Category Archives: Uncategorized

by | September 11, 2009 · 10:01 pm

(Updated) MMSD Board of Education Agenda — Lost & Found (and comments)

Update:  Board President Arlene Silveira sent me a copy of an amended agenda and the Wisconsin Association of School Boards resolutions are now an action item for the Students Achievement and Performance Monitoring Committee (committee agenda here).  The “Weekly Notice” link has also been fixed (over the weekend…that’s impressive).

On the WASB matter, I’ve had lots of talks with Board members in Madison and elsewhere about how to get schools the resources they need.  One idea that has some support is adding a dedicated statewide sales tax to the school finance mix.  It is clear that the continued shift to property taxes cannot be sustained, that the current sources of state revenues are not sufficient or sustainable and that the resultant program and service cuts in schools around the state are forcing districts to endanger our proud tradition of quality public education for all.  A sales tax won’t fix everything, but it will help.  Board members (in Madison and elsewhere) have been supportive but the idea may have come together too late  to become part of the WASB resolution process this year.   We’ll see.

(Original Post, see comments also)

It was a more than little difficult finding the agendas for the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education Committee meetings scheduled for Monday, September 14.

First, it looks like MMSD is again neglecting to send notices to those who subscribed to their “send notices” list.  Since no notice had arrived, I began checking the “Weekly Notice of Meetings” link on the Board page periodically.  Early on Friday the link gave last week’s notice; at some point it began giving a “page not found error” (pdf of this from 7:45 PM 9/11/09).

I assumed the page was being updated and kept trying.  Finally, at about 6:00 PM I realized that there would be no update and started searching.  Sure enough, a search for “weekly notice” and September 2009 led me to this page which led me to the agenda linked above.

I wouldn’t make a big deal of this, except that this is an organization that has not updated their budget page with the state budget bad news from June; an organization with apparently nothing to post on “State and Federal budget issues” at the same time their Board of Education is writing op eds on the topic ; an organization whose “Recently in the News” page is stuck in January of 2009; an organization that has not issued a news release since June (at least according to their web site)…Communication is clearly a problem.

We’ve been hearing about communication problems for years.  I have two pieces of advice.  First, it is important to begin by getting the little things right.  Second, if the people in charge of communications, the web page, public relations and all that are not doing their jobs well, find new people.

Now the obligatory but heartfelt clarification.  There are many people at MMSD who have been consistently helpful with my requests for information.  I know that if instead of periodically  clicking today I had dropped the Board Secretary a note, I would have had the agenda in my in box and the link would have been fixed (instead I assumed an update was in process and took my son to the beach till it was too late to drop that note).   I do appreciate the efforts that have been made.

Enough of my trials and tribulations, time for some notes on the agendas.  First I want to note three things that are not there.

There is nothing about the budget reconciliation.  Looking at the Board calendar, that means the earliest there will be a public discussion of what are major decisions about taxation, budgeting, spending and borrowing will be the October 5 committee meetings (things now go to committee before they go to the Board), or three weeks prior to the final approval of the tax levy and budget.  State statues dictate that the budget be presented to the public one month prior to a public budget hearing.  That was done in the Spring, but much as changed due to the miserable state budget.   I think that an effort to make the local changes in a manner respectful of the spirit of public knowledge and input on the budget is in order (more on the budget revisions here and here).  This is another little thing — or given the magnitude of the changes, big thing —  in the realm of public engagement that is not being done correctly.

Second, and germane to the state created budget mess, I expected that there would be some discussion of resolutions to be proposed to the Wisconsin Association of School Boards.  From the discussion at the August 17 meeting I was under the impression that these would be finalized at a public meeting prior to the September 15 deadline.  Apparently these are being done outside the public eye, with no formal discussion or vote.   Not good.

Last, there is an agenda item for an update on the “class and a half” specials fix, but no documentation.  Id hope this isn’t another case like “Ready, Set, Goals” where the good intentions produced no tangible result.

No time to comment on what is on the agendas (maybe on Monday), except to say the item on short term borrowing highlights yet another way that Wisconsin’s school finance system is broken and if the people pushing value added really believe that reports like the one included are adding much of use in policy decisions, they need to stop drinking the Kool Aid (same goes for all the data fetishists in Arne Duncan’s gang).

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under Accountability, Arne Duncan, Best Practices, education, Local News, Uncategorized

by | September 9, 2009 · 3:58 pm

Wisconsin School Referenda in Tough Times

20081008_mpls_levysign_33With most Wisconsin school districts contemplating or committed to sizable local property tax increases for 2009-10 and looking at continued service and program cuts combined with more property tax increases in 2010-11, this is not the best time to be asking the voters to approve a referendum.  Personal budgets are tight, the economy is uncertain and there is a delicate balance between program and service cuts as demonstrations of fiscal responsibility and program and service cuts undermining quality to the extent that it is difficult to garner further support (the “starve the beast” idea).

Yet because the problems caused by the latest state budget were piled on top of 16 years of struggles due to the broken state school finance system, some districts feel they have no choice.  These include ones seeking building projects, ones who feel they cannot endure any more cuts and continue to provide the quality of education they are committed to, and ones that are anticipating the expiration of a non-recurring referendum and the budget gap this will produce.

