by | June 27, 2007 · 1:15 am

Why Teacher’s Quit

“The combination of the increased needs of children and the increased testing and paperwork pressures of No Child Left Behind is a lethal one for many teachers. What started as exciting and meaningful work becomes overwhelmingly stressful and unfulfilling.

Inadequate funding, across all school districts in California, still places severe limitations on reducing class size and providing students with emotional support services. Additionally, many districts are more concerned with the stigma of low test scores than they are with providing adequate support for teachers. “

Full story By Mark Phillips in the Marin Independent Journal (hat tip to Jim Horn at Schools Matter).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Elections, National News, No Child Left Behind, School Finance

by | June 26, 2007 · 1:19 pm

Mayor Dave on the State Finance System

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz knows the primary source of Madison’s school budget woes. Published in Southern Exposure, the newsletter of the South Metropolitan Planning Council and elsewhere.

Thomas J. Mertz

School Funding System Needs Reform
By Mayor Dave Cieslewicz

“The worst choice, except for all of the others.”

This is what comes to my mind when reflecting upon the recent budget challenges that Madison school district leaders, parents and students have faced. After the recent, difficult debate over the issue of school consolidations and other painful budget measures, there can no longer be any doubt that the school funding system is broken beyond repair.

As the school district correctly notes, thanks to this broken system, they are trapped within a spiral of budget shortfalls and cuts to programming. Although they were able to avoid consolidating schools this year, they were nonetheless forced to reduce resources for special education, increase class sizes, and make a number of other cuts that threaten the quality of our public schools. This is a pattern that has been continuing, and worsening, for a number of years.

This is not to be critical of the school board or the administration. I know from experience how difficult these budget decisions can be, and am confident they are making the best decisions they can, given the hand they have been dealt by the state. There are no more easy choices or easy cuts to make. We are well beyond the point where platitudes such as “finding efficiencies” will make the budget balance.

Until we see reform at the state level, we will face these same decisions, and our community with go through the same difficulties, year after year. School district leaders know this, and embarked earlier this year on a campaign to build political support for ending the current, unfair system.

The City of Madison is answering that call, by making school funding reform a central part of our legislative agenda. For starters, the revenue caps must go. I am a strong believer in local government and local accountability. We in Madison are perfectly capable of making local budget decisions and choosing local leaders who reflect our values.

The next step is to create a new system that provides fair and adequate funding for our public schools. I am encouraged that every Madison-area legislator has signed on to a resolution calling for a new system to be in place by July 1, 2009.

The resolution specifies four key components of a new, fair system: it must provide funding based on the actual cost of education, not arbitrary per-pupil formulas; it must provide adequate resources to educate all of our children, regardless of their background; it must provide additional resources for special needs, such as non-English speaking students; and it must be based on a fairer tax base that moves us away from reliance upon the property tax.

These are all important goals. Until we achieve them, the turbulence our community experienced during this year’s school budget will not only happen again, it will get worse. And once again, we will be forced to make “the worst choice, except for all the other ones.”

1 Comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Budget, Local News, School Finance

by | June 25, 2007 · 1:54 pm

Russ Feingold on NCLB

Contact Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl and Representative Baldwin and let them know what you think!

Thomas J. Mertz

FEINGOLD QUESTIONS ADMINISTRATION’S CONTINUED SUPPORT OF NCLB
Administration’s Top-Down Approach to Education Contradicted by Education Secretary’s Recent Op-Ed
June 22, 2007

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is leading a group of Senators in calling into question the Administration’s continued support of the No Child Left Behind law following a recently published op-ed by the Secretary of Education that expressed support for state and local control of education policy. In a letter to the Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, the Senators cited her June 9th Washington Post op-ed, where she said that a move toward a national test would be “unprecedented and unwise” because states and localities have primarily held the leadership role in public education. Feingold and the other Senators questioned why the Department of Education does not extend this same rationale to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and they urged the Administration to work with Congress to reform key provisions of NCLB during the congressional reauthorization process. The letter was cosigned by Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

“NCLB has hamstrung state and local decision-making by establishing a federal accountability system that measures and punishes our students and our schools based on, among other things, annual high-stakes standardized testing,” Feingold said. “This is the wrong approach, and the groundswell of opposition to the NCLB – from parents, educators, and administrators alike – shows just how flawed it is.”

The Administration’s proposal for NCLB reauthorization, released earlier this year, did not embrace enough of the themes Secretary Spellings expressed in her recent op-ed. Under the Department’s recommendations, states would still be required to annually assess students and states and districts would still be required to implement sanctions that may not be working in local schools and districts, including transfer options and supplemental educational services. Feingold opposed NCLB in 2001because he did not believe a federal policy centered on standardized tests was the best approach for Wisconsin students, teachers, and school districts.

“As Secretary Spellings points out, states and local districts are the ones developing the curriculum used in our nation’s schools and they’re the ones paying most of the costs of education,” Feingold said. “I hope Secretary Spellings’ recent op-ed signals a shift away from the Administration’s top-down approach to education and back toward empowering those who are working in the classrooms every day.”

A copy of the letter is available here: http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_spellings_062207.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Budget, National News, No Child Left Behind

by | June 21, 2007 · 10:15 pm

BOE Contract Vote

Three Board of Education members voted against the MTI contract on Monday, June 18, 2007. My initial reaction was that it was a ‘free” vote, a vote without consequences. When elected officials know that there are sufficient votes to pass or defeat a measure they can use their votes to make a statement without taking responsibility for what would happen were they to prevail. This is what happened on Monday, those who voted against the contract knew that it would pass and that they would not be held responsible for the serious consequences that would ensue had they been in the majority. Upon reflection, I realized that in fact the vote has the consequences of exacerbating divisions among our teachers that are hard to justify based on their stated rationales for opposing the contract.

What would have happened if the minority had been the majority, had the contract been voted down after the union had already ratified it? Negotiations would have continued in some form, perhaps simply the preparation of final offers to submit to arbitration. At the Board meeting Superintendent stated that under those circumstances he would have requested the appointment of a new negotiating team. That certainly would have lengthened the process and meant the allocation of additional resources. Superintendent Rainwater and all of the Board members who spoke to the matter were in agreement that the contract was within the guidelines that the Board had given the negotiating team. This raises the possibility that voting down would have been considered a violation of the obligation to bargain in good faith. If that had happened, the union would have gained a big advantage in the continued negotiations. From the district point of view, none of these are good things.

Those who voted against the contract expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that continuing the basic healthcare framework (WPS and GHC, with most of the cost differences paid by the district) limited the district’s ability to increase salaries. Further negotiations would not have changed this. The impasse agreement in place indicates that the negotiations had passed the deadline where they were required to submit the issues to binding arbitration. Anecdotally, arbitration is rarely desirable for school districts; the terms of the impasse agreement precluded “any modifications of Section VII-B of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, i.e Group Health Insurance.”

I doubt the minority voters would have voted against the contract if there had been any possibility that it would have been rejected; looking at where that would have left the district I am glad there was no possibility.

Those who voted against the contract had previously spoken against the impasse agreement, contending that the district had surrendered a “huge bargaining chip” in the battle to reduce health care costs. It has been explained before that very little was surrendered and that the district received concessions from MTI in return, but this message does not seem to have gotten through. In exchange for an agreement by MTI not to authorize job actions (including “work to contract, which would kill extracurriculars) the district agreed not to impose a Qualified Economic Offer and to remove health insurance and some other issues from potential arbitration (the impasse agreement also set a calendar and included some other conditions, but I don’t know whose interests these favored, perhaps both). A Qualified Economic Offer must maintain, “fringe benefits in effect 90 days before bargaining commenced” and “district percentage fringe contributions then in effect.” In other words, it is impossible for a QEO to change health care benefits in any way. The new contract contains some changes and in this way comes closer to satisfying the expressed desires of those who voted against it.

The two ways to win concessions on healthcare are via negotiations or arbitration. MMSD “gave away” the option of unconditional arbitration (and won some concessions via negotiations). Robert Butler of the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (and MMSD bargaining team) cautions “careful consideration” before risking arbitration and identifies four conditions that should be present before a district contemplates this option: “excessive postemployment benefit costs, high health insurance premiums, declining enrollment and a small fund balance.” In comparison to districts around the state (the comparables that an arbitrator would use), MMSD clearly doesn’t meet two of these conditions (postemployment costs and declining enrollment) and is borderline on the others. Seeking healthcare concessions via arbitration does not look like a winning strategy. So much for the “huge bargaining chip.”

