and related things) used in the “growth” calculations, or any of the other concepts and tools employed , you are probably looking at at least the equivalent of a graduate school seminar’s worth of work. The system fails the transparency test.
All this information is interesting, but what it means for any particular school or district is far from clear, even after the graduate seminar and that’s how it should be, that’s reality…all the test score data, and graduation rate data, and attendance data in the world isn’t going give you a full and true picture of schools and districts. That’s the first way it fails the accuracy test, a little more below.
With “accountability” the order of the day, the “accountability” mavens know that people want something easily swallowed (if not digested), so the Wisconsin team has given each school a score, based on those calculations that take 62 pages to introduce. That score is what everyone looks at, everyone remembers and everyone seems to think has some profound meaning. What you really have is a Rube Goldberg machine of black boxes inside black boxes that spits out a number. That number hides all the questionable choices in the measures and manipulations, as well as all unmeasured and unmeasurable things that contribute to or detract from school quality. Some in Wisconsin were proud that we didn’t assign letter grades like Florida has, but the number is just as bad, or even worse because superficially something like 66.7% seems to have more scientific accuracy., an a B-. It doesn’t. Superintendent Tony Evers and others have said many of the appropriate things about over-interpreting the scores given schools, but they put the score there and because of the inclusion of the score, the system fails the communication test.
Although standards-based reporting offers much of potential value, there are also possible negative consequences as well. The public may be misled if they infer a different meaning from the achievement-level descriptions than is intended. (For example, for performance at the advanced level, the public and policy makers could infer a meaning based on other uses of the label “advanced,” such as advanced placement, that implies a different standard. That is, reporting that 10 percent of grade 12 students are performing at an “advanced” level on NAEP does not bear any relation to the percentage of students performing successfully in advanced placement courses, although we have noted instances in which this inference has been drawn.) In addition, the public may misread the degree of consensus that actually exists about the performance standards and thus have undue confidence in the meaning of the results. Similarly, audiences for NAEP reports may not understand the judgmental basis underlying the standards. All of these false impressions could lead the public and policy makers to erroneous conclusions about the status and progress of education in this country. (Emphasis added)
The NAE-based cuts scores (WKCE scores “mapped” to NAEP are also being used with the results of individual students. Here’s what the people at NAEP say about that:
Does this mapping method allow us to link student scores received on state test to the NAEP scale? If not, why not?
No, student scores cannot be linked to the NAEP scale because the NAEP does not generate reliable scores at the individual student level, only average scores for groups of students (e.g. males, females).
I would hope that at least the DPI staff working on the “Accountability” system knew this. If they didn’t, that’s a problem; if they did and went ahead anyway, that’s a bigger problem.
In terms of accuracy, the Report Cards do one thing well, they sort schools by their relative poverty. Here is what Gene V. Glass wrote on this:
What emerges from this dog’s breakfast of numbers? A measure of the wealth of the community in which the school is located. The correlation between the OAI and the “% Economically Disadvantaged” in the school is nearly -.70. That means that the poorer the children in the school, the lower is the school’s number on the Overall Accountability Index; and the relationship is close. In fact, a correlation of .70 is even tighter than the relationship of adults’ height to their weight, and both measure a person’s size. So what the DPI has created is a handy measure of a community’s wealth (SES, Socio-Economic Status) without ever having to ask anyone their income.
Steve Strieker observes that this isn’t news to many of us:
A supermajority of Wisconsin’s public schools with over 70% economically disadvantaged students were graded “Failed to Meet Expectations.”
Almost all below-standard schools had at least 45% economically disadvantaged students.
In contrast, almost all graded schools with less than 10% economically disadvantaged students were considered by DPI’s measurement to surpassed expectations.
Social Context Reformers must not be shouted down by the “no excuses” reformers who will surely shame Wisconsin schools graded below expectation by showcasing the few schools with high poverty rates and high-test scores.
Given this pattern and what we know from 1,000 sources, the remedy should be to provide additional, appropriate help to high poverty schools. We didn’t need the Report Cards to tell us that.
Unfortunately the new system fails this test too. Most of “help” under the new system is directed to Title I schools. In theory, Title I schools are high poverty schools, but not all high poverty schools are Title I. In Madison and some other districts, for reasons I’ve never understood, only pre-K-5 schools are Title I, which means that no matter how high poverty (or low scoring) middle and high schools are left out.
