Category Archives: School Finance

by | March 11, 2010 · 10:26 am

Hatchets at the Ready — More Wisconsin School Budget News

Tav Falco’s Panther Burns, “Pass the Hatchet” (click to listen or download”

As they sharpen the hatchets to cut the Madison school budget, time for another installment in the sad story of diminishing educational quality in Wisconsin.

Might as well get the first “what you can do to stop this” out of the way at the start.  The easiest thing to do to help is to sign the Penny for Kids petition sponsored by the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES).  We (I’m a WAES Board Member) are asking that the state enact a 1 cent per dollar sales tax to address the immediate crisis and move Wisconsin toward better ways of investing in education.  You can read more and find out how to help in other ways at the links.

Most of these stories and links are from the last couple of weeks, but some are from earlier this year.  I’ve left Madison out this time, because we’ll be posting lots about the home front in the coming weeks.  This is no particular order and far from comprehensive (with districts holding April referenda reserved for another post).

I’ll get started with the districts mentioned in Chris Murphy’s  recent “What’s News: Schools’ money troubles are news all over Wisconsin “story on the Cap Times:  Oshkosh, Appleton and  Monona Grove.

Lots more on the major cuts in Oshkosh in this post.  My favorite recent thing is the Facebook group “The children in the Oshkosh Area School District are screwed!!!!!”  I love the lack of spin.

The Oshkosh West student paper has a good story: “Board decision ushers in winter of discontent.”  Here is an  excerpt:

State and local budget woes have placed a sharp edge at the throat of the Oshkosh Area School District. At an OASD school board meeting on February 10, board members voted 7-0 to raise the student to teacher ratio to 25:1 beginning in the fall of 2010, effectively eliminating some 35 teaching positions in order to shave approximately $2 million from the budget deficit. Although the board was scheduled to meet on February 24 (which was too late for publication in this issue of the Index) regarding specifics of implementation, the impact of these cuts could be dire, according to Assistant Principal Jay Jones.

“My biggest fear is that we could potentially lose some upper level electives that students have had some interest in,” he said. “One of the suggestions from Superintendent Bette Lang is that some of these elective classes will have to run every other year. But at the same time it could mean that an awful lot of classes simply do not run.”

Some more on the cuts and firings from School Board candidate Karl Lowenstein:

It is hard to describe the passion, energy, and eloquence of the students who lined up and stayed for hours to try to save smaller classes that were important to them. It was a testament to a hopeful future. Unfortunately, the board ignored their pleas.

In the end, the board voted unanimously to fire the teachers. There was very little discussion about the real implications of this cut. Bette Lang and the board members insisted that hardly anyone will miss the teachers–all it means is that small classes will be offered less frequently. Not one board member asked how a fired teacher can offer courses every other year. The board’s belief is that other districts have higher ratios, so our should too.

Although the information put out by the asst. principals at North and West, which listed all the classes which may be canceled next year, is surely exaggerated, the idea that firing 35 teachers will have no impact on the kind of education our kids get is simply not true.

Once those 35 teachers are gone, what will have disappeared from our high schools? It remains to be seen how many math teachers or business teachers or language teachers they will have to fire. It looks like at least 17 at West and 18 at North will lose their jobs. After that happens, we will have a better sense of how much worse the options have become for our high school students.

At least two more entries from his blog are worth reading: “Where’s the Plan? February 24 Meeting Report,” and “Students Organize Against Cuts.”

Here is a little more on the reactions from WLUK-TV.

With the High School cuts decided, the Oshkosh Board has moved on to debating school closures.  Two schools are on the block and the projected savings is $383,000.  Like Madison in elsewhere the discussions about cuts and closures are based on the combination of revenue limits that do not reflect the costs of education and the state budget that shifted much more of those costs to local property taxes.  The Northwestern reports some are urging taxing to the max.

Parents and teachers urged the district to increase taxes instead of making the tough choice to close another school.

“You can tax us to the max. I’m OK with that,” Lakeside parent Bill Keys said. “There’s no easy choice to be made.”

Increasing the tax rate to the maximum level would generate about $3 million in additional revenue and increase the tax bill on a home valued at $100,000 by about $66.

Now an editorial from the Northwestern: “Editorial: Teacher bashing won’t balance school budgets.”

Knocking teachers for compensation earned at the bargaining table is counterproductive, especially when concessions on health insurance and other benefits will have to be won through contract negotiations. Moreover, critics overlook that 34 teaching positions were cut this school year and that 35 positions have already eliminated for next school year, with more expected. On balance, Oshkosh educators have not been immune to economic pain.

And last from Oshkosh, a great exercise in sarcasm from columnist Tom Willderson (hat tip County Supervisor Mike Norton):

Your bill shows that I owe about $970 to the school district. This figure is much too high. My sons attend only two of the 13 grades the schools provide. Furthermore, they only use one of the district’s 21 buildings! My calculations show that I owe $7.18 for schools, given that my children use such a small part of what the district offers.

On to Appleton, where 27 educators’  jobs are on the block (16 full time positions).  The Post-Crescent reports some of the reasons for the layoffs:

It became obvious in recent months that the school board would have to lay off more staff after it was determined Appleton faces a $2.4 million budget deficit for 2010-11.

[Mark] Huenink [assistant superintendent for school services] said half of the layoffs are the result of an enrollment decline at the high school level, noting that even without staff reductions to balance the budget, the district would need to eliminate positions because there aren’t enough students signed up for several classes next fall.

Reading the district budget web page it appears that Appleton is caught in the old version of the budget gap and that not taxing to the max is not on the table, yet.

WHBY Radio reports that the layoff notices were approved on March 8.

Another part of the balancing might be a teacher pay freeze, but this doesn’t seem too likely.

Susan Troller has been following the Monona Grove situation in the Cap Times and one of the best sources of information is Board Member Peter Sobol’s blog.

As this video from Channel 3000 says, the big issue is school closures, but the long term picture isn’t good with cuts year after year. after year…

I really like the guy who hits the anti-tax/tax cuts politics as the root cause.

Rob Kahl the Mayor of Monona has also checked in.

Residents of the Monona Grove School District are hopefully by now beginning to fully understand the dire financial situation confronting our district. However, I think a quick recap is in order to ensure everyone fully comprehends the extent of the problem.

This is not a $1 million dollar budget hole that can be fixed this year with cuts including closing Maywood School. The district’s problems are much larger than that. Superintendent Gerlach has often referred to this as a $15 million dollar operating budget deficit and I know there are many questions of how he comes to that total. Quite simply, using a five year projection the total amounts to $15 million because the district needs to make $1 million in cuts each year in addition to the money cut in preceding years. The chart below shows how this amount is calculated.

Year 1 2010-2011 Needed Cut of $1 million

Year 2
2010-2011 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2011-2012 Needed Cut of $1 million

Year 3
2010-2011 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2011-2012 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2012-2013 Needed Cut of $1 million

Year 4
2010-2011 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2011-2012 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2012-2013 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2013-2014 Needed Cut of $1 million

Year 5
2010-2011 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2011-2012 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2012-2013 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2013-2014 Needed Cut of $1 million PLUS
2014-2015 Needed Cut of $1 million

Total Deficit if No Cuts Made = $15 million….

. It is apparent to anyone with a calculator that the district will need to go to a referendum to raise more property taxes and do so soon as it is simply unfeasible to make the total amount of needed cuts. The “plan” of the district is prior to going to that referendum to have some “blood in the streets” in their own words by undergoing significant cuts to programming and closing Maywood School. After this blood letting, they will then come to the citizens of the district within the next year or so and ask for permission to exceed the property tax levy limits.