Although there has been little or no official acknowledgment or discussion, the Madison Metropolitan School District is in this last category.  At the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year, Madison will lose about $5.5 million in revenue authority for ‘maintenance and technology.”   The probable cuts for 2010-11 are bad; without this money they will be more horrific than anything we have experienced lately.  If the district wants to extend this authority, the time to start making their pitch is now.   I hope they do and I hope they get started.

Madison has not begun discussions, but others have.  There are five referenda on the ballot at special elections in October and November 2009 and more being contemplated.

Two of the ones that are set are for building projects.  These are being fast tracked in order to try for the 0% interest ARRA srtimulus bonds.

On November 3, voters in Pewaukee will vote on $24.95 million in debt authorization for classroom construction and other renovations, including a swimming pool (more from the district here and from a pro-referendum community group here).  That same day the Trevor-Wilmont voters will  decide on an $11 million plan to build an addition and renovate (more from the district here).

Pewaukee is also asking for $400,000 in annual recurring authority for general operating purposes for the new facilities.

Wheatland will go back to the voters on October 27, asking for four years of nonrecurring authority in the amount of $300,000 per year.  Nonrecurring authority in this amount expired at the end of the 1008-9 year, so this is in a sense a renewal.

A similar referendum failed last April (here and here).  The language is a great example in truth in marketing:

BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of the Joint School District Number 1, Towns of Wheatland, Brighton, Randall and Salem, Kenosha County, Wisconsin, that the revenues included in the School District budget for the 2009-2010 school year and for three school years thereafter, to and including the 2012-2013 school year be authorized to exceed the revenue limit specified in Section 121.91, Wisconsin Statutes, by $300,000 a year, for non-recurring purposes in order to maintain the current educational level of the District and cover shortfalls due to decreased funding.” (italics and bold added).

Sad but true, the shortfalls are bigger than ever and referenda continue to be the only way to fully fund education.

On October 6, 2009 the Whitehall district has a three year non recurring maintenance, technology and infrastructure referendum on the ballot. The amounts are $200,000 for 2009-10, $150,00 for 2010-11 and $100,000 for 2011-12.  Superintendent Mike Beighley explained the thinking behind the referendum:

“When we look at the ability to improve our district with the limited increase in taxes, I think we have an obligation at least to present that to the public as an option,” said Beighley.

All across the state other districts see similar opportunities to “improve,” yet know that refrerenda are difficult and the odds of passage are less than 50%, so they don’t even ask.

Two districts struggling to finalize referenda plans are Wisconsin Dells and Rhinelander.

In the Dells, the possibility of the ARRA 0% bonding makes building an addition for 4 year-old kindergarten an attractive option. The district is holding a community meeting on September 9 and may go for the November 3 date.  They are also considering an operating referendum to make up for part of  the state budget created mess:

[District Administrator Chuck] Whitsell also said the district is facing an $800,000 budget deficit next school year, and because of no raise in the per pupil taxing authority it has been given from the state, the district might ask taxpayers to increase the revenue limits in another referendum question.

I hope they do ask for the operating money and get it.

In Rhinelander the need is clear, but the path to meeting the need has been continually blocked.  It is one of those districts that has been caught in almost all the faults of the current school funding system.  The district is geographically large, but the economies of scale are small or negative.  Enrollment has declined and incomes are not great, but property values remain relatively high.  Referenda have repeatedly failed.  There have been cuts for 16 years, 150 positions have been lost in the last seven years and more are on the table.

Here in Madison we think we have experienced the failures of the school funding system (and we have to a great extent), but I talk to my friends in Rhinelander and can only shake my head and think how lucky we are to have avoided the full weight of these failures.

Dating back to 2004, 10 operating referenda have been voted down in Rhinelander.  Yet it looks like they will try again.  I am filled with admiration for their perseverance and commitment.

The date hasn’t been set, but the word is  Rhinelander voters will get two questions this time.  One will ask for three years of $1,5 million revenue authority for operations and the other is for $13.7 million in construction bonding to maintain and remodel facilities.

Superintendent Roger Erdahl summed up the situation succinctly:

“It would stop closing buildings, it would stop laying off staff, which are the techniques we currently use to balance our budget.”

Here is what will happen if there is no successful referendum (from NewsoftheNorth.Net):

The following actions would be taken in the year 2010-11, in order of priority:

  • Close and sell South Parking building, requiring a mandatory grade re-configuration, for a savings of $117,000.
  • Close and sell Cassian-Woodboro building, with an accompanying grade re-configuration, for a savings of $120,000.
  • Reduce extra-curricular activities for a savings of $27,800.
  • Reduce custodial staff, for a savings of $472,000.
  • Reduce regular education paraprofessional staff, for a savings of $200,000.
  • Reduce full-time teaching staff by 12.5 by raising class sizes from the current low 20s to low to mid-30s in grades 4-12; or by reducing electives at the middle and high schools; or by doing a combination of larger class sizes and the reduction of electives, for a savings of $1 million.