In this case, that is probably for the best, because the “help” being offered appears to be more of a diversion of resources than an addition. No extra resources will be provided and some of the scarce resources available must be reallocated to questionable purposes.
The “Schools Below Expectations, and Significantly Below Expectations” will be required “to submit a plan detailing the extended learning opportunities for eligible students.” And:
[S]chools must participate in an online district-directed diagnostic review of the current core reading and math curriculum including interventions for struggling students. The school must develop an improvement plan based on the diagnostic review, and implement RtI, working closely with the Wisconsin RtI Center. Specific interventions in the plan must address identified problem areas. The plan must be approved by DPI…o DPI will conduct electronic reviews of each school’s progress and monitor throughout the year.
So extended learning, an online review, with an online plan, and online monitoring.
For “Schools Persistently Failing to Meet Expectations” extended learning is also mandated, the diagnostic review will be onsite, and also must result in an approved plan. But there is a kicker, and the name of that kicker is privatization: “Schools must contract with a state-approved turnaround expert/vendor to implement reform plans aligned to the diagnostic review.” In other words, schools have to take money from the classrooms and give it to the likes of Paul Vallas and hope for the best (here is a selection of posts on “turnarounds” from Diane Ravitch, read them to understand my skepticism). And when the turnaround fails, as they almost always do, here is what happens:
o For public schools that do not participate in the diagnostic review, improvement planning and interventions with turnaround experts, they will close.
o For schools that do participate but fail to show demonstrable improvement after three years, the State Superintendent will intervene. Pending legislation, in the case of schools participating in the Parental Choice Program, the state will remove the school from the program. In the case of charter schools, the authorizer must revoke the charter.
Superintendent Tony Evers also has some school finance proposals that he has been touting. Unfortunately, his Fair Funding for Our Future plan does not include directing any extra resources to high poverty schools or even those identified as in need by this accountability system. The Fair Funding plan does some good things, but addressing poverty is not one of them. For years the only state program directing resources to classrooms based on poverty is the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education or SAGE), which only targets the early grades and in budget cutting moves over the last few years, done under the rhetoric of “flexibility” has been eroded by larger allowed classes and new allowances concerning the grades covered. There does not seem to be any desire to change that, either from DPI or the legislature.
Fair Funding claims that it “Accounts for family income and poverty.” In sense it does, but via tax relief for property owners, not by giving schools serving students in poverty the resources they need to meet their challenges. Under Fair Funding student poverty levels will be factored into calculations of state aid, but revenue limits will not have a poverty bump and there is no new categorical aid for students in poverty. So property taxpayers in districts with higher poverty will have lower taxes and the schools will not have an extra penny (btw –the Penny for Kids proposal from the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools/ Opportunity to Learn Wisconsin includes a poverty based categorical aid). So the Widow Hendricks of “divide and conquer” fame who owns property in multiple high poverty districts gets a tax break and the students of Beloit and Janesville get nothing.
Back to the titular questions, who cuts the barber’s hair?; who holds the people behind this mess created in the name of “accountability” accountable? We all need to.
Start at the top. For Arne Duncan, join the thousands who have signed the “Dump Duncan” petition. There is also an election on November 6th and Duncan’s boss Barack Obama is up for re-election. Diane Ravitch has made a case that “as bad as the Obama education policies are, they are tolerable in comparison to what Mitt Romney plans.” Others concerned with education, especially those not in swing states, should take a good look at Jill Stein.
In Wisconsin, for Senate and the House, more-or-less the same situation exists. Some version of NCLB/ESEA will certainly be before Congress, and for that all of the Democrats on the ballot are better than the Republicans, but none have distinguished themselves on Education issues the way Russ Fiengold did. Still, I’ll be voting for Tammy Baldwin and Mark Pocan and urge you to do the same. I’ve already warned Mark that I’ll be contacting him regularly on Education and other issues and calling on him be more of a progressive champion on this blog, just as I have when he was my State Rep.
That’s another version of accountability. It starts at the ballot box, but it doesn’t end there. Our elected officials need to here from us, all the time. They need to know — as we sing at the Solidarity Sing Along — “We’re not going away.”