Those who voted against the contract gave four reasons that I recall. I’m unclear about the one that had to do with retirees. Another had to do with a quickly corrected misstatement in MTI’s summary of the terms. The healthcare benefit/salary ratio and the supposed effect of this on MMSD’s competitiveness in attracting and retaining quality teachers was the big one and this was linked to the last: concerns about the turnout at the union contract ratification vote. Although members of the minority averred of a desire to “interfere in internal union politics” it is hard to see these last three as anything else (and additionally a way to score points with anti-union voters in future elections).

Before turning to the effect of this attempted interference, I want to quickly address the realities of MMSD’s competitiveness. I’m second to none in my desire for well compensated teachers (salaries and benefits). Both the 1% salary increase and the 4% total package increase are less than I wish the district could provide, but the state finance system doesn’t allow that. The implication is that MMSD salaries are not competitive or will soon cease to be competitive. All evidence is that this is not true. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards collects salary data from districts. In 2006-7 out of 104 districts reporting, MMSD ranked 20th in BA starting salary; 10th in BA and 6 years; 7th in BA max; 39th in MA base; 33d in MA and 9 years; and 43d in MA max. MMSD recently had the highest starting salaries of any surrounding districts. National surveys show that Wisconsin salaries now lag behind those of other midwestern states and MMSD salaries (higher than the state average) seem to be at about the regional average. If MMSD does have difficulty attracting teachers (and I have yet to see any evidence that this is true), I would guess that it is because potential recruits recognize that the state finance system works against job security by forcing “last hired, first fired” cuts. I think that working toward state finance reform will be more effective in raising our teacher salaries than symbolic votes and unsupported assertions about salary competitiveness.

Various school board members have sought to undermine the solidarity of the union by focusing on the differential benefits of those who choose various health plans and have gone so far as saying that it is the “early and mid career” teachers they care about (presumably to the exclusion of our most experienced staff). Exacerbating these divisions is one consequence of their votes against the contract. The success of our schools depends on our teachers working together as teams. Pitting one group of teachers against another can destroy the collegiality of our teaching staff and harm the education of our children. I guess that a minority of the Board thought the benefits of their symbolic vote justified that risk (I am not clear what the supposed benefits are, maybe exacerbating these divisions, but that would be interfering in union politics and they said they weren’t doing that…it gets confusing).

There were also numerous references to the “low” turnout at the union ratification vote. One board member said the turnout was 1%, the number floating around now is about 100 union members voted the only news report I’ve seen put the number at “about 200” or a bit under 10%. Not a huge turnout but also in no way evidence that some silent majority of the union opposed the contract. We hear a lot about MTI’s supposed failure to represent the interests of the membership. If this were true, if dissatisfaction were widespread then it should have been easy to mobilize 200 teachers to vote against the contract. The voices of dissatisfaction point to short notice as a reason for their failure to mobilize. The MTI Bargaining Committee is elected by the membership and there is plenty of notice for those elections. The committee has 15 positions, with 5 up for election each year. This year and last only one of those seats was contested. The Lord helps those who help themselves, but apparently three school board members want to help those who can’t be bothered to help themselves. Maybe they should consider the union members as adults, fully capable of understanding and acting on their interests and not arrogantly seek to undermine the expressed will of the teachers via the established procedures of their legal agent instead of trying to impose what they think is best for others.

I can imagine circumstances where the best interests of the district require the consideration of going to arbitration in an attempt to gain a better contract than what the QEO requires. That is not what happened here (there is little hope of a better contract and no hope on the issues raised by the nay voters) and these circumstances do not exist in MMSD.

I’m tired of writing about health insurance, teacher contracts and the QEO. I’d much rather spend my time and energy on other things. However, as long as some insist on continuing to play political games by using this issue, I’m sure I will continue to put in my 2 cents.

Some are praising those who voted against contract. I hope that this post makes the following clear:

1. The stated goals of those voting against the contract could not be achieved via continued negotiations.

2. Voting down the contract would have weakened the district’s bargaining position and may have led to a ruling that the district had not met good faith criteria.

3. The members who voted against the contract did so knowing that they would lose and they would not be held responsible for the above.

4. Health care savings cannot be achieved by imposing a Qualified Economic Offer.

5. The possibility of arbitration without conditions that the impasse agreement took off the table offered little hope of achieving the stated goals of those who voted against the contract and opposed the impasse agreement.

6. All the evidence indicates that MMSD salaries at all levels, but especially at the lower levels, are competitive.

7. The vote against the contract and the accompanying statements undermine teacher collegiality and morale, to the detriment of our children.

8. Teachers who are dissatisfied with MTI’s bargaining goals and the contract have made little effort to change the former or block ratification of the latter.

There is nothing praiseworthy and much to condemn in what the minority did and their use of unsupportable claims to justify their actions.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Budget, Elections, Local News, School Finance

by | June 17, 2007 · 8:50 pm

Quote of the Day (consider the source)

From this morning’s Wisconsin State Journal story on the Republican effort to reduce taxes in Wisconsin’s biennial budget (Paul Soglin has more).

Bill McCoshen, a lobbyist and former Commerce secretary under Gov. Tommy Thompson, said the [Republican controlled] Assembly could be forced into making it harder for the needy to qualify for Medicaid health coverage or not increasing state money to schools.

You’ve got to love the language: “forced.” Yep, the Republicans don’t want to reduce the level of school aid below the already inadequate formula or take healthcare away from the neediest, they are being “forced” to. Who is doing the forcing? McCoshen isn’t saying, but two answers suggest themselves. Either it is the Republican themselves, which brings to mind the image of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles holding a gun to his own head and threatening to kill himself.

Or is it Republican lobbyists and strategists, like Bill McCoshen, and the donors they represent who are doing the “forcing”?

A closer look at McCoshen’s ties gives some clues as to why he might want to obscure the “forces” who value tax reductions more than providing essential state services. His current lobbying client list is here but at this point in the session it lacks the dollars and hours details. The list from the last session is much the same and includes links to that information. Previous sessions can be accessed here. Interestingly, the 2003 reports do not list McCoshen’s efforts on behalf of the Dairy Business Association to secure passage of Assembly Bill 466 and thereby further limit the taxing power of local entities, including school boards. Reduce state taxes, reduce local taxes, reduce them both, and don’t worry about the consequences for schools or those needing healthcare.

Also of interest in understanding how McCoshen does business and whose interests he looks after (hint, it isn’t the children of Wisconsin and those in need of healthcare) are the $46.5 million his firm was to “earn” lobbying for Dennis Troha’s failed, tainted casino bid, but that’s another story; this is about public school funding.

One McCoshen Client, is K12 Inc., a firm specializing in homeschooling and distance learning software (founded by William Bennett, who resigned after his “abort every black baby” to reduce crime remarks, but not before his use of influence to to gain profits from the company’s relationship to an Arkansas virtual charter school via a misapplied Education Department grant subsidizing homeschoolers were raised). In Wisconsin McCoshen, on K12’s behalf to the tune of over $160,000, sought an expansion of and easing of rules for virtual charter schools, while increasing state fiscal obligations.

Wal-Mart is on the list of McCoshen’s clients. See here for their contributions to education.

McCoshen’s firm also collected over $10,000 by consulting on the recent Janesville school referendum campaign. Small change in McCoshen’s world, but small change that depends on the continued existence of a state finance system that requires referenda to meet the needs of the state’s students.

What I see are new twists on the “starve the beast” game that the GOP has played for years. The idea is to deny the schools the money they need to do their job and then point out how they are failing to do their job in order to further defund them or eliminate public education altogether. The new twists involve deviating from the anti-tax stance when there are profits to be made, either via charter schools or by consulting with referenda campaigns.

May the force desert McCoshen and the Assembly Republicans.

(revised 6:13 PM, 6-15-07)

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Gimme Some Truth, Local News, Quote of the Day, Referenda, School Finance

by | June 15, 2007 · 8:16 pm

School’s Out & That Summer Feeling

School’s Out, by Alice Cooper (listen)

That Summer Feeling, by Jonathan Richman (listen)

Enjoy the day; enjoy the season.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices

by | June 15, 2007 · 5:23 pm

Above the Line/Below the Line

A recent story be Doug Erickson in the Wisconsin State Journal covered MMSD’s implementation of a “new” approach to behavioral issues. No program is perfect and even the best programs can suffer from inconsistent application. I’ve heard mostly good things from staff and parents about Above the Line/Below the Line, so I hope that our community recognizes the limitations of what any approach can accomplish and gives this sufficient time before making it the focus of a “moral panic.”

A friend and colleague from the Equity Task Force, Jackie Woodruff, related her experiences in a message to the AMPS listserve. I think they should be part of the discussion and with her permission, I’m posting them here:

As a parent of twin second graders at Falk Elementary School I have been using Above the line, Below the Line for three years. It was our former Principal Jerry Tollefson that pushed to get the program used districtwide as our school has a high transient population and his staff was educating all students that transferred in to the school throughout the year. The fix it plan has received a very bad name in the past few weeks. The fix it plan is designed to have the children involved come up with a way to fix the problem, come up with a consequence and then the offending party has to come up with something positive they can do to the offended party to make amends. For my children in kindergarten they wrote pictures to explain their plan and then had the plan approved by the teacher. The whole point is that the children are learning a life lesson using conflict resolution skills to solve problems they encounter. It is a foundation to build on throughout their school experience as they grown and their understanding broadens. My children have used fix it plans with the children in the neighborhood to solve problems they encounter.

Give me five is a way of reminding the children what behaviors are acceptable and how one can act appropriately. Class discussions include identifying things that are above the line versus below the line. It is a way to open a discussion between the teacher and the students at whatever level they are at. The students learn responsibility with the ability to earn courage coupons for being caught doing something right by a grownup outside their classroom or doing a specific job within the classroom. The class combines their coupons and cash them in for things like a movie party to reward and celebrate the good behavior. The students reinforce and encourage each other to behave above the line for the good of all in the classroom. They are also quick to help each other solve problems and make amends after they students involved come up with a solution to their problem. Obviously not all problems can be solved with fix it plans. More severe behaviors of a violent nature need to be and are handled directly with the teacher and the support staff with parent involvement as in the past. The fix it plan is then made with the student, the teacher and the principal with some form of apology to the wronged party and some type of restitution to the offending student. This reinforces the life lesson of a consequence to an action. Nothing is perfect, but the more this policy is used and modified to be applied in the building, the more effective it becomes. As a parent, I am happy my children are being taught life skills to resolve day to day problems. To me learning life skills is a vital part of their education.

Jackie Woodruff

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Equity, Local News

by | June 14, 2007 · 6:01 pm

MMSD, MTI Tentative Contract

Madison Metropolitan School District and Madison Teachers Incorporated have reached a tentative agreement (The MMSD BOE must approve in open session on June 18th and MTI must ratify). The contract calls for only a 4.0% total package increase, slightly above the QEO required 3.8, but well below recent statewide trends and the most recent statewide average of 4.29%. If my calculations are correct the difference between the state average and the proposed contract amounts to almost $800,000 annually.

It should also be noted that the contract includes an increase in health care co-pays and movement in the direction of wellness and other preventative measures to reduce health care costs. Health care costs still take up the bulk of the package increase, but under the QEO that is the union membership’s prerogative.

All in all, I think that given the budget situation it is a good contract.

Maybe those who sought to make political hay out of the impasse agreement and have misrepresented the realities of the negotiations would like to comment now.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under AMPS, Budget, Local News, School Finance

by | June 13, 2007 · 10:58 pm

Letter to Board of Education on High School Redesign

As part of my job, I recently attended a national conference from the Dept. of Education on effective transition for students with disabilities. A major part of the two-day conference focused on high school redesign and how the researched elements of redesign dovetail with what we also know is important to the successful transition of students with disabilities.
In looking at the national data, students in poverty, students of color and students with disabilities are all facing similar hurdles: lower than normal graduation rates, lower literacy levels when leaving school, less experience with rigorous coursework and lower employment rates (with corresponding lower wage levels).

As a member of the West High community, I want to applaud its success in implementing small learning communities and a rigorous core of courses for freshmen/sophs (along with freshman advisory, lunch-and-learn tutoring, noon clubs and other initiatives designed to engage students and elevate achievement). My sophomore, who has taken the embedded honors in English and Western Civ, in addition to an honors math sequence, has loved her classes, learned to think critically, shared perspectives with students from around the world and from all economic levels, and has appreciated making friends by having many classes with the same cadre of students in her SLC.

Likewise, West has long included students with disabilities in a wide range of general education courses. Its transition program has one of the highest success rates in Wisconsin, successfully developing jobs for students, preparing them for community living, and enrolling them in tech school and other post-secondary options. However, I continue to be concerned with what I see in all four Madison high schools (which data also shows is an issue nationwide):
— Very few African American, SE Asian and Latino students in college-prep courses. (A friend of my daughter’s says he has ONE African American student a classmate across all 7 hours of his day.)
— Lower attendance rates among students of color.
— Less engagement in extra-curriculars and in student leadership roles by students of color and students with disabilities (I don’t think any of the Student Government members at West are African American or have a significant disability. Students with disabilities often are not included on field trips or in other extra-curriculars outside of school unless a parent comes with, which isn’t age-appropriate for high schoolers).
— Different expectations for students based on race and disability. As a member of the district’s Equity Task Force, I reviewed comments from more than 400 community members. ALL demographic groups mentioned differing expectations for students based on race. Students I’ve talked with at West agree, saying students of color are much more likely to be stopped in the hallways. Likewise, parents I know from several high schools in town have been told their children with disabilities can’t take specific honors classes, despite high test scores and past success in high-level courses. One was told that the high school doesn’t provide accommodations in honors classes. The other was told students with significant physical disabilities don’t take “those” kind of classes.
Some aspects of high school redesign that I hope the grant writers can include in their application include:
— Mechanisms for ensuring high expectations for all students. This includes students with disabilities. We need to see a broader range of students in a variety of leadership positions in the school. I’ve heard there will be advisory committees for each high school as part of the grant. I hope that creative recruitment and supports will encourage a wide range of students, particularly students who have not been as successful in our high schools, to be part of these leadership teams.
— Increased effective guidance counseling for all students. Often, students with disaiblities and students who don’t seek out college prep guidance counseling don’t have as much access to career assessment/planning, interest/aptitude inventories, course planning, etc. I know West High has fabulous guidance counselors, but not nearly enough staff or time to do what they need to do.
— Disaggregation of the data to pinpoint our greatest challenges. What do we know from MMSD data about how each group of high schoolers is doing? What is our participation rate in activities for each demographic group? What are the dropout rates? Post-school employment rates? College-prep coursework rates? How many students in specific groups (including those with disabilities) are leaving school with a regular diploma? How many are prepared for secondary education? How many students with disabilities have access to general education courses?
— Effective and adequate professional development. Learning to teach in different ways is integral to high school redesign. General educators need resources to know how to differentiate and provide modifications/accommodations in classes for students with diverse needs: high flyers, English Language Learners, students with specific disabilities, students who are not initially engaged, etc. Special educators should have knowledge about course content involved in general education courses. Both sets of teachers need training on team teaching and collaborative planning. All teaching is moving away from lecture-driven, didactic and passive instruction toward more engagement, collaborative teamwork and critical thinking and problem-solving in the classroom. Teachers need the time and resources to learn and practice new teaching strategies.
— Effective leadership. Will all our high school leaders have access to professional development and other resources to ensure that their staff understand inclusion/disability/diversity/cultural issues?
— Finally, all students, including those with disabilities, will need to be active, engaged members of their small learning communities if high school redesign is really successful. Students with disabilities should be part of the entire school community, not segregated into one small learning community or teaching team. Students of all backgrounds and abilities should be represented in extra-curriculars, student leadership, and decision-making at the building level. We should see all students feeling welcome and included at dances, school events, in clubs and engaged with lunchtime activities. Last week, national author and trainer Dr. Francie Kendall visited the University to talk about the absolute importance of a diverse workforce. Her specialty is technical assistance to institutions of higher learning and she does a lot of consulting for UW-Madison. She talked about the economic cost (dollars and cents) of being a homogeneous institution. One comment that stuck with our group was that an employee who does not feel welcome in the workplace spends 40% of his/her productivity/energy on coping with workplace factors, rather than on his/her job. Likewise, she cited research showing that today’s businesses have found it too expensive to hire college grads who have not had experiences working with ALL demographic groups. The best solutions to business challenges come from groups who represent all different economic, social, cultural and ability backgrounds. Her comments on what businesses and universities have learned about how to be profitable and successful seemed especially germaine to what our high schools need to have in place to support tomorrow’s work force.

Beth Swedeen

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Equity

by | June 11, 2007 · 7:59 pm

Quote of the Day

To get more Americans to enroll in and complete college, the theory goes, you can either fix the schools (more teachers, longer school years, more student loans) or fix the students (more nurturing of kids from disadvantaged homes). Both approaches would cost a lot. But if you’re worried about inequality, it’s hard to see any alternative. Hamburger flippers simply don’t command a high wage. We can pass laws to change that — a minimum price for cheeseburgers, maybe — or we can, finally, invest in teaching the flippers to do something else.

<a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10wwln-lede-t.html?
ref=magazine&pagewanted=print”>Roger Lowenstein (from the New York Times Magazine).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, National News, Quote of the Day, School Finance