In the year 2011-12, the following drawdown actions would be taken:

  • Reduce full-time staff, raise class sizes and reduce electives to achieve a savings of $296,000.
  • Decertify the elementary and secondary charter school and absorb these students into the other district school buildings for a savings of $240,000.
  • Reduce high school graduation requirements and move to a six-period day; reduce staff at the middle school and eliminate all professional travel and staff development, for a savings of $160,000.
  • Eliminate all Fund 10 staff development and travel and impose a moratorium on the acquisition of textbooks and instructional materials; eliminate middle school activities and travel; reduce administration staff, for a savings of $320,000.
  • Move 7th and 8th grade to the high school building; with grades 3 – 6 moving to the middle school building to reduce full-time staff, for a savings of $240,000.
  • Close and sell Crescent school building for a savings of $125,000.
  • Moratorium on all maintenance upkeep and repair of buildings, except for emergencies, for a savings of $500,000.

This is the destruction of public education.  This is the inevitable result of what Ruth Page Jones has called the “Going out of Business Plan” that is Wisconsin’s system for investing in education and the future.

Next time the Governor or a Legislator starts gabbing about how “education is a priority we protected in the state budget,” drop them a line and ask about Rhinelander.  Ask them if education has been “strengthened” as their political mouthpiece claims. Ask them what they are going to do to fix the mess they have made and inherited.

And be proactive.  The best way to help the children of Rhinelander and Wisconsin is to work for change via the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES).  Our state needs to look  for ways to fully fund the education of every child in every district, we need to consider a “Cents for Schools” dedicated sales tax, we need to make sure that the money is going where it is needed most, we need to do better.  WAES is the loudest and clearest voice saying these things.  Lend your voice and make the call for reform even louder.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

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

by | September 9, 2009 · 12:42 pm

Obama’s Speech and the technology needed to view it

9237398_4919337eea_o

Well, President Obama gave his speech to school children yesterday (text here, video here) and although the Republic didn’t collapse, the hysteria has continued.

So much has been said about the speech that I’d rather point out some things about access to the speech and technology in education, including recent actions by the Madison district.

As I indicated in a previous post, I’m glad that my children had the opportunity to view this speech in school with their teachers and their peers as a civics lesson.  However, the circumstances were less-than-ideal.  It was brought to my attention that the teachers who instruct my children will have to huddle their class around a computer unless the school decides to hold an all school assembly to use the one projector the school owns to stream it online and blow the image up to a viewable size.

It is not normally an option for them to view it on television in the classroom as they do not have access to C-Span.  At the last minute they were able to tune in on a major network and watch it on the television in their room.

Nowadays, technology has become so pervasive, so essential, so advanced in society, that that the integration into classroom instruction is imperative.  Our children have grown up with technology as their number one way of getting information.  Technology provides for the important bases of communication – the storage of past data and the instant feedback on present information.  Technology continues to expand its beneficial influence into better communication and interaction between teachers and students from all across the globe, better instructional materials that reach out to more people than ever, and better information transfer at lightning speed, among other things.

The transfer of knowledge in education becomes smoother because technology assists in transmitting it in a faster and clearer way.  Technology allows participants in the two-way learning process to communicate and interact better with a variety of audio-visual tools.  Interactive technology and the sharing of resources and curriculum including new knowledge and processes are necessary to demonstrate complex concepts in a clearer manner to our children.  Sesame Street figured this out 40 years ago when I was a child and I defy you to show me one child in our school system that cannot identify the character Elmo.

Technology can be used in many ways as an integral part of the curriculum to meet the needs of diverse learners.  Extensive studies and model schools have shown that educational technology enhances student learning in many cases. Some recent reports have indicated that students who have access to online materials perform better than those who do not. For examples see: Pamela Mendels, “Study Shows Value of Wired Classroom,” “Effectiveness of Technology in Schools, 1990-1994,” (a comprehensive review of over 130 recent academic studies which found that technology can lead to improved performance most notably in math, science, social sciences and language arts),  and  Summary of Current Research and Evaluation Findings on Technology in Education.”  Technology is the answer to all the needs of schools and students, but in 2009 our schools do need to make effective use of the tools available. In the current school funding climate, this is difficult.

MMSD is working to address the gaps of technology in our schools.   This draft Information (Library Media) & Technology Plan was approved by the MMSD Board of Education on June 8th.  The plan reflects the input and ideas from hundreds of staff, students, parents, and business and community partners collected during the 2008-09 school year.   The plan is a road map for what the community believes our priorities should be relative to technology use in our schools.

Input from stakeholders in its development was essential. It is not a static document, but one that is dynamic and subject to change – as technologies do.  One specific objective states we must: “…create a technology advisory leadership team that includes students.”  Some of the key ideas suggested in the technology plan are: an emphasis on professional development when teachers are provided new technology in order to fully maximize its value. A wireless network across all schools.  More use of mobile internet devices like laptops, netbooks, and smart devices like iTouches.  Making the learning management system– Moodle —  much more easily accessible to all teachers and students.  Exploring newer software tools that can save time and expand access like Open Office (as an alternative to Microsoft Office) and cloud computing (like Google Docs).  Enhancing the use of technology as a curricular area and a service learning focus.  Opening the schools as “lighted school houses” with technology as a bridge to the community.

This last is very important because as Madison and other districts move towards increased reliance on electronic communication, the gap between those families with easy access and those without becomes more important. At the same time, the fragile ties between the schools and some of the neediest families will be further strained while the benefits to the most well positioned will increase.

Lots of good ideas.  Some of these are being funded via the ARRA Stimulus IDEA and Title I monies, some from the operating budget and some are on hold till funding can be found.