At the state level, we don’t get another crack at Scott Walker this year, but there are State Senate and Assembly races. Again, the rule is Democrats better than Republicans, but there are also some Democrats who are not only better than Republicans, but are real supporters of education. The two I’d like to point to are Melissa Sargent (who is a good friend) and Mandela Barnes (who I have admired from afar). By all accounts the Senate is the key this time around. The key races where your support ($$$ and time) may make difference appear to be Susan Sommer, Jessica King,and Dave Hansen. Keeping the Senate is the best way to keep Walker in check. With all this, it is important to remember that the “Accountability” system has been presented as a work in progress and there is some legislative power to dictate changes in some areas (the Report Card portion did not require legislative action, but other parts of the waiver did), and that any changes to school funding — good or bad — have to go through the legislature. With the State Legislature, this time around accountability means at minimum limiting the power of the Walker allies who aided in the creation of the “Accountability” system.
I’ve saved Superintendent Tony Evers for last. He is up for re-election in April 2013 and as with all elected officials, the best place to assert accountability is at the ballot box. It is also likely that come April, Evers will be the better choice (I supported Todd Price in the Primary last time and Evers in the General Election against Rose Fernandez). Also as with all elected officials, imposing accountability includes making sure Evers hears from the voters throughout his term, both positive and negative, and I hold some hope he may listen and adjust his course.
There is much I like and admire about Evers, but as the above indicates there are many things he has pushed that I think are bad, wrong or at very least should be better. I understand that most of this was done in the context of a state in the control of the Fitzwalker gang and a federal policies set by Arne Duncan. Given the circumstances, it is impossible to tell which things he truly believes are good for our state and our students and which are pragmatic choices made in order to keep a seat at the table and maybe deflect even worse policies (one example where I believe he did this was the mandated grade retention that Walker initially wanted in the Read to Lead legislation). This situation keeps bringing to mind something Anthony Cody wrote recently about teacher leaders:
How can we make sure that we are not being used as tokens? For this, we have to look at why we are being asked to join the conversation. What are the power dynamics at play? Do we have a vote when decisions are to be made? Will we find allies around the table to help us have some influence? Do we have any real cards to play? This gets us closer to defining what real leadership is all about. Real leadership is not just the ability to speak with clarity and authority based on our experience in the classroom. It also involves a relationship to other teachers, and to some level of political power in these situations.
And Cody concludes:
The bottom line is that we do not have the money to buy influence. We have to get it the old-fashioned way. We have to organize for positive change at our school sites. We have to join with others at our union meetings, and as our colleagues in Chicago showed, we may need to go on strike. We have to build strong relationships with our colleagues, with parents, with allies in other unions and social movements, and with reporters, and use this strength as the basis for our ability to speak for ourselves. We have to organize and build our strength from the ground up, because the strength that comes from the top down is like the strings on a marionette.
As I said, I don’t know what parts of the Waiver or Fair Funding or other things Tony Evers truly believes in, but I have a feeling that he has misgivings about some of these. For those I urge him to give up the seat at Scott Walker’s and Arne Duncan’s table (he is after all a State Constitutional officer, with his own table) and take Cody’s advice to “to build strong relationships with our colleagues, with parents, with allies in other unions and social movements, and with reporters, and use this strength as the basis for our ability to speak.” Till that happens he shares in the accountability for the “accountability” system.
Peter Behnke, the district’s administrator, gushed good news for the taxpayers, who can expect a 3.3 percent decrease in their school property taxes due to an estimated $250,000 increase in state aid, to about $5.6 million.
“State aid is actually increasing for the first time in years, and that’s always a good thing,” Behnke said.
But what is missing is that the aid doesn’t come close to restoring state funding levels to what they were three years ago and leaves state aid per member for 2012-13 an estimated $671.55 belowwhat it was in 2007-08(and in fact aid increased in both 2009-10 and 2010-11).
Here are some charts. Note that the Bonduel district budget information is not accessible on the district website, charts were prepared using information from the Department of Public Instruction and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. For the 2012-13 per member, the 2011-12 membership was used to estimate.
The first is total state equalization aid to Bonduel.
The second is per member aid.
That anyone familiar with this history can “gush” over the 2012-13 projections is evidence of how far down we have been pushed.
We need to push back, up and out of this hole.. State Superintendent Tony Evers’ Fair Funding for Our Future is a start, but it won’t be enough unless it includes an influx of new state revenues. That’s one reason why I think something like Penny for Kids is more necessary now than ever. Penny for Kids would provide about $850,000 annually in new revenues for our schools. I also think that Penny for Kids inclusion of a real aid to schools educating students in poverty is essential to addressing the gaps in achievement that plague our state and district (Fair Funding includes increased state aid to districts based on student poverty, but no new money or taxing authority only property tax relief, so this will supplant, not supplement).