What’s missing here is that this has been going on in many districts for 16 years.

It is very sad the School Boards are (and have been) trying to find that magic balance point between the pain of repeated cuts and continued faith in the schools before asking for referendum.  Cut too much and people are too disgusted and disheartened to vote yes; cut too little and people think the Board is crying wolf.  Even Madison, with the “Partnership Pl;an” felt the need to put forth a referendum that required further cuts (and now the cuts are looking larger and some of the referendum authority may not be used).

Most of the “blood in the streets” right now is school closings, but other things are are also being cut.  A music teacher points to the cuts in her area:

* Increase the instructional minutes that define a full-time teacher for Elementary Related Arts from 1280 minutes per week to 1350 minutes per week.

* Reduce instructional minutes for the elementary related arts classes (art, music, PE) from 40 minutes twice a week to 30 minutes twice a week at grades 3-5, and for art only at grades K-2.

* Eliminate the 4th-grade string program

* Reduce staffing in 6-8th grade music programs by 1.53 full-time teachers.

This proposal intends to staff the middle school music programs with only 1 full-time teacher in each curricular area for band, choir, and orchestra.

All the proposed Monona cuts are here, on the district website.

It makes me think of what Madison has been through in times past and what is going on in Milwaukee this year.

South Milwaukee too.  Arts are always a place to look for cuts, especially when so much of “accountability” is linked to Math and Reading standardized test scores.  In both Milwaukee and South Milwaukee, students came out to protest (videos from WTMJ).

Milwaukee

South Milwaukee

I can’t find much in the way of details, but 9 teachers were cut in Weyauwega-Fremont a couple of weeks ago and it is anticipated that 7-8 support staff will also be axed.

Big cuts in Manitowoc.  Last year they lost $400, 000 in state aid and had cuts of $1.6 million (it could have been worse, $700,000 in one time stimulus money stayed the hatchets).  They are looking at another $1.7 million in cuts this year, but the Herald Times Reporter quotes business services Director Ken Mischler being positive:

Despite the cuts that will need to be made, many other school districts are facing more dire situations, Mischler said.

“Financially, we’re doing OK,” he said.

Board member Jim Protsman said the fact that the 2010-11 year likely won’t be the last year of budget cuts would influence his decisions regarding cuts for this year.

There are at least a couple of dynamics going on here.  First, the whole “it could be worse” diminished ambitions and expectations is exactly the wrong attitude to bring to education, even in the business office.  Education should be about reaching higher and higher.  Second, there is the the professional pride that induces administrators to downplay the damage being done by the repeated cuts to educational opportunities.  The Board member quoted is correct that there will be more cuts next year and beyond, especially if people keep saying “it could be worse” and “it’s not that bad” instead of shouting that the cuts must stop.  If you want to join the shouting, become part of the Penny for Kids campaign.

On to Kaukauna where the budget hole is $2.4 million in a $44 million budget and the layoffs have started. According to this WLUK-TV report, some of the the positions cut are in “School Within a School” alternative program which  serves students who are struggling and in danger of dropping out.

More than 125 people attended the meeting where the cuts were made, but that didn’t stop the hatchets.  There really isn’t much Board Members can do about the costs/revenue limit gaps but cut, these are a product of the broken school finance system that has been in place for 16 years (the Madison gap and the gaps in other districts where part of the equation is deciding whether to tax to the max are different in that Boards do have some options).  It is state action that is needed.

Milton has big problems too; an $850,000 gap in in a $34 million budget.  Possible school closures are again the focus of much of the frustration (really, the frustration needs to be directed at the state officials who continue to do little or nothing about this crisis)., but there are many other items on the chopping block.   These include laying off elementary teachers, cuting guidance staff, reducing the High School Dean to half time and axing a business education teacher.  The Janesville Gazette reports that one student provided some needed perspective on the last:

Ben Oliver, an 18-year-old Milton High student, spoke against the proposed elimination of a high school business teacher. He said with the state of the economy, the district should be adding, not subtracting from the business department.

“We have a local, national and financial responsibility to financially educate America’s youth, he said. “By no means is that a task for an understaffed department.”

WKOW had more — mostly on the school closures — in this report:

Just a couple more districts for now…

Wausau has a new teacher contract, below the old QEO 3.8%, but is still looking at $3.8 million in cuts from a $100 million budget.  They have also cut 10 teachers and added a sixth class to the workload of teachers in Middle and High School.

Two Rivers is looking to cut about $850,000.  Like in Madison, a proposed administrative restructuring is part of the package.  Other things include eliminating the one staffer for Gifted and Talented education, reassigning the Family and Consumer Science teacher, cutting pack on technology education, having a single librarian cover the Middle and High School,  and larger class sizes.

I’ve got at least another half dozen links that will have to wait, or more likely never be posted here because by the time I get to them there will be new cuts to in other districts to post on.  I hate this.

I hate doing this too.  Yet I keep on because I cling to the hope that if enough people become aware of the way education is being chopped in Wisconsin they will put enough pressure on out Legislators to move them from them to do something, even in an election year.

Might as well close with the “What you can do” also.

The easiest thing to do to help is to sign the Penny for Kids petition sponsored by the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES).  We (I’m a WAES Board Member) are asking that the state enact a 1 cent per dollar sales tax to address the immediate crisis and move Wisconsin toward better ways of investing in education.  You can read more and find out how to help in other ways at the links.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, Referenda, referendum, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | March 11, 2010 · 8:22 am

$30 Million Worth of Questions and Answers on the MMSD Budget

As promised, the Madison Metropolitan School District website has been posting Board Member questions and answers from the administration in almost real time. The page that will be updated is here.  Not much there yet, but keep checking back.

There is also a static page with some initial questions and answers, mostly on big picture things.

The Impact statements have also been conveniently organized by Tier (I still think we need to name the tiers, Tier 4 might be “We’ve given up” or “Over my dead body”).

These are all positive signs that they are doing what they can to keep the public involved and informed.  Good work.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, education, finance, Local News, School Finance

by | March 9, 2010 · 1:46 pm

MMSD Board of Education Wrap Up — March 8, 2010

Well, Brenda Konkel, Gayle Worland in the State Journal and WKOW all beat me to parts of this.  I’m not sure if that makes my job easier or harder.  It does create the need for some clarifications.

Again, to review, the way things work now is that most items come to the Board as they sit in Committee (agenda and wrap up posts of March 1 Committee meetings linked) and then votes are taken or further discussion occurs when the meet the following week as “The Board” (March 8 Board agenda preview here).  This was a Board week.

The three public appearances all concerned the ongoing struggles of Latino parents at La Follette to secure a replacement for a bilingual staff member who resigned and (I think this is separate) the creation of a bilingual social worker position.  Two parents and Alex Gillis of the Immigrant Workers Union spoke eloquently of the importance of this position, the difficulties immigrant students and families face, their commitment to education and how in five months they have heard repeated assurances and seeming concern  from the district but have seen the position go unfilled and their children getting lost in the system.  One parent also mentioned the importance of having all notices available in Spanish, prompting me to realize that I have not seen any translations of the Budget materials.  In an exchange carefully framed to avoid discussing a non-Agenda item, Johnny Winston Jr. elicited confirmation that this position has been unfilled for too long and there was some difficulty involved with the posting or hiring.

The first major item on the agenda was the Budget options presentation.  Not much new here.  The public hearing dates (6:00 PM on March 22 at the UW Space Place in Villager Mall and April 18 at 1:00 PM,  Warner Park.) were confirmed and there was much back-and forth about the process and the need for clarity and consistency with the information communicated to the Board and the public.