Let’s hope that the next time the President wants to address the students of this country and encourage them to really take their learning seriously, find out what they’re good at, set goals and take the school year seriously, our classrooms will be a part of the 21st Century educational system.  Teachers and students need to be encouraged to participate in civics lessons in a medium that they have grown up learning in.

Jackie Woodruff

1 Comment

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

by | September 4, 2009 · 7:08 pm

Right and Wrong — MMSD Board Members on School Finance, State and Local

I had not recently thought about what was said by Madison Metropolitan Board of Education members as they passed their initial budget in May, but the happenings in Washburn brought them to mind and reminded me that the struggle to recognize that investments in education are a state responsibility requiring a state solution isn’t over in Madison.

As we now know the state budget produced multiple financial problems for MMSD (we know this, but you wouldn’t know it by going to the MMSD budget page or the news releases, or the “recently in the news” — they missed this from Board President Arlene Silviera and everything else that has happened since January).  As a result, the entire Board of Education has been in one way or another looking to the state for long and short term help.

Back in May, that was not the case.  One member got things right; most were too happy with what then seemed like a positive budget to bring up the long term state issues; one got things wrong in an offensive and dangerous manner

Johnny Winston Jr. is the one who got it right.

He revealed the truth, school finance is a state and federal problem and requires at the very least a state solution. Recent developments at the state finance level have moved us further from that solution.

For a variety of reasons (listed below), until the latest state budget Madison had enjoyed relatively painless budgeting in the most recent years. At the same time, the state school funding system remains broken, any of the varied nips and tucks that have been made at the local level have only provided limited relief, they’ve only been partial remediations – and temporary. The real fix has to come at the state level, it must be comprehensive and it must be sustainable.

Lucy Mathiak is the one who got it wrong.

In addition to her misguided championing of local solutions to a state created problem (see here for MMSD’s official and correct position), Mathiak mostly misidentified and wrongly interpreted the main factors that contributed to the recent lack of major harmful budget cuts in Madison.

Here is my list, in approximate order of importance:

  • Tax Incremental Finance District closure windfall (over $5.4 million).
  • Successful Operating Referendum, ($5 million for 2009-10).
  • Confused and overzealous fiscal conservatism in the 2007-8 budget (scroll down), resulting in a $4.3 million general fund surplus (added to the Fund Balance).  Astute readers will remember that the 2007-8 fiscal year was the year that MMSD was a rough budget season and that schools were almost closed and many harmful cuts were made (in my opinion, the two biggest factors in this surplus were underestimates for state special education funding and local salary savings, see more here).
  • A new management team. Superintendent Dan Nerad and Asst. Superintendent Erik Kass have brought new eyes to the budgeting process and found some savings and efficiencies. However, as their experiences in Green Bay and Waukesha demonstrate, there are serious limits to what any management team can do to stave off harmful cuts.
  • Losing students to open enrollment. This made FTE cuts less painful for the 2009-10 budget. The benefits of this are limited and only work when efficiencies of size are present, but because the structural gap in the state finance system is based on per pupil funding, fewer pupils means a smaller gap.

Right and wrong, partial and temporary, these factors are all about played out. The party is over and the bills must be paid.

As Asst. Superintendent Erik Kass said, 2010-11 is looking “ugly,” and I’ll add that this ugliness has nothing to do with mythical local mismanagement (in fact the recent surpluses and the harm caused by the cuts and conflicts that created those surpluses reveal that the very Board members Mathiak praises had pushed the district too far on issues of  budgeting and were the ones closest to mismanaging) and the solution will not be found via equally mythical miraculous local administration and governance.

The new state budget has brought back to MMSD the hard choices needed to make the cuts that do the least harm and to find the fiscal strategies that can be sustained. The Title I and IDEA stimulus money will soften the blows, but that is yet another partial and temporary band-aid.

The self-serving myths Mathiak mouthed back in May are dangerous because they make it harder to convince people that school finance reform must be a priority.  I’m glad I remembered what she said, because these falsehoods must be countered at every opportunity.

Join the movement for real education funding reform.  Check out the School Finance Network; become a member of the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools.

If you do these things, you will be going a long way towards righting some very significant wrongs.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | September 4, 2009 · 3:32 pm

Sandbagged! Now Teabagged?

School districts and school finance reform advocates were sandbagged by Governor Jim Doyle and the Democratic controlled Legislature.  For years they had said “if you put us in control, fixing school finance will be a priority.’  We helped put them in control, districts built preliminary budgets based on the assumption that even if they wouldn’t enact a fix right away, they also wouldn’t make things worse.

But that is exactly what they did, make things worse.

They did this in many ways.  They cut the money targeted to the neediest students and districts via categorical aid.  They cut the amount of total revenue available to districts to well below “cost to continue.”  They upped the property tax credits, money that never goes near a classroom, and called it more money for education. They saddled school boards and districts with the unwelcome dual tasks of finding new savings and raising property taxes (for more on how this is playing out in Madison, see here and here).  Sandbagged.

Now — as districts are finalizing their budgets,  setting their tax levies and raising property taxes — the teabagger anti-tax crowd is coming out.  So far the only report I’ve seen is from Washburn, but more may well be on the way.

The Ashland Daily Press reports that   80-90 people showed up at the district budget listening session, many came to protest.  On August 18th, the Board of Education had passed a preliminary budget with what is being called a 24% tax increase in the local property tax contribution (I did the math and the mil rate will go up about 15%, not small, but not 24% either).  Like in Madison, there is a combination of a recent referendum, high property values, and most of all, the miserable state budget.  At the time the budget was passed District Superintendent Sue Masterson laid out the choices:

“We are not happy about it, but there is nothing we can do about it.”

… Masterson said cutting back to what would essentially leave “reading, writing and arithmetic” would be damaging to the community. She said that as part of the referendum process, many cuts had already been made and that the district had made as many cuts as they could without cutting the quality of instruction. She said that further cuts could result in dramatically larger class sizes and might require building changes that the district couldn’t afford in any event.

“The only way you cut now is putting 40 kids in a classroom, eliminating programs, which will result in an exodus of new families and existing families from local schools,” she said. “Consumer science programs, music programs, tech ed programs — when you start cutting those kinds of things… well, today’s public education families expect a rounded education,” Masterson said.

This hasn’t changed, but now the voices from the community are louder and more strident.  The Daily Press described the message from the September 1, 2009 listening session (let me note that MMSD has scheduled no listening sessions on their budget revisions):

One message came across loud and clear: The amount of the increase is unacceptable — and they expect the school board to go back to the budget and rework it so the increase is much closer to the 9 percent increase approved last November in a referendum allowing the district to exceed revenue caps. The tough economy makes a big tax increase especially difficult, many said.

…”The bottom line is we need to cut, and we need to keep Washburn houses filled with families.”

As is usual with these things, they were less forthcoming when asked for suggestions about what to cut and how to save:

Many at the meeting were unhappy they were being asked for suggestions for cuts when they didn’t have a line-item budget to look at for ideas, and others said the reason they hire an administrator and elect a school board is to make intelligent fiscal decisions on behalf of their constituents. Still, some suggestions were made.

Those included delaying improvements to the bleachers, cutting the food service program, and cutting administration costs by sharing an administrator with other school districts.

It is likely that there are some savings to be had, but after 16 years of struggling with annual cuts due to revenues that have been inadequate by design, the potential savings are minimal.

I have some sympathy with the people who are unhappy with the tax increase.  They are correct that too much of the investment in education is coming from property taxes.

I also have much admiration for the Board and administrators who are defending education as a valuable investment and have not yet given in to the anti-tax sentiment (contrast with Madison, where sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the district and the anti-taxers).

The ones I have no use for are the those who say –as one attendee did — they are  “sick of hearing the excuse ‘the state did this to us.'”

This is both wrong — the state did do this to them — and counter productive, because  it cuts off productive protest directed at the state officials who actually have the power to make things better and electoral action directed to replace the ones who sandbagged us.  Getting mad at district officials over this makes no sense.

We’ve heard this sort of thing in Madison before (one sitting Board member still mouths these ridiculous ideas on occasion), but mostly the message that school funding is a state responsibility in need of a state solution has been heard.  This needs to happen all around the state.  Join the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools to help make that happen.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under "education finance", Budget, education, Elections, finance, Local News, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | September 3, 2009 · 1:17 pm

MMSD Budget and the Death of Journalism

Vodpod videos no longer available.

On August 10, 2009 the Madison Metropolitan School District had their first public discussion about how they might address the the multiple fiscal messes handed them by our state budget-makers.  AMPS previewed this meeting that day.   No professional media saw fit to do likewise.  The issues on the table involve tens of millions of dollars and the the future of the children of Madison.

I attended the meeting and can report that there was not a professional journalist in the room.

Five days later, WISC-TV broadcast the story that appears at the top of this post.  Yesterday morning, the Wisconsin State Journal front page, headline, above-the-fold article was on the MMSD budget and what was presented and discussed at that meeting almost a month ago.  I want to note that there is nothing in the WISC-TV report or the State Journal story that was not before the public back at the start of August.  I have not seen any other stories on the MMSD budget.  Both stories are “competent,” neither was timely and there are some important things that our local media missed.  So new(s)?

Because they were not in the room and apparently did not bother to view the video of the meeting, both reporters missed some fairly big news.  That evening Asst. Superintendent Erik Kass revealed that for the 2008-9 school year MMSD will likely run a $5 million to $7 million surplus.  That’s a lot of money and directly effects the current options before the district.  This surplus follows a $4.3 million surplus in 2007-8 (also largely or completely ignored by the media, despite the fact that MMSD almost closed schools that year and did make major cuts that now appear to have been unnecessary).  The rebudgeting of teacher and substitute allocations being proposed by the administration is based on these surpluses (there was also some cuts that weren’t called cuts back when the preliminary budget was passed and they appear to have been based on similar rebudgeting).

This sad state of  journalism is hardly breaking news.  To cite three recent treatments, Robert Godfrey previously posted on the death throws of education reporting; Andy Hall — a great education reporter — saw the handwriting on the wall and moved on; Brenda Konkel has been noting the dearth of good local journalism and how this diminishes the basis for engaged citizenship; and my old friend Bill Wyman gets a lot right in his “Why Newspapers are failing” post.  I want to add my voice to these and fill in some of the of the other gaps left by our so-called reporters.  Here goes.