After all the slings and arrows, the cuts, the failed recall, the still slow economy…I know many are like the District Administrator in Bonduel, ready to accept minor improvements as cause for celebration. I think we can’t let down look like up, we have to keep our eyes on the prize, keep on pushing, not forget what is right just because it seems out-of-reach. I hope Senator Lehman shares that attitude when he convenes his Committee, I hope he remembers the ideals of the Pope-Roberts Beske Resolution (he was a signatory). Here they are as a reminder:
1. Funding levels based on the actual cost of what is needed to provide children with a sound education and to operate effective schools and classrooms rather than based on arbitrary per pupil spending levels;
2. State resources sufficient to satisfy state and federal mandates and to prepare all children, regardless of their circumstances, for citizenship and for post−secondary education, employment, or service to their country;
3. Additional resources and flexibility sufficient to meet special circumstances, including student circumstances such as non−English speaking students and students from low−income households, and district circumstances such as large geographic size, low population density, low family income, and significant changes in enrollment;
4. A combination of state funds and a reduced level of local property taxes, derived and distributed in a manner that treats all taxpayers equitably regardless of local property wealth and income…
These are still things worth working for. Just thinking about them lifts me up.
I don’t live in the District, but like all progressives in the state, I have a stake in the race. Whoever is elected will be in a “safe seat” which means that they have the opportunity to do more than be a consistent vote; they can push the envelope by introducing and promoting significant progressive legislation, the kind of legislation that makes overly cautious party leaders uncomfortable. With the Republicans in charge, the rhetoric from the Democrats has been heartening, but it should not be forgotten that when they controlled the state from 2008-10 they did nothing to reform school funding except cut $300 million and raise the levy credit, did nothing on the minimum wage, failed to pass the Green Jobs bill, didn’t finish the Union contracts when they could, did much to little in progressive revenue reform…the list goes on. In this race I think people should look beyond opposing Walker to what kind of legislator the candidates will be when the Democrats are in control.There is no shortage in the legislature of “pragmatic progressives” who can find 1,000 reasons not to do the right things; there is a dire need for courageous leaders who will be steadfast in their advocacy both behind caucus doors and in public. Andy Heidt will be that kind of leader, that’s why he has my endorsement and why I’ve been helping with his campaign.
To back up this assertion (and as a service to AMPS readers and voters in the 48th), I’m offering a series of posts examining what the candidates have and have not said about education issues, especially the core issue of school finance, and to a lesser extent the related issues of revenue reform (based primarily on their websites and on internet searches). In the interest of disclosure, I’ll note that I’m acquainted with three of the candidates and believe I have met at least three others and that some things that I know about them or impressions that have not appeared in campaign statements or biographies are part of the analysis. If anyone, including the campaigns has anything to add or dispute, please use the comments to bring it to my attention. This time the order is from who I consider the strongest to who I consider the weakest (Andy Heidt, Vicky Selkowe, , Bethany Ordaz, Fred Arnold Chris Taylor, Katherine Kocs and Dave de Felice — this may change as I do more research).
By my criteria, Andy Heidt is far and a way the best candidate. Throughout his campaign — beginning with his announcement (covered here by John Nichols) — he has done more than decry the actions of the GOP, he’s offered positive policy alternatives and pointed to the failure of other Democrats to enact these and other positive proposals. As Nichols put it:
Heidt’s argument that we must do more than merely prevent Walker from implementing his agenda. We must recognize that the crisis Walker is exploiting has its roots in the failure of Republican and Democratic administrations and legislators to recognize that Wisconsin cannot maintain services and public education if our politicians keep giving away tax breaks to multinational corporations and the wealthy.
In the press release, Heidt recognizes the importance of education and shows a “can do” spirit:
There are no more important investments than those we make in our children. They are the future and each generation has an obligation to provide the next with the skills and knowledge they need to be successful. With a fair revenue system, there is no reason we cannot return to the Wisconsin tradition of supporting quality public education.
He also notes past cuts to education under the Democrats and the inadequacy of their recent counter-proposal to the Republican decimation of our schools. No other candidate has been explicit on this.
More importantly, no other candidate has offered anything like the detailed “Keeping the Promise” plan, nor the pledges to action contained in that plan.