Board members asked for and received assurances that Q&As would be promptly posted on the web and that things would be made more user friendly by grouping the impact statements by Tier.  It was also confirmed that a full, initial “Budget Book” will be out late this week or early next week.  This is essential to give context for the options.

One thing that caught my attention was that all items on the agenda for the workshop meetings would be starred for action.  I understand that the Board wants to do this so that they can take things off the table or decide on procedures and not have to revisit later, but it also means that at least some things may be decided prior to the first public hearing.

The Superintendent Communications Plan (revised) was up next.  The version linked on Friday did not have the “Presentation Format” portion, nor were there hard copies of the revised version at the meeting.  Communication breakdown.  I like the presentation format but like all these things, a good template increases the odds of a good report, but does not guarantee quality.

One correction to Brenda’s post:  It was Ed Hughes and not the administration who asked for a way to have the Superintendent acting with the Board President to scale back or refuse information requests.  This was rejected and the current policy will  be continued.

Maya Cole had some good suggestions for further refinement that were apparently communicated in more detail via email.  These may be revisited.

As I said before, it is good to have an understanding on these matters, but not a good sign of the state of things when all parties agree that there is a need to formalize some very basic practices.

The Madison School & Community Recreation (MSCR) After School Programs(written report) was briefly discussed and it was affirmed that at some future date consideration will be given to having MSCR run all after school programing.

The Recommendations to Increase Usage of the Infinite Campus Student Information System passed 7-0.  Board members questioned the impact of budget options on this plan, particularly in staff training and how it relates to the time-line which will require Infinite Campus use by all High School and Middle School teachers in 2011-12.  It was confirmed that — as with so much else — budget cuts would make it harder if not impossible.

The Renewal of DPI Waiver for Days of Instruction for Sixth and Ninth Grade First-Day Transitions passed 7-0.

The Five-Year Education for Employment Plan also passed 7-0 after an amendment requiring the addition of sections dealing with biotechnology, agriculture and students with disabilities be drafted by December 2010.  These are good additions.

There was something kind of strange about this item in that it has appeared repeatedly on the agenda since February 1 but I think this is the first time it has been discussed and I also got the impression it was the first time that some Board members had read it.  The problem is partially structural…too much stuff to deal with, so things get put off.

Also some good discussion of what has been lost with the East Agriculture program and what is being done to regain at least parts of that.  Ahh, budget cuts.

The Plan to Align the Work of the Administration to the District’s Mission and Strategic Plan – the Reorganization Plan, (PART 1, PART 2, PART 3) was the only item to not be passed by a 7-0 vote; Lucy Mathiak and Maya Cole dissenting.

Concerns included the many unanswered questions about what large parts of this will mean in practice, the sustainability of funding the new structures (although there are real savings associated in the long run — as well as the illusory “savings” of using fund equity to pay for the last contract year in positions being eliminated), the salary and job description for the Chief Learning Officer and how this relates to revised duties for the Superintendent, the process of implementation and filling positions…lots of questions.

I think the discussion and the vote revealed a fairly wide range of positions among the Board on how much deference should be given to the administration on this and other matters; more varied than the 5-2 vote indicates.  I tend to side with those who lean away from deference and toward direction from the Board, but these are delicate maters and both direction and deference are appropriate in different situations.  In this case, I think the administration should have had more in place prior to asking for formal approval.

Badger Rock Charter School Planning Grant Application, passed 70, with a reminder that financials may need to be redone due to possible budget cuts that will change the allocations that served as the basis.

Lindbergh Elementary Community Garden Proposal, passed 7-0 with an amendment allowing the Board to review and sunset.

Five-Year Financial Outlook to include Projected Budget Gaps and Tax Impacts.  Nothing new

MSCR Proposed Budget Reductions and Efficiencies for 2010-11. Some interesting back-and forth here, prompted by Johnny Winston and revealing that there doesn’t seem to be anything in the works on different options related to MSCR budget cuts. My guess is there will be soon.  Also talk of advertising revenue as a possibility.  On the Fee Increases there was a request for comparative information from other providers.  I’m not clear if this meant things like the YMCA, the Princeton Club, or other public entities in other locales.

In general, the MSCR things need a lot of attention in the Budget Process.  I see many places where the proposed cuts would have a significantly adverse impact on education and other things that are important to our community and the Equity implications of some of this are staggering.

The Approval of the “Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of $28,590,000 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds” (here, here and here) brought good news that the rate was lower than expected (5.09), meaning more savings.  It was also nice to hear that the City of Madison was among the buyers.

As the budget goes forth with one option on the table being refinancing to put off about $4 million in payments  — Budget Option 188, (Tier 1) — , and others such as the Reorg  involving spending fund equity, I think it is essential that early on there be a full discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches in the long and short term, including a review of what has and has not been done in recent years in these areas.  I asked for this last year too and it hasn’t happened.

Consent Agenda passed with little discussion.

Wisconsin Alliance foir Excellent Schools membership passed 7-0.  Now go to Penny for Kids and show your support too!

Brenda Konkel has the Edgewater stuff covered in more detail than I”d do, so I’m leaving that alone, except to provide a clarification.  Beth Moss’ comment about “avoiding what happened last time” isn’t really relevant to current matters, or is only relevant indirectly.  The early closures of TIDs in 2008 provided an outside the Revenue Limits windfall to the district.  However, the way that revenue was treated under state law in calculations for state aid prompted an aid reduction for 2009-10.  These days, revenue limits are less important and (I think) that MMSD will be hit with the maximum in state aid reductions no matters what (I may be wrong, the TIF/TID thing might push us beyond the 15%).  The one way this could come into play is if the TID is not expanded to include the Edgewater and closes early…it would be good to have clarification on how that plays out in relation to state aid prior to the vote by the Board on the project.

That’s it.  Late, but more thorough than the “competition.”

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, Equity, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | March 9, 2010 · 10:08 am

Another Lesson in Leadership from Jim Doyle

The Journal-Sentinel is reporting that “Doyle drops plan on school funding.”  I think they got that wrong.  Replays show that Governor Jim Doyle never actually had a plan in his possession.  What he had were some ideas scribbled on a cocktail napkin and trotted out to a gullible press.

He also had little or no interest in working with the legislature or stakeholders to actually arrive at a plan, put it into legislation and get it passed.  He had little or no interest in doing anything about what he has repeatedly — since his first campaign — identified as a priority. His words have been good about the need to provide the resources to give all children in Wisconsin a quality education, but his actions — from getting rid of 2/3 state funding in his first budget, to the cuts in aid in his last budget — have repeatedly moved our state further from this goal.

As usual, he does have excuses and blame for others:

“The governor’s obviously always been interested in moving this forward, but the Legislature needs to approve it,” [Spokesman Adam] Collins said Friday. “It looks like the Legislature has other priorities.”

Anyone who has paid attention knows that the educational priorities in recent months have been driven by the Governor’s obsession with the failed Race to the Top application and bills to enact mayoral control and and give the State Superintendent the power to essentially take over any district that he label as “in need of improvement” (is there a single district that doesn’t in some sense need improvement?).

I think it might be time for Doyle to resign, before he embarrasses himself or the state any further and makes a successful Democratic 2010 election cycle even less likely.

This one goes out to Jim Doyle: Charlie Rich, “Feel Like Going Home [demo]” (click to listen or download).

Lord I feel like going home

I tried and I failed and I’m tired and weary

Everything I ever done was wrong

And I feel like going home

Meanwhile, districts around the state are doing triage, trying to clean up the mess the state has created and neglected and do the best they can for their students under the conditions created by the state.

