Category Archives: Uncategorized

by | February 22, 2008 · 7:39 pm

Referenda Roundup

check-yes2.jpg

There were fourteen referenda on the ballot last Tuesday (more here on the campaigns), six passed and eight failed.  There will be at least fifty-eight referenda on the ballot April 1, 2008.  Madison should have an operating referendum on the November ballot.  Last year over one hundred districts went to referendum.

Is this any way to fund our schools?  Read below and decide for yourself.

Auburndale

Question 1: Operating, recurring, $160,000/year —  Failed 772-600.

Question 2:  Funding unfunded retirement benefits, nonrecurring (4 year), $250,000/year — Failed 926-455 (this is going to be  a problem for many districts in the years to come).

Question 3: School Improvements (physical plant), nonrecurring (4 year) $215,000/year — Failed 704-681

From the Wausau Daily Herald

“I don’t know what other solutions are out there,” said Raab, adding that the board has been looking at potential budget cuts, but “I just don’t know how deep we can go.”

Superintendent Gerald Eichman said the district must do a better job informing the community of its needs and the state’s school funding formula when asking for another referendum.

School districts say they have built-in deficits because fixed costs, such as teacher’s salaries and benefits, rise faster than the state increases revenue limits…

“We’re going to be able to survive next year,” he [Superintendent Gerald Eichman] said. “It’s going to get exponentially worse each year after because of the increasing costs.”

Darlington Community

One Question: Operating, nonrecurring (4 year), $700,000/year — Passed 748-724.

From the Monroe Times:

District Administrator Joseph Galle, who was out of the district Wednesday, previously said the money is needed for general day-to-day operational expenses, such as heating fuel, electricity and paying staff salaries and benefits…

Galle cited a growing gap between state funding and district expenses and a decline in state aid due to declining enrollment as reasons for a referendum.

Kenosha

Question 1: Operating and maintenance of new high school with academies, recurring, $2,427,00/year — Passed 16,255-12,387.

Question 2: Issue debt for new high school construction, $52,500,000 — Passed 17,341-11,701

From KenoshaNews.com:

“I am so ecstatic,” said Bradford Principal Sue Savaglio-Jarvis as the final votes came in. “I think all through this process it was going to pass. I’m so happy the community saw this was important for student learning. It’s a relief because we see an end to the overcrowding coming, and we can start giving kids more opportunities that they don’t have right now.”

Marshfield

One Question: Operating, nonrecurring (5 years), $2,000,000 the first year, $2,500,000 the second, $3,000,000 the remaining years — Passed 5,893-4,683.

From the Marshfield News Herald:

“I really have to applaud the voters for coming through loud and clear with a pro-education message,” said John Adam Kruse, chairman of the Yes Committee. “By maintaining our great public schools, we will continue to be a community that people will want to raise their children in.”

Merrill Area

One Question: Operating, recurring, $930,000 the first year, $995,000 the second year amd $990,000 the third year — Failed 5,116-2,049.

From the Wausau Daily Herald:

 Staff losses at the schools will increase some class sizes and reduce individual instruction. Less support staff will mean that more responsibilities will fall on teachers, said Gerald Beyer, principal of Prairie River Middle School.

“From the building-level principal perspective, these cuts are real,” he said.

More on cuts in Merrill here and this video

Oconto Falls

One Question: Issue debt for athletic field improvements, $4,970,000, Failed 1,698-1,580.

Rio Community

Operating and maintenance, nonrecurring, $295,000 the first year, $415,000 the second year and $560,000 the third year (3 year), Failed 501-483.

From the Portage Daily Register:

[School Board member Don] Shippert said if the board decides to pursue the same referendum again, there are only 18 people left to convince. He also said he understands that living on a fixed income and being retired is difficult, because he is in the same situation.

“I hope there would be a feeling of community support for the younger generation. There should be a commitment that each generation has to the next,” Shippert said.

Thorpe

One Question: Issue debt for Ag/Tech shop addition, $490,000, Passed 661-494.

This is the happy ending to a heartbreaking story.   A similar referendum had failed by one vote in 2007.  This time the community, led by the Future Farmers of America Alumni, came together to pass the referendum.  Communities like Thorpe struggle to keep population and jobs.  Investing in effective agricultural and technical education can help keep these communities and our state strong.  Thorp’s agricultural education program is one of the fastest growing in Wisconsin, now they will have the facilities they need.  Good work.

Waterloo

One Question: Issue debt for new boiler, Passed 1,082-334.

From the Watertown Daily Times:

Without voter approval to exceed the state-imposed revenue caps, the board would have had to cut educational programs to pay for a new boiler. Revenue caps limit the amount of money a school district can raise through the property tax levy. The project is nothing the district can do within its budget officials have said.

Wausaukee

One Question: Operating and maintenance, nonrecurring, $1,115,000 the first year, $1,000,000 the last three (4 year), Failed 1,334-394.

From the Peshtigo Times:

The school district has been facing budget shortfalls of more than $354,000 a year. Its once healthy general fund balance is now projected to be over $700,000 in the negative by the end of the 2009-2010 school year if nothing changes. The specter of closing the school looms on the horizon…

Trustee Jeff Townsend hoped people would realize the damage loss of the school would cause to the village economy. The real solution, he suggested, “is to get more students.” He said people need to sit down as professionals and figure out how to improve the schools so parents will move to Wausaukee because they want their kids attending school there…

Trustee Rosie Figas asked Gerbers what his group was doing to influence the state to change its school funding formula. Gerbers said the 48 “northern lake districts” in the state are all facing the same financial problems. He said members of their group met several times with Sen. Roger Breske, but the northern districts don’t have enough votes to force change in Madison. He said Crivitz is in almost the same position as Wausaukee, only a little behind. “They’ll be where we are next year,” he predicted.

Woodruff-Arbor Vitae

One Question: Operating, recurring, $689,500 the first year, $125,000 more the second year and $70,000 more the third (exceed revenue caps $880,000 each subsequent year), Failed 1,014-924.

From WJFW:

[District Administrator Susan] Treb says, “We have to consider what’s going on and be realistic about the broken system we currently have for funding public schools.” (and video)

Thomas J.  Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", AMPS, Budget, education, Elections, finance, Referenda, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | February 21, 2008 · 4:19 pm

NCLB Action

We haven’t posted much on No Child Left Behind lately.  Time to remedy that.

The reauthorization/reform are still pending, but don’t appear likely in this election year (see also here).  I don’t know if that is good news or bad news.  A straight re-authorization would be very bad news, but a better federal education policy (and less high stakes testing, less money for charters and vouchers, more money for underfunded mandates, more realistic accommodations and exclusions of special education students and English language learners for all testing) would be welcome, whatever the name.

I have to thank Madison teacher Gary L. Stout for prompting me on this post (and to add the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning to the AMPS Resources page — check it out).  Gary, along with David Wasserman (see here and here, on AMPS) has been doing his best to get out a teacher’s perspective on the damage the law is doing to our schools and children.  Here is an excerpt from his site on NCLB (check out the Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning in Kindergarten material too, it is well worth the time if you care about early education).

Developmentally Appropriate Practices

If a person is truly knowledgeable about what constitutes Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) for our school age children it is inconceivable that they support NCLB.

The concept of Developmentally Appropriate Practices are the cornerstone of what is good for our children in all schools. You will never, ever see the two phrases NCLB and DAP in the same sentence in any credible professional educational journal, never, ever. The more a person studies and works in teaching the more a person sees how developmentally inappropriate NCLB really is.

NCLB is the most destructive, vindictive piece of federal legislation ever passed. It is a deliberate assault on public education. It is a disease that is presently in every classroom, every day. It starts in kindergarten classrooms by undermining all aspects of Developmentally Appropriate Practices. It continues on through the grades and stops in High School when it lures, misleads, misinforms, and recruits our students into the all too real prospects of death or maiming. It is a tribute to the existing presidential administration
and their success at destruction and manipulation. NCLB is an all encompassing cancer that needs to be stopped.

The whole essay is here, including good quotes from our Board of Education members.  One more excerpt on what we can do: Take Action!

What Can We Do?

It is easy to be critical of NCLB. The challenging part is addressing the question of what can we do to change things?

1. We need to unite and get politically active locally and nationally to eliminate NCLB or change it drastically. The problem is that political change is slow. We as a nation have been taking steps backward in the education of our children for five years now. We will continue going backwards on a daily basis as long as NCLB exists as it is today.

2. It is critical for Wisconsin to change the way our public schools are funded. The elimination of revenue caps and the use of property taxes as a major way to fund public schools has got to change.

3. Third, we need to educate many of our co-workers, parents, and the voting public as to the truth about how our schools are being deliberately set up for failure and how our schools are presently failing on a daily basis to meet even the basic needs of all our children
There are also at least three things we can do immediately as a progressive and accountable school district.

1. Stop the one dimensional focus on academic learning and teach to the whole child. We need to teach and give every child the opportunity to grow socially, emotionally, physically, and creatively as well as academically.

In March 2003 I addressed a Madison school board committee suggesting that our school districts emphasis on testing and academic learning at the expense of social, emotional, physical and creative learning was developmentally inappropriate. Since then our approach to teaching to the whole child as become even more one dimensional with the developmentally inappropriate mandates of NCLB.

2. Change the focus of the Madison summer school program. Instead of using behavioral issues as a deterrent to getting into the program, children with behavioral issues should be the first to be enrolled. The public needs to know that when a classroom has just one socially
inappropriate child, that child takes educational opportunities away from every child in the classroom. Social development is similar to reading and math development. They need to be taught every day, in every classroom, at every grade level.

3. We need to remember Rosa Parks and say no to NCLB. Our school district should be commended for having the courage to say no to the Reading First program. Lets have the courage to say no to NCLB. As a community lets find ways to fund our schools without having the George Orwell effect tied to federal dollars.

I’ll add one more.  The Board of Education Communications Committee is planning forums on various topics.  I think the NCLB Act should be one of them.  If you agree, let them know.

Here are some of my other favorite anti-NCLB resources:

The Educator Roundtable (with petition).

Susanohanian.org (with a compilation of NCLB Outrages).

No NCLB.org

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, Elections, Equity, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, National News, nclb, No Child Left Behind, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | February 19, 2008 · 4:44 pm

We are not alone #19

bubble_nebula.jpg

Many, many referenda on the ballot in Wisconsin today.  Due to the TIF windfall, Madison escaped this round.  A large operating referendum is almost certain for November.

With that in mind, here are links and (very few) excerpts on today’s school referenda votes.

Unified tries to sway voters

Marshfield (links to many stories)

Students Support Marshfield Referendum

“”I think there’s a lot of people who don’t understand how big of an impact these extracurriculars have on our school lives. Like, I’m really into drama and band and I write for the school newspaper. All of those are going to be cut if this doesn’t pass.”

Marshfield School District Needs $2 Million Referendum

Support city school referendum to save education options

“My little sister can’t wait until she is in fifth grade and is able to join band, but that might not even happen. Why would they take away the foundation of the question “What do you want to be when you grow up” I loathe the fact that most people don’t even know or care what’s going on! People also, I feel, are being scared away by the thought of a raise in taxes, but the raise is a small price to pay for your/my future. What about the teachers that might be laid off because of this? Do you have any advice/help?”

Local School District Putting Multi-Million Dollar Referendum on the Ballot

“I’m not sitting here saying the football program will be cut,” Sally Sarnstrom said. “But it’s like any system. When you just keep reducing it, it just isn’t as effective.”

‘Dismantling’ would follow referendum’s failure

“Without the referendum, the district likely would cut four staff positions at its elementary schools and eliminate German from the curriculum at Prairie River Middle School next school year, officials said.

Future cuts would include reduced funding for special education and technology and additional teacher positions.

“The appropriate term to use now is dismantling,” Superintendent Sally Sarnstrom said, implying that the district has no room left to downsize. “”

Merrill voters will consider $2.9 million school measure

Spend the money, although it hurts

“The number of staff eliminated is almost staggering since 2001-2002.”

Oconto Falls Outdoor Facilities Referendum

Rio Schools to go to referendum in February

“After squeezing every penny from its 2004 referendum, the Rio Community School Board hopes that its diligence will convince residents to pass another ballot initiative in February.

“There is no room to cut anymore, and we have been very honest with the community about that,” said Doug Shippert, school board member. “In the past we have made cuts with staff and courses, but you can only make so many reductions. And the community knows we have made good fiscal decisions in the past.”

Thorpe referendum info

Thorpe referendum literature from the Future Farmers of America Alumni (this one broke my heart) 

Waterloo referendum newsletter

Arbor Vitae-Woodruff referendum powerpoint

Arbor Vitae-Woodruff Referendum

AV-W board approves referendum

I’ve said it before, this insanity has to stop.  It is long past time to fix the school finance system in this state.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, education, Elections, finance, Pope-Roberts/Breske Resolution, Referenda, School Finance, Uncategorized, We Are Not Alone

by | February 18, 2008 · 8:59 pm

Everybody Wins!

gold-stars2.jpg

“We’re a Winner,” Curtis Mayfield (listen).The Madison Board of Education voted tonight (7-0) to change the schedules of Board and Committee meetings for the next three months instead of moving non-agenda public comments to the end of meetings.

Open and convenient access for the public has been preserved, the Board has a schedule that they believe will allow them to be more productive and efficient.  Everybody wins.

Many thanks to all who expressed concerns, lent support or offered suggestions

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, education, Local News, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | February 14, 2008 · 9:46 pm

Democracy and Efficiency (part II)

ito13.jpg

On Monday February 18 the public will get a chance to speak to the the Board of Education about the proposal to move public appearances on non agenda items to the end of meetings. I implore all interested members of the public, pro and con, to attend on Monday and make your voices heard. The meeting will be in the Doyle Building auditorium. It starts at 5:00, but the public hearing on the proposal is on the agenda after the report of the Citizens [School] Naming Committee report. I would guess this will be after 5:30.

In an earlier postI promised to offer some constructive suggestions on this proposal and the broad matter of balancing the desire for public participation with the desire for efficiency. I realize that these are not exactly the same “problems” Board President Arlene Silviera identified — “The issue is that the Board would like to focus on its business at a more reasonable hour in order to make good decisions for the children of the district” — but I think they are close enough.

When searching for solutions, it is essential to begin by demonstrating that the “problem” actually exists and if it does the next step is to assess how serious it is.

Here are the Board priorities for the year:

– Develop specific, measurable goals regarding strategic priorities

– Attendance, dropouts, truancy, expulsions, bullying

– Equity discussion – follow through/implementation

– Hiring a new Superintendent

– Considering/weighing options for a possible referendum

I don’t know everything that the Board has done, but based on what I do know and can find I’d like to go through these one by one and assess the progress.

Develop specific, measurable goals regarding strategic priorities

The Performance and Achievement Committee developed and forwarded to the Board a “Strategic Plan Accountability Matrix,” It was approved on November 11 . I believe that this is a partial fulfillment of this priority. The matrix isn’t posted on the district web site so I can’t be sure, but this appears to be related to the ongoing work of the district and Board moving toward implementing value added analysis (a blessing, but a mixed blessing in my opinion, see here, here and here, to start). The strategic priorities should also play some role in the Board’s equity work.

Attendance, dropouts, truancy, expulsions, bullying

After much work, the expulsions policy has been revised. I can’t find much on the others ( code of conduct revision here), but again the equity work should touch on them. Another partial fulfillment.

Equity discussion – follow through/implementation

One meeting devoted largely to Equity where progress was made and a second (at the end of a night made long by on-topic public appearances at the Long Range Planning Committee and other matters), where not much was accomplished. I have many things to say about process the Board has pursued with their equity work (some here), but this is not the place to go into that. I would put this in the “barely started” category.

Hiring a new Superintendent

This is huge and was hugely time consuming. They did a very good job throughout the process and ended up with a fine choice.

Considering/weighing options for a possible referendum

They started this in a timely manner, made some progress but because of the TIF windfall it ended up being “the referendum that wasn’t.”

I think this is a pretty impressive record of accomplishments. Add to it revising the school naming policy, beginning West side boundary discussions, settling the MTI teacher contract, beginning work on community forums and partnerships, as well as other initiatives that are under my radar; and weathering the storms of consolidation and budget reconsideration, General Vang Pao, and private school busing and it looks to me like a fairly successful term. I am skeptical that this record indicates a problem that rises to the level of requiring what I consider the drastic action of making it more difficult (however slightly) for the public to communicate with the Board. Obviously some Board members disagree or it wouldn’t have come up.

Although skeptical, I’ll stipulate that there is a problem, that the Board has been unable to give sufficient attention to their work and priorities. The next step should be to evaluate a range of solutions. The Board produced one “solution” and did little in the way of evaluating its’ effectiveness.

I hope to have documentation of how much time was spent on off-topic public appearances before Monday. Having sat through many meetings, watched video of others and reviewed minutes of even more, my initial impression is that the vast majority of off-topic public appearances this term have been about the school consolidation/budget reconsideration, the General Vang Pao school naming, private school busing and Military ads/recruiting. At least the first two of these are exceptional situations and concern problems of the Board’s own making. Some might say this describes the others also. My point is that week in and week out, year in and year out, off-topic public testimony does not seem to consume all that much time or energy.

In all these cases and more, I believe that the community, the district and the Board have all benefited from the opportunities for open public input. If there is to be any new limit, I would like it to be time based instead of topical. For example, if there are more than 15 registrants, limit of speakers for two minutes.

Any assessment of time or energy spent on off-topic public appearances only makes sense in the context of a comparative assessment of time spent on other tasks. I don’t have documentation on this either, but it seems the Board spends an inordinate amount of time with housekeeping matters, paying bills and and taking other actions that are required by law. The obvious solution is to use a consent agenda, to bundle these matters into a single vote. This has come up twice (that I know of) in Board discussions; once here and the second time during the discussion of the public input “problem.” Despite the efforts of some Board members, it has never appeared on an agenda. It is a reform that makes sense.

I am only going to make one more suggestion here, and this only deals indirectly with efficiency, but I think it would enhance communication and democracy and may induce fewer people to use Board meeting time with public input. Board members should hold office hours. One of the problems with the rituals of public input and the black hole of emailing or writing elected officials is that the public often feels they are not being listened to. I know Board members also have public phone numbers, but calling them seems like such an imposition. Office hours would allow dialogue between Board members and the public — something, for legal and other reasons, sorely lacking at Board meetings. Carol Carstensen used do do something like this in her home by hosting regular open houses, but these raised legal issues that led to their demise. What I am proposing is that Board members rotate and that each week at a designated time one or two be available for appointments or walk in meetings. I really think this would help.

Communication is a two-way street and the public is not without fault in the communication problems that exist. John Dewey wrote:

All communication is like art. It may be fairly said, therefore, that any social arrangement that remains vitally social, or vitally shared, is educative to those who participate in it. Only when it becomes cast in a mold and runs in a routine way does it lose its educative power. “

Too often the public input sessions — both on and off topic — consist of all parties going through the motions. With this in mind, I offer some initial tips on giving effective, communicative public input:

  • Be informed and accurate.
  • Know what can or cannot be done, but also don’t lose sight of and do communicate your dreams for the future.
  • Be polite and respectful (this one can be hard, but at least keep it civil).
  • Don’t rehash old history. Past conflicts and mistakes should be used sparingly and only to point ways forward.
  • Offer realistic alternatives.
  • Try to see the “big picture” and demonstrate that you do.
  • Remember that the School board’s primary focus and reason for being is to improve student achievement for all children
  • Use personal stories, but don’t make it personal, tie them to larger concerns.
  • Thank the elected officials for past and future things.
  • Don’t criticize the people, criticize their actions (or inaction).
  • Sustain involvement. Elected officials have more respect for people who stick around and keep working.
  • Look for common ground, but if it isn’t there be straight forward about that.
  • Don’t make threats.
  • Don’t complain about taxes unless that is the one focus of your testimony.

As usual, this is too long, so I’ll leave it at this. Your suggestions on effective input, Board efficiency or anything else are welcome. Just leave a comment.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, Local News, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | February 8, 2008 · 5:22 pm

Quote of the Day

mtos.gif

Image from More Than One Struggle:  The Evoulution of Black School Reform in Milwaukee by Jack Dougherty (a friend and fine historian).

In retrospect, I now realize that the urban school systems we used were engaged in a complex and persistent continuation of the resistance to Brown that characterized the public response since its inception. Rather than being engaged in systemic reforms to meet equity mandates, our school districts were escaping from more global equity initiatives through the development of small, selective choice programs. These programs were undermining the fabric of the common school ideal and silencing possible public conversation about serving the needs of all children in the district on an equal basis. Commitments to the most disadvantaged children were not honored, in my opinion, while new programs designed to attract privileged children became a priority.

Beatrice S. Fennimore, “Brown and the Failure of Civic Responsibility,” Teachers College Record.

These thoughts and this article should be part of the discussion begun in (Not?) Talking about Diversity and Boundaries, 2008 Style .

 Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Equity, Quote of the Day, Uncategorized

by | February 6, 2008 · 11:33 pm

Tin-eared and Wrong-headed

eartrumplb.pngbottom.jpg

Update:

Board of Education President Arlene Silveira just posted this on The Daily Page 

 Time Out. The press release that started this thread was not accurate. There will be public speaking on this topic at the meeting on 2/18.I will continue to come back to the main point. The issue is that the Board would like to focus on its business at a more reasonable hour in order to make good decisions for the children of the district.If people do not like the proposal on the table, please recommend an alternative. An alternative is not to say “let’s leave things as is”. This does not address the problem.Looking forward to your ideas!Arlene Silveira

I am glad to see some movement and agree that both sides need to be creative.

It should be noted that according to all information available to the public prior to this The Daily Page post, the Progressive Dane Press Release was accurate. 

I was contacted earlier today by the Board of Education staff person (after the Press Release was issued) about a change but given no details.  My request for more information has not been answered yet (This is not a complaint about the Board staff people.  They, like so many in the Doyle building, do a great job and are always helpful.  I just want to be as open as possible about what I knew when.). 

See you on the 18th (and maybe the 11th too).

At the Board of Education meeting Monday (2/4/2008) a proposal was put forth to enact new limits on public testimony. This proposal and the way it was introduced and discussed showed some on the Board at their worst, both tin-eared and wrong-headed. These are overlapping criticisms, because with the interactions between elected officials and the public, perceptions (tin-eared) and realities (wrong-headed) are inseparable.

Before I go further a caveat is in order. I did not attend the meeting on Monday and only watched the last 45 minutes or so at home. Still, I’m pretty confident in what I have to say.

The proposal is a revision of Board policies 1220 and 1222. I haven’t obtained a copy of the exact language yet (that points to one problem with the way this is being done and another with the proposal iteslf, when I get an electronic copy I’ll link here), but the gist of it is that they want to move public appearances concerning topics that are not on the agenda for that meeting from the beginning (where they have been since at least 2000) to the end (an indeterminate time). K-12 students are exempted.

The rationale offered is that extensive, “off topic” public appearances have kept the Board from effectively doing the work the Board wants to do. There is no doubt that public appearances before the Board — mostly “on topic” — have at times been exhausting or that there is room for improvement on both sides of communication between the Board and the public. Rather than improving communication, the pending revision seeks to make communication more difficult.

It is outageous for a Board which has acknowledged communication and public relations problems in their goals for the Superintendent (it was also on the initial list of annual Board priorities, but Lawrie Kobza moved to delete it, Ms Kobza was conspicuous in her support of the current effort to limit public appearances) to contemplate such an action, it borders on insane that they would do so in a manner that excludes the public from having any input.

One thing needs to be made clear, whatever Board members say about the intent not being to limit public input, the result is that public input will be limited in terms of both quantity and quality. Logistically the proposal is a nightmare. Let me use the proposal itself as the first illustration.

A very general item appeared on the agenda distributed on Thursday or Friday (1/31 or 2/1). I contacted a couple of people for details and got only vague answers. It appears that the actual proposal was distributed to Board members on Monday (the day of the meeting) and the first chance the public got to see it was via the distribution of copies at that meeting.  [I have been asked to clarify the chronology and given new information to do so. Board members were given a draft policy on Thursday 1/31, an explanation via email on Friday 2/1 and the the proposed policy on Monday 2/4. A vote was possible on Monday, 2/4 but since this was not sure, the possible continuation to 2/18 was already arranged.] Monday afternoon I am contemplating making childcare and other arrangements in order to possibly give public testimony on a proposal that I don’t know the contents of. One source told me there probably won’t be a vote, so I decide not to go (it turns out there was almost a vote). The point of this is that the nature agenda items and the timing of their publication makes it hard for the public to participate. It gets worse. Thanks to the intervention of two members, the Board did not vote and will take this up again on 2/18 (mark the date). That meeting will be a workshop session, meaning no public appearances. In fact, there are no Board meetings scheduled between now and the vote where public appearances are allowed. So I missed my chance and the Board was spared the horror of listening to me for three minutes. I will however be attending the Communications Committee meeting on 2/11 and if public appearances are allowed will be saying my piece (that agenda isn’t out yet), I suggest you do the same.

This was an agendaed item, so if the new policy was in place I still could have testified at the start (and I would have if there has been any way for me to know what it was without going to the meeting). Now I want to look at non-agendaed items and what the Board is contemplating. These fall into two categories. The first consists those things that the Board is not aware of or is doing nothing about; the second consists of those things that Board has been addressing or plans to address at other meetings. If you want to talk with the Board about any of these, you will have to wait your turn. In practical terms, that means planning on sitting through a meeting that may go one hour or may go four hours (tell that to your spouse or try to arrange for childcare on those terms) and then at the very end, after the Board has done what they want, those members that stick around will give your what attention they have left to give. Is this a recipe for effective communication? I understand that the Board wants to work on what the Board wants to work on, but I also understand that the Board doesn’t know everything and that there are some things they know about that they don’t want to deal with. I like the fact that it is relatively easy for the public to try to inform the Board or get them to address things they would rather not, to speak often inconvenient truth to power (or at very least call public attention to these things). In setting the agenda, the Board (especially the President and Vice President) already have great power. This would enhance that power at the expense of the rest of us.

As usual, this is too long, but I want to work through one more example before wrapping it up. Multiple Board members cited the failure of the Board to make any meaningful progress on Equity at their 1/28 meeting as an illustration of why this policy is “needed.” They couldn’t have picked a worse example. On April 16, 2007 the Equity Task Force presented our report to the Board of Education. The Board was busy with more pending matters, gave the summary a brief polite hearing, thanked the Task Force and pledged to return to the report (no vote, but that’s what they said and what the minutes indicate). On June 20, 2007 the Board made Equity a priority for the year. On December 3, 2007 — almost eight months after the Task Force gave them our report and six months after the Board made Equity a priority — the Board held a workshop session on Equity. On January 28, 2008the Board held another workshop meeting on Equity. This is the meeting where little got done and the one that Board members used to place the blame on public appearances. On that front, the lengthy public appearances that night were for the Long Range Planning Committee and were about an agendaed item, so the proposed revision wouldn’t have changed anything!

Looking at the bigger picture, it stretches credibility well past the breaking point to assert that off topic public appearances were a major factor in preventing the Board from addressing Equity for eight months. Don’t play me for a fool. Again, it gets worse. Under the new policy, only agendaed items may be addressed at a time when members of the public are able to easily appear and the Board is paying full attention. In the eight months since the Task Force gave the Board our report, Equity has not appeared on the agenda of a single meeting where public appearances were allowed. Board members also touted other means of communicating with them. Any fool knows these aren’t the same. Prior to the January 28 meeting six Equity Task Force members (myself included) sent the Board a letter expressing concerns about the process of their work on Equity, including the lack of public input. To my knowledge only two Board members responded and our letter and concerns were not part of the discussion at the meeting. I can’t help but think that if we had been able to read that letter to them in person at the start of one or more meetings, things might have been different.

Reading through this I find that I hit the “wrong-headedness” more than the “tin-eared.” It should be obvious how counterproductive ramming through a limitation of public input (without any public input on the proposal) is to the goal of improved communications. If it isn’t, I suggest everyone — including Board members — watch the video. You’ll be amazed at how self-centered and arrogant some of our elected Board members sound.

I admire the hard work of our Board of Education and appreciate the difficulties they face in trying to do what they think is best. However, the best intentions can still lead to bad decisions. Let’s not let that happen this time. Contact the Board, testify at the 2/11 Communications Committee meeting (while you still can), write the newspapers…. If we can move past this wrong-headed mess, we can continue to work together — the board and the Public — to figure out ways to improve communication, a project that has already begun under a the auspices of a planned Progressive Dane School Budget 101 seminar (among other things I’m chair of the PD Education Task Force).

Thomas J. Mertz

An undesirable society, in other words, is one which internally and externally sets up barriers to free intercourse and communication of experience. A society which makes provision for participation in its good of all its members on equal terms and which secures flexible readjustment of its institutions through interaction of the different forms of associated life is in so far democratic.

John Dewey, Democracy and Education

8 Comments

Filed under Accountability, Best Practices, Equity, Local News, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | February 4, 2008 · 3:23 am

On west side boundary changes

boundary.jpg

Having served on the former west-side boundary task force, and after noticing some posts about new district proposals for boundary changes, I thought I could say a few words about this dangerous topic.

#1. It’s not so dangerous or uncommon. For all the debate and deliberation on this issue, it’s not as important as providing an excellent setting for learning. Like the Crosby, Stills, and Nash song, “Love the one your with” really makes sense in Madison – elementary schools that are well supported seem to do just fine. MMSD tends to keep a very close eye on how things are going at elementary schools, and many of the management/educational fundamentals are strong. They just can’t handle it when people suddenly bail. Successful schools are somewhat self-fulfilling. However, certain schools need special support delivered in a timely and creative manner. I’ll defer to professionals on this one. If pairing is deemed beneficial for _the purposes of learning_ I can support that.

#2. If we are smart, we’ll really think critically about how schools are networked with other children and family services. We should look to better support of early childcare as part of the equation. Parent transportation is another major issue.

#3. While we went over many, many alternatives during task force and break out meetings, we really didn’t make much headway on boundary changes. We didn’t touch pairing or Midvale-Lincoln’s (our school) with a ten foot pole. We didn’t really effectively address race or low-income, or even the efficiency of transportation. However, we did give a lot of comments, which drew more from the community, and we all learned a bit more about neighboring schools. The data resources, the planning processes, and day-to-day knowledge has been growing within the district, and we shouldn’t judge based on old information.

#4. There have been some significant changes since the task force. I threw out my binder a few months after the task force. Once people knew the new school and Leopold addition were to be made, that changed the draw to homes in the areas. Also, changes to the budget and class-size changes have affected the capacity numbers significantly.

#5. This is an iterative, often frustrating and seemingly non-democratic process. At the end of some long day in the near future, a few people, looking at all the data and comments they get in, will make the decision about boundaries and pairing.

#6. Our job is to keep the eyes on the prize, to adapt, to prepare our kids and neighbors for a few bumps, but to stay focused on effective delivery of best practices, well-supported teachers and schools, and effective long-term planning (as best as we can provide).

#7. We need more depth and collaboration. Boundary changes need to be judged on how they effect the learning community throughout their school years. It’s not just about elementary schools, but how friends and our young scholars grow together, meet up at middle school and bring on new challenges. If there is to be another long-range planning task force – it should be with consideration of the _integrated_ effects to the students over their lovely years with the MMSD – not just their elementary experience.

#8. Be nice to folks from research and evaluation. They have no specific agenda – they are simply between the public and the administrators on looking at the issues, adding clarity when they can. We want the best data possible, clearly presented and analyzed. Let’s support that.

#9. We need the city involved. Schools matter for the health of neighborhoods and for city planning, so the city should have a clear voice and a position on the record. For something more creative, the city could facilitate and promote the community use of schools outside the school day and school year. The city can encourage people to get to know the schools on the other side of the boundary – with potlucks and parties, basketball and soccer, concerts and neighborhood meetings at the schools. Boundaries are just lines on a map – and we, with a little boldness, can step over them.

#10. Don’t forget about the east side! Sprecher Road area and other changes are really significant, and we may have to do more of a master plan that brings in all high school attendance areas into the mix.

– Jerry Eykholt

3 Comments

Filed under Best Practices, Equity, Local News, Uncategorized

by | February 2, 2008 · 5:44 pm

Quote of the Day

nerad.jpg

When Nerad was hired in Green Bay, the first person that he notified was Eric Jeedas, a Madison taxi driver he has known since their childhood in Kenosha. Last week the pair talked again. This time Nerad was a finalist for the Madison post.

“I would imagine that you folks in Green Bay know that he’s a good guy and competent, and I think that Madison will be very fortunate to have him,” Jeedas said. “Is he up for the job? No question.”

Dan Nerad has proved he was up for every job he’s tackled over the past 33 years, and no doubt he has what it takes to lead Wisconsin’s second-largest school district. We wish him all the best as he begins the transition.

From January 30, 2008 Green Bay Press Gazette editorial.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Contracts, Local News, Quote of the Day, Uncategorized

by | February 1, 2008 · 3:25 am

(Not?) Talking about Diversity and Boundaries, 2008 Style

educational_seperation_in_the_us_prior_to_brown_map-copy.jpg

tends3.jpg

low-income.jpg

With the new school opening on the West side, Madison again must confront the competing interests and ideals involved in redrawing school attendance boundaries. The district has produced four plans (more may be in the works, or the existing ones may be tweaked). At a long and unusually non-confrontational meeting Monday (1/28/2008), concerned community members presented their views.

The guidelines used to create these plans include seven non-prioritized criteria, only one of which addresses diversity:

Every attempt will be made to avoid creating schools with high concentrations of low-income families.

It should be noted that this gives no guidance about schools with high concentrations of high-income families.

The Equity Task Force asked the Board to consider having racial, linguistic and/or economic diversity figure more prominently in this and related processes. The Board has taken no action on this.

What role race and linguistic considerations can play in drawing school boundaries is an open constitutional question. In the recent Louisville and Seattle case, Justice Joseph Kennedy’s partial concurrence rejected the plurality’s contention that these could not play any direct role:

School boards may pursue the goal of bringing together students of diverse backgrounds and races through other means, including strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race.

Many consider Kennedy’s to be the “controlling opinion” in that without his vote the court would have been evenly split.

Nationally the trend toward re-segregation (however you measure it) continues. This trend can be seen in the graph above (from Justice Breyer’s dissent in the same case). A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor documents and explores the continued growth of what Gary Orfield calls “apartheid schools” (those with 90% or more minority enrollment). As the article notes, some do not have a problem with this happening, others are less sanguine:

“I don’t think that the education that you get hinges on the color of the person sitting next to you in the classroom,” [Roger] Clegg [president of the (Bradley Foundation funded) Center for Equal Opportunity in Falls Church, Va.] says. “What educators should focus on is improving schools.”

That sounds great in theory, say some experts, but the fact is that segregated schools tend to be highly correlated with such things as school performance and the ability to attract teachers.

“Once you separate kids spacially from more privileged kids, they tend to not get the same things,” says Amy Stuart Wells, an education professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York. “And we need to start thinking about how a school that’s racially isolated can be preparing students for this global society we live in.”

I agree with Wells, both in terms of resource allocations and in terms of the lessons being taught or not taught by segregated learning environments.

Things aren’t that bad in most of Madison, but without a conscious effort to directly confront the issues they will be. As a friend reminded me today. the attention given to test performance data — measures that highly correlate with economic status — have induced some families to judge schools by simplistic measures and avoid those that aren’t “performing.” Often the schools being shunned are good schools with high percentages of students who are poor. In terms of resources, MMSD does what it can to direct resources to those schools with high needs, but the school finance system in general and the underfunding of Title I, Special Education, Bi-Lingual Education, SAGE and a host of other programs make this more difficult each year.

When I start to talk like this, to suggest being more proactive on issues of diversity, many are quick to remind me of the dangers of “becoming like Milwaukee,” meaning a district or city that has been largely abandoned by the middle and upper classes because they believe the schools no longer serve their children. There is no question that the growth in low income and minority students will keep some people from sending thie children to Madison Schools and that under the revenue caps this will have an adverse effect on the all the children in the district. There is also no question that prioritizing the needs of our neediest will exacerbate this. I think that is a price we should be willing to pay.

I am also well aware that dealing with these matters quietly and indirectly is easier for school officials, elected and appointed. Avoiding controversy and pretending differences (of status and opinion) don’t exist is always easier. For the most part MMSD has done a very good, if relatively quiet and indirect job of addressing diversity. I don’t think that is sufficient. I think being loud and direct at times is important.

In a recent Education Week there was a review of a new book, Everyday Antiracism: Getting Real About Race in School, by Mica Pollock. The book offers 65 essays by scholars “who offer advice for educators on recognizing when everyday classroom practices exacerbate racial inequalities and on becoming more constructively conscious and open about race.” In an earlier book, Pollock had coined the term “Colormuteness,” to denote the reluctance to talk about race directly. What Pollack is championing for the classroom, I am urging for the wider public sphere and not just for color or race, but other dimensions of inequality as well.

I was at a meeting last night where the talk turned to the responsibility of communities like Madison to demonstrate that diverse public schools (along with other progressive social policies) can and do work. The idea is that we need to serve as a counter example for those who would throw up their hands and say segregation and inequality are too intractable, or want to privatize schools and services because they have given up on public institutions. Madison has the resources and the communal will to do this and I believe many of us, quietly and indirectly, try. Quietly and indirectly isn’t good enough to meet this responsibility. Quietly and indirectly sends the message that we aren’t confident that we are right and able. We need to be loud and proud, we need to confront and demand and be relentless.

Kind of a long trip from the current West side boundary discussion. To bring it back around, in that context I would like MMSD to say, “yes we do seek diverse schools because we believe that in 1,000 ways diverse schools help combat inequality and segregated schools reinforce inequality. Creating opportunities and combating inequality are central to our mission.” More generally, I would like all associated with the schools to enact policies (including those proposed by the Equity Task Force) and follow practices (including those proposed by the Equity Task Force) that are proudly proactive on matters of racial, linguistic, economic and other inequalities. Last, I’d like us all to talk about this, not around it.

Thomas J. Mertz

wellbehavedwomenseldom.jpg

1 Comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Equity, Local News, Take Action, Uncategorized