“Keeping the Promise” has two parts. First it calls for “immediate action” to address the crises created by 18 years under a broken system, significant cuts in state funding in the 2009-11 budget and the recent Republican measures. These include enacting the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools Penny for Kids proposal, expanding sales taxes, shifting the levy credits to the equalization formula, rolling back vouchers, fully funding SAGE, allowing for growth of the revenue limits based on CPI or the state GDP, taking the profit motive out of virtual schooling and reinstating educator union rights. The second part build on this by initiating comprehensive reform based on “based on the shared principles of the WAES Adequacy Plan the School Finance Network Plan and the 2007-2008 Assembly Joint Resolution 35.” These are (from AJR 35):
“Funding levels based on the actual cost of what is needed to provide children with a sound education and to operate effective schools and classrooms rather than based on arbitrary per pupil spending levels.”
“State resources sufficient to satisfy state and federal mandates and to prepare all children, regardless of their circumstances, for citizenship and for post−secondary education, employment, or service to their country.”
“Additional resources and flexibility sufficient to meet special circumstances, including student circumstances such as non−English speaking students and students from low−income households, and district circumstances such as large geographic size, low population density, low family income, and significant changes in enrollment.”
A combination of state funds and a reduced level of local property taxes derived and distributed in a manner that treats all taxpayers equitably regardless of local property wealth and income.
Heidt vows to “work tirelessly” to see that this reform is achieved prior to the next biennial budget cycle.
In the plea for co-sponsors Bernier explains her “thinking”:
Over the last few months, and years, we have heard certain portions of the population advocate for raising taxes as a means to fund these programs. This gives those people that feel they have the ability to pay more in taxes to do so without mandating that burden on those who cannot afford it.
Voluntary check-offs are not taxes. Taxation involves legal obligations and the power to enforce those obligations. For all the lovers of the US Constitution and the historically minded, one of the biggest reasons that the founding generation replaced the Articles of Confederation was because that document did not include the power to tax, only to ask for voluntary donations from the states. The distinction is important.
While on the topic of distinctions that are lost on Rep. Bernier, the LRB lists “the endangered resources program. .. a veterans trust fund, prostate cancer research, multiple sclerosis programs, a fire fighters memorial, Second Harvest food banks, and a breast cancer research program, and to provide a donation to a professional football stadium district” as items that currently receive fund via check-offs. As worthy as these might be, they are hardly the kind of Constitutionally mandated or essential programs as shared revenue, medical assistance, and K-12 education.
Rep. Bernier and her fellow partisans should stop playing games, stop trying to be cute and get to work on real revenue reform that includes real tax increases. Penny for Kids would be a great start. After that, there are plenty of ideas in the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future’s updated Catalog of Tax Reform Options for Wisconsin. Not cute either, but what the state needs.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 19, 2011
Parents, Religious and Education Leaders Call for Balanced Approach in Budgeting for Public Education.
MADISON, Wis. – A broad coalition of parents, student advocates, religious leaders and educators has come together to call on the Wisconsin Legislature to take a more balanced approach to the state budget process.
To make their voices heard, the group’s members will hold a press conference that will detail how the budget will impact people from a wide variety of perspectives. The event will be held in the Senate Parlor of the State Capitol Building. WHAT: Press conference featuring parents, students, teachers and advocates, who will speak about how the state budget will impact them and their local schools and students. The event will also outline options the Legislature and governor should consider before making massive cuts to education.
WHEN: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, 10:30 a.m.
WHERE: Senate Parlor, State Capitol Building, Madison
WHO: The event will feature a number of speakers, including:
• MC: Julie Underwood is dean of the University of Wisconsin-
Madison School of Education
• Nancy Holmlund is president of WISDOM, a network of 145
congregations representing 17 denominations across Wisconsin that
work together to promote fairness and the common good
• Beth LaBell is a parent and member of the Paris Vote YES
Committee, a group that promotes the Paris School District
• Terri Raatz is mom to three little boys, the oldest of whom, Patrick, is
seven years old and has autism
• Jasmine Alinder is the founder of I Love My Public Schools, a group
of concerned Wisconsin parents who are fighting for the rights of
children to have a quality public education
• Danielle Barbian is a senior at Hamilton High School in Sussex and
president of the Wisconsin Association of School Councils
• Kim Hoffman is a music teacher at Stone Bank Elementary School in
Waukesha County and member of the Wisconsin National Guard
WHY: The proposed state budget includes over $1.7 billion in cuts to education over the next two years, while increasing spending over $600 million for corporate tax breaks and transportation projects. The result will mean program cuts, fewer opportunities for students and increased class sizes.
