Category Archives: Uncategorized

by | June 24, 2010 · 3:14 pm

State Superintendent Tony Evers’ Framework for School Funding Reform

Wisconsin State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers has released a “framework for school funding reform” called “Fair Funding for Our Future” (press release here, DPI page here).  I’m glad that Evers is showing some leadership and it looks like it may be a good framework, but with so few details it is hard to tell.

The one thing I like best is the stated goal of   “a fresh look at school funding and to ensure[ing]that candidates for elected office address school finance in real and substantial terms in their campaigns this fall.”  Evers clearly understands the need for reform and that if legislators and the Gubernatorial candidates don’t make commitments during their campaigns there is no chance that they will take positive action once in office (he probably also understands that even with campaign commitments  there is no guarantee).

The lack of detail works fine for this purpose (lots of detail would work too).  Still, I do think it is worth spending a little time looking at what is and isn’t there and how filling in the specifics could move this in good and bad directions.

Here are the bullet points (there is very little but bullet points):

Creates a Fair and Sustainable School Funding System that:

  • Prioritizes funding for ALL students.
    Provide a minimum level of state aid for every student in Wisconsin, regardless of where they live.
  • Accounts for family income and poverty.
    Use student poverty – not just property value – as a factor in a portion of state aid to schools.
  • Provides predictable growth in state support for schools.
    Increase state school aids and local revenue limits by a predictable percentage each year.
  • Supports rural schools.
    Expand sparsity aid and transportation funding.

Brings Transparency and Accountability for Results to School Funding by:

  • Ensuring state education dollars are spent educating children.
    Allocate the nearly $900 million School Levy Tax Credit into general school aids – a move that does not increase net property taxes statewide, but ensures that significant state financial assistance goes to kids and classrooms.
  • Investing in innovation and programs that show results.
    Consolidate and target categorical aids in ways that encourage innovation and focus on increasing student achievement, turning around struggling schools, and improving graduation outcomes.
  • Protecting Wisconsin students and taxpayers.
    Ensure that no school district faces a drastic reduction in state school aid in any given year.

Before looking at these each in turn it is important to remember that all these moving parts interact and that this is especially important if the total investments are not increased or are increased only minimally.  If the same sized pie is being sliced differently there will likely be winners and losers.    The levy credit move kind of increases the state’s contribution to the pie (or at least moves the state’s contribution from tax relief to education) but doesn’t increase the size of the total funding pie.

Prioritizes funding for ALL students.
Provide a minimum level of state aid for every student in Wisconsin, regardless of where they live.

The first sounds good but is pretty meaningless; the second really depends on what the minimum is.  Under the current system there is a $1,000 per pupil  minimum called Primary Equalization aid.

Accounts for family income and poverty.
Use student poverty – not just property value – as a factor in a portion of state aid to schools.

This could be a big change, depending on the weights given to income and property wealth and depending on whether “family income” for the district as a whole is used or “student poverty” is the measure.  [ Added 8:50 AM, 6-25-10:  From the press conference reports it is clear that student poverty would be used.  I’m keeping the discussion of using district income because it helps illustrate the complexity of assessing changes to the system] Madison is a high property wealth, high income district with high student poverty.  Last session there was  proposed legislation to move to a solely district income based equalization formula, which  according to this LFB analysis would have resulted in an over  60% 68% loss in aid for MMSD.  In contrast, one based on on student poverty should help MMSD significantly (I haven’t seen anyone run the numbers).

Just a little background on this.  For years the big push to incorporate income in equalization has come from high property wealth districts with many vacation homes but relatively low incomes among year round residents (sometimes called the Lake Districts).  Others, including the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and the School Finance Network have concentrated more on including student poverty either in a foundation formula or as a categorical aid.    Further complicating things is the possibility that in some of the Lake Districts, the relatively low incomes might not translate fully into high student poverty as measured by free and reduced lunch counts (and the under-counting of poverty by that measure, especially with secondary students,  is always a factor too).   Many moving parts.

Provides predictable growth in state support for schools.
Increase state school aids and local revenue limits by a predictable percentage each year.

Predictable is good.  But like the 2/3 state funding commitment (however calculated — see the levy credit stuff below), what the legislature  gives, the legislature can take away.

I’m also intrigued by the “predictable percentage each year” phrasing.  Any growth based on income measures, educational costs, cost-of-living…wouldn’t be predictable.  This instead sounds like a call for a guaranteed minimum percent.  If that’s the case, what the percent is and how it relates to costs are the big questions.

Supports rural schools.
Expand sparsity aid and transportation funding.

As a superintendent I know in a struggling, small rural district has been quoting lately “show me the money.”  Inadequate sparsity aid (such as that in place the last few years) only relives a little pressure.  Without some real fixes we will see districts dissolve in the next couple of years.  Taken as a whole, the reforms Evers proposes may stop that from happening, or they may not (too few details, too many moving parts to tell).  I hope they do.

Ensuring state education dollars are spent educating children.
Allocate the nearly $900 million School Levy Tax Credit into general school aids – a move that does not increase net property taxes statewide, but ensures that significant state financial assistance goes to kids and classrooms.

For background on this read Professor Andrew Reschovky’s important paper, “A Critical Review of Property Tax Relief in Wisconsin: The School Levy Credit and the First Dollar Credit.”

If you read the press release or look at the charts posted by DPI (such as the one below), this appears to the centerpiece of the Framework.

Note the steep increase in the last two state budgets.  As I’ve said before, this gives lie to the assertions by state lawmakers that it is difficult to change the school funding system; these represent significant changes and were easily accomplished.  Few people noticed (Evers was pretty much silent on this and other school funding matters during the  last budget period).

This was so far off the radar that even districts like Madison that benefited from the change did not include the benefits in their budget discussions or explanations (I tried to get them to and if they had figured in the recent credits of about 1.5% for most taxpayers, this may have given them the courage to not under-levy so extremely).

As policy it is kind of  a no-brainer that money called education aid should go to education and not tax relief, but that hasn’t been the case in Wisconsin because tax credits were counted as part of the 2/3 funding when that % was statutorily required and continue to be counted as such in most calculations (including the maintenance of effort calculations in the ARRA and Race to the Top  paperwork it is worth noting).  So I like the policy change of using “education funding” to fund education.

It is also a no-brainer that state education tax relief should not be skewed to the most wealthy districts or individuals.  This is what the levy credit did.

How this money should be distributed is more complicated.

A good case can be made to reallocate to an expanded Homestead Credit and stop calling it education aid.  I’m not going to make that case here, but it is worth thinking about.

Evers is committed to using this as part of a revamped equalization formula.  I think this is in part because it looks like “free money,” in that it allows him to ask to put more state money into schools without asking for new revenue sources via tax reform or something like Penny for Kids. It is worth noting that with many districts under-levying (like Madison) what looks like a lot more money statewide might not end up being that much more money locally (or any more money at all) if when the impact of losing the tax credits is understood districts react by passing levies well below the authorized amount.  A couple of people also pointed out to me that in districts with higher property wealth (and maybe others) this will make passing referenda harder.

[Added 5:15 PM, 6-24-10] Note that Evers’ plan says  no “net” increase in property taxes.  Higher value property owners and higher value districts will see increases or at least the districts will see levy authority to increase if they choose.  Lower value owners and districts will see decreases.   What this does is increase the Robin Hood factor of equalization.  Good in theory, but the primary, secondary and tertiary aid formulas as they now exist (also in theory) take into account some level tax relief via credits.  The formulas also assume something like 2/3 state funding, so maybe none of this matters because they have essentially been junked anyway).  Whatever matters or doesn’t in theory, this change if done in isolation would necessitate sizable property tax increases in Madison (in 2008-9 the levy credits totaled $1,636 per student for Madison, some of this would be offset by the increase in the equalization pool and one would hope a student poverty factor).

How this and everything else plays out depend on all the pieces and how they fit together.  The biggest piece here is the incorporation of some poverty measure in the equalization calculations.

Investing in innovation and programs that show results.
Consolidate and target categorical aids in ways that encourage innovation and focus on increasing student achievement, turning around struggling schools, and improving graduation outcomes.

Buzz, buzz, buzz.  Buzzwords.  All good, but what these innovations are and how results are assessed matter.

On categorical aids, I’m a bit confused by the desire to consolidate and the related decision to push for poverty as a factor in equalization instead of as a new categorical.  I can appreciate the desire to streamline and simplify, but unless you go to a Foundation plan the Wisconsin school funding system will remain a Rube Goldberg machine.

I prefer a Foundation plan, but if that isn’t going to happen, I think more and better categoricals are the best way to get resources where they are most needed and will do the most good.  I get skeptical about proposals that are based the idea that you can better target by using fewer tools to aim.

Protecting Wisconsin students and taxpayers.
Ensure that no school district faces a drastic reduction in state school aid in any given year.

Sounds good, but again depends on what “drastic” means.  Right now the figure is a 15% cut (btw see Ed Hughes’ post today on why that 15% cap on cuts is important when funding is decreasing).  Obviously there has to be some “hold harmless” for any reform proposal to be viable.  Others I’ve seen are literally “hold harmless,” it worries me that even as a Framework this one is “hold from drastic harm.”

Maybe I worry too much.  As more details are put forward we’ll find out if I’m being chicken little.   I hope I am.  I hope that this all fits together in a way that puts our state back on track.  I know that is what Superintendent Evers wants too.  I certainly share and support that desire and appreciate his efforts.

Some links:

Wisconsin State Journal Story

School Finance Network reaction.

Tom Barrett, Scott Walker, and Mark Neumann responses.

Thomas J. Mertz


2 Comments

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

by | June 21, 2010 · 10:57 am

On the Agenda — MMSD Board of Education, Week of June 20, 2010

Note: For a while, 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. Note also that despite recent progress, 32 point gap remains between children in poverty and those more economically secure.

A busy and important week for the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education (all meetings listed here, the only agenda document posted).

The important meeting is tonight’s (June 21).  This has been called a “retreat” and an organizational meeting. Apparently this calls for a change of venue; they will be meeting at 5:00 PM, Lowell Center, 610 Langdon Street, Room 118.  Among other things, this almost certainly means that meeting will not e carried by MMSD-TV.  There are  no public appearances.

Four items on the agenda and no linked documents in the original.

1. Presentation on Parliamentary Procedure

2. Goal-setting workshop surrounding best practices on the work of effective school boards, establishing MMSD-specific goals and mutual expectations to guide the processes by which the School Board accomplishes its work; and identifying specific areas of focus and priorities for the work of the School Board in 2010-2011.

3. Draft Board Ethics Policies (draft revisions to Board Policies 1540 and 9000)

4. Next Steps for Future Board Development Meetings and Topics

What this is all about is what the Board wants to do in the next year and how they intend to go about doing it.  I’ve heard rumors a Five Year Budget project (with a Committee of Board members being formed), a Committee Restructuring, desires to reform the annual Budget Process (Yeah!), and Ethics policies designed limit conflict in public meetings.

I really hate that matters of such import will discussed and perhaps decided without any direct input from the public.  Maybe,  just maybe “stakeholders” would have something to contribute to setting the goals for the Board and the district and maybe interested citizens might have some ideas about how things could be better accomplished.   When things are done in this manner it is hard to take seriously the Board and district’s expressed desires for community engagement.

Other meetings This week:

Tuesday, June 22 MMSD Building Services, 4711 Pflaum Road, Large Conference Room
1:00 p.m.
Collective Bargaining – Exchange of Proposals
Initial exchange of proposals and supporting rationale for such proposals in regard to collective bargaining negotiations regarding the Local 60-Custodial Collective Bargaining Unit, held as a public meeting pursuant to Wis. Stat. §111.70(4)(cm).

Wednesday, June 23, Doyle Administration Bldg.,545 W. Dayton St., Room 103
5:00 p.m.
Special Board of Education Meeting (agenda items 1 and 2 in Open Session)
1. Approval of Minutes dated June 7, 2010
2. Proposed contracts between Google, Inc. and MMSD for the provision of “Google Apps” education edition, including but not limited to “Google Docs” and “Gmail” electronic mail system functionality and services, and for the provision of email archiving functionality and services
Special Board of Education Meeting Continued in Closed Session
3. Review of and Receipt of Advice from Counsel regarding Disciplinary Proceedings and Decisions involving Individual Students, Including a Request for Reconsideration of a School Board Disciplinary Order, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§19.85(1)(a), (f), and (g); and 118.125 and/or
120.13(1)(e)
4. Employment Matter (the closed session agenda items noticed under this heading shall be begin and be taken up by the Board no earlier than 6 p.m.):

a.Consideration of proposals, if any, to resolve a pending personnel matter involving the contract of an individual employee within a bargaining unit, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 19.82(1) and 19.85(1)(c)
b.  A private conference concerning the renewal or nonrenewal of a teaching contract, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 19.85(1)(b) and (c); 19.82(1); and 118.22(3)

c. Deliberations and determination of action to be taken with respect to the renewal or nonrenewal of a teaching contract, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 19.85(1)(b) and (c); and 118.22(2)

5.  Adjournment or, if necessary, motion to continue the meeting in open session for the purpose specified under item 6, below.
Special Meeting of the Board of Education Continued in Open Session (if necessary) immediately following the conclusion of the closed session agenda
6. Determination of action to be taken with respect to the renewal or nonrenewal of a teaching contract.
7.Adjournment

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | June 13, 2010 · 9:18 pm

On the Agenda, MMSD Board of Education, Week of June 14, 2010

Note:  For a while, 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.

Last week was Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education Committee meetings; this week they meet as a full Board and (among other things) take votes on action items.  Prior to the open meeting there will be a closed session to discuss among other things a contract for Google apps (to replace district email with Gmail, this is also on the open meeting agenda with  a price tag, so I don’t know why it is part of  the closed session), the Superintendent Salary (I thought that had been done in closed and open sessions as part of the Budget) and the negotiation strategy for the budgeted pay freeze for support employees.

The open meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:00 PM, in the Doyle Building Auditorium.  It will be carried by MMSD-TV.

Most of the agenda items were before the Committees last week (video here).  I attended most, but not all of that meeting and rather than repeat what I wrote in the preview of that meeting will be just adding a few things.

The meeting kicks off with announcements and recognition of awards and service (full agenda here).  These include the recognition of Sarah Maslin at the end of her service and the installation of new Student Rep.  Wyatt Jackson.

The first policy item is dealing with the SAGE reconfiguration (an unposted document with more info can be found here) necessitated by recent legislation eliminating the waivers for SAGE Block (small classes for math and literacy only).  As I noted before, this has budget implications and should have been done as part of the budget process.  Because of time constraints, this was not discussed last week.

The administration recommendation is to go to 18/1 class sizes in the current SAGE Block schools (Crestwood, Gompers, Huegel and Muir) and make SAGE in the other schools “flexible” with allocations ranging from 17/1 to 15/1.  The allocations used for the recently passed preliminary budget included allocations based on the first, despite the fact that this was never addressed directly in any of the budget documents or open budget meetings.

I’m not 100% clear what “flexible” will mean in practice, but my guess is that initial allocations will be made at 15/1 but instead of new classes being added when September student counts go to 16/1, they will be added only if they go above 17/1.

I don’t like the 18/1 and I don’t like the flexibility.  I’ll add that I don’t like the lack of any consideration of expanding SAGE at any ratio to the three 30%+ poverty schools that do not have it (as allowed under the same legislation that eliminated the waivers).

MMSD can’t plead poverty as a reason to raise class sizes, not  after they left $13.5 million on the table; I’d like to see anyone with a straight face say that this would be a “do no harm efficiency.”  Some great comments on this on the WEAC site, where the Union’s positive spin was rejected by teachers and others.  I hope MMSD also rejects the spin and the changes.

Changes to Internet Access and Student records policies are next.

Then the Superintendent will present a “Protocol for the Evaluation of MMSD Programs.”  This is a step in the right direction.   A couple of things I really like are the collaborative work on research questions and design up front, with extensive Board involvement and that there instead of a promise of quick answers and fixes there is no expectation of any significant changes being implemented till year four of a six year cycle.   If done correctly this could be meaningful, useful and not just an exercise in “See, we are using data” public relations.   I know the Research and Evaluation team would like to do this correctly, let’s hope they are given the resources (along with outside partners), corporations and freedom form political exigencies to do so.

Speaking of public relations, it looks like Supt. Dan Nerad may have enlisted spinmeister James Woods (of Wisconsin Way infamy) to raise money for and draft a communications and engagement plan.  No question that Woods is good at this kind of thing, he has been able to keep a straight face for years while telling the people of Wisconsin that the likes the Realtors, WEAC and the Road Builders are civic-minded,disinterested parties selflessly seeking to change the political culture of Wisconsin for the benefit of all state residents, all the while these same parties have continued to expend obscene amounts of money to advance their vested interests, continued to be the sources of the corruption the Wisconsin Way pretends to want to change.  Yeah, he’s good.

I’d stay as far away from him as possible.   I know PR is PR, but education needs trust, not spin; transparency, not manipulation; honesty above all.  Speaking of honesty, I don’t want to hear anyone say MMSD can’t afford to hire a communications consultant.  They left over $13 million on the table; it was a choice they made not one they were forced into.

The High School Initiatives Report from the Committee meeting is next.  The reports from the individual schools were very positive and inspiring.  Many, many good things going on and more in the works.  Collaboration was a big theme.   The one thing I like the most is the expansion of AVID and the methods used by AVID.  The high school versions of the achievement gap at the top won’t change until “rigor for all” with supports is in place and AVID offers much along those lines.

Student Code of Conduct and Expulsions revisions follow.  There is some new material here on the Code of Conduct, a comparison grid (distributed at the meeting last week) here and a new appendix on expulsions here.  Based on the discussion last week and the new materials much of the discussion will focus on whether bullying is adequately and correctly addressed in the Code of Conduct.   The expulsion plan is based on offering educational services and transition help for students in the expulsion process.

The Annual Strategic Plan Review is next.   This is worth a look, especially for the progress that has and has not been made.   I had some more comments last week.  I want to add that I like there being continued community involvement, but an annual meeting is pretty minimal.  In Green Bay, under Dan Nerad, for a long time after the plan had been approved, there were monthly “strategic plan “work sessions.”

Last week I raised some questions about the budgeted but unspent ARRA items in the Monthly Financial Statements (next on the agenda).  Asst. Supt Erik Kass provided some informal answers.  I did read correctly, there are around $5 million in approved ARRA projects form 2009-10 that have not been implemented, so the money has not “flowed through.’  There are about another $5 million in projects slated for 2010-11 (much of it designated as the second year of a a two year budget).  These look to be good projects and the district needs to get moving on them.  In answer to my other question, it appears that the ARRA things are considered like special grants and are therefore outside the budget process.  I don’t like that and think you could make a very good case that it is a violation of the state statutes governing the budget.  I’m not going to push that case — all this was done in public I don’t think it is worth fighting that fight — but when the budget process spends time on things like food for receptions, I believe these substantial funds and significant initiatives should be included in the discussion.

Lots of bills, contracts, RFPs and the like come next.  Some are consent items, some aren’t.

There is also a revised Human Resources report.  I didn’t take the time identify the revisions.   I think I forgot to note previously that this confirms John Harper as permanent head of Education Services.  The recommendations for administrative non-renewals for Career and Tech Ed Coordinator, Asst. Director of Equity and Parent Involvement, Expulsions and Truancy Coordinator, Library Media Services Coordinator, Fine Arts Coordinator,  Public Communication Director and Legislative Liaison remain.  The budget-related pay freeze is also listed.  In a related matter, a one month extension of departing General Legal Counsel Dan Malin’s employment is recommended, because there is no replacement in place.

I started looking for job ads related to all this.  The General Legal Counsel is here (with a May 31 deadline), the Equity Director is here, Director of Building Services is here, I couldn’t find the new Chief Learning Officer posted (I hope that means that the search is well along), but I did see that the Talented and Gifted Coordinator search has been reopened.

Reports for the Student Senate and Common Council/Board come next.

Next up is the Legislative Liaison on stalled Education Jobs Act (which President Obama gave a belated push to this weekend).  To get involved in the effort, join the Speak Up for Education and Kids Facebook group and current education related Wisconsin legislative studies. I guess our elected officials have to look busy while they ignore the funding crisis they created and proposed remedies like Penny for Kids.

The Google thing/switch to Gmail is last

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, education, Local News, Pennies for Kids, School Finance, Uncategorized

by | June 7, 2010 · 3:38 pm

On the Agenda, MMSD Board of Education the Week of June 7, 2010

The 2010-11 budget is mostly finished and the work of governing the schools begins again.  I have a couple of “in the works”  posts on budget things that may never get posted.   The short version is the process is in great need of reform and that when you don’t use over $13 million  of the revenue authority authorized by the state and voters many, many things get much harder (and I can’t think of one thing that gets easier).  The old Pogo phrase “We have met the enemy and he is us” keeps going through my head.  Leaving the budget stuff with  a big thank you to all who testified or contacted the Board.

On to this week’s Board of Education Committee meetings.  They commence at 5:00 PM, Doyle Administration Bldg, Room 103 and should be carried by MMSD-TV.

Student Achievement and Performance Monitoring Committee is first.  After Public Appearances comes a report on High School Initiatives including,

1. Individual Relationships/Engagement/Learning (REaL) School Action Plans for 2009-10
2. REaL District Action for 2009-10
3. American College Testing (ACT) Educational Planning and Assessment (EPAS) Overview and Implementation Plan
4. Advancement Via Individualized Determination (AVID) Overview
5. Individual Learning Plan (ILP) Overview and Implementation Plan

There is so much in the REaL plans that it is hard to grasp and I would think hard to evaluate what works and what doesn’t.  On the ACT, I’m just glad to see something other than the WKCE prominent in the mix.  AVID is  a great program in the Rigor for All, with supports mode.   In theory, I like the Individual Learning Plans, but I’m skeptical about how much individualization can happen when Counselor case loads are so high (300, if I remember correctly).  I fear that this will end up being current practices repackaged and not much of a change.

Student Code of Conduct and Expulsion Process reforms are next.  These are being presented as a greater alignment with Positive Behavior Support principles.  The current Code is here; Expulsions and Suspensions here.  You can compare for yourself.  A proposal to eliminate the Expulsion Navigator position was floated during the budget process.  The administration advised that the $83,000 budget line was needed for the proposed reforms.  The cost of the new expulsion process is $183,732.  This means that one week after the budget vote, there is a request for an amending vote.    There has to be a better way to do budget things.

SAGE options are next.  This is another item that has a potential big budget impact and should have been dealt with as part of the big budget song and dance.   To review, legislation was passed last session allowing SAGE class sizes to increase from 15/1 to 18/1, allowing for unlimited new SAGE contracts in  30%+ poverty schools and eliminating waivers that had been given.  MMSD has/had four schools where there were waivers for SAGE Block (small class sizes in Math and Literacy only).  I believe these waivers were unique and a remnant from when MMSD had extensive locally funded class size reductions.

SAGE block requires less general operating funding than 18/1 and much less than 15/1.  This means that all the options — except increasing class sizes — will cost more.   With no public discussion, the SAGE Block classrooms were allocated at 18/1 in the budget just passed.  No discussion.

The administration is recommending that the current SAGE Block schools go to 18/1 (really an accomplished fact, requiring 5 votes to change)  and that the current full SAGE 15/1 schools be allocated with “flexibility” between 15/1 and 17/1.  It isn’t clear if that was also part of the allocation assumptions in the budget just passed.  There are figures, but no discussion concerning expanding SAGE at any allocation level to those 30%+ schools currently allocated between 22/1 and 26/1.  These figures do not include current allocations.  A document sent to the Board earlier this year has a little more.

Class size has consistently been something community members care about.  maybe that’s why they are doing this after the budget-related public attention has waned.

Internet Access, Student Records and Evaluation of Learning Materials are also on the agenda.

Operational Support is next.

The Monthly Financial Statements (first on the agenda) again include millions of dollars in ARRA projects where the “budgeted” money has not been spent.  I’m not clear if the ARRA money is being treated as “outside the budget” or if it buried in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 budgets.   It is bad policy and probably illegal to not include it as part of the regular budget.  I hope that’s not the case (it was to at least some degree last year, where ARRA was not part of the Spring budget).  I’m also very confused about what “budgeted” means in this context and why this money has not been used, why these projects have been approved but not implemented.

Also on this agenda are lots of contract approvals, including the Global Academy and Human Resources Transactions.   Some of the effects of the Reorganization (and perhaps other things) can be seen in the recommendations for administrative non-renewals for Career and Tech Ed Coordinator, Asst. Director of Equity and Parent Involvement, Expulsions and Truancy Coordinator, Library Media Services Coordinator, Fine Arts Coordinator,  Public Communication Director and Legislative Liaison.  I hope that the last doesn’t mean that in the future MMSD does not have  a lobbyist.  I can see redefining the position, but government relations should remain part of the mix.  MMSD’s voice needs to be heard on a regular basis in the halls of power.

Also in the HR Report (but not in the MMSD Today story on retirements) is the sad news that one of my favorite MMSD teachers — Barb Rubin – is retiring.  Barb is just a great teacher who cared about her students and about equity.  Here are some links to her Classroom Action Research projects.  Congratulations on a fine career.  She’ll be missed.  I also want to express my thanks to another fine educator who is retiring.  Kathy Lyngass staffed the Equity Task Force and earned my respect and affection.  She too will be missed.

The last Committee is Planning and Development.  The only item is a Strategic Plan update.  This includes more on progress than the version distributed prior to the recent Strategic Plan meeting and little or nothing about “narrowing” the goals.

That’s all I have time for…

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | May 28, 2010 · 12:00 pm

Not Gonna Fly

The Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education will likely leave over $13 million in revenue authority unused in the district’s 2010-11 budget.

If they prioritize property tax relief over education in this manner, if they do not reallocate a significant portion of this amount to improving our schools, for at least the next year pleading a lack of resources for maintenance as Board Member Lucy Mathiak recently did,  isn’t going to fly.  Citing “resource constraints” as a reason to lower the ambitions for the strategic plan, as Superintendent Dan Nerad recently did, isn’t going to fly.

Any and all resource-based explanations for the relative failure to narrow shameful achievement gaps aren’t going to fly.  Any and all resource-based explanations for lapses in student and staff safety aren’t going to fly.  Any and all resource-based explanations for lacks in curricular breadth and depth, aren’t going to fly.

Finally, any and all appeals to state officials to prioritize investments in education over tax relief, aren’t going to fly.  If you want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

It was failures by state officials that shifted too much of the cost of education to local property taxpayers; failure to reform the school funding system and failure to reform revenue to maintain previous levels of state support.  Madison was hit particularly hard by these failures, leaving the Board with difficult choices (get involved with the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools and their Penny for Kids campaign to change things at the state level).

Although they have protected core programs and services from cuts, thus far they have not acted as true “guardians of the schools.”  On Tuesday June 1, 2010, they have one last chance to change that.  That same day you have one last chance to let them know that you want want them to change that.

Madison School Budget Hearing
June 1, 2010, 5:00 PM
Doyle Administration Building Auditorium

Show up and testify (suggested talking points here).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, education, Equity, finance, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | May 28, 2010 · 9:36 am

Testify

Eleventh Dream Day, “Testify” (live) — click to listen or download.

Via Progressive Dane (I am Co-Chair and education Task Force Chair, so this is via me too):

6/1 — Call for Action, MMSD School Budget Hearing

At the General membership Meeting last night PD voted support for the call for action below. Although the odds of great changes this school budget cycle are low, it is important that the voices of school supporters — those who think that some of the $13 million slated for property tax relief be used to make out schools better — be heard. As one person who testified earlier put it, the Board of Education needs to be reminded that they were elected to be the “guardians of the schools…not the guardians of the taxpayers.”

Please join me Tuesday. The meeting begins at 5:00, so you can stop by on your way to the Immigration Rally.

Distribute Widely!

Madison School Budget Hearing
Call to Action
June 1, 2010, 5:00 PM
Doyle Administration Building Auditorium

On June 1, the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) Board of Education will hold their fourth and final hearing on the 2010-11 Budget. After the hearing they will finalize and vote on a preliminary budget (the final budget comes in October, after student counts and state aid are certified). This is your last chance to stand up for schools and education and make your voice heard.

The Talking Points

General

  • Tax increases are better than cuts to school budgets; Invest in Education, Raise My Taxes.
  • School Budgets have been cut for 16 years; it is time to stop this trend.
  • The trend in taxes paid by property owners for schools has been down for the last 15 years; levying to the full authority would return the mil rate to about the 2004-5 level.
  • The 2008 Operating Referendum passed with 69% of the vote.
  • Madison schools are very good, but there is much that needs improvement.
  • For the benefit of all students, the Strategic Plan needs to be implemented, not “narrowed.”
  • The achievement gaps of over 30% points between low income and other students on standardized tests in every subject and in every tested grade are not going to be helped by budget cuts.

It is doubtful that any of the cuts that have already been initially approved will be rescinded, but there are places where some of the savings might be reallocated.

  • Specifics
  • I’ve proposed two budget amendments, one on information for decision making and the other on Equity.
    • Budget $250,000 for improved data collection analysis and reporting as required in the Strategic Plan, TAG Plan, and Equity Policy, Literacy Education Evaluation and elsewhere. This should include the creation of a position working with the Board of Education to determine and meet their informational needs.
    • Budget $2.0 million in Supplemental Allocations to high need schools via the Equity Resource Formula (or similar criteria) and aligned with purposes identified in School Improvement Plans and consistent with the Strategic Plan and Equity Policy. Since SAGE and Title I do provide resources to high need elementary schools, it may be advisable to disproportionately target secondary schools with these funds.
    • You can read more about these on the MadisonAmps blog.
  • Create a fund for Strategic Plan Initiatives that can be approved by the Board throughout the year.
  • Create a fund for Equity Initiatives that can be approved by the Board throughout the year.
  • Fund much-needed Facilities Maintenance.
  • Rescind the decision to seek pay freezes for some of the lowest paid employees.

Background

Due to Wisconsin’s broken school funding system and cuts in state aid to schools, at the start of the budget process maintaining educational offering and quality would have required an estimated $28.2 million increase in locally generated revenue. This comes after over a decade when the trend ahs been reduced school property taxes for homeowners. After examining and voting on over 200 options for cuts and efficiencies, the Board has reduced this amount by about $13.5 million.

In 2008 over 68% of the voters approved a referendum to avoid cuts and bring about improvements. At that time the anticipated budget cuts for 2010-11 without a referenda were $9 million; now they are cutting $13.5 million from the levy despite the successful referendum.

Efficiencies are almost always good and most of the cuts will not have a significant effect on the breadth or quality of educational offerings. In many ways the Board has done a good job under difficult circumstances.

What they haven’t done is looked for ways that they could use some or all of that $13.5 million to improve our schools. Instead it has been designated for property tax relief.

There is much room for improvement. 17 years of cuts due to the state finance system have limited opportunities and support for all students. The achievement gaps remain a source of shame. On the most recent WKCE tests the gaps between low income and non low income students scoring proficient was over 30% in every grade for every subject.. African American and Hispanic students are more likely to drop out than participate in programs for the “talented and gifted.”

A big part of the 2008 referendum was the promise of a strategic plan to improve education in Madison. A plan is in place, but these self-imposed cuts have placed the improvements in jeopardy. Superintendent Dan Nerad recently cited “resource constraints” as the source of a “need” to “narrow the priorities within the [strategic] plan.” They have the resources to make big improvements, but would rather give tax breaks.

If you think, improving education and the futures of our children and community are more important than tax breaks, come to the June 1 hearing and show support or write the Board of Education at board@madison.k12.wi.us.

For more information on the Madison Budget, visit the district Budget Page: http://drupal.madison.k12.wi.us/node/6001

To get involved in fixing things at the state level, join the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (www.excellentschools.org) and sign the Penny for Kids petition (www.apennyforkids.org).

I’d really like for the Board to hear from at least a dozen or two school supporters on June 1.  If they don’t hear from you, they can pretend you don’t exist.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Best Practices, Budget, Contracts, education, Equity, finance, Local News, Pennies for Kids, Referenda, referendum, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | May 27, 2010 · 3:57 pm

WAES School-Funding Reform Update, the Week of May 24, 2010

From the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools, the folks behind the Penny for Kids campaign.   Table of Contents below,  full Update in pdf form here.  This is a good issue, click the link and read the whole thing!

  • “A Penny for Kids” — It’s head-scratching time in Wisconsin

    School-funding reform calendar

  • Help WAES correct e-mail update glitch

    • Rural group’s work is primer on school-finance reform

  • WAES has work to do and needs your help to do it
  • Sales tax hike mentioned in Representatives survey
  • Funding crises deepen for Wisconsin school districts
  • Some things we’d like to hear Wisconsin’s new Governor say
  • WEAC, WREA pass resolutions pushing school-funding reform
  • One WAES member honored, another joins radio discussion
  • WAES has work to do and needs your help to do it
  • Rural group’s work is primer on school-finance reform
  • Help WAES correct e-mail update glitch
  • School-funding reform calendar

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | May 24, 2010 · 2:48 pm

On the Agenda — MMSD, the Week of May 24, 2010

No Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education meeting this week, but three other governance meetings, the most interesting of which is the “Strategic Planning Steering Committee” on Wednesday at 5:00 (Goodman Center,  149 Waubesa Street).   The other meetings were/are a Four-Year-Old Kindergarten (4-K) Advisory Council Meeting that took place this morning and a Madison School & Community Recreation (MSCR) Advisory Committee Meeting at 6:30 on Wednesday at MSCR (3802 Regent Street).  All the meetings are listed here, with initial agendas.  Don’t forget about the final Public Hearing and vote on the 2010-11 Budget, next Tuesday, June 1.

I’m glad to see 4-K going forward.  I was talking with a pre-school teacher yesterday and she was skeptical, but I think it will happen for 2011-12.

I was little confused by the term “Strategic Planning Steering Committee,” but it turns out that it refers to the “committee of the whole,” all those who participated in the first round.  For those who need a review, the district Strategic Planning page is here.  There are no documents linked on the meeting notice, but the committee members were sent this 50 page packet (with a different agenda than the one in the notice) along with the Core Elements document.  I don’t see much new here.

That’s disappointing.  It appears that one purpose of the meeting is to give an update on progress.  In the linked documents there are dozens (maybe hundreds) of action steps (or whatever the jargon is) that should be nearly complete by now, but no information about what has and has not been done.  Maybe there will be a presentation on the progress, but even with a four hour meeting there won’t be much time for much detail.  Some advance info would be nice for the committee members.  It would also help interested community members, who can’t make the meeting.  The strategic plan does call for “a consistent, ongoing
process for telling stakeholders what the district is doing, reporting progress, and seeking input and feedback.”

From the agenda and the remarks by Superintendent Dan Nerad at the May 10 Board meeting (video here, at about 47 minutes in) it appears that another purpose of the meeting is to begin downsizing the ambitions for the plan, the district and education in Madison.  Nerad cited resource issues.  It needs to be recognized that these resource issues are self-imposed, they have revenue authority they aren’t planning on using.

Thanks to a successful referendum that was largely sold as a means to fund strategic planning and implementation of those plans, the revenue authority is there to do much more, instead they are talking about doing less, over $13 million less next year.

Have they looked at the most recent WKCE achievement data?  Less ain’t gonna fix that (and much, much else).

This is a sad moment.  Our educational leaders are not acting (in Kathy Liska’s words) as “guardians of our schools,” but as “guardians of the taxpayers.”  Quoting Johnny Rotten, “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated.”

Don’t forget that on June 1, you can join me and Kathy and others to make one last ditch effort to get the Board to put something more positive into this budget, to reverse this acceptance of declining expectations, to drown out the tea party in the Board Members’ heads.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under "education finance", Accountability, Best Practices, Budget, education, finance, Local News, School Finance, Take Action, Uncategorized

by | May 21, 2010 · 3:20 pm

Great MMSD Budget Testimony

With three Madison Metropolitan School District budget hearings thus far (video of the first two here on the district Budget Page), all the Edgewater public testimony, the Dane County Immigration Task Force feedback session and more, lately I’ve watched or read a lot of examples of citizens making their case before government officials. Kathy Liska’s testimony from last Monday’s School Board’s meeting in the video above is one of the best I’ve witnessed.  Watch it, she’s as good as Megan Fox on school funding.

Ms Liska has testified at all three school budget hearings.  On Monday she was one of only five people to testify.  I had the pleasure of meeting her and talking a little,  she said she’d be back to testify at the June 1, 2010 hearing.  Will you be there? Do you care enough to be there?

I’ll be there, pushing my proposals for Budget Amendments which take money from some of the $13 million in cuts and use it to improve the district. It would be great if others would join me in supporting this, or offer their own ideas on June 1.

That’s Tuesday June 1, 2010, 5:00 PM, Doyle Building Auditorium.  This is essentially your last chance.  If you can’t make it, drop the Board a line at board@madison.k12.wi.us.

Thomas J.  Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | May 21, 2010 · 11:43 am

Taxes (and Schools)

From "Wisconsin's Revenue Gap," Institute for Wisconsin's Future

I’ve been known to chide Wisconsin’s lawmakers for their reluctance to enact or even talk about essential revenue reforms.  It is only fair to note when they do the right thing and the good they’ve done by doing the right thing.

Yesterday the Legislative Fiscal Bureau released the April 2010 tax collection data.  Two big pieces of good news here.  First, collections are only down 1% from last year and that means that there will be no need for a budget reconciliation and the cuts to shared revenues and state services it would surely bring.  Second, corporate taxes are up by 32.4% over last year.

Too many moving pieces and not enough info to know in much detail, but the closing of the Las Vegas loophole by enacting Combined Reporting in the last biennial budget  certainly contributed to this.  A very positive step in returning some balance to our revenue system and staving off further cuts to essential investments and services.  Good work.

As the chart at the top indicates, there is still more work to do.  There are other loopholes to close, and other places to look at the balance among taxes paid in Wisconsin.  As always, the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future/Wisconsin Council on Children and Families Catalog of Tax Reform Options for Wisconsin. is the place to start (these organizations also deserve much of the credit for pushing lawmakers on Combined Reporting).

In a related story, Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Tom “No New Taxes (for now)” Barrett is not getting suckered into abandoning  Combined Reporting because of  ignorant attacks from those vying for the GOP and Tea Party mantle(s) (and here)..

On the national front, The Cap Times has a good follow up to the sales tax for education (read Penny for Kids) vote in Arizona, with your intrepid blogger offering some thoughts.  This also came up in the WORT diiscussi0n of school finance (listen here and try to make the WORT Block Party this Sunday ).  Also of note is the lawsuit over school funding in California and the continued need to advocate for the Harkin Education jobs proposal.

Above, I said there is still work to do.  It isn’t only because to the previous trends in corporate taxation it is because Wisconsin’s revenue and school finance systems are broken, and till they are fixed school cuts will continue all around the state.  Here are some recent examples:

Five Marshfield teachers cut to balance district’s budget

Manitowoc School Board OKs teacher, aide layoffs

36 teachers will receive layoff notices

Teachers under fire as districts deal with tight budgets

Budget, teacher cuts create turmoil for districts in area

School district bankruptcies seen as possible

Much more work to do.  Get started!.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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