If you accept the lowered standards of television news in 2009, the WISC-TV report is actually pretty good.  It gets the basic facts right, gives at least minimal context and even includes multiple sources (two to be exact — Supt. Dan Nerad and MTI Union President Steve Pike).  I’d like more on the wider context of a broken state finance system, the dilemmas of other districts and maybe some reactions form Governor Doyle and the legislative leaders who thought the choices they made were good policy (hello Mark Pocan, hello Mark Miller…we won’t forget who is responsible for this mess).  Even the presentation of the financial information is relatively clear and relatively complete (at least in comparison with the State Journal), something which is not easy to do in a television news report.  My biggest complaint on this one is the lack of timeliness

If you don’t know the topic, The State Journal article  reads like a competent by-the-book, fill-in-the-blanks, news piece.   The problem is that journalists are supposed to know more about their topics than most  readers.  When they don’t, they miss things that the public should know.  Gayle Worland,  State Journal, misses some things.

I want to be clear that this is not about Ms Worland’s failings; I understand that the pathetic business model of local reporting doesn’t allow for, value or reward the development of expertise or the kind of digging beyond the quotes from easily accessible sources that real quality journalism is based on.  I also want to offer a special tip of the hat to Ms Worland for at least doing the leg work to get Andy Reschovsky’s perspective.  In this day and age even a little thing like that shows some professional pride.

One reason the WISC-TV story gets higher marks is that it gives passing mention to an option being floated by the district to refinance debts and use this opportunity to avoid paying $6.69 million in debt service in 2009-10,  a development that does not appear in the State Journal.

I have some questions about this idea and how much is being saved in the long term, whether is best to both refinance the debt and pay some or all of the debt service in 2009-10, and perhaps most significantly are we getting a second opinion on this move; because the proposal was designed in consultation with the Robert W. Baird company, who will profit from refinancing and whose current Managing Director of public finance in Wisconsin is David W. Noack, who, in his last job, sold Wisconsin school districts some “dubious securities,” which have since collapsed (there has been no publicly released documentation on the debt refinance proposal yet).  Lots of questions, none of which are even hinted at in either news story.

Given the centrality of taxation to both stories (especially the State Journal’s) I have to wonder why neither story saw fit to mention that under MMSD’s current plan the property tax levy will be about $7 million dollars less than is allowed under state law.

Again, this is big news. and the reporters didn’t get it.

Among other things it means that the authority granted by the November, 2008 referendum will not be employed (technically, the referendum authority will likely be used and other authority won’t be used but the dollars and cents come out the same).   It also means that for the first time in recent memory (ever?) Madison will not be providing the maximum possible financial effort on behalf of our children.  That gives me pause.

I’m guessing that some of the blame for missing this fact should be allotted to incompetent public relations and spin by the district.  We’ve been hearing about the “Partnership Plan” ad nauseum but now that there is a real action on the table which will mitigate potential local property taxes and can be expressed in dollars and cents, they miss the opportunity to shine the light where it would be most impressive.  You need big screaming headlines:  MMSD REFUSES TO TAX TO THE MAX:  TAXPAYERS SAVE $7 MILLION. Instead this fact isn’t even part of either story.

A side note:  Regular readers will know that I believe a big part of comprehensive school finance reform has to reverse the trend of increased reliance on property taxes, so I have some sympathy with the anti-property tax rhetoric.  However, I do think that much of the what we have been hearing since Superintendent Nerad arrived is subtly counter-productive for comprehensive reform.  Two big parts of the Partnership Plan were that “Mitigating property taxes is good” and that “We can continue to cut and not harm education.”  The anti-property tax message sounds a whole lot like a general anti-tax message unless presented very carefully.  When there are cuts in services and allocations we are being told either that there are no cuts or that the cuts will have no impact on the education being offered.  This invites people to say “keep on cutting” and to forget that there have been cuts for 16 years.  Nerad has made a good case for supporting education and comprehensive reform in other contexts, but the result of these mixed messages is cognitive dissonance.

Back to the State Journal story for two last, quick items.  First, other than the Reschovsky quote, there is little in the way of context or the state finance system or even the local context of 16 years of cuts.  Last, the quote from Erik Kass on the 2010-11 budget near the end is true and needs to be heard:

“These (numbers) are ugly.”

Local news sources have an essential role into play in keeping local institutions and government vital and honest.  To fulfill this role requires that reporters develop expertise and have the time and space to cover stories in some depth.  If the reporters don’t tell the public what is going on, most people won’t bother to seek out the information themselves and will consequently neglect opportunities for involvement and vote from ignorance.   This is what is happening in Madison.

I read school related news from around the state and in the local weeklies and I find a much higher level of coverage of local news than we see in Madison.  These papers serve their communities.

As Bill Wyman notes in the essay linked above, one reason that newspapers are failing financially is that they aren’t providing news.   So, as the Wisconsin State Journal and Capital Times parent company touts their revamped (and ugly and hard to navigate) madison.com,  perhaps offering timely and well-informed stories about local matters could be given some consideration too.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | August 25, 2009 · 5:03 pm

Ready, Set,…No

traffic light redGeneration X, “Ready, Steady, Go” (click to listen or download)

1910 Fruitgum Company, “1, 2, 3 Red Light” (click to listen or download)

With  much joy and no little fanfare, the preliminary budget passed by the Madison Metropolitan School District in May restored the “Ready, Set, Goal” conferences that teachers and parents found so valuable.   With the opening of school less than one week away “Ready, Set, Goal” conferences are not on the schedule.  At best they are on hold — perhaps until after the potential to shape those crucial days and weeks –; at worst they will not happen at all.  Very disappointing.

