by | March 29, 2007 · 1:20 pm

School Finance Advocacy Session This Evening

From Arlene Silveira, Communications Committee Chair

Thomas J. Mertz

All – the Communications Committee of the BOE is holding an informational/advocacy meeting on March 29. Details are attached.

This is the first in a series for meetings. The next meeting will focus on advocacy efforts for the state funding system.

All are welcome to attend, actively participate and ADVOCATE!

Arlene Silveira

“Thursday, March 29, at 6:30 p.m. in the McDaniels Auditorium of the Doyle Administration Building. The meeting will provide you with information about the budget and advocacy “talking points” to contact legislators and gain support for some of the budget’s provisions.”

3 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Budget, Local News, School Finance, Take Action

by | March 28, 2007 · 5:55 pm

Dept. of Education “What Works” Clearinghouse Rates Reading Recovery Highly

Here’s a link to a detailed article on how Reading Recovery has been rated highly by the rigorous Dept. of Education’s Institute on Educational Sciences “What Works” Clearinghouse.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/28/29recovery.h26.html?
For those who are really interested in evidence-based practices in education, keeping updated on the “What Works” clearinghouse is a great way to determine what is rigorously researched and tested in classrooms.

The article goes into depth on almost every aspect of Reading Recovery, including the fact that some criticisms were based not on its efficacy, but on its overall cost…some reading experts believe it doesn’t have to be a 1-on-1 approach…Jack Fletcher is quoted and is one of the foremost reading experts in the country. His work is well worth reading for those interested in literacy issues.

Like any issue, there are no simple solutions and no single answers that will work best for every student. But this article has some good discussion about both the merits and the barriers to different reading approaches.

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices

by | March 27, 2007 · 5:49 pm

Observations, Endorsements

 

There has been much talk on the campaign trail about the need for a “cost benefit” analysis and the lack of forward planning. I find it disturbing that some of our candidates seem unaware of the 2002 Functional Analysis that MMSD commissioned from Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP. At that time, the district realized that the flawed state finance system would force cuts in the years ahead and wanted to be prepared. Because we have the analysis, we are prepared (nearly as well) as we can be for the challenges of the yearly budgeting.

I’m glad that this was commissioned and we have it to use. However, we all need to be careful and understand that all educational research and data is contingent, contextual and only provides guidance for decision-making. The factors that make a student achieve or fail are so complex and interactive that attributing causality is at best a matter of likelihood, not certainty. Some of the most important things, like the smile on a teacher’s face, defy quantification. Additionally, all the measures we use are to one degree or another subjective and flawed (see Fair Test for one set of examples). It isn’t science and applying the positivism of science and related reliance on “expertise” to education can be dangerous.

I value data and research as tools to inform educational policy, but I know that human judgment is the final and most important quality that we need on the Board of Education. This is one reason why I am supporting Beth Moss, Marjorie Passman and Johnny Winston Jr. in the April 3d Election. They are knowledgeable about our district and community, open to using data and research and have displayed the kind of judgement we need to keep our schools strong and getting stronger.

Thomas J. Mertz

2 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Budget, Elections, Local News

by | March 25, 2007 · 3:55 am

We Are Not Alone #4

I’m going to try to pull together some excerpts from local reports on April 3d school referenda in the next few days (for the next We Are Not Alone entry). This is just an overview of those measures from the DPI listing.

· Total Referenda = 72
· Total Districts = 53 (about 1/8 of the districts in the state)
· Total Issue Debt (mostly building and renovation) = 33
· Total Non Recurring (operating and maintenance) = 24
· Total Recurring (operating and maintenance) = 15
· Largest Operating = $21,601,931 (Eau Claire Area)

If recent trends continue, about half will pass. This is not a system that is working for the children of our state.

Thomas J. Mertz

1 Comment

Filed under AMPS, Elections, Referenda, School Finance, We Are Not Alone

by | March 25, 2007 · 2:31 am

Accountability Frankenstein Published

The long awaited (at least in my house) book from Sherman Dorn is now available for order. There will be a series of podcasts from the book, the first is here. This is what the publisher has to say:

Accountability Frankenstein
Understanding and Taming the Monster

Sherman Dorn
University of South Florida

To understand the current moment in school accountability, one must understand the larger contradictions in education politics. Accountability Frankenstein provides a broader perspective on the school accountability debate by exploring the contradictions inherent in high-stakes testing. Accountability Frankenstein explains the historical and social origins of test-based accountability: the political roots of accountability, why we trust test scores while we distrust teachers, the assumptions behind formulaic accountability systems, and the weaknesses with the current carrot-and-stick approach to motivating teachers.

Accountability Frankenstein answers the questions of educators and parents who want to understand the origins of accountability. This book challenges the beliefs of fierce advocates and opponents of highstakes testing. It provides a rescue plan for accountability after the failures of high-stakes testing, a plan to make accountability smart, democratic, and real.

CONTENTS: Acknowledgments. Preface. 1. The Political Origins of Accountability. 2. Trusting Tests. 3. How Trustworthy are Test Scores. 4. Setting up Goals and Failure. 5. Consequential Thinking. 6. A Better Way. References.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, No Child Left Behind

by | March 23, 2007 · 4:01 am

Nan Youngerman on REACH

At the MUAE forum to discuss education for gifted and talented students, it was disturbing to hear one candidate, Maya Cole for Seat #5, talk about eliminating REACH as a way to trade money to keep Eastside schools open. I was bothered on many levels.

One; REACH was developed to provide one additional and desperately needed hour of planning time for elementary teachers. It is in this hour that teachers might differentiate curriculum or do hundreds of other necessary tasks to keep their classrooms going. This precious hour, one of about a total of five permitted during the work week, is a negotiated term or part of the Teacher Bargaining Agreement. Maya Cole is suggesting it be eliminated. If this were possible, simply by saying it —- is not a friendly gesture to teachers. This will not save money. A different method of providing for children during the negotiated hour of planning time would need to be developed. Claiming to know what would help teachers and then suggesting to take away their planning time is down right nasty. Elementary planning time is beyond necessary for teacher sanity and is is the very basic component of being a thoughtful and reflective teacher!

On a second level, this was a disturbing suggestion made at a forum where the main topic was gifted and talented education. The original intent of REACH, when developed in the early nineties, was to promote curiosity, creativity, problem solving, cooperative learning and about six other similar criteria. In many instances these key aspects of REACH have been lost, but I rather hear about returning to these ideals to promote the giftedness in every child than hear about eliminating the program entirely at a forum of this nature.

Respectfully submitted, Nan Youngerman

Veteran teacher, parent, Madison community member, member of Teacher Bargaining Committee, 1990 committee for Elementary Planning, 1990 Committee to Design REACH Program and WI Presidential Teacher of Excellence

I took the liberty of uploading one of Ms Youngerman’s publications (linked to her name) so all can see what teachers who are given the time and tools can accomplish.

Thomas J. Mertz

5 Comments

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Elections, Local News

by | March 23, 2007 · 3:00 am

MUAE Forum Video-Maya Cole’s response

Question: Would you as a school board member support a referendum to deal with the short fall that the district is currently facing? For example, Carol Carstensen’s version of a referendum.

Maya Cole’s response to referendum question (REACH)

Posted by: Janet Morrow

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Budget, Elections

by | March 22, 2007 · 2:39 pm

Gifted Issues

Excerpts from Reaching Gifted Children (Education Week chat) Guests: Karen Isaacson and Tamara Fisher, the co-authors of Intelligent Life in the Classroom—Smart Kids & Their Teachers

On Self Advocacy:

…I tell my kids that if they are going to self-advocate, they need to follow the 3 P’s: 1) Be polite (don’t say “this is boring.” 2) Do it in private (not in front of the rest of the class.) And 3) Provide proof (that they’ve actually mastered the content.)

On Mixed Ability Classrooms:

Question from Pat Cernadas, Middle School EFL teacher:
How can gifted children benefit from a mixed abilities classroom like the ones I have in my school?

Karen Isaacson:
They can learn to appreciate other children’s gifts! They can also learn how different abilities and different gifts compliment each other.

On Under Identification of Minorities (Not much help here and I found the statement “I suppose it does happen” offensive as a near dismissal of a well documented and serious problem – tjm):

I’m not sure what to suggest. I suppose it does happen, but I feel grateful not to have encountered much of that in my district. I suppose changing those low expectations may take a gradual process that would include their coming to know a gifted minority student and then extrapolating out that yes, there are gifted students of such-and-such minority. I wish I had more ideas to offer you on that portion of your question. Perhaps with new identification methods, this obstacle can be overcome.

On Pull Outs:

Question from Vicki Templet, mom of three and former teacher:
What is your opinion on the way schools label children as Talented and Gifted, pulling them out of regular class for a full day every week? Is the special service worth the labeling stigma, especially in the elementary grades?

Karen Isaacson:
Yes, the special service is worth it, in my opinion. One of the biggest needs of these children is to have an opportunity to meet together with other children to whom they can relate. I do think some care should be taken as to how the label is handled and the feelings of the individual child. In our elementary school, we refer to the program as “Extended Studies.” This seems to work well.

More on Differentiation and Pull Outs:

Tamara Fisher:
…The kinds of services provided by pull-out programs varies greatly, so one would need to look into just what kind of pull-out services a particular school/program offered to know if it would be appropriate for a particular gifted student. Nonetheless, pull-out programs can often have the flexibility to adapt to differing student needs, and they are a great means by which to work with gifted students on social/emotional needs. Inclusion with differentiation by the teacher is an equally viable option, provided the teacher has had some training in just what to do. (Most teachers don’t learn these strategies in college, at least not in relation to how they apply to gifted students, so some assistance in the beginning is realistic to plan on.) I have found that once teachers begin differentiating, most of them love it and wish they had known how to do it all along. One great thing about differentiation in the classroom is that it is good for all kids, meaning not just the gifted students benefit from it.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices

by | March 22, 2007 · 2:00 am

Fins know secrets to school success

AMPS listserv member Lisa Pugh sent out this article from the recent U.S. News and World Report about why the Fins are leading the world in educational success for their students while also having the smallest achievement gap in the world.

What are they doing that we could learn from? They have:

— Scrapped their tracking system and developed heterogeneous classrooms grades 1-9;
— Given local schools great autonomy in choosing supplies, curriculum, etc.
— Kept class size relatively small.
— Offered universal preschool.
— Made teaching a high-status, advanced-degree profession to equip and attract the best teachers.

Beth Swedeen

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices

by | March 20, 2007 · 6:06 pm

Red Herring

In this morning’s Wisconsin State Journal there is a story that again misrepresents the place of Madison School Community Recreation and Fund 80 in the district and the community.

The chart comparing Fund 80 levies in Madison to those in other districts ignores the fact that most or all of those locales have municipal recreation programs paid for by municipal taxes. Due to a historical quirk, Madison has very little in the way of a municipal recreation department and programs and services that other locales fund via municipal or county taxes are funded and governed by the school district via Fund 80. In order to get a realistic comparison of Madison’s spending on recreational and community education programming one must look at total levies devoted to this. The last time I did this (early 2006) I found that the combined spending on MSCR and the Madison Parks Department was about $20 million. De Moines, IA (about the same size) has a parks and recreation budget of about $20 million. Ann Arbor, MI is about half the size of Madison and has a Parks and Recreation budget of $12 million. Green Bay, also about half the size has a Parks and Recreation Budget of $8 million. In other words, the spending in these areas is very much in line with what others spend.

Particularly galling in the oversimplification is this paragraph comparing Madison to Milwaukee:

The district levied $9.9 million this school year for community service and recreation programs, triple what was levied in 2001-02. It also tops the levy in Milwaukee, which has roughly triple Madison’s population.

One thing missing here is a recognition of the fact that Milwaukee Recreation (funded via Fund 80), is supplemented by much more exstensive County services than there are in Dane Co. This accounts for some of the discrepancy. What I would guess accounts for most of it is the combination of incentives and disincentives in the State School Finance system. Madison is considered a property rich district and therefore any new money collected via local property taxes in areas under the revenue caps is “shared” with property poor districts elsewhere in the state via reduced state aid to Madison. Currently each new dollar Madison wants to spend under the caps requires collecting about $1.60. Because of these tertiary aid or “Robin Hood” provisions, local taxes account for about 67% of the district’s revenue. This, along with the fact that the combination of the QEO and the caps and rising costs for goods and services has forced major cuts in programs and services for a number of years, acts as a powerful disincentive for MMSD to have programming under the caps. Since Fund 80 is not under the caps, every dollar collected is spent in the district. Milwaukee also struggles with the structural gap in the state school finance system, but unlike Madison as a property poor district local taxes account for only about 20% of the Milwaukee School Budget. For every $1.00 Milwaukee collects in capped funds, the state kicks in about $3.00. The combination of incentives and disincentives is very different. It makes sense for Madison to want items moved from under the caps; Milwaukee must balance the need to direct money to core educational programming with the prospect of tripling the power of local tax money via state aid.

Fund 80 seems to always show up as a Red Herring around election time. In the linked article one Board member seems to be calling for Fund 80 expenditures being subject to referenda. Should we also place the entire school, municipal, county, state and federal budget before the voters for a yea or nay, or should our elected officials retain the traditional powers of the purse and be held accountable via the traditional means of standing for election? On this, I’m a traditionalist and would like to see greater power of the purse given to school boards via removal or reform of the revenue caps. I believe that all board members have expressed similar wishes and wonder why any would now broach the topic of diminishing these powers.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Budget, Local News, School Finance