by | March 19, 2010 · 2:04 pm

Farley vs Howard, School Board Race Update

Cleveland Municipal School District Visions of Democracy - Digital Gallery, Click on the image for more.

Well past time to catch up on the James Howard/Tom Farley contest.

First, a couple of forums.  The first is Saturday, March 20.  Here is what the State Journal has to say:

A Madison School Board candidate forum with simultaneous translation in both Spanish and English will be held at 12:30 p.m. on March 20, at Centro Hispano, 810 W. Badger Road.

Topics will include Latino student progress, possible expansion of Nuestro Mundo Community school, charter schools and the school district’s equity policy. Audience members may also pose questions.

The event is sponsored by Centro Hispano of Dane County, Communities United, Latinos United for Change and Advancement, Latino Education Council, Nuestro Mundo Inc., and the Wisconsin Charter School Association.

The other is March 25:

25 March 2010
Community Forum- Involving the Candidates of the April Madison School Board Election; 6:00-7:30 p.m., THE NEW Urban League Center for Economic Development & Workforce Training, 2222 S. Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin || Sponsored by the African American Communication and Collaboration Council (AACCC)

Both candidates weighed in on MMSD budget issues in the Wisconsin State Journal and have guest columns up at the Cap Times: James Howard; Tom Farley.

I have seen nothing in he ay of a ground campaign from either, no lit drops, no yard signs…maybe I’ve just missed it.

I’m not going to go through these statements line-by-line, you can read them yourself.  I am going to point put a couple of things about each.

Tom Farley:  In the State Journal article, Farley said he “favored dropping the district’s plans to institute four-year-old kindergarten in the 2011-12 school year.”  This is the exact opposite of what he said when asked directly about this at the Progressive Dane Forum (and here).  Beyond that the recent things from Farley are filled with empty buzz words about innovation and transformation, ill-informed criticism of the recent work of district,  a misunderstandings about how schools and districts function (here is a hint, classrooms and classroom teachers do not stand alone, they need supports), and seeming reversals about the need to fund education.  Charters have become more and more prominent in his campaign.

James Howard: Howard has touted his knowledge and experience, but by beginning his Cap Times piece by proposing and rejecting another operating referendum when anyone who has paid attention knows that a referendum would do nothing to help the current situation in Madison (they have most of the necessary the tax authority, the choice is whether to use it) he creates real doubts about how deep that knowledge is.  At least he has been consistent in supporting 4K and on school fiance issues (some waffling on school closures and consolidations). Like most candidates, Howard is also not immune to empty buzz words.

At this point I’m leaning Howard, between the two and leaning toward writing in Art Rainwater overall.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

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

by | March 16, 2010 · 12:04 pm

MMSD Board of Education Wrap Up — March 15, 2010 (Updated)

[Update at the bottom]

I wish the Madison Metropolitan School District Board of Education meeting had been as clear as Saran Wrap and as neat as their hair in picture above.  It wasn’t; It was messy.

The preview of the agenda and some of my thoughts going in are here.

Johnny Winston Jr. was absent.

Things started off OK.  After the approval of what seemed like a dozen minutes from previous meetings, Erik Kass cleared up issues about the effect of under-levies on future Revenue Limits.  According to his explanation, unused recurring tax authority does carry over, so there is not a need to be concerned that  if they don’t tax to the max this year the max for next year will go down.  There has been a lot of confusion about this and I admit I’ve been confused in the past.  If you want to know more, this PowerPoint from DPI (slides 54-61) may help.

Next was some Q&A on the Citizen’s Budget that also clarified some things.  The big issue here was about how Special Education spending needs to be treated under state statute or DPI rules.  Special Education money is spent from Fund 27 and the portion of Special Education spending that isn’t not covered by State and Federal aids and grants (that would be about 82.7%) is transferred from Fund 10 (the general fund) to Fund 27.  Apparently one result is that in some places that money gets counted twice.  If I heard right, this is a big part of why some “MMSD Total Revenues/Expenditures” calculations are in the $370 Million range and some are in the $418 Million range.

In the discussion of the Citizen’s Budget, Beth Moss pointed out that “Grants and Contributions” at 13.5% of the revenues are approaching the 17.% that comes from General State Aid.  If General State Aid continues to decline at 15% a year, it won’t be long before a larger portion of MMSD’s budget will be funded by Grants and Contributions than is being funded by the state (if I heard correctly the Grants and Contributions figure does not include State and Federal grants).    This is just wrong.  The state has an obligation to support education.  It is in the Constitution.

Ed Hughes also pointed to the $4 Million lost via open enrollments.  I don’t think this is the biggest or the best reason for the district to be working to improve communications, but it certainly one reason (more on this below).

Then they moved on to trying to clarify the budget situation and various gaps, and things fell apart  An inordinate amount of time was spent on this and at the end there was more confusion than there had been at the start.  Lucy Mathiak has posted a version of the issues and questions, that unfortunately furthers the confusion.

Before going into what is wrong with all this and offering a simpler version (which seeks to avoid the confusing parts by concentrating on the choices the Board faces), I want to say that there are legitimate issues about how this has been framed and communicated and how the information available confuses the issues and the process.  I’ll hit some of these along the way.

Here goes, kind of from the start (basic info in bold, comments not, see GrUMPS for a very different, but very good explanation).

The gap between allowed revenue and the cost-to-continue/same service 2010-11 budget for MMSD is estimated at $1.2 million (without the 2008 referendum this would be $5.2 million).*  This is the gap that has been the focus of attention over the years.  It isn’t the focus this year.

Here is where the first problem comes in.  There is no cost-to-continue/same service budget yet; no “Budget Book.”  There are forecasts, talk of a $12.8 Million increase for a “same service” budget, but no line-by-line budget.  As Board members and others have pointed out, the forecasts and the Budget Options assume that things which have already been changed or cut will go forward (and may also assume that things that have been added will not be added).  At this meeting Donna Williams said that the Board would receive some kind of  “revenue by fund and object, expenditures by cost and object” mini budget on Tuesday.  If they did, it has not been posted.  ***The target date for the full Budget Book is April 1 (it must legally be out by April 3, or 15 days prior to the official Budget Hearing).  Even with all these issues, the most important fact is that MMSD has the authority to almost fully fund at the current service level.  Note that because there is no Budget Book, many of my figures can’t be checked, so I’ll stand by the concepts but not the numbers.   Let me repeat:

The gap between allowed revenue and the cost-to-continue/same service 2010-11 budget for MMSD is estimated at $1.2 million.

Now some new info.

For 2010-11 MMSD will have an estimated $250 million in revenue/tax authority (I’m mostly using round figures and working from memory).  Again, this is enough to almost fully fund the same service budget.

This does not include Fund 80 (mostly MSCR), which has essentially unlimited authority (about $8 million exercised last year and about $4 million spent from fund equity).

We’ll get back to Fund 80.

Last year MMSD exercised about $226 million in authority (leaving aside Fund 80).  That means that there is about $24 million in “new” authority or taxes.  Add in the $4 million that Fund 80 spent from equity last year and you get the $28 million “tax gap” figure.

Tax authority is tax authority.   It doesn’t matter where it comes from or how long it has been exercised (assuming it is recurring authority and all the things being talked about are).

Much of the confusion and the $30 million the table are the result of people trying to make false distinctions among recurring referendum authority, authority that carried over from previous years, authority that comes from an increase in the revenue caps and then mixing these up with calculations about the losses in state aid.  In some contexts — like state school funding reform — these do matter, but when deciding what to fund and what to cut, they are a distraction.

Fully exercising tax authority, nearly fully maintaining current levels of quality,  will mean significant property tax increases.  The total is about $28.2 million, the calculations are that this means about $300 on a $250,000 house.

Nobody wants to raise taxes.  That’s why the state officials shifted these decisions to the local school boards.  They passed the buck.

The choice before the Board is mostly about balancing their duty to provide quality education and their desire to not raise taxes too much.  Note, “duty” and “desire.”  The “mostly” is because their are some savings, efficiencies and smarter ways to project and budget that have no impact on the quality of education and should be done no matter what (these are mostly in Tier I, but may also be found elsewhere and there are some in the MSCR Tier II things).

The state officials also had a duty, but they shirked it and went with the desire to not raise taxes.  Board Members have correctly criticized them for this.

Since most of this isn’t about any real “gap” there could easily be $50 million on the table (tax cut fever), $5 million on the table or only options for the $1.2 million real gap on the table.  The $30 million on the table was and is misleading and a mistake from both a communications and policy perspective.