Apparently there are contractual issues that have not been settled.

I don’t know what the issues are.  I do know that with most of four months to work with, there should have been a way to make the conferences happen.

There had been or is  a memorandum of understanding in place  to establish “the terms… should finances become available to reinstate the program.”  MTI included a desire to renew that understanding in an April 2009 negotiations update.  I can’t find a copy of the memorandum, so I don’t know what those terms are/were.  I also don’t know if one or both parties are seeking changes to those terms.

While on the topic of “I don’s know,” (lots of them today) I’d like to know what is being done with $267,000 cost included in the preliminary budget (since shifted to stimulus/ARRA sources).

I’d also like to know why at their last meeting the Board was told that they needed to approve $98,918 in ARRA IDEA funding and $160,576 in ARRA Title I funding for “Ready, Set, Goal” conferences in 2009 and what will happen with that money?

Mostly, I’d like to know how such a positive thing went awry.

Thomas J. Mertz

3 Comments

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

by | August 19, 2009 · 5:04 pm

How Long, How Long Blues

Leroy Carr. “How Long, How Long Blues, Pt. 1” (click to listen or download)

There was an interesting quote from my State Representative, Mark Pocan, in the Wisconsin State Journal story on the prospects of Governor Jim Doyle’s agenda as a lame duck.

But Pocan acknowledged fundamental reforms of school financing would be difficult to achieve soon given that they would likely cost money that the state doesn’t have.

“The real comprehensive change of how we fund schools is going to be difficult to do over the next eighteen months,” Pocan said.

“Difficult,” does not mean impossible.  Unfortunately, this sounds like yet another lowering of expectations.

One sure thing  is that we’ll never know how difficult if Pocan and his colleagues don’t try.

Another sure thing is that there has been no public attempt at comprehensive school funding reform in the months since the Democrats won control of both houses under a Democratic Governor (and no, Doyle’s stitched-together attempts to win favor from Arne Duncan do not count).    Please try.

Reading Pocan’s remarks I was reminded of FDR’s first hundred days and what could be accomplished with political will.  Here is a list:

First Hundred Days Legislation

March 9 – June 16, 1933

March 9 Emergency Banking Act

March 20 Government Economy Act

March 22 Beer-Wine Revenue Act

March 31 Creation of Civilian Conservation Corps

April 19 Abandonment of Gold Standard

May 12 Federal Emergency Relief Act

May 12 Agricultural Adjustment Act

May 12 Emergency Farm Mortgage Act

May 18 Tennessee Valley Authority Act

May 27 Securities Act

June 5 Abrogation of Gold Payment Clause

June 13 Home Owners Loan Act

June 16 Glass-Steagall Banking Act

June 16 National Industrial Recovery Act

June 16 Emergency Railroad Transportation Act

June 16 Farm Credit Act

Doyle has about 540 days left.  If he or members  of the Senate and House want to fulfill the promises they have made over and over again, if they want to redeem themselves for what they did to education in the most recent budget, if they want to have something positive to run on in 2010, if they want to invest in our state’s future, if they want to leave a legacy they can be proud of…comprehensive school finance reform is a must and they have to get to work now.

Please try.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

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

by | August 16, 2009 · 4:30 pm

Small Change(s) — MMSD TAG Plan

stock_pile-of-coins

The changes made to the Madison Metropolitan School District Talented and Gifted Plan, in response to concerns raised by one or more Board members at the August 10 meeting, are smaller than I anticipated. There are also some other — relatively small – changes I would like to propose. The Board is scheduled to vote on the Plan at their Monday, August 17th meeting.

My notes and recollections from the August 10th meeting contain two areas where explicit changes were called for. The first was a more unambiguous delineation of who would be included in categories such “underserved,” “multicultural,” etc.,. The second request called for the creation of a new advisory committee that would be reflective of the community as a whole. Superintendent Dan Nerad gave what appeared to be assurances that these revisions would be made (I do not have time to review the video, but if he did not give this assurance, he selected his words very carefully to make it appear that he did). Some changes were made to the TAG Plan in the new iteration, but these have only partially addressed the concerns of Board members.

In addition, one Board member asked essential “what will this look like?” type questions. The response from Superintendent Nerad was that he may be able to give partial answers prior to the vote. This unsatisfactory response was coupled with expressions of urgency that this plan must be passed on August 17th. I find it very troubling that only one Board member asked “what will this look like?” and equally disturbing that our Superintendent called for action from ignorance. If the materials that have been distributed to the Board and made public prior to a vote are any indication, ignorance will reign; these questions will not be answered.

This is part of a disturbing pattern of secrecy and/or and lack of concern for basing decisions on the best possible information (or any information at all), which has characterized this entire TAG process. Extending this pattern, in the newspaper today, executive director of teaching and learning for the district, Lisa Wachtel, displayed an unwillingness, or perhaps an inability, to reveal how many students the district currently identifies as “Talented and Gifted.” This is the most basic information. To even begin a planning process without it, is incomprehensible. For the Board to enact the results of such a process is a dereliction of duty.

An explicit mention of who is being identified in the phrase “underserved,” has only been added in the section on “social and emotional needs.” It does not appear in the sections on identification, it is not a part of the effort towards consistency and transparency, it does not appear in the action steps on increasing participation in advanced courses, it does not appear in the evaluation section, and it does not appear in the communication section. The improved identification, consistency, and transparency along with the call for policy evaluations are probably the four best things in the plan. I support them all heartily (if with some reservations about the limits of what is possible due to both the current state of knowledge and the nature of assessments — not to mention the scarcity of resources). These are also exactly where the need to be explicit is the greatest.

Additionally, there is no inclusion of gender in the new categories. Issues of gender and perceptions of talent are well recognized. Their exclusion is yet another example of the kinds of oversights that are endemic to a rushed and secretive processes (the whole thing reminds me of the State Budget issues that MMSD was so vocal in complaining about).

I cannot find any changes concerning the makeup or role of the Advisory Committee (note, I am away from home and a bit rushed; I am not 100% sure of this and would welcome a correction via the comments). As I noted in an earlier post, the Plan itself reads:

Gifted programs must establish and use an advisory committee that reflects the cultural and socio-economic diversity of the school or school district’s total student population, and includes parents, community members, students, and school staff members.

I will add a few things. First, as much of the above shows, I believe in an open and accessible planning process. State statutes will require this of a committee authorized by the Board. Second, I think the inclusion of TAG experts and advocates is fine, but those outside of the TAG community need to be part of any advisory committee.

That takes care of what little was changed and the first swipes at what else should be. As indicated above, I cannot be as thorough as I like with this post, but I would like to touch on some other ideas for consideration. As I said in my testimony before the Board, my preference would be to do the minimum at this time, initiate an assessment of the current state of affairs and begin planning again with a more representative and open committee. I realize that it is highly unlikely that will happen, so I am offering less radical and perhaps more constructive suggestions.

Strengthen Evaluation

The Board and the community deserve a thorough reporting of success and failures. Before beginning this implementation, there should be metrics that are spelled out. These should include, at the very least, the explicit measures of participation and disproportionality linked to an expanded category of who should be considered “underserved,” as well as some assessments of consistency and transparency. If any form of “ability grouping” is implemented, the evaluation of that policy must consider all students, not just those identified as Talented and Gifted. Lastly, any evaluation should include thorough financial audits of the process and implementation. Going forward with only the vague promise of “evaluations” now, this part of the plan would be a continuance of the pattern of bad governance.

Limit the Actions on Social and Emotional Needs

I support the research and staff development in this area, because I believe that our staff needs the tools to better see where help is needed. I do not think that the pilot programs and collaborative sessions are the best use of district resources. Our social workers, psychologists and allied staff are already overworked. I think a comparative assessment of the unmet social and emotional needs of TAG students and other students is in order, prior to a commitment of resources to programming. Students of all abilities have real needs.

Set aside “Cluster Gouping”

The issues I have raised previously — particularly the lack of research on this practice — in combination with the lack of answers about what an implementation will look like, I recommend that the Board not commit to this policy at this time. Previously, I urged the Board to ask for a trial run of class assignments based on a cluster grouping policy. At a minimum, this trial run should be done and subjected to scrutiny, well before a single child is assigned to a group based on their perceived “ability.” Ideally, any and all discussions of grouping schemes should include multiple options and a thorough examination of the limits of the tools being used to label and group students.

On a side note, there are real problems involved in deciding what the proper universe for evaluation will be in determinations of “giftedness” (World, Nation, State, District, School, Grade …) and these will directly impact implementation. If it is done at the school level — as the “Cluster Grouping” scheme requires — students transferring will move in or out of “giftedness,” depending on the other students at their schools. If the consistency of district-wide metrics is used, the concepts behind “cluster grouping” are abandoned. To me this is further evidence of the arbitrary wrongheadedness of labeling and grouping policies and clearly points to the need for Individual Learning Plans for all students, not just some.

In closing, I want to note that a careful reader will have ascertained that I am in strong agreement with the movement toward improved identification of Gifted and Talented students, staff development designed to improve identification and services, consistent programing across the district, and transparency at every level and step. This common ground I share with the Advisory Committee. I just think we can and must do better in multiple areas, before making commitments to future actions and the resources to pay for them.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized

by | August 14, 2009 · 2:30 pm

Timely Material — “Accountability, Rigor, and Detracking: Achievement Effects of Embracing a Challenging Curriculum As a Universal Good for All Students”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

posted with vodpod

An article and video from the Teachers College Record on Detracking seem timely with the MMSD Board vote on a very slightly revised Talented and Gifted Education plan scheduled for Monday August 17 (public comment at 6:00 PM).

The interview is with Professor Kevin G. Welner who had a great essay “Obama’s Dalliance with Truthiness” in TCR earlier this month.

Needless to say, the reforms that Welner describes are very different than what MMSD is poised to enact.  Madison is moving toward increased ability grouping.  I do not believe the  unrepresentative Advisory Committee ever considered Detracking.  They certainly did not place that option before the Board or community.

I hope to have more on the TAG plan posted before Monday, but travel plans may make that impossible.  Meanwhile more of my concerns are expressed in this post.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, education, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized