My name is Thomas J. Mertz. I have been active in Madison and statewide working for adequate educational funding and equitable educational policies. Like many I see much in Senate Bill 22 that will exacerbate the underfunding of the district schools which will continue to be the source of educational opportunities for the overwhelming majority of Wisconsin’s students, and much that will create greater inequities in access to opportunities. The future of our children and our state depend on investments in education. That this is happening after 17 years under a deeply flawed school funding system and at a time when districts face unprecedented cuts in both state funding and local revenue authority is particularly alarming.
However this is not where I want to focus attention here. I am also a historian of education. It is from this perspective, as well as the perspectives of a parent, citizen and activist that I urge you to reject those aspects of Senate Bill 22 which undermine Wisconsin’s long traditions of non-partisan local control
Our state Constitution states “The supervision of public instruction shall be vested in a state superintendent and such other officers as the legislature shall direct.” Our supreme court has ruled that other officers created by the legislature may not be given powers equal to or greater than the superintendent. The Constitution also specifies that the Superintendent be elected “at the same time and in the same manner as members of the supreme court.” This clause and statutes related to the election of the Superintendent and Boards of Education, as well as those covering those wonderful exercises in direct democracy, School Meetings, are part of a long and careful tradition of separating the governance of education from partisan politics. In 1885, In an an attempt to further separate the political sphere of school governance, Wisconsin went so far as to grant women a limited suffrage, confined to “school matters.”
The creation of a politically appointed Charter School Authorizing Board and Executive Director, with powers and responsibilities rivaling those of the State Superintendent is a heedless and needless break from these traditions. Schools are inherently political, yet Wisconsin’s Superintendents and Board of Education have an admirable record of finding common ground and advancing the common good. Handing control of K-12 schools to people chosen by party leaders introduces a great potential that in decision-making, other than the common good will become primary.
This Board also represents a break from the tradition of local control of education. It opens the door for “sponsors” and the “operators” they contract with to set up networks of schools with limited state oversight and answerable primarily to distant entities. It cannot be forgotten that the resources at the disposal of these entities will be resources not available to the local and locally elected school board.
Schools and school districts define communities; the charter networks enabled by SB 22 threaten local decision-making and the already precarious financial viability of districts. In urban, suburban, small town and rural Wisconsin he health and economic prospects of communities are tied to the strength of our schools.
Schools are also defined by their communities. Through their locally elected Boards of Education and in school meetings, citizens are collectively involved in choosing programs and personnel, in setting priorities and debating budgets, in building facilities and — these days much too often — closing schools.
These ties will be gone with networks of charter schools authorized by a partisan state board and operated by out-of-state corporations.
There are many other aspects of SB 22 that I would like to discuss, but I’ll close by reminding you that in Wisconsin we have some very good public schools and some that need improvement. We also have some very good charter schools and some that need improvement. Local control of charter authorizing is working. The best evidence is that charters are generally no better than district schools and often not as good. They are not in and of themselves “the answer” to our educational problems and in many ways are a distraction from improving the education for the 90%+ of students who will continue in district schools. Don’t let enthusiasm for “choice” and ill-defined “innovation” seduce you into abandoning our traditions, our communities and our schools.
There is so much good stuff out there on what has been happening in Madison and around the state this week that I really don’t have too much to add. I will point toward the CAST Statement I helped draft, Rep Mark Pocan’s “Scott Walker’s Top Ten Lies” for a good fact check and Alder Brian Solomon’s “Madison, WI: A Prelude for Economic Justice” for some questions and context. I’ve been energized and filled with hope by the the rallies and protests this week, but like Brian I have concerns about the limits of the agenda being put forward.
That is why I want to try to focus attention on what comes next, the other shoe waiting to drop, Governor Walker’s Biennial Budget. It is going to be a giant shoe and we need to be ready to catch it and throw that one back too.
Throughout this, Walker has made it clear that the so-called Budget Repair bill is only a prelude to the Biennial Budget. The GOP talking points have been that destroying public worker unions is a way to give local governmental units (counties, municipalities and school districts) the tools to deal with the budget cuts that radical slashes to state aid, shared revenue and unprecedented limits on local control of revenues — all anticipated in the Biennial Budget — will bring.
Scott Walker and the GOP don’t want you to know what is in the budget bill, they especially don’t want this information out there while the people are in control of the Capitol and paying attention. So, instead of releasing the Budget on Tuesday February 22 as scheduled, they have moved it to March 1. Whether in the Capitol or elsewhere, we all need to be paying attention and we all need to mobilize on this too.
There have been some hints and leaks about what will be in the Budget and it ain’t good.
Anticipated $900 Million in cuts to State School Aids.
Unstated, but large cuts to shared revenue
Talk of a hard cap in property tax increases equal only to growth in property wealth (se the video above), taking away the ability of local governing units to mitigate the cuts in state aid.
Rumors of new refusals of federal aid, including Title I, a longstanding program targeted at the education of children in poverty.
Hard times ahead for Counties, Municipalities and School Districts and all those who depend on them for services.
Geez — Title I. This is beyond insane. For me this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Everything else — tax cuts, aid cuts, revenue limits, union busting…– is maddening and insane, but refusing Title I is so stupid and so offensive that as Marvin Gaye said “It makes me wanna Holler, ” and scream and organize.
“It is precisely because education is the road to equality and citizenship, that it has been made more elusive for Negroes than many other rights. The walling off of Negroes from equal education is part of the historical design to submerge him in second class status. Therefore, as Negroes have struggled to be free they have had to fight for the opportunity for a decent education.”
“The Negro has no room to make any substantial compromises because his store of advantages is too small. He must press unrelentingly for quality, integrated education or his whole drive for freedom will be undermined by the absence of a most vital and indispensable element — learning.”
“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically… Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ But conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.”
I’m running for Common Council and shouldn’t be spending time on this, but the issues are very important to me, so I’m doing it, but as short and sweet as I can.
The issues are the failure of the MMSD Administration to follow basic practices of open inclusive governance and the implementation of segregative policies.
Below (and here) is an open letter drafted and signed by 18 West High parents on Friday 1/7/2010. Understanding the letter requires some background and context. The background — along with the latest news and some final thoughts –follows.
Background:
On October 15 2010 hundreds of West Students protested proposed changes in our High Schools and their exclusion from the decision-making on these changes. Subsequently, the proposal was renamed “(Dual Pathways” is in the dustbin of history) and vague statements about a more open and inclusive process were made (AMPS posts on this here, here, here and here).
After a contentious parent meeting at West on these proposals, a group of parents who wanted to have some say in the reforms began meeting and emailing. It is important to note that the views of this group on the various aspect of the reforms are diverse, but all wanted to be part of an open process (I strongly favor some aspects and oppose others, see the links to AMPS posts above). Only some members of this group signed the letter.
Last Thursday these matters appeared on the Board of Education agenda for the first time. It was a workshop meeting — no public testimony — and nothing was slated for action. Not all supporting materials were linked to that agenda. I’m not going to do a blow-by-blow of the meeting.
The important development was that it was revealed that the changes in high school structures for English and Social Studies at West and Memorial — the changes the prompted the protest (uploaded here, I don’t believe this document has ever been posted by MMSD) would appear in the handbooks for 2011-12 that had to go to the printer on Tuesday January 11. Remember, this information was not public prior to the meeting and there was no way for the Board to act on it. This is what prompted the letter.
At the meeting some Board Members suggested delaying the implementation. Since the meeting there has been communication between Board Members and between Board Members and the Administration (note: I said “between” not “among,” which would be a clear violation of open meetings statutes).
Latest News:
I have been informed that the result of this “process” is that the planned changes, the segrative changes, will appear in the course catalog that is sent to the printer on Tuesday.
Final Thoughts:
This is no way to run a school district and it is certainly no way to institute a reform that to be successful requires the confidence and support of parents, students and teachers. If you don’t like this, let the Board and Supt Dan Nerad know (board@madison.k12.wi.us; dnerad@madison.k12.wi.us).
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I support much of the reform package and believe in the sincerity of the motives of those behind it.
Gayle Worland Matthew DeFour in the Wisconsin Sate Journal has the story, there is a new timeline pushing implementation back to 2012-13, an extended input process, some backgorund, a more detailed rational and much more for the proposed Madison Metropolitan School District High School Curricular Reforms (now apparently officially dubbed Career and College Readiness).
The new document only indirectly presents the Dual Pathways proposal (Executive Summary here), but does refer to the initial roll-out as “difficult. It does assert (in boldface type):
Our Theory of Action, process and end goals have not changed, but how we articulate this work has become more explicit, transparent and responsive.
I don’t know how to read this. Obviously the process has changed (if nothing else it is longer). It is hard to know what to make of the idea that what went wrong was not the process, but that they didn’t “articulate” things in a manner that was sufficiently “explicit, transparent and responsive.” I understand the explicit, but if transparency and responsiveness are confined to articulation, I think they’ve missed the point and are stuck in the top-down mentality that is a death sentence for any education reform.
Here is the “Theory of Action” (from the Executive Summary):
As indicated elsewhere in the new document, it appears that he ACT standards (and the EPAS), tthe AP requirements and the Common Core Standards will remain at the center of the reforms. There are a lot of “if/thens” in this, some of which I buy and some of which are difficult to accept. I’d like to see these all of these assertions of causality examined, but apparently that is not part of the plan.
As to the goals, you can’t argue with increased achievement for all students.
Despite my parsing here, I think there is much that is good here. The rationale (with data) is necessary (I’d like to see data going back some years, but that may be just me). The next steps include a variety of committees of district and school staff and despite the defensive assertion that the process hasn’t changed, these committees appear to have real potential for shaping the result.
I don’t see any direct role parents and community members except through the Parent Council and “A specially created business and community council that will meet on a quarterly basis to provide feedback.” As I have noted before, the Parent Council is too large to be a functioning deliberative body and I’m guessing the “business and community council” will be similarly designed for one-way “articulation” not meaningful policy input (I’m not even going to get started on what is wrong with privileging “business” in this manner).
There are no committees or Councils for students with the Student Senate only mentioned in the context of the previously held forum. Lessons not learned.
Perhaps to take care of this, the district has set up a feedback page. Use it, to offer your thoughts.
It also needs to be noted that none of this — not the Dual Pathways, not the new timeline and process — has ever appeared on a Board of Education agenda. Either the Board is out-of the-loop or the basic principles of open governance have been forgotten.
Here is the new timeline:
2010-2011 Including Summer: Planning Year
District-wide K-12 curricular alignment process to occur with the following results:
Established k-12 scope and sequence in all four core content areas.
Essential Understandings, knowledge and skills established K-12.
High School curricular alignment completed in all four core content areas with established course offerings, sequences and essential understandings, knowledge and skills.
Establish initial offerings for consistent accelerated courses to be offered 2011-12.
Establish scaffolds and supports to be provided district-wide.
Plan for Professional Development implementation developed for implementation 2011-12.Implement the EPAS EXPLORE Assessment with all 8th and 9th grade students.
2011-12: Readiness for Implementation
Comprehensive budget aligned to the plan and recommended for approval, November 2011.
Comprehensive professional development plan implemented for staff across all four comprehensive high schools to fully implement recommendations set forth by district committees from 2010-11.
Implement initial accelerated offerings across all four comprehensive high schools.
Finalize course offerings and descriptions for including in 2012-13 course catalogs.
Implement the EPAS EXPLORE and PLAN Assessment with all 8th, 9th and 10th grade students.
2012-13: Implementation
Implement consistent course offerings in all four core content areas with options for both acceleration and scaffolding and supports.
I’m going to close by pasting something I put near the top of my first post on this:
Before I delve into the mess and the proposal, I think it is important to say that despite huge and inexcusable problems with the process, many unanswered questions and some real things of concern; there are some good things in the proposal. One part near the heart of the plan in particular is something I’ve been pushing for years: open access to advanced classes and programs with supports. In the language of the proposal:
Pathways open to all students. Students are originally identified by Advanced Placement requirements and other suggested guidelines such as EXPLORE /PLAN scores, GPA, past MS/HS performance and MS/HS Recommendation. however, all students would be able to enroll. Students not meeting suggested guidelines but wanting to enroll would receive additional supports (tutoring, skill development classes, AVID, etc.) to ensure success. (emphasis added and I would like to see it added in the implementation).
Right now there are great and at times irrational barriers in place. These need to go. I hope this does not get lost as the mess is cleaned up.
I still think those basic ideas of removing barriers of access and providing sufficient supports are essential. I fully support the extended process, more openness and responsiveness throughout the process, but would like to see those barriers come down and supports go up as soon as possible. There is no reason to wait another year on this portion.
Note: For awhile, I’m going to be illustrating the “On the Agenda” posts with various graphs documenting achievement gaps in MMSD as revealed by the admittedly flawed and limited WSAS/WKCE results. I think regular reminders may do some good.
A busy week for the Madison Metropolitan School District, with the biggest item being the finalization of the 2010-11 budget and tax levy. This is somewhat anti-climactic, with most of the action coming in the Spring and only relatively minor changes now on the table.
The budget will be voted on at the 5:00 PM Monday meeting (Doyle auditorium). I’ll be at work at that time, but there will be public appearances and it would be good to give one more reminder that people in Madison support public education and are willing to support it via increased property tax levies when the state doesn’t do its part. Speak now or forever hold your peace. More on the changes below.
On Tuesday at Noon in Doyle rm 103, the Ad Hoc Hiring and Diversity Committee meets. Other MMSD meetings for the week are: MMSD Wellness Committee (Tuesday, 3:00 PM, Doyle rm 103); Common Council/Board of Education Liaison Committee (Tuesday, 5:30 PM, Doyle rm 103); and the Madison School & Community Recreation (MSCR) Advisory Committee (Tuesday, 6:30 PM, MSCR/Hoyt building, rm 21). Agendas for all of the above are here.
The short version of the budget story is that MMSD will levy about $10 million less then they allowed for educational programs, at best limiting the improvements to education in Madison; at worst harming the educational opportunities of our children (there is also about $2 million in Fund 80 “underlevy). The slightly longer version is that the Board — like Boards around the state — caught between a state budget that cut educational investments and property taxpayers who are struggling sought a happy medium between cuts and tax levies (helped by some real savings due to efficiencies), nobody ended up happy. The way to start changing this story and get to a happier ending is Penny for Kids.
Many of these changes are related to (slightly) higher than (and still inadequate) state aid. This also resulted in some recommendations for “add backs” from the administration. An interesting list (and note half is designated for tax relief):
There is also an update on ARRA funds, that if I read it correctly says that 59.92% of this money (over $7 million) has not been allocated to any project! The clock is ticking…I’m not sure why this money is not being used. More on ARRA things in the Operations Support Committee Report.
That’s about it for the budget. I’m only going to highlight a limited number of things from the regular meeting that follows.
Some info on Leadership, Teacher, Parent and Staff Councils (no membership lists). I don’t know about the rest, but with one parent from every school (selected by the Principal, so you’ll be sure to get those with “issues”) the Parent Council is so large that it is unwieldy.
On the consent agenda is a donation of $28,510 from the Reading Recovery Council of North America to support tuition, texts and travel for teacher training.
Just a once over lightly this week. Maybe some follow ups later.
While debates over purposes and programs in education continue unabated, a conservationist perspective can help citizens to be more deliberate about what to preserve and what to change in their schools. It will not be easy. The work of the educational conservationist, like that of the defender of wild animals, is a challenging one. It takes energy and smarts and political savvy to preserve Mongolian gazelles or good schools.
Juggling the varied democratic, meritocratic, and practical purposes embedded in high schools along with intense parental aspirations for their children — all within the framework of the comprehensive high school — has produced severe strains among reformers and confusion among parents, especially since World War II. Writers have often reduced these conflicting purposes to labels of “conservative” and “progressive.” While what happens in schools is far more complex and nuanced than these labels allow, these words appeared constantly in public discussions of school reform among policy makers, media, and elected officials.
Larry Cuban ” High School Reform Again, Again, and Again: Some History Lessons” part 1, part 2, part 3.
Some deep background from two of my favorite historians of education. Note that the “Multiple Pathways” reform mentioned in part 3 of Cuban’s post is not the same as the Dual Pathways proposal under consideration in the Madison Metropolitan School District, but shares some inspirations and characteristics.
Pathways seem to be the word of the moment. I found some other “Pathway” papers at the Association for Career and Technical Education site (it isn’t clear how many of these fit under the Multiple Pathways umbrella). These, and many of the other things I read in preparing this post remind me that — at least rhetorically — the Dual Pathways proposal is about preparing all students for college. While that may be a noble goal and “life long education” is a must, I think this bias toward college is unrealistic and shortchanges some very capable students whose talents and inclinations lead them down other “pathways” (the Multiple Pathways approach addresses the needs of these students).
All reports – in the media and personal — are that the sit-in at West today was very positive. I was unable to attend, but am glad that students are demonstrating their concerns and getting some attention. [I just got a robo call about our son being absent t tale part in the sit-in…OK]
The plan presented this week is not the Board’s plan. We received the plan the same day the teachers received the plan. The plan was developed by Administration, which is how something like this works. The plan is scheduled to be reviewed by the Board on November 1. This is a review meeting, not a voting meeting. Final review/vote by the Board is scheduled for late November. Now the Board should be reviewing the plan, asking questions and talking/listening to constituents, like students. All feedback is good (if respectful). At the meeting where the Board votes, we can approve/reject the plan as is, modify the plan or approve/reject parts of the plan. We still have a lot of questions and information-collecting to do. Keep your feedback coming as it does help us to understand how this plan would affect each of you. Questions/comments: board@madison.k12.wi.us.
This is a tight time-line, especially for the Student Senate meeting. To expect anyone, especially busy students to have considered input based on minimal information this quickly it asking a lot.
With that in mind, I want to offer some more background things (lots linked in this post, some repeats).
I’m having a lot of concerns about the emphasis on standards. As noted before, we are stuck with the Common Core Standards and adding the ACT College Readiness Standards (click the links to read more — we are adding many things from the ACT and will be writing big checks for the privilege). I don’t like standards-based reform much.
And also these quotes from Deborah Meier elsewhere seem applicable:
If we agreed all the time on most things, we’d never need democracy. But if I want schools that encourage disagreement, it follows that I, too, must compromise. E.g. If I want schools to include the same mix of kids that make up our body politic, then that imposes on someone else’s ideal of public education. If, as Juan Gonzalez argued, schools are the backbone of communities, then neighborhood schools need to be preserved! Ditto for tracking by ability. Can we outlaw schools for “the gifted” to preserve heterogeneity? Can everyone have what is best for themselves while still having the best for the common good?
….
Warts and all. “Smartness” of the kind we seem lately to revere—the kind that gets you into the Ivy League—is not the purpose of the public’s support for public education. Imagine if our standards were set, not on Harvard, but on our concern for the common good?
I fear that by allowing the ACT to define “College Readiness” and then buying products from the ACT to prepare students to take tests from the ACT to demonstrate that readiness, we lose sight of that common good.
An old blog post from “HC English Teachers” that in a positive manner describes the Hersey High reforms — a model for what MMSD is doing – from an outsider perspective is also interesting. I keep going back to the fact that Hersey is a 7% or 8% poverty school and West is 35%. This reminded me of the differences and the conditions for successful reform:
There was a perfect storm that allowed CV to put the program into place… intra-district rivalries, falling ACT scores, an activist superintendent, a principal who was looking for answers. None of those things exist here.
I think there are even more conditions needed, but fear that many are lacking (or under developed) in Madison.
What is lacking most is a desire for change and confidence that change will bring real improvements. I’ll add that some of this lack of desire is based on a lack of acknowledgment that West is failing many students. It doesn’t help there was no mention of achievement gaps in the first document (there is in the second). Here is one graphic of a gap at West.
It is also based on a denial that the most advanced classes at West are segregated in many ways. I think it is worth noting that only 18 African American students, representing 31% of African American 12th graders, took the ACT last year. I don’t want to give up the inclusiveness of the 9th and 10th grade core classes (and am not sure there is need to), but some change is called for to address persistent gaps and segregation at the highest levels.
I’ve kind of morphed into the subject of grouping. I’m going to be lazy and share two things from the Equity Task Force (1 & 2). The first in a chapter by Adam Gamoran and the second is a statement from the National School Psychologists. In the intro to the first for the Task Force I wrote:
At the crudest level it is about equity because it is about resource allocations. Choosing among approaches (or pursuing multiple approaches) will mean dedicating staff, curricular materials, facilities, training and other resources in a manner that will make these unavailable for other uses. We all understand this. Looking at our working definition of equity I see other ways that equity is in play. I don’t have the exact language but my memory is that the three key components are access and opportunity, educational excellence for all, and social responsibility. On access and opportunity the research is clear that without open enrollments, recruitment of historically underserved populations and structures of support, any ability grouping will result in racial, economic and other segregation. Even in heterogeneous classrooms using differentiated instruction, an approach that many believe provides wider opportunity and access to advanced instruction, special efforts are often needed to make sure that minorities and others are not overlooked.
Whatever direction we go in, a statement on this should be considered (sorry, that was my position and I am trying to make this as objective as I can). The real conflicts are about a perceived tension between excellence and social justice. Some of this is due to differing ideas about the definitions of both educational excellence and the social mission of public education. I could go on about each of these for pages, but I will try to be brief. The research about which approaches produce which academic results for which students are far from conclusive (see the Gamoran). What muddies the water further is that some believe that excellence is achieved by getting the most students scoring in the highest range, some look to get the fewest students scoring in the lowest range, some look to have the highest scoring students scoring higher and higher…. All of these and more are legitimate definitions and noble goals.
The research seems to indicate that an approach that absolutely maximizes one of these will be less than optimal according to other definitions. Note the words maximum and less than optimal. It isn’t that the various approaches necessarily have a negative effect on one metric or another, it is that that one approach might do better according to one measure and another according to a different measure. There are choices to be made.
Here is where the social justice issues can come into play. For many a diverse classroom intrinsically has a nonacademic but none-the-less educational benefit for all students. Beyond this, the choices (if you accept that it is impossible for a single approach to maximize excellence across the range of definitions) are choices about the academic component of the social mission of the schools. Is the social mission best fulfilled by catering to the extreme high achievers? Is the most important social mission to lift students from the bottom to the middle; from the middle to the top…? I think we can do very well on all these measures; I don’t think anyone believes we can maximize them all simultaneously. I hope this has helped you see and grapple with the choices we face.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot this week and a phrase keeps popping into my head. Let me close with this, the motto or ideal of the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs (circa 1890): “Lifting as We Climb.”
There are choices to be made and the last thing I want to say is about the choices.
The students, the parents, the teachers, The Board of Education and a surprising variety of people who have been contacting me are all looking for more information. This is great; informed decisions are the right way to go.
As of now we have two choices — the status quo and the Dual Pathways draft — and there has been very little information about the latter offered, some rose-tinted glasses views of the former and nothing about the possibilities of something in-between. Among the information that is needed is a clear understanding of a variety of options and what these options will mean in terms of budget, student schedules, potential benefits and acknowledged losses (including possibly some electives and the good things about English 9 & 10 and the Social Studies classes).
I know that’s a lot to ask, but I think it is possible and I think it is the way to move forward.
Before I delve into the mess and the proposal, I think it is important to say that despite huge and inexcusable problems with the process, many unanswered questions and some real things of concern; there are some good things in the proposal. One part near the heart of the plan in particular is something I’ve been pushing for years: open access to advanced classes and programs with supports. In the language of the proposal:
Pathways open to all students. Students are originally identified by Advanced Placement requirements and other suggested guidelines such as EXPLORE /PLAN scores, GPA, past MS/HS performance and MS/HS Recommendation. however, all students would be able to enroll. Students not meeting suggested guidelines but wanting to enroll would receive additional supports (tutoring, skill development classes, AVID, etc.) to ensure success. (emphasis added and I would like to see it added in the implementation).
Right now there are great and at times irrational barriers in place. These need to go. I hope this does not get lost as the mess is cleaned up.
This is in four sections: The Mess; What Next?; The Plan: Unanswered Questions and Causes for Concern; and Final Thought.
The Mess
The exact size and shape of the mess — like so much else with this — aren’t clear. You can gauge for yourself by visiting the Facebook pages “Save Our Future- Madison West High” and “Walk-Out Against MMSD High School Reform.” I heard reports that 200 or more students met at lunch yesterday and likely the number will be greater today. The fact that students care and want to do something is great. I’m sure that Administrators and Board Members have also heard from parents and teachers.
Then there is this video:
It is great to hear the passion and desire to be part of the process; it is sad to realize that they feel they have been shut out.
As far as I can tell the proximate cause of the student reaction at West was confused and incomplete information relayed by teachers. The ultimate cause is that this has been drafted and communicated in what seems to be a rushed and top-down manner.
Note the “seems to be.” Much of this has been in the works — at least indirectly — for a long time and there have been some opportunities for input and collaboration along the way (see the High School Initiatives presentation from earlier this year).
So while this doesn’t come out of nowhere, it has also been rushed out in a manner and form that leave much to be desired. Extensive changes of this sort need to be considered and revised in an open, inclusive, deliberate process. To do otherwise misses opportunities for improvement and creates distrust instead of buy-in from those most affected.
At least one Board Member is saying that “the proposed curricular changes are not related to the DPI complaint re. failure to comply with state law on TAG programming.” You can parse that statement carefully and maybe say it is true because things have been in the works prior to the TAG complaint, but it is equally true that the the timing and failed roll out were a reaction to the complaint. To deny or not acknowledge the relationship to the TAG complaint in how this was “finalized” and presented (not conceived) only exacerbates the distrust that is perhaps the biggest mess of all.
You don’t have to take my word on this being rushed and incomplete, just look at some of the early items in the plan that have dates attached: “Plan communicated to all stakeholders in September” with a variety of information to be compiled in September to support the communications. This communication didn’t happen in September and if the supporting information has been prepared, it has not been shared. If it has been prepared and not shared there is much more wrong here than a rushed time-line, there is a basic lack of understanding of communications principles.
There may also be a basic misunderstanding of policy formation principles at work. Part of that communication item for September reads:
Develop data-based rationale for reforming the MMSD high school curriculum providing both an accelerated pathway and a preparatory pathway.
I’m going to be nice and assume that the intent here was to say “Develop a presentation of the data-based rationale…,” because otherwise our self-styled “data -driven” district is making policies and then creating “data-based ratuonale(s)” after the fact. Let’s chalk this up to the rush job.
What Next ?
Hard to say what will come next. There may or may not be a protest walkout at West on Friday. There may or not be a crisis communication strategy from the administration [there is, see the update at the top]. There may or may not be an attempt to go beyond crisis communication and initiate a more open and extensive collaborative process (I’d like that).
The Board of Education will see this on an agenda in some form I have heard (not confirmed) that this will be the first week of November. What form isn’t clear. They may be asked to approve the proposal or they may may simply receive or reject a report. I hope it is the former.
I also want to note that how this comes before the Board matters not only in terms of democratic governance, but because the new Communication Plan protocols require certain things — such as equity and budget analyses — with some Administrative proposals. These are not part of the materials circulating.
My guess is that whatever happens in the coming weeks, at least part of the time-line is out-the-window. Supporting work will be ongoing, but I’d be surprised if the scheduled significant changes to Language Arts and Mathematics are fully implemented in 2011-12. I’ve been surprised before.
In the meantime, effective involvement is crucial. Let the Board know your concerns (board@madison.k12.wi.us). Let Superintendent Nerad know too (dnerad@madison.k12.wi.us). Before voicing an opinion, it is good to do some study and get your facts straight and concerns clear. Keep and eye on the Board agendas (and this space) to see when it comes up and in what form. At every juncture, ask for a chance to be part of the process. If asking doesn’t work, demand.
The Plan: Unanswered Questions and Causes for Concern
From reviewing the proposal itself, a read of postings elsewhere, conversations and emails — with and from students, teachers, parents, Board of Education Members and administrators — some issues have stood out as things that I believe need further attention. What I’m offering here isn’t comprehensive or thorough, but introductory.
Before proceeding I want to again emphasize that the commitment to open access with supports is a huge and positive step (and note that it may be possible that this could be accomplished without the radical changes being proposed).
Pathways, Tracking and Ability Grouping:
I have supported the inclusive model for English 9 & 10 and 9th & 1oth grade Social Studies. I have also thought that real embedded honors would have improved the model. Some of the positive aspects of this will be lost if the new proposal is implemented. There will be two “pathways” and this will almost certainly mean an increase in segregation by race, language and income. I don’t like this.
Despite this inclusive portion of the existing West program, you’d be a fool to believe that segregation and something like tracking aren’t already part of the West reality. I’ll go further and say that I sincerely doubt that in the foreseeable future these will be eliminated.
So the questions become ones about the extent and nature of the segregation or groupings.
Willis D. Hawley makes a useful distinction between tracking and “ability grouping” (read Pathways) based on student movement among the tracks (or programs) and warns that “Ability grouping often turns into tracking.” This, along with the demographics of the pathways would need close monitoring and if there is great segregation with little or no movement, actions should be taken to remedy.
The existence of “embedded honors in the Preparatory Pathway is supposed to facilitate movement. I have serious doubts about that.
Doubts based in part on the fact that the access to the Accelerated Pathway is supposed to be open. This also needs to be monitored and special attention needs to be paid to informal ways that students are discouraged from challenging themselves and the availability of appropriate supports for success.
In general I don’t like the wholesale adoption of any standards, whether from an advocacy group (like the Common Core or for that matter the NACG Standards incorporated in the TAG Plan) or from an organization like the ACT or the College Board (AP), with supporting things for sale (an issue with the Common Core too). MMSD – and other districts — should pick, chose and adapt what is appropriate for local circumstances.
Advanced Placement is a little different. There are real concerns about a “cookie cutter” approach stifling creativity and breadth in teaching and learning. These and other issues have led some districts — including Scarsdale, NY — to abandon AP. There is a growing consensus that the rapid expansion of AP is problematic (for balance see here). Was any of this part of drafting of this plan?
In defense of expanded AP, it does provide an external measure of achievement and it does give students a head start on college. Like so much else, some good and some not so good.
Trade Offs: Electives, Budget and Schedules:
Because of budget and schedule constraints this proposal cannot be implemented without other things being cut. You can’t add support services without either increasing expenditures or eliminating something else. Teachers and students only have time for so many classes, if they are taking new AP classes, they won’t be taking existing offerings. So far there has been no clear statement of what these other things might be.
The rumors were that electives in some form were due to be cut. I have this response from a senior administrator:
This is not true. We are adding Advanced Placement courses in the four content areas. They will be open access courses and may be taken or an elective may be taken. For example Advanced Placement offers only two English courses. We require 4 years of English. This leaves room for elective choices
How much room, both in terms of budget and schedules remains to be seen. I think it is clear that many favored electives will be retained.
I’m not going to give my full Wisconsin and MMSD school funding rap, but I will ask those new to this to visit Penny for Kids, sign the petition, share it with friends, join the Facebook group…get involved.
Where Did This Come From?
As noted above, this has been in the works as part of a series of High School Initiatives. The immediate model for much of it is Hersey High School in Arlington Heights Illinois. Arlington Heights is not Madison and Hersey is not West. One statistic stands out — Hersey has a poverty rate of 7% or 8%, West’s is 35%. A quick review of the Evaluation and Policy Research page at Hersey shows that while the concerns and issues overlap, they are also very different. The review also showed some very questionable choices in what data is presented and how it is presented. Maybe more on this later.
Final Thought:
At the top, I called this mess inexcusable. I see this as a failure of leadership. Couldn’t they anticipate this reaction? Didn’t they read Susan Troller’s “branding” piece? Don’t they now that successful reform requires buy-in? This looks rushed and reactive, not considered and confident. I know lots of very good work has gone into this, but that work is in danger of being lost due to some key failures.
With this in mind, I renew my call for the evaluation of Superintendent Dan Nerad to be made public. Part of restoring confidence has to be sharing with the public what the Board of Education thinks is is going well and what the Board thinks could use improvement. I know at this moment many in the West community have some definite ideas about these matters (positive and negative…I see successes as well as failures).
The initial data on third Friday student counts are out and the numbers for MMSD look good. MMSD is up 378 students, or about 150 more than projections.
This is good news, in that it shows that fears about MMSD driving students and families away are unfounded. The chart above illustrates that MMSD’s gains as a percentage of enrollment of 1.51% were above the average for Dane County districts. The full data is here.
In the past, this would have been very good news, because revenue limits are based on enrollment and more students would mean more money. Since MMSD was planning on levying about $16 million under the limit, it only means we will be even further under the cap.
I haven’t been able to find more detailed breakdowns by school, race. income… I look forward to looking at this data to see the trends. I want to make clear that whatever the trends are it is wrong to think of some demographics as more desirable than others. Once districts, schools or teachers start thinking or talking or acting in this manner, they are betraying the basic promise of public education to move toward equality through opportunity.
Members of the Senate Education Committee
AMPS 