What should have happened was very early in the process there should have been a decision about a range of taxation the Board wanted to consider and options reflecting that range should have been offered.  The Board asked to see the full $30 million, but they could have been discouraged or they could have been asked at the same time to make some preliminary decision about the range of taxes and cuts that would actually be considered.  None of this happened and we are stuck debating and considering at least $10 million and maybe as much as $15 million worth of cuts (school closures, layoffs, program elimination…) that nobody involved thinks will ever happen.  Bad.

OK, that’s done.  Note, I did not recreate or directly engage what was said about this on Monday.  It was too awful to relive.  I may burn my notes.

Back to the meeting.

There was more back and forth about things like CLC grants and the Fund 80 Grants that were for one year only, all in an attempt to get at what has been included in the “Budget” they are cutting from (but haven’t seen yet).

Finally Beth Moss asks “why not take Tier IV off the table now” (that’s the one I called  the “over my dead body Tier” and includes the school closings, lots of staff cuts and bigger class sizes).

Beth has the right idea.  Maybe not all of Tier IV, but at least parts of it.

This highlights another problem with how this has been handled.  I think that if you are going to cut (which beyond $1.2 M, they don’t have to cut), then maybe some of the classroom staffing cuts and somewhat bigger class sizes should be part of the discussion, however not at the levels presented in Tier IV.  There should be a range of options in these areas offered as part of the various Tiers, instead the items are very distinct with all the classroom teacher cuts basically in two Tier IV items, out there as a yes or no kind of thing.  The reality is the Board can do what they want on any of the options, pick and choose, cut half of what is in Item 27 and 1/3 of Item 187…but the presentation does not reflect this or make it easy.

Beth’s suggestion leads to no action, but it does elicit from other Board Members the understanding that all items will be considered individually.  This is the best way to do it, but with 200+ items, that meeting is going to be one long nightmare.

Back to Beth’s suggestion.  The meeting was very free-form, so things come in and out, but I want to trace what happened with the idea of taking anything off the table on Monday and why it didn’t happen.

Marj Passman asks about the number of FTEs in all the Tiers and in Tier IV (252 and 96).  She speaks with empathy of people being surplussed and “hanging by their fingernails, not knowing if they have a job or not.”  This appears to be a reason to take some of the things off the table.

Ed Hughes talks about understanding wanting to hear from the public, but some things are “too complex” to consider and he refers to the “North Side [closing] Plan” with the implication this should be taken off the table.

Maya Cole says something about the value of Tier IV cuts in communicating how bad the state school funding system is.  She’s right, but the point has been made, this is no reason not to take things off the table now.

Lucy Mathiak is the only one who speaks forcibly against taking things off the table.  She has some good pints about wanting to see the whole picture  — the lack of a Budget Book again –, wanting to hear from the public, wanting to “completely have done the homework” before taking anything off the table.  Good points, but I’m not convinced.  I think, moving forward to save time at other meetings, easing the worries of North Side families, saving some staff from uncertainty all out weigh these reasons.  The truth is that some things — like the school closures — should never have been on the table in the first place and are  not going to happen.  Make that official, the sooner the better.

I don’t think the some of the rest of the Board Members who might have been willing to vote on some things were convinced either.  I think their inaction, their deferral to the strong wishes of a single Member and the reluctance of others was the product of a misguided desire to preserve harmony at any cost and present a united front.  Note, I’m not clear that absent Lucy Mathiak’s clear opposition to taking things off the table, there would have been four members who wanted to do that.  Others did express a desire to hear from the public before voting and there wasn’t enough said to get a solid vote count.

If I were a family in one of the schools that is part of the North Side “Plan,” there really is no choice but to mobilize to make sure that the ridiculous proposal is seen for what it is.  What a waste of everyone’s time and energy.  If four Board Members in attendance Monday had acted, it could have been prevented.

So nothing was accomplished on the 2010-11 Budget.  This was frustrating for many, including some Board Members and that led to the one vote of the session, a vote that was in all likelihood illegal.

Board President Arlene Silveira at one point mentioned that the proposals for the Communications Plan consult were back and ready for consideration.  It is clear that the Board has gotten some heat for doing this at a time of possible budget cuts.  She asked the other Members for their thoughts.  Saying she “wants to accomplish something” Marj Passman made a motion to “deduct Communications Plan set aside” (whatever that means) and after some discussion it passed 6-0 (with Ed Hughes voting yes, “reluctantly.”).

This probably should not have been allowed by legal counsel.  The agenda for the meeting included possible action on the options related to the 2010-11 Budget; the money for the consult is from the 2009-10 Budget, which is nowhere listed on the agenda.

You can make a case that not spending money from 2009-10 leaves more money for 2010-11 and therefore it was indirectly on the agenda.  It is a weak case.  the agenda is pretty specific:

2010-11 MMSD Budget Reduction and Efficiency Options for Addressing the Property Tax Impact of and Revenue Gap within the Projected Budget (action may be taken)

The “2010-11 Budget Gap and Tax Impact Options” page has nothing directly or indirectly on the budget for a communications plan consult.  The law is very specific that non agenda items cannot be discussed, much less acted on.

In fact, had I known that this was on the table, I would have communicated to the Board that I think the money would be well spent.  If nothing else, the whole way they did the premature focus group, handled the backlash, the Reorganization Plan roll out and much of what they have done with the Budget indicates that they need help communicating.

Some other items from my notes.

Both Marj Passman and Maya Cole noted that the proposed elimination of Reading Recovery would leave the district with no reading remediation program (another example of how bad some of the Budget option preparation and presentation is, note “some,” some of it is good work).

Ed Hughes spoke forcefully on the issue of calling refinancing savings that I had raised earlier.  There was no response from the administration, but from the looks on the faces of the other Board Members, I doubt this will go through and that means that $4 million in Tier I “savings” are gone.  Good for Ed.  I wish they would have had a discussion of this at this point, because that is another complex and potentially lengthy thing they will have to deal with sooner or later.

On the MSCR stuff, there are no alternative cuts and it doesn’t look like there will be.  Only the adult fee increases and there seems to be an orchestrated push-back on those happening.  There was also no discussion about whether the 70% price increases may diminish participation and projected revenues.  I have to say, that of all the administrators or staff  have seen testify before various bodies, I have never seen one be less responsive than Lucy Chaffin (head of MSCR) was recently.  Here’s a clue, when the people who vote your budget are looking to cut, you want to make them feel like they are being listened to.  I went into that meeting thinking that MSCR needed advocates; I came out thinking that MSCR needs leadership.

As I’ve said before, the MSCR cuts on the table are mostly bad, but by almost all  accounts there are some other things in the MSCR Budget that should be on the table.  I don’t know why this hasn’t happened.

On the Instructional Resource Teacher (IRT) proposed cuts, it was clarified that if the cuts go through, the remaining school-based positions will all be those that are Title I funded; there will be no locally funded school-based IRTs.   It is important to keep in mind  that IRTs are at the center of the Reorganization Plan.

Some discussion of Transportation issues, ongoing negotiations with Metro and the possibility of a future study to see if there might be savings by returning some or all of the expenidtures now spent on Metro to a” Yellow Bus” contract.

Maya Cole suggests a small savings to be had by quitting the Wisconsin Association of School Boards, because they “don’t represent us” and asks for an accounting of fees paid to them for various labor relations services.

Ed Hughes asks that Board Members get any suggestions for cuts that are not part of the Options in as soon as possible for analysis and consideration.  He uses the phrase “sweeping and dramatic” so there might be something coming from his direction.  Lucy Mathiak also indicates that she will have some proposals of her own and I’d guess Maya Cole might too.

Arlene Silveira asks for information about the long term maintenance needs and plans.

That’s about it from my notes.  It was a messy meeting and nothing was accomplished.

A couple of other things.

The Board Q&A are being updated and are worth a look.

The first “Public Hearing” is Monday, March 22, 6 p.m. at the UW Space Place in Villager Mall – 2300 S. Park St.

Thomas J.  Mertz

[10:30 PM — I did some clean up for clarity and typos and added a couple small things]

* Note that because part of the way taxes were reduced last year involved not using non-recurring referendum authority and shifting debt to future years, the $1.2 Million figure may be wrong and the real gap might in fact be significantly higher.  Beginning paying that debt again is part of the projections for 2010-11 (at $7.1 million) so the money must be found and that means other things must be cut (unless I missed something and I may just be confused about all this and the debt payments are part of the discussion as “State aid cut last year”).  This whole thing has not been very transparent and the lack of a Budget Book or even the old “Parameters Used to Build the Budget” makes it impossible to see what is being assumed on this and other things.

**For those who care, hre is a simple version of where the need to increase taxes comes from:

$7.6M NEW AUTHORITY (Revenue Cap increase)

$4.0M  REFERENDUM AUTHORITY

$9.2M LAST YEAR’S STATE AID CUT, NOT LEVIED (includes Fund 80, mostly instead of increasing the levy last year they put off debt payments, re budgeted and spend equity)

$7.8M THIS YEAR’S STATE AID CUT

$28.6M TOTAL “NEW” REVENUE AUTHORITY

***Update:  Arlene Silveira sent me copies of the “Mini Budget Book” documents.  Here they are:

Cost To Continue – Memo 3_16_10_1

Expenditures by Fund #3 031610 ctc final

Revenue by Source #3 031610 ctc final

2010-11 Cost to Continue Budget and Tax Levy -1

Proposed Property Tax Levy for 2010-15 (Up

Thanks much!

Leave a comment

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

by | March 12, 2010 · 5:58 pm

Quotes of the Day — Texas Social Studies Standards

They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist…They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians, They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.

Mary Helen Berlanga, Member of Texas State Board of Education who “stormed out” of the meeting where the new standards were passed.

Today the Texas State Board of Education voted to reject an amendment to social studies curriculum standards that would require students to learn that the nation’s Founders “protected religious freedom by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.”

Texas Freedom Network

There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

James C. McKinley Jr., in the New York Times.

You can review the standards and amendments offered at the Texas Council for the Social Studies (all the ones proposed are there, I assume that it will be updated to reflect the meeting today).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, education, National News

by | March 12, 2010 · 4:37 pm

On the Agenda, MMSD Week of March 15, 2010

An easy week for this series; not an easy week as for the Board of Education as they begin the real budget toil with a Workshop (no public testimony) session at 5;30 Monday, March 15, in room 103 of the Doyle Building.  Nothing else on the agenda  Like almost all Board meetings, this will be carried by MMSD-TV.

The full schedule of Madison Metropolitan School District meetings is posted here.   Other meetings include an Executive session of the Board (Monday, 5:00 PM) two $-Year-Old Kindergarten sub-group meetings (Logistics, Monday at 1:00 PM and Assessment, Wednesday at 10:00 AM) and another new one for the posted meetings, the Title VII Indian Education Parent Committee Meeting (Wednesday at 6:00 PM).

Like the Board (from what I hear), I’m still working my way through the budget information.  The district has posted a version of the Citizen’s Budget, which maybe a useful introduction for many.  As noted previously, the Board questions and administration answers are being posted in near real time.

It is hard to say what the Workshop will be like.  The listed items indicate that there will be lots of exchanges of information among the Board and between the Board and the administration.  I”d guess the Board will be feeling each out about many items on and off the cut list.  The agenda says “action may be taken” on the Budget Options.  If action is taken, most likely it will be to remove things from consideration (like closing schools).  The one sure thing is they will also be discussing the format for the next Workshop (on April 5th).  That’s the last item on the agenda.

To close, I’m just going to cut and paste a suggestion I made earlier this week.

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

Maybe they will listen this time.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | March 11, 2010 · 10:26 am

Hatchets at the Ready — More Wisconsin School Budget News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob Kahl the Mayor of Monona has also checked in.

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

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

Year 1 2010-2011 Needed Cut of $1 million

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Eliminate the 4th-grade string program

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

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

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

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

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

Milwaukee

South Milwaukee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a couple more districts for now…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

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

by | March 11, 2010 · 8:22 am

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | March 9, 2010 · 1:46 pm

MMSD Board of Education Wrap Up — March 8, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consent Agenda passed with little discussion.

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

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

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

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

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

by | March 9, 2010 · 10:08 am

Another Lesson in Leadership from Jim Doyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord I feel like going home

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

Everything I ever done was wrong

And I feel like going home

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

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

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

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

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | March 7, 2010 · 8:24 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOARD PRESIDENT’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

SUPERINTENDENT’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS

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

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

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

The Student Achievement and Performance Monitoring items follow:

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

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

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

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

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

Five-Year Education for Employment Plan.

Next comes the Planning and Development portion of the meeting.

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

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

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

Items on Operational Support are next up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last are two items from the Legislative Liaison.

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

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

Other district governance meetings this week are:

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

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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

by | March 5, 2010 · 3:18 pm

MMSD Cut List (For Consideration), Updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More as things are released.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

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