For more on Doyle’s leadership in education finance see what Rep. Mark Pocan had to say last November.

I don’t want to let the legislative “leadership” off to easy.  They too have neglected and continue to postpone addressing the difficulties on school finance reform.

It isn’t too late.  The Penny for Kids proposal would undo much of the recent damage and begin moving Wisconsin in the right direction.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | March 7, 2010 · 8:24 pm

On the Agenda — MMSD, Week of March 8, 2010

In the cycle, this is a full Board meeting week for Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education.  That means, most items on the agenda where initially presented and discussed during the Committee meetings last week.  For an exploration of the full agendas of those meetings, see here; for a report on what happened at the meetings, see here.

I’m not going tor repeat all that, just make a few comments here-and-there and hit the new items.

After a closed executive session that includes what  think is the first discussion of “Successor Collective Bargaining Agreements for MMSD Support Staff Bargaining Units,” cell phone tower lease agreements, and student discipline matters, the public meeting begins at 6:00 PM,  Doyle Administration Bldg., 545 W. Dayton Street in the Auditorium.  Like almost all Board meetings, this will be carried by MMSD-TV.

First on the agenda are public appearances, with a legally required separate slot for those related to the required hours waiver request for 6th and 9th grade student transitions.  I’m curious to see if the release of the budget options will bring the first round of budget related public appearances this week.

Next are the announcements, first from Board President Arlene Silviera and then from Supt. Dan Nerad”

BOARD PRESIDENT’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

SUPERINTENDENT’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

I’ll be posting much more on the budget stuff in the coming weeks, right now I just want to say that the presentation leaves much to be desired. To get a handle on things you have to go back and forth between the “Tier” lists and the “impact statements; the impact statements aren’t very helpful in many cases, the MSCR stuff all seems randomly assigned to “Tier 2,” refinance “savings,” use of fund equity and actual cuts are all mixed together, there is no full budget to give context…

It should also be noted that a majority of four Board members have indicated they will not vote in favor of the school closing consolidation plan (considering school closings/consolidation is not necessarily a bad thing to me, but this plan — creating a 1,000 student elementary school — was ridiculous).  I’m glad that the Board members went on record because this will save all involved a lot of time, effort and pain.

The Communication Plan is a good/bad thing.  I think is good to clarify the processes for communication between the Board and the administration, some of the way this is being done  — with the whole “Action Plan” rubric — is part of the problem and the fact that such basic things as sending emails about upcoming media stories need to be listed as part of the plan is not a good sign.

The Student Achievement and Performance Monitoring items follow:

Madison School & Community Recreation (MSCR) After School Programs(written report).  This was one things from MSCR the Board was pleased with last week.

Annual Equity Report provided pursuant to Board Policy 9001.  This was “deferred” to June. One of the good things in the Communication Plan is that it seeks to systematize the requests by the Board for further information/redrafts.  I hope written exchanges of understandings have happened with the Equity Report and if they haven’t I hope all involved make sure they do, soon.

High School Initiatives.  This has also been “deferred,” but as far as I can tell the only issue is one of timing.

Recommendations to Increase Usage of the Infinite Campus Student Information System; see also this recent AMPS post by Jackie Woodruff.

Renewal of DPI Waiver for Days of Instruction for Sixth and Ninth Grade First-Day Transitions.

Five-Year Education for Employment Plan.

Next comes the Planning and Development portion of the meeting.

Plan to Align the Work of the Administration to the District’s Mission and Strategic Plan – the Reorganization Plan, PART 1, PART 2, PART 3.  There was and is some confusion about both the calculations and the semantics of the fiscal information.  The labeling of the use of Fund Balance Equity as “savings” was rejected by the Board, yet that does not seem to have changed and has in fact carried over to the Budget documents as Option 194 (Tier 1).  On the calculations, the currently linked version appears to be the same as the original and not the updated.  I’m not sure which is correct, but since they differ by almost $300,000 getting this right is important.

Badger Rock Charter School Planning Grant Application.  This comes with an administrative recommendation to approve.  Still unresolved issues, but in general this is a well done Charter application.  That’s good, because I get the feeling that the administration was ready to support the next reasonable one that came along, just to generate press stories like this one and change the (mis)perception of the district in relation to Charter schools.

Lindbergh Elementary Community Garden Proposal.  This is a really great project, being done within the “traditional school” framework.”

Items on Operational Support are next up.

Five-Year Financial Outlook to include Projected Budget Gaps and Tax Impacts.  In two words, not good.  It will be even worse if they keep refinancing to put off debt payments to future years (Budget Option 188, (Tier 1), as they did last year.  Refinance to save, but don’t apply  all savings and much more to a single year.

MSCR Proposed Budget Reductions and Efficiencies for 2010-11.  Despite the dissatisfaction expressed by the Board, this looks unchanged, however there is a supplementary d0cument with a 70% adult programing fee increase that is projected to generate $626, 372.  It appears that the projection assumes that there would be no loss of enrollment based on the new fees. Not a good assumption.   The MSCR reductions are listed as a single Tier 2 Budget Option item at $2,465,300 with a separate set of impact statements that appear to be the same as the “Reductions and Efficiencies” document above.  I would guess that some of these more properly belong in Tier 1, some in Tier 2, some in Tier 3 and some in Tier 4.  This is another presentation issue that causes confusion and works against efficient consideration of the options.

Energy Management Services Contract.  No projected savings in this document, but it is listed as Budget Option 197 (Tier 1) at $100,000.

Proposal for a Lease and Contract to Permit the Construction of a Cellular/Communications Tower on Gompers/Black Hawk Property.

Approval of the “Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of $28,590,000 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds.” This is the Wisconsin Retirement System refinance structured to ease the implementation of 4 year-old Kindergarten.  The documents are here, here and here.  This is another refinance with savings front loaded thing, but at least this time they considered most of the the implications and had a specific purpose.

Working Timeline for Development of the 2010-11 School District Budget to include Finalizing Dates. This looks the same as this:

With the additional information that public hearings are tentatively scheduled for 6:00 PM on March 22 at the UW Space Place in Villager Mall and April 18 at 1:00 PM,  Warner Park.

For Consent Agenda items, see the listing and links on the agenda.

Also on the main agenda are outlines of reports from recent meetings of the Common Council/Board of Education Liaison Committee and the Student Senate (same link as above).

Last are two items from the Legislative Liaison.

The first is a Recommendation to renew membership in the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES).  As a Madison resident and WAES Board Member, I heartily support this.  On school finance these days, WAES and the WAES Penny for Kids campaign are where the action is.

Last is an item called, Proposed Edgewater Tax Incremental Finance District.  Since there is no TIF/TID application yet, I’m not sure what this will be.  For some of the issues involved, see this post by Board Member Lucy Mathiak: “The Edgewater TIF. Or, Can I Use My MasterCard to Pay My Visa Bill???.” So Brenda, there is an Edgewater meeting afterall.

Other district governance meetings this week are:

School Forest Advisory Board, Nevin Hatchery, 3911 Fish Hatchery Road Fitchburg, WI, The Raptor Room, Monday at 4:00 PM; 4-Year-Old Kindergarten Curriculum and Instruction Work Group, MMSD Building Services, 4711 Pflaum Road, Madison, WI, Large Conference Room, 11:00 AM on Tuesday; Ad Hoc Ethics Committee Meeting in Open Session, Doyle Administration Bldg. 545 W. Dayton Street Madison, WI, Room 103, Noon on Tuesday; Educational Services Advisory Council, Doyle Administration Bldg. 545 W. Dayton Street Madison, WI, Room 103, 2:30 PM on Tuesday (the first and the last on this list are new to me, a reminder why open meetings postings are good, they let you know what exists).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, finance, Local News, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | March 5, 2010 · 3:18 pm

MMSD Cut List (For Consideration), Updated

Update: The district lists, presentation and impact statements are up here.

Channel 3000 has an initial and likely misleading report up on the possible cuts that the Madison Metropolitan School District will be considering over the next months.  There is a Press Conference scheduled today for 2:30 and the documents related to budget matters will be posted here on the district website at about that time (I’ll be updating this post also).  MMSD-TV has has promised updates on Facebook throughout the process.

The Channel 3000 headline — “Sources: Madison School District Plans Cuts, Close Lindbergh School” — is certainly misleading.  At this point, the district is not “planning” anything.  The Board of Education asked the administration for lists of possible cuts and savings totaling about $30 million.  The Board will now consider those options in relation to the property tax increases required to maintain the programs.

The story does get the basic idea right.  Unlike in past years the big problem isn’t the revenue authority to fully fund education (the 2008 referendum and some savings mostly took care of that for this year).  The big problem is that cuts in state aid as applied via the broken school finance system means that fully funding education would require unprecedented property tax increases.  So, the Board, will seek to strike a balance.

The TV station is also reporting that possible cuts will be presented in four tiers; from undesirable to really, really, really  undesirable (OK, I made up the labels, once the lists are out, maybe we should have a naming contest).  If accurate, one of the “lower” tiers (really, really undesirable or really, really, really undesirable? — I’d call these the higher tiers) includes school closings and consolidations :

One of the cuts in the lowest tiers includes a consolidation plan that would save the school district nearly $1.3 million, that would shift Blackhawk Middle School students to O’Keefe and Sherman middle schools, then close Lakeview, Mendota and Lindbergh elementary schools, and move those students into the building with Gompers Elementary.

The report also states that “no teacher layoffs” are in the options.  Unless the retirement numbers are huge, I find this difficult to believe.

Update:   I just heard that Elementary School Class Size increases are among the tier four (or least recommended) cuts (I was misinformed, there are no Elementary School Class Size increases in the options, Middle and High School in tier four).

More as things are released.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | March 3, 2010 · 2:06 pm

Coming Transformations

Credit: Computer Vision Laboratory, Columbia University

I want start off with one of the most egregious aspects of a horribly underfunded public school system and what acts of desperations that can ensue, followed by some “respectable” examples of education reform percolating around the country and ending with the next big “shining object” that will command our full attention here in Wisconsin shortly, whether we like it or not.

We begin with Charlotte Hill’s recent reporting at the change.org site that highlighted a distressing development; four inner-city schools in Detroit are “partnering” with Walmart

to offer a course in job-readiness. Student participants earn school credit while learning how to hold down one of the superstore’s infamously low-paying positions. When the bell rings at 3:30, off the students go to their new entry-level jobs, where they work for minimal pay.

Their public school system, like the majority in the country, are struggling. They need money. Enter Walmart, licking their chops to come in and fill the breach. And in their world, students will be conditioned to accept a work environment that is “notorious for its low wages, discriminatory [in its] treatment of female employees, mass lay-offs and refusal to acknowledge, much less support, employee unions,” says Hill. 29 schools were closed this past fall, with 40 more due to be shuttered in the coming year – “financial need — not educational integrity — is driving the decision.”

At the end of the day, Walmart is the true winner in this partnership. Hill reported that

According to the Department of Labor, “Employees under 20 years of age may be paid $4.25 per hour during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer.” From my calculations, 11 weeks of training amounts to just under 90 days of employment. Looks like whichever Walmart executive made the decision to partner with Detroit schools was just living by the corporation’s own slogan: “Save money. Live better.”

As Alex DiBranco pointed out:

The real message goes more like: Your educational system has failed you. Because of mass class inequities, you will not be offered opportunities to succeed in life. In fact, we’ve so given up on you, that even though you still come to school, we’re going to turn school into training on how to hold down the worst job possible and suffer all sorts of labor abuses. Just in case you’ve made it to your teenage years without realizing this, know the world doesn’t care about you, and you might as well give up on your dreams now.

Proposals for enormous changes in the school system have always been a feature during times of economic crisis, but you have to stop and catch your breath at times when some of the more “throw the baby out with the bathwater” schemes get a serious airing from our self-appointed “out of the box” thinkers on education “reform,” or, as one of our local school board candidates would prefer, “transformation.” Take for example Utah state senator, Chris Buttars. He has introduced a bill that would eliminate 12th grade in all public schools in his state, saving, according to Buttars, $60 million dollars from a state shortfall of $700 million. You might say to yourself that such a large hatchet would appear to have a fairly minimal impact on such a large deficit, and would therefore be dismissed out of hand, but you would be wrong. Eight other states are contemplating similar moves. It also wouldn’t probably surprise you to learn that the Gates Foundation is providing the initial planning grant to get this initiative off the ground. And while the impetus for having a so-called board exam system in which students must achieve some core competencies, instead of seat time in a classroom, has some laudatory elements to it, the larger gorilla in the room is that it will take an enormous amount of one-time stimulus money just to get this initiative off the ground in these handful of states.

A question I continue to ask is: why, in all these reports on new initiatives for “reform” (or if you like “transformation”), is it rarely mentioned or raised as a concern, the issue of how these initiatives will be paid for in a long term, sustained way?

Getting back to the actual students who are at the center of this maelstrom of education innovation, as Jessica Shiller has noted:

Seems like the students that would benefit most from having public school for longer would get left out in the cold. Graduating in 11th grade and having to look for a job in a dismal market is not much of an option. Going to community college or a vocational program could offer more, but with graduation rates pretty low, around 25% — to the point that the Gates Foundation is getting involved to help community colleges do better by their students — this also doesn’t seem like a suitable substitute for a full high school education.

Students who don’t do well early in high school might be left with dead-end options. At least if those students have a couple more years, they can try and improve their grades for college, but under these grade elimination plans, there is no room for that. Young people will be sorted into vocational and college-bound tracks at age 15. No more messing around kids: decisions about your futures will be made very early on in life. So much for the late bloomer.

It is rumored that shortly the beautiful minds behind the Wisconsin Way initiative, will finally roll out their plan, one that will have been already largely crafted in the minds of its corporate interests from the get go when they first held their state-wide forums a couple of years ago. It is likely that the fait accompli plan will contain much that is good, some that seems “sensible,” inducing the pundits to skim past the troubling parts in their embrace of “transformations.” For an excellent primer on the Wisconsin Way, please reread the warning signs that Thomas Mertz was writing about already 2 1/2 years ago.  Also, look for his excellent coverage of this roll out/fall out to come.

Meanwhile, it doesn’t take great creative thinking to know that the oxygen will be largely sucked out of all the hard work of analyses and stakeholder development that WAES has been engaged in for over a decade and its more recent Pennies for Kids initiative. Perhaps, when the chips are comfortably resting on the ground for a while, some parts or aspects of actual education finance/tax reform will get a hearing. But as we’ve seen in the past, nothing gets done in an election year. Sadly, the struggle for real finance reform, will continue for a long time to come.

Robert Godfrey

2 Comments

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, education, Elections, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, National News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, We Are Not Alone

by | March 2, 2010 · 3:43 pm

MMSD Board of Education Wrap Up (3/1/2010)

Christo, "Package," 1963, fabric, twine, wire in painted wooden box

Only time for a quick wrap up of the Board of Education meeting.  See here for what was “On the Agenda.”

The big and good news — from my perspective — is that the Board asked that portions of the Equity Report be redone, along the lines of and for reasons similar to those decribed here.   They were nicer about it than I was, but at times those of us on the outside need to be direct and passionate in order to get attention and communicate how strongly we feel.  The revamped report is due in June.  The High School Initiatives has been moved to June (post-budget) also.  I still plan to post on some Equity Report related things in the very near future.

At one point Marj Passman termed the weak portions of the report “Data, data, data and no conclusions.”  I’d differ a little and say that one big problem was selected data points, no full data sets and no conclusions/analysis.   This was true with both the achievement measures and most of the resource distribution information (with the notable exception of the programmatic resources).

Two other good things came out of the discussion.  First, Lucy Mathiak asked that administrative proposals have attached in addition to a fiscal note some Equity assessment.  The Equity Task Force had talked about “Equity Impact Statements” being required, but did not use that language.  Instead we included this:

Concluding Statement

Abide by these equity guidelines when considering new and evaluating or implementing existing policies and programs.

and some related things.  This didn’t make it directly into the policy, but for the last couple of years it has been done informally via Board questions and discussions.  Now it will be more formalized.  This led Maya Cole to ask that the administration prepare a template for proposals and reports incorporating this and other ideas that have continually been of concern.  Apparently that is already in the works.  Progress both in terms of efficiency (answer the questions before asked) and the culture of governance.

Two of the other two items that got the most attention were budget related:  The Five-Year Financial Outlook to include Projected Budget Gaps and Tax Impacts and MSCR Proposed Budget Reductions and Efficiencies for 2010-11; (the third is the Reorganization, which is also indirectly budget related).

Much of the discussion of the Budget gaps was Board members clarifying their understandings of the nature and sources of the budget shortfall.  The discussion ended with Board President Arlene Silviera asking for an explanation in three sentences or less and using the word “gap” only once.  Susan Troller has a piece in the Cap Times where Supt. Nerad and others give it a shot (much more than three sentences and I counted seven “gaps” in the body).   “Tax Gap” seems to be one possible short hand.  Here is an excerpt:

What’s commonly been defined as the district’s budget gap in the past — the difference between the cost to continue existing programs and salaries and what the district is allowed to tax under state revenue caps — is actually $1.2 million. That’s the amount the district would still have to cut if the board were willing to tax to the maximum amount allowed under the state revenue limits. But if you add in the drop in revenue from the state — about $17 million for the 2010-2011 budget — it’s a loss of $18.2 million.

It’s fair to ask then, what makes up the other $11.6 million that the administration calls the $29.8 million 2010-2011 budget gap? In a rather unorthodox manner, Nerad and company are including two other figures: $4 million in levying authority the district was granted through the 2008 referendum and $7.6 million in levying authority within the revenue limit formula.

Confused? You’re not alone. It’s got many folks scratching their heads. But the bottom line is this: Although the district has the authority to raise property taxes up to $312 on an average $250,000 home, it’s unlikely the board would want to reap that amount of revenue ($11.6 million) from increased taxes. Large property tax hikes — never popular — are particularly painful in the current economy.

Pretty good job.  I’ll post my versions —  long (all the gory details) and short (three sentences, one “gap”) —  later this week.  I’ve put pieces of this up before in different contexts, for three examples see:  No to the Max: The New Trend in School District Tax Levies? from last September, February 16, 2010 Wisconsin Referendum Votes, and parts of Buzzsaw Time — Wisconsin School Budget Roundup.  By-the-way, it would be good if AMPS readers could add some facts and sanity to the comments on the Cap Times story!

The MSCR proposal did not get a good reception.  There was a sense from some that much of what was included was there in an attempt to scare the Board off from any MSCR cuts.   There were also differences among the Board members on what the district’s responsibilities are in terms of recreational and adult activities and how these relate to overall budget priorities, with most Board Members uncertain as to their position.  Part of the distaste for the proposed cuts was that many of these cuts were in areas that are closest to the educational work of the district.  The Equity issues were certainly present, particularly in regard to cuts to programing at high poverty schools and fee raises for Youth programs.

This was an initial set of proposals and the Board asked for a redo here also.  New MSCR cuts and efficiencies will come back  during the budget process and will be finalized along with the rest of the budget in the next two months.  My impression is that many of the efficiencies (staff changes mostly) will remain, as will most of the Youth Fee increases and waiver cuts, that some programs will be restored and that adult Fees will be increased more in the revision.  That was my read of the room.

This is good time for a reminder about the Budget time-line.  Board members will get about $30 million in cut options from the Administration on Thursday and then the fun really gets rolling.  Here is the full time-line again:

I urge the district to make all information — cut options, Board questions, administrative responses, new projections, … — publicly accessible on the website in as close to real time as possible.  In other words, if the Board gets the options this Thursday, so should the public; if the Board gets an answer to a question on Saturday, so should the public.

There was lots of time devoted to the Reorganization (memo, revised appendix one, appendix two) and to be honest after all that discussion, I’m still not clear on many things. I’ll admit to not being clear on how many things work now, I know that many of the “how will this look/work?” questions can only be answered after implementation, but it is clear that there are many aspects where decisions have not been made yet and the vision isn’t clear.  If you want to spin that nice, call it flexibility.

My impression is that this is driven by a combination of big concepts (most good, some not so good), slotting existing staff where they will be better, budget savings (which apparently were not part of the original concept but are now) and change for the sake of change.  All of these are reasonable (I don’t like the last, but it isn’t unreasonable).  The result is something less than elegant.

The financial, contractual and job posting aspects got much attention in the Q&A.  The “savings” are as described here, some of the issues around the new “Teacher Leaders” have not been resolved but only two positions changes will require new job postings.

There was much concern about the relationship between existing professional development personnel and resources and the new structure.  It seems departmental/disciplinary budget lines will remain, but the new structure will coordinate among them via the “Clusters” and other means.  It seems.  July is the planned start of the changes.

On the big concepts, Supt. Nerad cited Atlanta and the University of Washington numerous times, so I’m going to close this part with some links to that work.

Atlanta’s Hall Says ‘Flipping the Script’ Has Transformed the Schools.

School Reform Teams and Flipping the Script in the Atlanta Public Schools: Creating a Customer-focused Culture in the Delivery of Services from the Central Office to the Schools.

A Marathon, Not a Sprint: Ten Years of Reform and Growth in Atlanta Public Schools.

Honig, M.I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of New Small Autonomous Schools Initiatives. American Educational Research Journal 46(2), 387-422.

Start at the Top: How Central Office Reform Is Improving Student Achievement (webcast).

Honig, M.I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627-664.

Probably more on this later as I dig into the linked material and follow the trails.

I almost forgot the Badger Rock Charter School Planning Grant Application.  Some new financial information was presented.  This is a very together group.  Impressive.  They will certainly get Board approval for the planning grant application, but some issues do remain.  The grant approval is not the same approval for the school.  I’d say the odds are in favor of that too, but you never know.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, Contracts, education, Equity, finance, Local News, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | March 1, 2010 · 12:44 am

On the Agenda (#1) — MMSD, Week of March 1, 2010 (Updated)

Update: The High School Report and the Infinite Campus proposal to increase usage are off the agenda due to time considerations.  There is also a new Re-Organization Budget (appendix A) updated with corrected calculations showing different “savings” figures.

Another very busy week with Madison Metropolitan School District governance matters.  So busy that I’m doing a once over “lightly” (can’t really call something this long light) with this post and time permitting intend to post in more detail on some of the items such as the much-delayed and unacceptable Equity Report,  and maybe the budget matters (five year analysis here , MSCR cuts and effciencies here and  time-line here), the Reorganization proposal (memo, appendix one, appendix two) and perhaps others.  You can access the entire week’s notice of meetings here.

The week starts bright and early with a Monday, 8:00 AM visit from the Madison Legislative delegation to Falk Elementary School.  This is something Board Member Maya Cole has been pushing.  The idea is to bring those in control of school funding into the schools to witness and here about the difficulties their actions and inaction have created.  Beyond actually getting the legislators there and listening, the key to success is to find the right balance between “we are doing a good job” and “the children’s education is suffering.”  Professional educators have a lot of trouble with the latter.   Here is a guide to a similar exercise from the Illinois Education Association, the key point they make is to stay on message.

This is a Committee meeting week.  Most items are first presented this week to the Board — meeting as Committees — for discussion and then return next week to the Board — meeting as the Board — for votes.   The Committee meetings are consecutive and commence at 5:00 PM in Doyle Administration Bldg., 545 W. Dayton Street, Room 103.  Like almost all Board meetings, these will be carried by MMSD-TV.  Public appearances for all items and committees are at the start of the first meeting.

This week, the first Committee is Planning and Development.  Here is the agenda.

The big item is the Reorganization (memo, appendix one, appendix two).  This is the first public look and it is listed as an action item for the March 8 meeting (the Board previously discussed some version or some aspects in closed session, the big problem with closed sessions is you don’t know what happened).   There is a lot here and I have not had time to look closely, but will offer some initial observations.

  • The big idea is to align the structure with the Strategic Plan.
  • The “side by side” is nice, but comparative organizational charts would be useful too.  You really can’t tell the players without a scorecard.
  • What might be the biggest change is the adding Chief Learning Officer to the title of Deputy Superintendent and changing the duties and structure accordingly.  I say might, because it is difficult to see how this will not continue to be a primarily administrative (as opposed to educational) position.  Steve Hartley who holds the position now is retiring.  I’ve heard nothing about who might be filling the revamped position next year.
  • The other big change involves what is now Teaching and Learning.  A  new Department of Professional Development is being created, moving this out from under Teaching and Learning.
  • Teaching and Learning will be re-dubbed Curriculum and Assessment.
  • TAG moves to the Elementary and Secondary departments (I’m not clear on waht that means or who they will report to).
  • The Special Asst. for Race and Equity becomes the Assistant Director of Equity and Parent Involvement, in the Curriculum and  Assessment Department, with Cultural Relevance Resource Teachers and Minority Service Coordinators in the new division.  The emphasis on Parent Involvement in the new name doesn’t jibe with the new organizational home.  Come to think of it, it also doesn’t jibe with the definition of Equity in the district Policy (curriculum and assessment are only two parts of that and not — in my opinion or as reflected in the policy — the most important parts.
  • In a related matter, the Affirmative Action officer will be moved Superintendents officer with duties involving Community Partnerships.
  • Although Community Partnerships are being moved, the Public Information Department becomes the Public Information and Community Engagement Department.  Partnerships to the left, engagement to the right?
  • There are things going on with a “Cluster Program” that I’m not clear about.  It appears to be about delivering central office support services via quadrants or clusters, but also appears to be headed by the a principal of Shabazz, with support by principals from small elementary schools and I’m not sure how that will work in practice.  I think I’m missing something.
  • As part of a related restructuring, Alternatives becomes Alternative and Innovative Programs, with some new duties for the director and day-to-day responsibilities for the students and staff of the programs housed in Marquette and Lapham devolving to those principals.  This is another one that doesn’t feel right.
  • MSCR will report to Asst. Sup for Business and Finance.  I think this is to get control of things.
  • The Lead Elementary Principal postilion has been axed, replaced by Director of Early and Extended Learning (4K, after-school, Summer…).
  • The net cut is (I think) five administrative positions.
  • Savings are in the $550,000 range (which as far as I can tell is the same range as the administrative raises recently given without a fiscal analysis or any discussion and not including the raise recently given to Supt. Nerad, also without a public discussion).
  • The savings figure ($556,439.50) includes positions that have been eliminated but due to continuing contracts the personnel involved will remain on the payroll in temporary positions and the proposal calls for Fund Balance money to be used for their salaries and benefits.  This totals $337,538.3, leaving a little under $220 Grand in savings for the 2010-11 budget.  As the Board looks at the 2010-11 Budget, these kind of deceptive labels need to stop.
  • A lot of people are being asked to do more, some with less to work with.
  • Much, much more on rationales, leadership councils, renamed departments and positions…I get some of it, but am not clear on the what, or why with much.

Next on the agenda is the Badger Rock Charter School Planning Grant Application.  This looks unchanged from the last time it was before the Board.

This Committee closes with the Lindbergh Elementary Community Garden Proposal.  This looks great.   More on school/community gardens here (with music!).

Operational Support is next (agenda linked).

Any good feelings lingering from the garden proposal won’t last long as the Board takes up the Five-Year Financial Outlook to include Projected Budget Gaps and Tax Impacts.  No smiles here.

Lets’ start with the projected deficits (the gap between allowed revenues and cost-to-continue):

These are with 4K.  That’s about $19.5 million in savings, efficiencies, program and service cuts over four years (on top of whatever is saved/cut in 2010-11).  Yow.

The projected levy and tax impact numbers are another “yow.”  Some of these come in with 4K and without 4K versions.  These don’t reproduce well, so some just selected parts, figures and notes.

One interesting thing is that they are based on an assumption of no property wealth growth.  My guess is that property wealth in Madison will continue to grow slowly (easing the burden on individual taxpayers), but will grow faster than the rest of the state (leading to cuts in state aid).  How this balances out, I don’t know except that recent history inclines me to believe that Madisonians will be hurt more than helped.

In the “with 4K” projections, if the district taxes to the max and the deficits are met with Fund Balance spending and not cuts etc, the district goes broke in 2014 (no “without 4K version on this one).  Our younger son would be in Middle School that year.

Here is what the tax-to-the max mill rates and taxes look like for 2011-12 through 2014-15(with and without):

The current mil rate is 10.18 (on page nine of the linked document there is a fuller chart, with projections for homeowners that did not reproduce well enough to post).  These are huge tax increases.    Talk about unsustainable.

Insert obligatory Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and Penny for Kids links along with discretionary School Finance Network link.

Next up is MSCR Proposed Budget Reductions and Efficiencies for 2010-11.  There is much here.; position cuts, schedule changes to save overtime, program cuts, fee increases…much.

MSCR is an orphan.  Some with the school district believe that it is outside the “core mission” and this is true if you look at the strategic plan.  It isn’t true if you look wider and note that MMSD has accepted the taxation authority and responsibility for providing recreational programing.  I wish there was a Parks & Recreation Department in Madison (not necessarily under Kevin Briski), but there isn’t.  There is a hodge-podge and some of it is the the responsibility of the district.   Quality of life in Madison depends in part on a wide variety of recreational activities accessible to all  and like other quality of life matters this means that it is proper for tax dollars to be used to create and to some degree subsidize these activities.   There are a couple of places in the document with asides like (paraphrased)  “based on fees, more like the YMCA” or “maybe the Boys & Girls Club will do something.”  To me this is shirking responsibility.  Maybe not in every case, but as an attitude.

My impression is that there are real savings and efficiencies to be found, some justifiable cuts and fee increases, but a real need to keep opportunities and keep them affordable for all.

The total savings is $1,838,928.  Some big items (dollars and impact, no order):

  • Discontinue after-school contract for low income at Red Caboose and YMCA (my note:  the variety of after-school programs and varied costs of these needs to be addressed).
  • Reduce School Year and Summer Transportation (my note:  all good, except many parts of the city have no or almost no MSCR programing, I’d like to see this addressed also).
  • Increase staff to student ratio by 2.5%.
  • Shift Safe Haven Fee Waivers to Dane County Childcare Assistance (does the County know? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?).
  • Reduce Fee Waivers (adult and youth).
  • Raise Program Fees (some big and OK, some small, some seem too big).
  • Reduce Programing (Middle School, Summer, Penn Park, after-school enrichment, adult…)
  • Discontinue Safe Haven at Lindbergh (this isn’t sitting well with that neighborhood).
  • Much, much more.

Take  a look yourself, but do keep in mind that if we want Madison to be a rich and attractive place to live, part of the price is public support for the things MSCR provides.

Next, Proposal for a Lease and Contract to Permit the Construction of a Cellular/Communications Tower on Gompers/Black Hawk Property.

Then it is time for Approval of the “Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of $28,590,000 Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds”.  This is the retirement refinance/4K finance voted on here.

The last big item for this Committee is the budget time-line.  Feast your eyes:

It looks like an intense and unpleasant couple of months.

Everything else is Bills, Purchases and Contracts, Other Financial Transactions as well as the Human Resources update, (with lots of retirements, including Debra Stanko who did more than right in recognizing and addressing our older son’s talents and needs at JC Wright).

Among these, the Formative Classroom Assessment Tool Development and Data Sharing Agreement caught my attention and not in a good way.  The contract is with UW to pay a Grad Student to develop an I-Pod Touch assessment app.  Do we need this; do we want this?

The only reason that I can see to have an assessment app on a handheld device is to be able to assess while teaching, to enter assessment data while walking around the classroom.  I want my teachers in the moment, teaching.  This is the current obsession with data over teaching in a nutshell.  If this is the future, I don’t like it.

The last meeting is the Student Achievement and Performance Monitoring Committee.

The first item is a Madison School & Community Recreation (MSCR) After School Programs report.  This and other reports on MSCR should inform considerations of the proposed changes discussed above.

Then it is time for the long awaited (well over a year and a half late) Annual Equity Report.  A full consideration of this will appear in a subsequent post.  My initial impression is that there is one part part I think is based on a very good concept, but overall it is more than a day late and more than a dollar short.

The lateness and shortness are related significant failures.  The idea was to measure progress or document the lack of progress and the not only has much time been lost in setting the benchmarks, but the shortness has to do with the reports failure to provide those very benchmarks.

First the part I like conceptually.  The final portion of the report takes strategies recommended by the Equity Task Force and links them to things the district is doing, “Programmatic Resources.” . This is very interesting and useful.  I’ve got some doubts about some of the links and there is a certain impression of “we’ve got this covered” that can lead to complacency where urgency is needed.  Still I like the idea and much of the execution.

The Board Equity Policy includes this reporting requirement:

Administration will report on an annual basis to the Board of Education the extent of progress on specific measures in eliminating gaps in access, opportunities and achievement.

Obviously with the first report, progress will be difficult to report (that timing issue again); because of the lack of specific measures it will also be difficult with next year’s (the shortness).

At this time I’m not going to question the measures chosen for achievement, but rather criticize the presentation of the data related to these measures.   There is no raw data, no analysis (statistical or otherwise). Instead we are given selected factoids (the State of the District presentation which serves as the basis for much of the report suffered from a similar lack of information and rigor).

For now a couple of examples will suffice.

Is there any possible way to use this to measure progress or lack of progress?  Remember, this isn’t the analysis of the data presented, this is totality of the data.  They aren’t all that bad; this one is more typical:

At least here there are some numbers.

The other reporting requirement reads:

Administration will develop an annual report that will provide data on the distribution of staff, financial, and programmatic resources across all schools.

As I said above, the programmatic portion is a positive thing.  The staff and financial parts are another story.  Instead of looking at the staffing at particular schools (as was done for middle schools in 2006)  or reports on diversity in various jobs or schools (there was a Human Resources Report about 6 months ago that did the former, I’ll link to it when I get a chance) we get this:

There is no there, there.  Factoids.  Nothing to work with.

In terms of resources, we are given explanations of the Equity Resource Formula and Title I, but no “data” on how these are distributed  “across all schools.”  Information is similarly lacking in other areas:  the goals of the Technology Plan are presented with an Equity framework (good), there is no information on the technology in or slated for particular schools and how that related to Equity (bad); The School Improvement Process is sketched and funds are mentioned (good), but there is no accounting of those funds (bad); Professional Development and Indigent Bus Passes are also mentioned.   More than a dollar short.

As I noted, I’ll be returning to what is and is not here in a subsequent post (see here for an earlier related post).

In closing this topic, I was recently reminded that the Board accepting a report is not the same as approving it.  I understand that, but think that this report should not be accepted.  It is unacceptable.  It does not meet the requirements of the Policy by any stretch of the imagination and does not provide a basis for assessing the future success or failure of the district’s Equity work.  We’ve waited long enough and can wait longer if we must; there is no excuse for not doing this right.

The High School Initiatives agenda item has much of interest on the REal work, the ACT/Eplore initiative, AVID, and the Individual Learning Plan implementation.  I’m not sure how much is new here and don’t have time to dig tonight.

The action items are Recommendations to Increase Usage of the Infinite Campus Student Information System, Renewal of DPI Waiver for Days of Instruction for Sixth and Ninth Grade First-Day Transitions, and Five-Year Education for Employment Plan (precursor to the first and the last were covered in previous “On the Agenda” posts).  Consent items are Learning Materials purchases, 57 High School Diplomas and the enrollment of students in Equivalency programs.

The other meetings this week are the Common Council/BOE Liaison Committee, Wednesday 5:30 PM at the City/County Building and the Superintendent’s Human Relations Advisory Committee, Thursday, 1:15, Doyle Building room 103 (agendas on the Weekly Notice).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, education, Equity, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | February 27, 2010 · 1:41 pm

Ask Tom Barrett — Get School Funding on the Agenda

Click image to go to the "Ask Tom" page.

Almost certain Democratic Gubernatorial nominee will be participating in a live video chat on Sunday, March 7 at 4:00 PM.  You can submit questions in advance by clicking the image above or this link.  Now is the time to get school finance reform on his agenda, to make him know that this is an issue that potential voters care about. Ask about long term solutions, Penny for Kids, the current crisis or all of the above.  The more specific the better.

In a related matter, Republican Gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann came out in favor of Education Excellence this week (I think he meant “Educational Excellence”).  A bold stand.  I hear next week he will be singing the praises of apple pie.

As one might guess the the specifics in most areas are lacking.  Some things caught my eye.  These two bullet points appear to be contradictory:

  • Giving public school districts the ability to ensure that tax dollars are directly benefiting the classroom. That means removing rules, mandates and regulations that are costing districts more and more money, and empowering local action to control costs.
  • Strengthening the state government partnership with public school boards, concentrating on enacting policies that ultimately demand excellence and accountability, while ensuring schools are safe and nurturing places for kids to learn.

Virtual schools and charters are singled out for praise and expansion.  More contradiction and fewer details here:

  • Keeping K-12 education funding as Wisconsin’s top budget priority and fixing the broken state budget process to ensure public schools and the UW System receive necessary funding.

He’s right that the budget process is broken, but part of the reason it is broken is that avoiding real revenue reforms,  — not K-12 education funding — has been the “top budget priority.”  Since elsewhere Neumann talks of keeping revenue growth below the rate of inflation,  it is doubtful that the fixes Neumann will support will be of help in providing schools the resources they need.  Very doubtful.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, Elections, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Take Action