I’ll be on A Public Affair with Allen Ruff discussing “the state of public education, the assault upon it and what we can do.” Listen and call in: 256-2001.
Thursday, April 28, 6:45-8:45: West High Roundtables Conversation
Thursday, April 28, 6:45-8:45, in the West High Cafenasium
Calling All Parents, Students, Teachers!
Excerpt from the April 2011 PTSO Regent Reporter article:
Our school, like every other school across our state, will
likely be confronted with some major changes in the near future. The
events of this school year at West have shown us the importance and
the power of joining together and sharing our voices, so that we can
all be heard.
Now, in the face of potentially drastic cutbacks, it is more crucial
than ever that we identify the issues, concerns and decisions that we
need to explore as a community, and then establish the lines of
communication through which we can all effectively contribute to the
decision-making process, which helps to ensure inclusive input of all
These issues will be the focus of our West Roundtables gathering,
scheduled for Thursday, April 28th, 6:45 p.m. in the Cafenasium.
We can be best prepared to protect the interest of our school by being
informed of the concerns and needs of all, and we can only accomplish
this if we have a system in place that facilitates a free exchange of
Please save the date Thursday, April 28th, to attend this important
That is why I want to try to focus attention on what comes next, the other shoe waiting to drop, Governor Walker’s Biennial Budget. It is going to be a giant shoe and we need to be ready to catch it and throw that one back too.
Throughout this, Walker has made it clear that the so-called Budget Repair bill is only a prelude to the Biennial Budget. The GOP talking points have been that destroying public worker unions is a way to give local governmental units (counties, municipalities and school districts) the tools to deal with the budget cuts that radical slashes to state aid, shared revenue and unprecedented limits on local control of revenues — all anticipated in the Biennial Budget — will bring.
Anticipated $900 Million in cuts to State School Aids.
Unstated, but large cuts to shared revenue
Talk of a hard cap in property tax increases equal only to growth in property wealth (se the video above), taking away the ability of local governing units to mitigate the cuts in state aid.
Rumors of new refusals of federal aid, including Title I, a longstanding program targeted at the education of children in poverty.
Hard times ahead for Counties, Municipalities and School Districts and all those who depend on them for services.
Geez — Title I. This is beyond insane. For me this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Everything else — tax cuts, aid cuts, revenue limits, union busting…– is maddening and insane, but refusing Title I is so stupid and so offensive that as Marvin Gaye said “It makes me wanna Holler, ” and scream and organize.
Note: For awhile, I’m going to be illustrating the “On the Agenda” posts with various graphs documenting achievement gaps in MMSD as revealed by the admittedly flawed and limited WSAS/WKCE results. I think regular reminders may do some good.
The budget will be voted on at the 5:00 PM Monday meeting (Doyle auditorium). I’ll be at work at that time, but there will be public appearances and it would be good to give one more reminder that people in Madison support public education and are willing to support it via increased property tax levies when the state doesn’t do its part. Speak now or forever hold your peace. More on the changes below.
On Tuesday at Noon in Doyle rm 103, the Ad Hoc Hiring and Diversity Committee meets. Other MMSD meetings for the week are: MMSD Wellness Committee (Tuesday, 3:00 PM, Doyle rm 103); Common Council/Board of Education Liaison Committee (Tuesday, 5:30 PM, Doyle rm 103); and the Madison School & Community Recreation (MSCR) Advisory Committee (Tuesday, 6:30 PM, MSCR/Hoyt building, rm 21). Agendas for all of the above are here.
The short version of the budget story is that MMSD will levy about $10 million less then they allowed for educational programs, at best limiting the improvements to education in Madison; at worst harming the educational opportunities of our children (there is also about $2 million in Fund 80 “underlevy). The slightly longer version is that the Board — like Boards around the state — caught between a state budget that cut educational investments and property taxpayers who are struggling sought a happy medium between cuts and tax levies (helped by some real savings due to efficiencies), nobody ended up happy. The way to start changing this story and get to a happier ending is Penny for Kids.
There is also an update on ARRA funds, that if I read it correctly says that 59.92% of this money (over $7 million) has not been allocated to any project! The clock is ticking…I’m not sure why this money is not being used. More on ARRA things in the Operations Support Committee Report.
That’s about it for the budget. I’m only going to highlight a limited number of things from the regular meeting that follows.
Some info on Leadership, Teacher, Parent and Staff Councils (no membership lists). I don’t know about the rest, but with one parent from every school (selected by the Principal, so you’ll be sure to get those with “issues”) the Parent Council is so large that it is unwieldy.
Pathways open to all students. Students are originally identified by Advanced Placement requirements and other suggested guidelines such as EXPLORE /PLAN scores, GPA, past MS/HS performance and MS/HS Recommendation. however, all students would be able to enroll. Students not meeting suggested guidelines but wanting to enroll would receive additional supports (tutoring, skill development classes, AVID, etc.) to ensure success. (emphasis added and I would like to see it added in the implementation).
Right now there are great and at times irrational barriers in place. These need to go. I hope this does not get lost as the mess is cleaned up.
This is in four sections: The Mess; What Next?; The Plan: Unanswered Questions and Causes for Concern; and Final Thought.
The exact size and shape of the mess — like so much else with this — aren’t clear. You can gauge for yourself by visiting the Facebook pages “Save Our Future- Madison West High” and “Walk-Out Against MMSD High School Reform.” I heard reports that 200 or more students met at lunch yesterday and likely the number will be greater today. The fact that students care and want to do something is great. I’m sure that Administrators and Board Members have also heard from parents and teachers.
Then there is this video:
It is great to hear the passion and desire to be part of the process; it is sad to realize that they feel they have been shut out.
As far as I can tell the proximate cause of the student reaction at West was confused and incomplete information relayed by teachers. The ultimate cause is that this has been drafted and communicated in what seems to be a rushed and top-down manner.
Note the “seems to be.” Much of this has been in the works — at least indirectly — for a long time and there have been some opportunities for input and collaboration along the way (see the High School Initiatives presentation from earlier this year).
So while this doesn’t come out of nowhere, it has also been rushed out in a manner and form that leave much to be desired. Extensive changes of this sort need to be considered and revised in an open, inclusive, deliberate process. To do otherwise misses opportunities for improvement and creates distrust instead of buy-in from those most affected.
At least one Board Member is saying that “the proposed curricular changes are not related to the DPI complaint re. failure to comply with state law on TAG programming.” You can parse that statement carefully and maybe say it is true because things have been in the works prior to the TAG complaint, but it is equally true that the the timing and failed roll out were a reaction to the complaint. To deny or not acknowledge the relationship to the TAG complaint in how this was “finalized” and presented (not conceived) only exacerbates the distrust that is perhaps the biggest mess of all.
You don’t have to take my word on this being rushed and incomplete, just look at some of the early items in the plan that have dates attached: “Plan communicated to all stakeholders in September” with a variety of information to be compiled in September to support the communications. This communication didn’t happen in September and if the supporting information has been prepared, it has not been shared. If it has been prepared and not shared there is much more wrong here than a rushed time-line, there is a basic lack of understanding of communications principles.
There may also be a basic misunderstanding of policy formation principles at work. Part of that communication item for September reads:
Develop data-based rationale for reforming the MMSD high school curriculum providing both an accelerated pathway and a preparatory pathway.
I’m going to be nice and assume that the intent here was to say “Develop a presentation of the data-based rationale…,” because otherwise our self-styled “data -driven” district is making policies and then creating “data-based ratuonale(s)” after the fact. Let’s chalk this up to the rush job.
What Next ?
Hard to say what will come next. There may or may not be a protest walkout at West on Friday. There may or not be a crisis communication strategy from the administration [there is, see the update at the top]. There may or may not be an attempt to go beyond crisis communication and initiate a more open and extensive collaborative process (I’d like that).
The Board of Education will see this on an agenda in some form I have heard (not confirmed) that this will be the first week of November. What form isn’t clear. They may be asked to approve the proposal or they may may simply receive or reject a report. I hope it is the former.
I also want to note that how this comes before the Board matters not only in terms of democratic governance, but because the new Communication Plan protocols require certain things — such as equity and budget analyses — with some Administrative proposals. These are not part of the materials circulating.
My guess is that whatever happens in the coming weeks, at least part of the time-line is out-the-window. Supporting work will be ongoing, but I’d be surprised if the scheduled significant changes to Language Arts and Mathematics are fully implemented in 2011-12. I’ve been surprised before.
In the meantime, effective involvement is crucial. Let the Board know your concerns (firstname.lastname@example.org). Let Superintendent Nerad know too (email@example.com). Before voicing an opinion, it is good to do some study and get your facts straight and concerns clear. Keep and eye on the Board agendas (and this space) to see when it comes up and in what form. At every juncture, ask for a chance to be part of the process. If asking doesn’t work, demand.
The Plan: Unanswered Questions and Causes for Concern
From reviewing the proposal itself, a read of postings elsewhere, conversations and emails — with and from students, teachers, parents, Board of Education Members and administrators — some issues have stood out as things that I believe need further attention. What I’m offering here isn’t comprehensive or thorough, but introductory.
Before proceeding I want to again emphasize that the commitment to open access with supports is a huge and positive step (and note that it may be possible that this could be accomplished without the radical changes being proposed).
Pathways, Tracking and Ability Grouping:
I have supported the inclusive model for English 9 & 10 and 9th & 1oth grade Social Studies. I have also thought that real embedded honors would have improved the model. Some of the positive aspects of this will be lost if the new proposal is implemented. There will be two “pathways” and this will almost certainly mean an increase in segregation by race, language and income. I don’t like this.
Despite this inclusive portion of the existing West program, you’d be a fool to believe that segregation and something like tracking aren’t already part of the West reality. I’ll go further and say that I sincerely doubt that in the foreseeable future these will be eliminated.
So the questions become ones about the extent and nature of the segregation or groupings.
The existence of “embedded honors in the Preparatory Pathway is supposed to facilitate movement. I have serious doubts about that.
Doubts based in part on the fact that the access to the Accelerated Pathway is supposed to be open. This also needs to be monitored and special attention needs to be paid to informal ways that students are discouraged from challenging themselves and the availability of appropriate supports for success.
In general I don’t like the wholesale adoption of any standards, whether from an advocacy group (like the Common Core or for that matter the NACG Standards incorporated in the TAG Plan) or from an organization like the ACT or the College Board (AP), with supporting things for sale (an issue with the Common Core too). MMSD – and other districts — should pick, chose and adapt what is appropriate for local circumstances.
In defense of expanded AP, it does provide an external measure of achievement and it does give students a head start on college. Like so much else, some good and some not so good.
Trade Offs: Electives, Budget and Schedules:
Because of budget and schedule constraints this proposal cannot be implemented without other things being cut. You can’t add support services without either increasing expenditures or eliminating something else. Teachers and students only have time for so many classes, if they are taking new AP classes, they won’t be taking existing offerings. So far there has been no clear statement of what these other things might be.
The rumors were that electives in some form were due to be cut. I have this response from a senior administrator:
This is not true. We are adding Advanced Placement courses in the four content areas. They will be open access courses and may be taken or an elective may be taken. For example Advanced Placement offers only two English courses. We require 4 years of English. This leaves room for elective choices
How much room, both in terms of budget and schedules remains to be seen. I think it is clear that many favored electives will be retained.
I’m not going to give my full Wisconsin and MMSD school funding rap, but I will ask those new to this to visit Penny for Kids, sign the petition, share it with friends, join the Facebook group…get involved.
At the top, I called this mess inexcusable. I see this as a failure of leadership. Couldn’t they anticipate this reaction? Didn’t they read Susan Troller’s “branding” piece? Don’t they now that successful reform requires buy-in? This looks rushed and reactive, not considered and confident. I know lots of very good work has gone into this, but that work is in danger of being lost due to some key failures.
With this in mind, I renew my call for the evaluation of Superintendent Dan Nerad to be made public. Part of restoring confidence has to be sharing with the public what the Board of Education thinks is is going well and what the Board thinks could use improvement. I know at this moment many in the West community have some definite ideas about these matters (positive and negative…I see successes as well as failures).
Rally organizers call for making public education a top funding priority in Wisconsin, so that every child has access to a high-quality public education from kindergarten through college. Since an educated population spurs the economy and benefits all state residents, they also call for reforming the tax system so that everyone pays their fair share, including the wealthy and large corporations operating in Wisconsin. Increasing access to higher education for underrepresented groups and ensuring fair and competitive pay for academic workers are also top priorities.
Here is the list of speakers:
Ben Manski, Coordinator, Democratizing Education Network
Mike Bell, UW-Madison faculty member (Sociology)
Thomas J. Mertz, Board Member, Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools