| School Information System |
 | Sponsorships |
|
|
Wired's James Surowiecki has an interesting look at authoritarian vs democratic governance cultures (he argues that collective intelligence is far more effective, than a top down structure)
Instead of looking to a single person for the right answers, companies need to recognize a simple truth: Under the right conditions, groups are smarter than the smartest person within them. We often think of groups and crowds as stupid, feckless, and dominated by the lowest common denominator. But take a look around. The crowd at a racing track does an uncannily good job of forecasting the outcome, better in fact than just about any single bettor can do.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
NPR's All Things Considered: Experts Say Best Instructors Spot Where Students Go Wrong:
Research shows that teachers with degrees in the subjects they teach are more successful. That's the reason behind teacher-certification requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind education law.But as Robert Frederick reports, not all mathematicians are successful math teachers. Most could use some help in becoming calculating sleuths. Education experts note that most advanced math programs are geared toward theoretical as opposed to practical instruction.
It's not enough to know math, says Judith Ramaley of the National Science Foundation. Teachers "also need to understand how the minds of young people work, and how to diagnose� the kinds of tangles kids get into," she says.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
John Katzman, Andy Lutz, and Erik Olson write: How several well-known writers (and the Unabomber) would fare on the new SAT.
In the summer of 2002 the College Board announced its plans to change the SAT. The new test will (surprise, surprise) contain several higher-level algebra questions, will no longer contain analogies questions, and will�as part of a whole new section on "writing"�includ an essay question. It is scheduled to be administered for the first time in March of next year.To illustrate how the essays on the "new" SAT will be scored, The Princeton Review has composed some typical essay questions, provided answers from several well-known authors, and applied the College Board's grading criteria to their writing.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
I've summarized my recent emails to and from MMSD Board of Education President Bill Keys below. I want to thank Bill for taking the time to respond to my notes. I'll post any further messages and/or links.
My emails to and from the MMSD Board of Education (along with some to and from President Bill Keys):
Good Evening, all (May 25, 2004):
I am writing, first to thank you for the time and effort you devote to the MMSD.
Second, I'm writing to find out why some of you voted recently to increase administrative compensation ($589K), while at the same time eliminating gym instructors AND increasing student fees?
Perhaps there is an opportunity to re-think this?
I would suggest telling the administrators to find 589K from their budget to fund the comp increase. In return, the student fee increases can be reduced/rolled back and perhaps a few more gym instructors retained.
Let's fund student curriculum & programs first, then deal with administrative costs.
Links:
Gym Instructor Cuts:
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/75028.php
Admin comp increase:
http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/000335.php
Best wishes -
Jim
----
Note from Bill Keys (5.27.2004)
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your email regarding this year's budget. In truth, administrators will be taking a pay cut because for the first time they will have to pay part of their health insurance. Like the rest of the staff and students they are having to pay for the inadequate school financing structure that the state legislature continues to inflict on public schools in Wisconsin.
I do understand the issue of fees very much, and truly wish that no students would pay any fees for anything. Unfortunately, we must raise the money in order to sustain programs. Last year we did it with a referendum giving us permission to exceed the revenue caps. This year, surprisingly, we have found little opposition to raising the fees.
Bill
At 10:47 AM 5/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
hi Bill:
Thanks for your note, and your time.
You are correct that the (is it 5%?) health care cost participation will affect net compensation (many other folks, unfortunately, pay a much larger percentage of health care costs than that).
However, total admin compensation costs still have gone up ($589K).
I continue to believe, given the issues we face today (health care, obesity, more and more jobs that require extended periods at a desk), that we are better off shifting the 589K increase back into the admin budget (surely possible) and funding the gym instructors (and perhaps a few other student items).
Another option would be to stop paying for powerpoint licenses..... :) A complete waste.
With respect to fees; that is one approach. However, as you know there is a collection and management cost to any fee; not to mention an irritation factor for some.
I support Ruth's efforts to develop the MMSD budget from the ground up, based on student curriculum and achievement. We live in changing times.
Going from year to year with a same service approach (and a discussion of "cuts" or reduction in the increase prior to a full budget analysis) eliminates our opportunities to rethink the way we do things, why we do what we do, and results in a rather short analysis of the implications of budget decisions.
Finally, I urge you to put forth some ideas with respect to local education funding. There are many options, and frankly, the MMSD board is in an excellent position to convey a point of view!
Best wishes, and enjoy your weekend.
Jim
----
Jim,
Frankly, Ms. Robarts misrepresents the budgeting process when she characterizes it as anything BUT building from the ground up. Having been a teacher for 31 years in Madison, I have been involved in many budgets, and do know that we always built from the ground up, and always around educational services. But a system cannot exist without administrative costs, even admitted to in your own email regarding the mere collection of fees. There are bills to pay, supplies to order, reports to file, and on and on. The system cannot exist at all without these. As a teacher I could not have ever functioned without these services. And I certainly always wanted my administrative staff to be well paid, to be respected through sound salaries, and to feel valued in the system. If they were, my work as a teacher was easier and better, and students invariably benefited. I grow weary of attacks on administrators, just as I did with attacks on teachers. They are one and the same. These attacks are also launched against secretaries, custodians, and trades people.
We are always working hard at advocating through our legislators and governor and numerous organizations who want to provide full support to public education through equitable taxation. We are at a crossroads in our nation's cultural attitude: will we fund schools or prisons, health care or war, the collective good or individual profit.
Bill
----
At 06:24 PM 5/28/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Hi Bill:
Can I post your note online? (along with my question and followup email)?
These things are public, of course, but I prefer to ask.
Jim
----
Jim,
Sure! Thanks for asking, but I know that what I write is available for public consumption. In fact, I like to see it get even wider circulation. I don't believe that the public has yet come to understand how desperate this situation is, and how even more desperate it is going to get without significant changes to funding formulae.
Bill
----
Hi Bill:
Thanks for your notes, and your time!
My concerns with respect to the present budget "process" are frankly twofold:
a) Equitable treatment of curriculum issues, salaries/benefits for all (your message mentions these things); Which is why I was surprised to see you propose a rather large & unusual strings fee (vs. spreading the pain, as it were). I also felt that the issues that received board attention are generally hot button topics (wrestling, strings, for example vs. other aspects of the budget). Those programs are a tiny portion of the current 308M+ annual expenditures.
I think the recent process is indicative: cuts, or reductions in increases were floated before the actual budget. Further, evidently, due to a software migration, it's not possible to compare year to year numbers? (Please comment on my observations here, if you see things differently).
b) Change is difficult, without question. I am concerned, though, that MMSD is perhaps too oriented to a "same services" approach. This can significantly limit future budget flexibility. One example: the recent discussions with respect to math and english curriculum deserve more attention at the Board level. (There's been no shortage of national discussion on our K-12 science and math problems).
(Friday's Cap Times column by Doug Moe talks about a McFarland High School Grad who is VP of a Twin Cities based online University with 11,000 students!): "Smithmier, a 1988 McFarland High School grad, is vice president of the Division of Professional Studies of Capella University, an exclusively online (and fully accredited) university that now has nearly 11,000 students enrolled from all 50 states and many foreign countries.")
I've learned things in so many ways over the course of my 41 years......
Looking at this from a technology/services and business process perspective (my working world), I smell revolution in the air. Any time you have growing costs (in fact, needs not being met), growing demands and to an extent, entrenched interests all around ("same services"), things are ripe for change. Perhaps it will play out over my children's lifetimes, but it will indeed come.
I like to think the MMSD can lead! This is why I mention the funding issue.
Why not put forth a plan? Sometimes, the state/federal folks need a push.
Finally, as to writing, I encourage you to write online and I will, of course link to it!
Enjoy your weekend!
Jim
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
It's true, there isn't any windfall to be found in next year's Madison school budget. But small changes in the budget could have a major effect on Madison's families and direct educational services to our children.
The following opinion piece was published in The Capital Times on Saturday, May 29, 2004.
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/75315.php
Barbara Schrank: Madison School Board needs more thoughtful budget process
By Barbara Schrank
May 29, 2004
It's true, there isn't any windfall to be found in next year's Madison school budget. But small changes in the budget could have a major effect on Madison's families and direct educational services to our children.
During the final 2004-05 school budget discussions May 17, Shwaw Vang recommended that the School Board more carefully examine purchased services, operations and miscellaneous budget categories that total millions of dollars before making final budget decisions, stating that to do otherwise would balance the budget on the backs of children. The board majority (Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys and Juan Jose Lopez) did not support his recommendation.
Johnny Winston suggested that the board prioritize its work before making any final decisions. He also received no support from the board majority.
Earlier in the evening, Ruth Robarts proposed tabling discussion of a $500,000 increase in the administrators' salary and benefits until board members knew the final cuts they would be facing. Her proposal was voted down without discussion.
Rather, the majority appeared to be in a rush to approve the 2004-05 budget. The board didn't need to finalize the budget until June 30; it needed to decide what, if any, layoffs there might be before May 24.
Board members need to know what the administration's measurable goals and objectives for next year's proposed expenditures by department will be. Yet the only descriptive writing included in the 2004-05 budget document stated that last year's budget figures could not be compared to the proposed budget figures, because a new accounting system had been put in place. How can the majority of the board feel comfortable with their decision without this information?
Board members need to know what major changes in expenditures are forecasted from year to year, and they should not have to ask for this basic budget information or piece it together from previous handouts and reports. How can the board decide whether to go to referendum without discussing proposed budget changes from year to year? How do board members expect to make this clear to the Madison community?
At no time during the past two months did I sit in on any meeting that included discussions of the entire budget for next year. During the past two months, the primary focus of board members was almost exclusively on the $10 million cut list, which is less than 5 percent of the $308 million budget. That's like examining one leaf on a tree in a national forest.
The only board discussion May 17 about new fees for next year lasted little more than an hour yet added nearly $400,000 to parents' budgets next September for textbook, athletic and music fees.
Prior to that meeting, the board had not invited the booster clubs, parents, community members and coaches to work out budget and funding strategies for extracurricular sports. Maybe changes in the budget allocations might have negated additional fees. Without discussions of this sort, it's hard to know.
Neither had the board during the past two years invited the music community or parents to develop strategies that would curtail the degradation in the music and art curriculums and would not result in fees that could prove to be a barrier to student participation in the popular elementary strings curriculum.
Along with others in the community, I have been asking the administration for these discussions for two years but to no avail. I can only assume the same is true for teachers, students and families facing reduced services in special education and in the schools.
These groups are strong backers of Madison's public schools, and their continued support and hard work will be needed to help the School Board pass any future referendum. Madison's School Board needs to include these groups in a meaningful way in future budget discussions right from the beginning.
The community should expect that the elected officials who oversee a $300 million-plus budget that affects nearly 25,000 children, several thousand employees and thousands of taxpayers would devote greater concentration and effort to their "final" budget discussions.
From my personal business experience and my recent immersion in the district's school budget process, I've learned there are no shortcuts to budgeting. It's critically important to have a vision, measurable goals and objectives, and specific strategies to reach your vision.
Madison's School Board has some of those pieces in place and has been making improvements to its budget process. However, I'm hoping that board members take the time this summer and next year to develop and refine their vision for the next three to five years and that they engage the community in developing that vision.
Barbara M. Schrank is treasurer of the PTO at Hamilton Middle School, where her daughter is a student. E-mail: schrank4@charter.net.
Published: 6:57 AM 5/29/04
Notice we don't even have a separate category for science curriculum which echoes the point of this WaPo editorial on the failure to teach and fund science.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64736-2004May28.html
Website from Tom Beebe's group on reforming school financing: http://www.excellentschools.org/
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING BENEFITS AND IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL-BASED MUSIC EDUCATION PASSED BY US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PASSES MUSIC EDUCATION RESOLUTION
On May 4, 2004 the United States House of Representatives approved a
resolution supporting music education. We encourage you to send a
letter to your congressperson thanking him or her for supporting music
in schools. It's very easy to do, just visit www.house.gov/writerep
and enter your zip code. You will be linked right away to a form to
contact your representative. You can encourage your students and
parents to write to their representative as well.
For a complete listing of sponsors and votes on this resolution, visit http://thomas.loc.gov and enter "H Con Res 380" in the "Bill Number"
field.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PASSES MUSIC EDUCATION RESOLUTION
On May 4, 2004 the United States House of Representatives approved a
resolution supporting music education. We encourage you to send a
letter to your congressperson thanking him or her for supporting music
in schools. It's very easy to do, just visit www.house.gov/writerep
and enter your zip code. You will be linked right away to a form to
contact your representative. You can encourage your students and
parents to write to their representative as well.
For a complete listing of sponsors and votes on this resolution, visit http://thomas.loc.gov and enter "H Con Res 380" in the "Bill Number"
field.
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 380
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Whereas school music programs enhance intellectual development and
enrich the academic environment for students of all ages;
Whereas students who participate in school music programs are less
likely to be involved with drugs, gangs, or alcohol and have better
attendance in school;
Whereas the skills gained through sequential music instruction,
including discipline and the ability to analyze, solve problems,
communicate, and work cooperatively, are vital for success in the 21st
century workplace;
Whereas the majority of students attending public schools in inner
city neighborhoods have virtually no access to music education, which
places them at a disadvantage compared to their peers in other
communities;
Whereas local budget cuts are predicted to lead to significant
curtailment of school music programs, thereby depriving millions of
students of an education that includes music;
Whereas the arts are a core academic subject, and music is an
essential element of the arts; and
Whereas every student in the United States should have an opportunity
to reap the benefits of music education: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That-- (1) it is the sense of the Congress that music education
grounded in rigorous instruction is an important component of a
well-rounded academic curriculum and should be available to every
student in every school; and
(2) the Congress recognizes NAMM, the International Music Products
Association for its efforts to designate a Music in Our Schools Month
in order to highlight the important role that school music programs
play in the academic and social development of children.
Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 2004.
Attest:
Clerk.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov enter "H Con Res 380" in search field
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING BENEFITS AND IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL-BASED MUSIC
EDUCATION PASSED BY US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CARLSBAD, Calif., May 13, 2004-In a victory for school music education
programs across the country, the US House of Representatives recently
passed H. CON. RES, 380 recognizing the benefits and importance of
school-based music education. The resolution was read on the floor of
the House on May 4, 2004 at 7:04 Eastern time and covered on cable
television by C-SPAN.
The resolution, the result of years of lobbying by NAMM and its
partners, was read by sponsor Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee
and was co-sponsored by 31 other representatives including congressman
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a longtime ally of NAMM and music education.
"This resolution expresses the view of the Congress that studying
music helps kids achieve in school and supports the industry's efforts
to make sure that all children have access to music study as part of a
quality education," said Mary Luehrsen, director of public affairs and
government relations, NAMM. "It also stresses that the developmental
attributes taught by music education including discipline, analytical
thinking, problem solving, communication and interpersonal skills are
vital for success in the 21st century workplace. This document gives
grassroots advocacy groups a new tool in their local campaigns to
preserve music education in our communities."
The resolution also recognized NAMM "for its efforts to designate a
national "Music in Our Schools Month" in order to highlight the
important role that school music programs play in the academic and
social development of children."
"NAMM is pleased to be recognized by Congress and we share those
accolades with many other organizations including MENC, the National
Association for Music Education and The American Music Conference
(AMC) who work daily to provide a strong music education for every
child," said Joe Lamond, president and CEO, NAMM.
Source: http://www.namm.com/pressroom/pressreleases/2004May13.html
Barb Williams forwarded this article by Michael Winerip, and asked me to post it ("It is, I believe, the sum of all we need in education--period, the end"):
The secret to quality public education has never been a big mystery. You need good teachers and you need small enough classes so those teachers can do their work. Period. After that, everything seems to pale, including the testing accountability programs, technology, building conditions. Even curriculum seems secondary, as our best public colleges demonstrate. We have West Point and we have Berkeley, and the question isn't which has the correct curriculum; the question is which curriculum is the best fit for the student and teacher.Parents get this. Joe Gipson, a black parent from Sacramento who feels that black students are too often shortchanged, told me the best thing that happened to his children's school was the California law capping class size at 20 through third grade. You can still have incompeten
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Wisconsin�s public school system is arguably the most important component
of our high quality of life. It has historically been part of the �village�
that raises intelligent, motivated, and successful participants in both
public and economic life.The quality we have known for decades, however, is under siege. Unless we
act soon to change the way we fund public education, more schools will
close, school districts will begin to disappear, communities will wither,
and our children will lose sight of the future we promised them.
How do you know if your kids and their schools are under attack and at the
mercy of a funding system that no longer works? First of all, answer these
seven questions:
1. Is there more crabgrass on the playground than last year or is that leak
in the roof getting larger?
2. Do you have enough librarians, nurses, and school psychologists to meet
the needs of all of the children in your district?
3. Are you paying more in fees or, perhaps, paying fees where you never
paid them before?
4. Does your child still have access to music, art, and physical education?
5. Have teachers in your district been laid off, or have retiring teachers
not been replaced?
6. Can your children take the classes that will get them into the college
of their choice?
7. Is your school district facing consolidation, not because it is
educationally sound but because it will have to shut the doors if it does
not consolidate?
If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, chances are pretty
good you live in a school district that is suffering thanks to Wisconsin�s
school-funding system. In most cases, children are at risk and, in many
cases, communities face uncertain futures at best.
You are not alone. Virtually every district in the state is suffering,
through no fault of its own, because the system is too complex, unequal,
and inadequate to give all children, no matter where they live or what
their special condition, an opportunity to meet Wisconsin�s rigorous
academic standards.
It is worth repeating: Yes, bad things are happening to you, but the
problem is not in your school district. Classes are not too large because
of your administrators. Teachers� salaries are not capped because of your
school board. And your students� textbooks do not still refer to the Soviet
Union because of bad parents.
The problem is the statewide system used to fund public education. It is a
system that pays no attention to the real needs of young people, has no
relationship to the goals and standards of our communities, and uses a 19th
century measure of wealth to deliver state aid.
And because the problem is statewide, the only way to solve it is at the
state level: Throw out the entire school funding system and replace it with
one that links resources to the needs of children and the standards of our
towns, cities, and villages.
That system exists and it is called �adequacy.� It is a nationwide
school-finance reform movement that is growing at the grassroots level in
this state through the work of the
(WAES), a diverse, broad-based coalition of more than 60 teachers� unions,
school boards, parent groups, and faith-based and civic organizations.
Under the adequacy model, funding levels are based on the actual amount
required for the infrastructure and resources schools need to educate
children to reach state and federal educational goals. It means determining
the actual cost of providing a sound, basic education, including staff,
materials, and facilities, and creating a structure to deliver it.
Partners in WAES worked together to put this theory into practice in the
Wisconsin Adequacy Plan embodying these six principles:
1. Property tax relief for virtually every district in the state;
2. Long-term growth toward full adequacy goals;
3. A foundation level of general funding for every student in the state;
4. An increase in all categorical aid?special education, English Language
Learners, transportation, and poverty;
5. A revenue adjustment to offset the economic and educational
dis-economies of scale in small, rural school districts; and
6. Maintenance of local control with the option for school districts to
spend above adequacy levels with a school board supermajority vote.
If you appreciate this kind of common sense approach to funding our public
schools, you need to work for school-finance reform. And you need to do
that work with other people who appreciate quality public schools that
offer a future full of opportunities to all our children, not just the few
whose families can afford it. You need to become a partner in the Wisconsin
Alliance for Excellent Schools.
(Editor�s note: You can join the alliance through the WAES website or by
contacting Beebe at (414)384-9094 or iwf@wisconsinsfuture.org.)
May 25, 2004
Tom Beebe is education outreach specialist with the Institute for
Wisconsin's Future in Milwaukee.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Here are some other groups working on issues like ours:
http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/
http://www.excellentschools.org/
I sent this email to comments@madison.k12.wi.us this evening
I am writing, first to thank you for the time and effort you devote to the MMSD.Links: Gym Instructor Reductions | Admin Compensation IncreasesSecond, I'm writing to find out why some of you voted recently to increase administrative compensation ($589K), while at the same time eliminating gym instructors AND increasing student fees?
Perhaps there is an opportunity to re-think this? I would suggest telling the administrators to find 589K from their budget to fund the comp increase. In return, the student fee increases can be rolled back and perhaps a few more gym instructors retained.
Let's fund student curriculum & programs first, then deal with administrative costs.
Best wishes -
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Believe me when I say that I never intended to spend my time over the past three years studying the MMSD budget, even though I have worked professionally with very large budgets. But I love public education, and I love the fine arts. My husband is principal bassist in the MSO and a music teacher in MMSD. My daughter is a young violinist in WYSO�s Concert Orchestra and middle school student at Velma Hamilton. I live in a city that invests heavily in its future as a center for the performing arts, and I love my city and the diversity of its neighborhoods.
So two years ago, when Superintendent Art Rainwater proposed to eliminate Grade 4 strings, one of the school district�s gateway programs, I was alarmed. I began to ask questions, and I�ve learned a lot. Over the next several months, I'll be commenting on this website in more detail about next steps for the budget process.
With all the focus on cuts to education, more than anything else I believe what is needed now is a vision for the Madison public schools and the specific funding (public investment in schools) that would be needed for the future of Madison�s public schools over the next 3-5 years. This budget cycle Board members were unable to get to the point to seriously discuss whether to go to a referendum or not, because they do not have a roadmap to guide them. I was at these meetings and witnessed the lack of a decisionmaking framework that comes from not having a vision and roadmap.
From my personal business experience and my recent immersion in the District�s school budget process, I�ve learned there are no shortcuts to budgeting. It�s critically important to have a vision, measurable overall and specific goals and objectives for that vision and strategies to reach your vision. Madison�s School Board has some of those pieces, but I�m hoping they take the time to develop and to refine their vision for the next 3-5 years and that they engage the community in that process.
I've watched for three budget cycles as the School Board's budget process in the spring revolves around managing the Superintendent's proposed cuts to the Madison School budget. These cuts represent less than 5% of a $300+ million school budget. Yearly, the school budget is approved without any information on what departments actually will be doing with the money next year.
Madison's schools and the School Board need to find another way to work through the yearly budget process. However, until the School Board has developed a 3-5 year vision for the schools with measurable goals and objectives by school department don't be surprised if we end up in the same place next year - panicked parents and a chagrined community distrustful of its School Board's decisions.
Madison needs more from its School Board members than simply threats of cut services if we don't pass a referendum. The Board needs to understand that the support of grass roots efforts in the community will be critical to passing a future referendum.
I think it�s critically important to have the grass roots effort and support of community in passing a school referendum. I also think the School Board needs to have more thorough, public budget deliberations before deciding there is a budget gap and focusing on the �lightening rods� in budget cuts.
With all the focus on cuts to education, rather than on what is the vision for and what specific funding (public investment in schools) is needed for the future of Madison�s public schools over the next 3-5 years, Board members were unable to get to the point to seriously discuss whether to go to a referendum or not. Board members also lacked information from the Administration on Department goals and objectives for the next year. Without this information, the community will have a hard time supporting any increased investments in public education.
I attended nearly all the board meetings and public forums on the budget. In January the Board received a one page forecast of a $10 million gap followed in mid-March with a list of proposed cuts. I think the community needs to know what the vision and roadmap to that vision are for the next several years. We need to have public discussions about what that roadmap should look like. The community needs to play a critical role in helping to develop that future vision.
From my personal business experience and my recent immersion in the District�s school budget process, I�ve learned there are no shortcuts to budgeting. It�s critically important to have a vision, measurable overall and specific goals and objectives for that vision and strategies to reach your vision. Madison�s School Board has some of those pieces, but I�m hoping they take the time to develop and to refine their vision for the next 3-5 years and that they engage the community that process.
A great article including links to build a coalition in support of school finance reform. From the FightingBob website which is a great resource in and of itself for progressive news: http://www.fightingbob.com/article.cfm?articleID=219
Pro-public education forces are joining together to reform Wisconsin’s outdated and unworkable school finance system.
Organizing for adequacy
By Tom Beebe
Wisconsin’s public school system is arguably the most important component of our high quality of life. It has historically been part of the “village” that raises intelligent, motivated, and successful participants in both public and economic life.
The quality we have known for decades, however, is under siege. Unless we act soon to change the way we fund public education, more schools will close, school districts will begin to disappear, communities will wither, and our children will lose sight of the future we promised them.
How do you know if your kids and their schools are under attack and at the mercy of a funding system that no longer works? First of all, answer these seven questions:
1. Is there more crabgrass on the playground than last year or is that leak in the roof getting larger?
2. Do you have enough librarians, nurses, and school psychologists to meet the needs of all of the children in your district?
3. Are you paying more in fees or, perhaps, paying fees where you never paid them before?
4. Does your child still have access to music, art, and physical education?
5. Have teachers in your district been laid off, or have retiring teachers not been replaced?
6. Can your children take the classes that will get them into the college of their choice?
7. Is your school district facing consolidation, not because it is educationally sound but because it will have to shut the doors if it does not consolidate?
If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, chances are pretty good you live in a school district that is suffering thanks to Wisconsin’s school-funding system. In most cases, children are at risk and, in many cases, communities face uncertain futures at best.
You are not alone. Virtually every district in the state is suffering, through no fault of its own, because the system is too complex, unequal, and inadequate to give all children, no matter where they live or what their special condition, an opportunity to meet Wisconsin’s rigorous academic standards.
It is worth repeating: Yes, bad things are happening to you, but the problem is not in your school district. Classes are not too large because of your administrators. Teachers’ salaries are not capped because of your school board. And your students’ textbooks do not still refer to the Soviet Union because of bad parents.
The problem is the statewide system used to fund public education. It is a system that pays no attention to the real needs of young people, has no relationship to the goals and standards of our communities, and uses a 19th century measure of wealth to deliver state aid.
And because the problem is statewide, the only way to solve it is at the state level: Throw out the entire school funding system and replace it with one that links resources to the needs of children and the standards of our towns, cities, and villages.
That system exists and it is called “adequacy.” It is a nationwide school-finance reform movement that is growing at the grassroots level in this state through the work of the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES), a diverse, broad-based coalition of more than 60 teachers’ unions, school boards, parent groups, and faith-based and civic organizations.
Under the adequacy model, funding levels are based on the actual amount required for the infrastructure and resources schools need to educate children to reach state and federal educational goals. It means determining the actual cost of providing a sound, basic education, including staff, materials, and facilities, and creating a structure to deliver it.
Partners in WAES worked together to put this theory into practice in the Wisconsin Adequacy Plan embodying these six principles:
1. Property tax relief for virtually every district in the state;
2. Long-term growth toward full adequacy goals;
3. A foundation level of general funding for every student in the state;
4. An increase in all categorical aid�special education, English Language Learners, transportation, and poverty;
5. A revenue adjustment to offset the economic and educational dis-economies of scale in small, rural school districts; and
6. Maintenance of local control with the option for school districts to spend above adequacy levels with a school board supermajority vote.
If you appreciate this kind of common sense approach to funding our public schools, you need to work for school-finance reform. And you need to do that work with other people who appreciate quality public schools that offer a future full of opportunities to all our children, not just the few whose families can afford it. You need to become a partner in the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools.
(Editor’s note: You can join the alliance through the WAES website or by contacting Beebe at (414)384-9094 or iwf@wisconsinsfuture.org.)
May 25, 2004
Tom Beebe is education outreach specialist with the Institute for Wisconsin's Future in Milwaukee.
Alan J. Borsuk writes about efforts to close the education gap between black & white students:
In Wisconsin the gap is so wide that black eighth-graders and white fourth-graders had almost identical scores in math on a national standardized test given in 2003. The gap between white and black eighth-graders was larger in Wisconsin than in any other state in both reading and math on that set of tests.There's been quite a bit of discussion on Bill Cosby's recent speech at Howard University. The Washington Post's Colbert I. King says simply: "Fix it, Brother". Debra Dickerson also comments on her blog.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Highly respected East High School biology teacher Paul de Vair, who chairs the school's National Honor Society Selection Committee, wrote a two-and-a-half page memo to Principal Catherine Tillman on May 7.
It starts, "I am writing this letter to formally protest the debacle involving six honor students who were elected to the National Honor Society by the Selection Committee and who were denied membership on the day of the induction ceremony."
He goes through the details of "the mess you (Tillman) created," resigns as chair of the Selection Committee, and concludes in italics, " Never in my 40 years in education (which includes MTI and WEAC presidencies and terms on the NEA Board of Directors) have I seen a faculty's spirit and enthusiasm plunge so rapidly as it has in the last 2 years at East High School."
Mr. du Vair's memo seems to be a public document, so I assume that I'm not violating any confidences by quoting it. He copied it to President, Board of Education; Superintendent of Schools; NHS Selection Committee; East High School Administration; EHS Faculty and Staff.
Ed Blume
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
The Madison School District owes strong support to its administrators, especially our building principals. Without the hard work and long hours of our administrators, we could not serve our children as well as we do. Nonetheless, in tough financial times, the School Board must not approve wage and benefit increases for administrators until it carefully considers the impact of the increases on future budgets. On May 17, the Madison Board violated this principle of good stewardship.
On May 17, the Association of Madison School District Administrators (AMSDA) made a short presentation to the School Board regarding wages and benefits for administrators for the next two years. For the first time in my experience, there was no prior presentation to the Human Resources Committee. There was no executive session for the Board to consider the implications of the proposal, which we received only hours before the meeting. This was the first two-year proposal. The superintendent and his staff did not analyze the proposal or draw our attention to its long-term financial impact.
In less than fifteen minutes, the Board passed the AMSDA proposal with Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys, Juan Lopez, and Shwaw Vang voting yes and Johnny Winston Jr. and I voting no. We then spent the next several hours debating amendments to the superintendent's $308M budget. After much discussion, the Board voted to increase fees for students, raid the contingency reserve for 2004-05 and otherwise revise about $500,000 of spending---leaving more than 99.9% of the superintendent's recommendations unaltered.
Year One of the two-year commitment to administrators works as follows. The Board granted administrators a wage and benefits increase of 3.72% for 2004-05, roughly .56% less than teachers will receive next year under our contract with Madison Teachers, Inc. This administrative package will generate a savings of $88,017 for next year. The savings does not significantly reduce our cost for administrators. The superintendent had set aside $16,515,677 for our 149 administrators. He still needs $16, 427,660 because the compensation package has gone up $589,841 over a zero increase.
Year Two is when the significant financial impact of this quick decision becomes apparent. The Board agreed to give administrators in 2005-06 the same increase that teachers will receive in 2004-05. Teachers are slated for a 4.9% increase. Therefore, the increase approved on Monday will push the cost of the administrative package to $17,232,615 in 2005-06. That's an increase of 8.8% in two years. The overall administrative compensation cost will go from $15,837,819 in 2003-04 to $17,232,615 in 2005-06, an increase of $1,394,796. The wage and benefit package for an MMSD administrator rises from $106,300 to $115,600 per administrator annually.
And there are bigger budget implications to come. State law prohibits the district from providing administrators a compensation package that exceeds the package for teachers. In just a few minutes on May 17, the Board locked itself into a compensation package that will become the floor for negotiations with the teachers’ union for 2005-07. That is the impact of changing our practice from granting administrative increases after teacher negotiations to granting a compensation package that runs for two years and overlaps the next round of teacher negotiations.
Here's how teacher negotiations for 2005-07 are likely to begin. In 2004-05 teachers as a group will cost the district approximately $180M. If the Board had not committed to a 4.9% increase for administrators, $180M would be the floor for the next round of negotiations. However, the effect of the 4.9% increase for administrators is to commit the district to the same percentage increase for teachers. Adding 4.9% to costs for next year will mean starting at $188M with the teachers. Anything less would violate the legal prohibition against offering a compensation increase to teachers that is less than the package granted to administrators.
As a Board member, I am very concerned about the majority's rush to grant administrative increases for two years into the future without full discussion of the financial impacts over the two years. I tried unsuccessfully to table the increases until we had completed the budget amendment process and thank Board member Johnny Winston Jr. for his support on that motion.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Ruth Robarts offered an excellent model for rationally crafting a goal-specific budget for the MMSD, and we all surely support it. But how are we going to make it happen? The Superintendent won't adopt it willingly, so we're faced with requiring the Superintendent to use the process. That means getting four board members to vote for the requirement. How are we going to make that happen? We'd need some sort of campaign to get the four votes. Would we need a big public splash like a one-day conference to learn about the budget model? Could we get the job done by privately talking with board members? Again, how do we proceed to get the board to adopt the budet model proposed by Ruth?
Ed Blume
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Nicole Sweeney updates us on several technology related cheating events in the Milwaukee area:
At Waterford Union High School, a handful of students stole the answers to their physics exam and programmed the answers into their graphing calculators.At Racine Park High School, a student used her camera phone to send a photo of her test to a friend.
And at Walden III Middle and High School in Racine, some students tape-recorded their notes to play back on hidden ear phones during exams.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
The recently approved budget was a winner for some and a loser for other MMSD Departments, most notably funding for schools. The 2004-2005 budget approved on May 17, 2004 is $308 million.
A. Budget Winners - Increases Over Previous Year's Budget
Business Services 7%
General Administration 6%
Educational Services (spec. ed/bilingual) 1%
Business Services and General Administration increased $3.8 million
B. Budget Losers - Decreases Over Previous Year's Budget
Elementary Education -1%
w/o Assist. Supt. Office -2%
Secondary Education -1%
w/o Assist. Supt. Office -2%
The Elementary and Secondary school budgets with direct teaching to students decreased $1.4 million.
When there is no money, shouldn't all increases in spending first to to instruction - the children? Why are we seeing increases in Business Services when there are decreases in 130 teachers and new school fees? Why did the School Board approve more than $500,000 increases in salaries and wages for administrative contracts just minutes before authorizing the reduction of 130 teachers and $300,000 in new fees? Robarts, Vang, and Winston were right to vote against a budget that does not put the education of Madison's children first. The majority of Board members (Carstensen, Clingan, Keys and Lopez) voted for these changes. Why?
Complete comparison can be downloaded: Download file
Note: The MMSD budget document notes that due to a new accounting system put into place that enters actual salaries vs. average salaries the 02-03 expenditures and 03-04 budget have crosswalk variances to the 04-05 budget. Contact the Business Services office with any specific questions.
Salary and benefits comprise nearly 85% of the MMSD's $308 million school budget. When you look at the approved 2004-2005 budget and compare salary and benefits to 2002-2003 expenditures for the same, you see that Instruction increased 1% while salary and benefits expenditures for Business Services increased 6% and for MSCR the increase was 18% over a two-year period.
The complete comparison is contained in the file: Download file
Note: The MMSD budget document notes that due to a new accounting system put into place that enters actual salaries vs. average salaries the 02-03 expenditures and 03-04 budget have crosswalk variances to the 04-05 budget. Contact the Business Services office with any specific questions.
On Monday, May 17th, the MMSD School Board made less than $1 million in changes to Mr. Rainwater's proposed $308 million budget for the 2004-2005 school year. These changes were made right after the Board approved more than $500,000 in salary and benefits increases to Administrators. The primary changes later made to the 2004-2005 budget were made by increasing existing fees (sport fees to $115/sport) and creating a new elementary strings fee of $50 per participant. The increase in fees for 2004-2005 totaled more than $300,000.
Robarts, Vang and Winston were right to vote against the proposed 2004-2005 school budget. Ruth Robarts' call for an alternative budgeting approach is needed now. Reasons for her approach are outlined further in the following commentary that is also being submitted as a Letter to the Editor.
People may read Ruth Robarts� alternative budgeting approach and focus solely on the numbers presented in her one example. That would be a mistake. The emphasis of her commentary was on a budgetary approach that begins the process by establishing goals and objectives and initially protecting instruction. Her approach also asks the Administration to come back to the Board with several budget scenarios not just the Same Service budget.
The primary focus of Ruth�s commentary was ��we should set specific, measurable student achievement goals as our guide to evaluate future curriculum, program and staffing needs. Second, we should conduct a wide-open [public] debate about how best to meet our goals.� To me that means looking at where we are and what we�re spending, engaging the public (in a meaningful way) and deciding where we need to go for our community.
As was demonstrated once again on Monday night, the Superintendent�s proposed MMSD budget is not discussed but rather rubber stamped by the School Board. Board members made less than $1 million in changes in a $308 million budget, and most of their changes were made around the fringes by increasing fees. Madison cannot afford to have a School Board that does not engage the community in any meaningful way during the budget process and does not ensure that every dollar added to or cut from the budget supports the Board�s priorities and strategies.
For example, if the Board examined the 04-05 MMSD Balanced Budget compared to the 2002-2003 expenditures, one would see that salary and benefits for Instruction increased 1%, for Business Services increased 6% and for MSCR increased 18% over two years.
Holding Business Services and MSCR salary and benefits expenditures to 1% increases may have saved the District nearly $1 million and $900,000, respectively. Holding these two departments to a 0% increase for the past two years may have saved approximately $2.3 million from the total budget � approximately $1.3 million under revenue caps and $1 million in Community Fund 80.
Why does this matter? If you say you don�t have the money and one puts kids� education first, then the Board would want the budget for salary and benefits increases in non-instruction to be in line with these same budget increases in instruction. Or they would direct that non-instruction expenses be cut at the beginning of the Board�s budget planning. It�s a starting point for a student-focused budget, not an end point.
By not starting this way, the Board ends up boxed into a corner with limited information and even fewer options to pursue such as throwing fees in without having had a policy discussion about the role of fees in the District�s finances or which items in the District�s budget can be charged a fee. Rather, Board members recommended increases to the increased sports fees and spent 15 minutes or less in discussion before approving a $50 fee for the academic elementary strings program � the first ever fee for an academic program. This was after the Board had had two years to work with the professionals and the community (but did not) to consider strategies for funding a portion of elementary strings and extracurricular sports and other activities.
While Robarts� approach is too late for this spring, I hope the School Board seriously discusses the issues raised in her commentary. The continued revenue caps make this dialogue an even more important one to have - soon. The State has to pick up its share of the responsibility for public education, but Madison needs to put a budget process in place that works for the kids no matter what the District�s financial situation, and the budget approved Monday night falls short of that for next school year. Please, call, write, or e-mail Board members to take action to implement a better budgeting process - now.
Note: The MMSD budget document notes that due to a new accounting system put into place that enters actual salaries vs. average salaries the 02-03 expenditures and 03-04 budget have crosswalk variances to the 04-05 budget. Contact the Business Services office with any specific questions.
I sent this mail to the Madison Board of Education regarding the current budget discussions (comments@madison.k12.wi.us):
First, thank you for all that you do. You truly have a thankless role on the MMSD BOE.
I am writing to pass along a few comments on the current board budget deliberations:
a) I urge you to apply reduced spending increases or in some cases reductions, across the budget, rather than attempt to load fees onto a few programs (Keep in mind that Madison's 308+m budget is much richer than many other like sized communities). This strikes me as the ONLY fair approach.
b) The current process is one of the tail wagging the dog. Why are "cuts" discussed prior to a ground up budget development process? A same service approach does not make sense, given today's changing times and requirements. A bottom up approach (ie, starting the next budget process now) provides you, the taxpayers, parents and students with an opportunity to be more involved in the process. The ground up process may, in fact suggest spending MORE in some areas, with data to support that approach. That process may also identify revenue opportunities/sources. In addition, it would be interesting to benchmark MMSD's curriculum, administrative and support service approaches over time vis a vis other districts in terms of spending & results.
c) I urge you to choose a leadership mode rather than the current reactive role. The board seems to focus on hot button issues such as paying for janitors from strings fees, or dramatic increases in wrestling fees, rather than applying the fiscal reality budget wide. You are in an excellent position to discuss and drive funding changes (The Governor's School Funding Task Force can certainly use some input). Personally, I'd like to see diversified sources of school funding:
1) Local Property Taxes for physical plant only, and capped at annual CPI changes
2) Gas taxes, sales taxes for operating funds (sales taxes should apply to newspapers, media and services)
3) Annual auto fees for operating funds (vehicle fees should be tied to the cost, weight and efficiency of the vehicle)
4) Encourage FICA tax changes at the federal level (eliminate the regressive nature of that tax)
In closing, I urge you to apply reduced spending increases and/or reductions fairly across the budget (x percent across the budget), rather than in narrowly focused areas such as wrestling and strings.
Best wishes -
Jim
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Don Severson sent this email over the weekend regarding Monday's BOE meeting (5.17.2004) :
Please join me (Don Severson) in a MMSD Board of Education watch Monday evening, May 17 at about 6:00 p.m. The agenda is copied below. The Board will start discussing amendments to the 04-05 budget proposed by Supt. Rainwater sometime by 6:00. The Board will ostensibly make decisions on $9.9 million worth cuts and changes to the budget. The rules of the Board discussion on the budget preclude public input at this meeting.It is critical, however, that we have a strong show of community interest in
their deliberations.
They need to know people are concerned and watching. You will be frustrated and probably disappointed, but you really need to see and hear how they 'function' to really get a sense of what is going on. We have to show them that there is interest and concern by others than the few of us who have been watching and working on them since last fall. We must take this action as a visible next step in the ground swell of initiatives that must be taken to get change to occur insofar as how this school board, administration and system operates.Please let me know that YOU WILL ATTEND the meeting MONDAY NIGHT!
Reply to me with this email. Call me at 238-8300 or 577-0851. THANK YOU.
Speak with your feet and your presence!!
Encourage friends to also go to the meeting--even if you can't go yourself.
Monday, May 17, 20045:00 p.m.Special Board of Education Meeting - Executive Session
pursuant to Wis. Stat. Sections 19.85(1)(a)(e)(f)(g); 118.125; and
120.13(1)(c)Approval of Executive Session Minutes dated April 19, 2004
Review of Disciplinary Action Recommended to be Taken Against Three Students
Bus Vendor Proposals for Providing Transportation Services for 2004-07 School
YearsSpecial Board of Education Meeting continued in Open Session Announcements
2004-05 Association of Madison School District Administrators (AMSDA) Salary
and Benefits ProposalResolution regarding 50th Anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education - See
Appendix 12004-05 Amended Proposed Budget and Board Amendments to the Superintendent�s
2004-05 Amended Proposed Budget
Other Business
Adjournment
Doyle Administration Bldg
Room 103
545 W. Dayton St.
Madison, WI 53703
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Don Severson forwarded his presentation to the Madison School Board Thursday evening:
Inasmuch as the BOE and district administration are engaged in the leadership of an educational enterprise this is a good time to reflect on our experiences in the operation of the system and its processes. Let me suggest a �lesson plan�. This lesson plan has been prepared for the BOE and administrative leadership of the district and intended for their collaborative planning and implementation with teachers, parents, students and the community.
OBJECTIVES:EXERCISES:
- Develop a base line of trust and respect among selves and others significant to the processes
- Facilitate the efforts and skills of those who are learners, those who are teachers, those who support the processes, as well as parents and citizens
- Adhere to decision-making processes without disruption to the educational processes
- Apply policies and processes equitably with all groups/persons involved, but differently according to needs when appropriate
- Demonstrate leadership for systemic change based upon adequate research, performance indicators and value to the community
- Undertake initiatives for making the system work more effectively
- Balance social services with educational performance for all students
RESOLVE:
- Functional role and responsibility development as a Board and in relationships with administration and the unions
- Skill development in strategic, long-term planning
- The art of shared communications and listening among selves and with constituencies
- Collaborations and partnerships with other stakeholders
THANK YOU.
- Muster the political will, fortitude and abilities to make a difference for the reasons appropriate for educational needs and outcomes
- Accept accountability and responsibility for those actions under local control
- To change the �ain�t it awful� syndrome in assigning blame to others for the fix we are in
- Add value and significance with leadership and vision
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
M.R.C. Greenwood, provost and SVP of academic affairs for the University of California System kicked off the Summit with some comments on US Elementary School Curriculum:
The biggest problem in moving ideas from the lab to the marketplace, said Greenwood, is a massive drought of brainpower looming in the United States' near future. As the National Science Foundation's recently released Science & Engineering (S&E) Indicators 2004 report revealed, the number of U.S. jobs requiring science and engineering skills is growing at nearly 5 percent annually, compared with a 1 percent growth rate for the rest of the U.S. labor market. Yet there are not nearly enough qualified U.S. scientists and engineers to meet the demand. In the past the nation has relied on skilled foreign-born workers, but many are choosing to work in other countries in response to increasingly strict U.S. visa requirements and burgeoning global demand for their skills.With Asian countries now conferring more science and engineering bachelor's degrees and Europe more such Ph.D.'s than the United States, "our biggest national security problem is the number of students interested in science and math," said Greenwood.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Multi-age classrooms were the norm in education in this country 100 years ago. Bedford, Massachusetts, a small community outside Boston, MA, will begin a pilot program on multi-age classrooms next year. The recommendation was made by the Davis School Multi-Age Committee to the Bedford School Committee (School Board).
Multi-age classrooms were the norm in education in this country 100 years ago. Bedford, Massachusetts, a small community outside Boston, MA, will begin a pilot program on multi-age classrooms next year. The recommendation was made by the Davis School Multi-Age Committee to the Bedford School Committee (School Board).
The recommendation is for a pilot program first before wider implementation is undertaken. The Committee report includes section on the benefits and concerns of multi-age classrooms and the steps for implementation and evaluation of this teaching approach.
The full report can be read at http://www.bedford.k12.ma.us/davis/resources/pdfs/Multiage%20Proposal%
One more place our schools and students are feeling the pain, rising milk prices for school lunches: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/may04/229584.asp
Wauwatosa High's response to drinking and prom: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may04/229580.asp
It's probably students' post-prom drinking and driving that parents and school officials should really concern themselves with...
Harvard's Lant Pritchett writes in a new paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Project:
There are many ways to press forward this kind of systemic reform, Mr Pritchett argues. Vouchers and a �market� for education might work well in some circumstances, but other approaches could achieve good results too in some cases: school autonomy (as granted to �charter schools� in the United States, for instance), decentralisation of control, community management, and the use of non-government providers, could all, Mr Pritchett argues, serve the goal of structural reform that he regards as necessary if the application of extra resources is to succeed.One striking indication of how easy it is to spend money fruitlessly in education comes from the rich countries. According to one study cited by Mr Pritchett, Britain increased its real spending per pupil by 77% between 1970 and 1994; over the same period, the assessment score for learning in maths and science fell by 8%. Australia increased its real spending per pupil by 270%; its pupils� scores fell by 2%. Extra spending by itself is likely to be no more successful in the poor countries than it has been in the rich.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Roger Allen forwarded a note to me from the Mad_School_Imp Yahoo Group
On 5/11/04 the Elvejhem Elementary School held an informational meeting about its decsion to proceed with all multiage classrooms
(combined grade classrooms) for grades 2-5. There will not be any single grade classrooms for these grades.The MMSD Lead Elementary Principal Jennifer Allen announced that multiage classrooms are the model the school district is moving to. She complemented Elvejhem for holding this meeting as many of the schools that are moving to this model will be doing so next fall without any such informational meetings.
Many parents were upset by their lack of options and the lack of consultation on the part of the district. Eleven teachers attended this meeting in addition to the shcool prinicpal and the district lead principal. The teachers presented a united front in favor of the multiage classrooms. However, there are other teachers who privately oppose this move. Twenty five parents attended the meeting.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
At the May 13th MMSD Budget Hearing parents and community representatives spoke against the proposed elementary string fee, calling it outrageous and equivalent to cutting the program.
"We are not a good-things-come-to-those-who pay town," said parent Maureen Rickman, adding that the proposed fee would "cut out a big chunk of the students [in the middle income range]."
This coming Monday, May 17, the Board will begin the process of voting on the budget amendments. It is expected that they will start with those amendments that involve personnel because layoff notices need to go out before the end of the school year.
Last night there was a public hearing on the proposed 04-05 MMSD Budget. In addition to a number of speakers advocating direct instruction for reading and middle school counselors, several speakers spoke on behalf of the elementary strings program - the largest number of people to speak on any single issue. Comments included: string fee is outrageous at 130% of the cost of the program/student, fee was not developed using input from the community or fine arts coordinator, district needs to form a fine arts council to look at the needs/status of fine arts in the Madison public schools so that curriculum does not continue to be downgraded as the City of Madison's emphasis on and commitment to the fine arts grows.
Calls, letters, and emails to the School Board do matter and have made a difference. They have been instrumental in showing Board members the community's support for the program. As Ruth Robarts mentioned on the news last night (May 13, 2004), even when Board members appear to have decided on an issue, ongoing input from the public can and does make the Board members reconsider their decisions.
This coming Monday, May 17, the Board will begin the process of voting on Board member amendments to the budget. It is expected that they will start with those budget amendments that involve personnel, because layoff notices need to go out before the end of the school year. It is possible that the Board will put off consideration of the other non-personnel amendments (e.g., the $70,000 worth of TAG support money) to another meeting, though we can't be sure.
Where the fee for elementary strings fits into this picture is somewhat unclear. There is little support from other members on the Board for the proposed $460 fee. There is support for reinstating custodians and maintenance but not by useing this fee. What makes the elementary strings fee proposal iffy is that the Board does not appear to require that discussions with profesionals in the field and parents take place before imposing fees of this magnitude - or any fee for that matter. The Board has not discussed what categories fees are appropriate for and what other funding mechanisms other than fees might be appropriate.
Bring parents, coaches, businesses together to review and develop the extra-curricular sports budgets. In other word involve the community earlier in the budget process - like June 2004 for next year. In the meantime perhaps the board members need to stick with changes to the budget that do not directly impact the children -parking fees at Doyle is one proposal.
We only have a little time left to act. Even if you have already done so, please consider taking a few minutes to tell the BOE why you believe they should not consider the proposal to charge a $460 fee for elementary strings. Perhapsyou have some ideas for where that money could come from? Perhaps you'd like to tell Board members that we've reached the point where what happens during the day in the classroom must first take priority over District funding of extra-curricula activities? Whatever your reasons, please let them hear from you.
Jonathan Gramling, editor of the weekly Madison Times, has an editorial wondering whether a number of recent school district policies merge into a "big picture" of disadvantage to people of color.
You can read his editorial on the Web site of The Madison Times.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
There is still time to act!
Attend and speak at the May 13 public hearing and encourage your friends and co-workers to do likewise;
There is still time to act!
Attend and speak at the May 13 public hearing and encourage your friends and co-workers to do likewise;
E-mail your concerns directly to BOE members at comments@madison.k12.wi.us;
call BOE members directly to discuss your concerns (phone numbers at the following link: http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/boe/#members
The current status of the proposed budget is available at:
http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/budget.htm
In an effort to find funding for custodians and maintenance work, a Madison Board member proposed an unprecedented $460 fee for elementary strings, which is an academic curriculum subject in the Madison School District. No other fee, not even for extracurricular sports is as high.
He noted as part of his explanation for the fee that he starts high in a negotiation so as not to bargain away his position. Other Board member recommendations for changes to the MMSD 04-05 budget tried to minimize the impact on children's instruction and opportunity to participate in activities beneficial to their education.
If the MMSD School Board wants the City of Madison's support, I hope they take better care than to make extreme recommendations on a targeted group of students. The following Letter to the Editor, which has been sent in to the papers but not yet published asks for fairness and responsible decisionmaking when it comes to all academic curriculum.
Letter to the Editor:
This month the MMSD School Board will vote on a proposal by President Bill Keys to charge 4th and 5th grade strings players $460 to pay for custodians in the schools. I hope the Board rejects his unfair proposal that would ask 1,600 nine- and 10-year olds to pay for custodians and maintenance when these are services that benefit all children. Also, I hope the Board rejects any other 12th hour proposal to cut this or any other curriculum and instead follows suggestions made at various times by Board members Carstensen, Robarts, Winston and Vang to bring the community together to secure arts education and extracurricular activities for our children in our schools.
The children of Madison�s public schools understand the value of elementary strings education to them, and they are courageous in speaking about their beliefs to the Board. On Monday, May 3rd, nine- and ten-year old children came with their parents in tow to the Madison Board of Education meeting to demonstrate once again their support of a curriculum they dearly value. They came because they wanted to let the Board know what the community thinks as well as how important and beneficial this ACADEMIC curriculum is to their education. They also wanted to know why the Board had done what appears to be nothing over the past two years to seriously explore options �outside the box� to secure this valued curriculum.
The children, their parents and the community already told Mr. Keys, other School Board members and the Superintendent two years ago how important the Grades 4-12 instrumental curriculum was to their education. Board members saw the research that demonstrates the positive academic benefits of instrumental music on a child�s non-music education. High school students told Board members how they needed this curriculum so that they could play well enough to qualify for college scholarships and to stand out on their college applications. Losing two years of study through the elimination of the elementary strings program would put them that much further behind their peers from other schools. In addition to sports, music on a college application is looked upon very favorably by college admissions offices.
The MMSD elementary strings program is run efficiently but somehow this critical background and financial information was not included in the budget analysis done for Mr. Keys. Each string teacher teaches about 200 elementary school children per week at a cost of about $285 per child per year. For comparison, top administrator contracts cost the District $600 per student and extracurricular sports can cost the District anywhere from $200 to more than $1600 per student per year.
Over the past decade, while elementary school enrollment has declined, elementary strings enrollment increased 21 percent. Nearly 30 percent of the students participating in strings are low-income and minority students (more than 500 children) and more than 10 percent (160 children) are special education children. Through instrument rental fees the District has built up an impressive collection of string instruments and is able to provide more than 400 instrument grants per year to low-income children at NO COST to the District.
The District�s budget analysis of the elementary strings program pointed out that a $460 annual fee would cover the costs of the program for all students plus the low-income students who would be waived a fee. No other District activity, including athletics, has fees that cover the entire cost of that activity � a point not included in the analysis. The fee students paid this year for extracurricular high school sports will cover only 8% of what the District identifies as its extracurricular sports budget this year. A comparable fee for elementary strings would be $33 per student per year � not $460.
Madison values the arts. Forbes magazine identified Madison WI as one of the best places to do business in part because people want "...just to stay in Madison, drawn in part by year-round lakefront recreation, endless bike paths and a hyperactive schedule of performing arts [emphasis added]." (�Miracle in the Midwest,� by Mark Tatge, 05.24.04 Forbes Magazine [Real Video]).
Madison�s public schools need to reflect Madison�s values if the community is to continue its strong support of public education. The City is developing and implementing its vision for the arts, the UW has its vision for the arts. Madison�s public school children are the city�s future artists. They are the city�s future audiences. It�s time for the MMSD to reflect Madison values, and the arts are central to what our City values, beginning with our young children�s elementary string education.
Barb Schrank, Ph.D.
Parent
Like last year, the May budget discussions of the Madison School Board focus on a list of cuts that the superintendent recommends to balance the budget for next year. The proposed cuts represent about 3% of $308.7M budget for 2004-2005.
Nonetheless, cutting these items will reduce educational services to students. There will be fewer teachers at the elementary, middle and high schools and for Special Education and Talented and Gifted students. Workloads and stress for continuing teachers will go up. Night custodians for the schools are reduced as are maintenance and trades workers. Staff responsible for the school libraries will take yet another cut. Minority student coordinators at the high schools will be cut and their services transferred downtown.
On the other hand, the number of central administrators--the 55% of administrators who do not work in schools--may grow. Administrative wage and benefit packages will increase more than 4%. While students needing services in schools will get less, central administration can still turn to the Parent Community Relations Department ($1M item) to handle complaints. Large central administration budgets for purchased services continue. The superintendent will be able to hire outside legal counsel whenever he desires, despite having several attorneys on staff. Dollars remain available for him to buy out the contracts of bad teachers. And so forth.
The Board seems confident that its budget process is as good as it gets. As we pick at the edges of the superintendent's budget, we cite a brochure stating district goals--improving student achievement and offering challenging, diverse and contemporary curriculum and instruction--- as proof that the Board used student achievement goals to guide the budget process. Soon we will offer amendments to "restore" services on the cut list. In return, the administration will defend its recommendations. We continue the budget gimmick of shifting costs from our operating budget to the budget for community programs and services. Each such shift raises property taxes without regard to the state limits on spending and delays decisions about priorities.
After seven years on the Board, I have concluded that I should not limit my role to debating changes on the cut list. While I agree with the Board majority that state and federal financial assistance to our schools is shamefully inadequate, I also believe that we should take steps to improve our budget process while we try to reform school funding on the state or federal level.
First, following the advice of the National School Board Association, we should set specific, measurable student achievement goals as our guide to evaluate future curriculum, program and staffing needs. Second, we should conduct a wide-open, public debate about how best to meet our goals.
This two-step process could yield much greater financial support from the community in the form of partnerships to help fund specific academic programs. Elementary music and extracurricular sports come to mind. It could also produce "Blue Ribbon" committees to help us consider all options for employee health insurance, non-instructional administrative staff, purchased services and other high cost, non-instructional items.
Unfortunately, it is too late in planning for 2004-2005 for the Board to start over with specific achievement goals. It takes significant time to review programs, curriculum and staffing and achievement data to determine what works and whether changes can increase achievement or decrease costs. However, there is still time for the Board to direct the superintendent to start with a budget that stays within anticipated revenues and does not cut services to students.
I propose an alternative budget as a starting point. It has these features. There are no cuts to instruction. Elementary and secondary schools, educational services and similar departments grow to allow for increases in staff compensation and continuing current programs and services. All other departments are funded at 97-98% of the current costs, following the model used by the City of Madison.
The resulting budget grows roughly the amount of the expected growth in revenues. There would be no need for further cuts to the schools, unless the administration persuades the Board that the non-instructional cuts so seriously impair essential operations of the district that instructional cuts must be made. Rather than start with the increase of $15 in the superintendent's "same service"and cut back to $308M, the Board would protect instructional areas and build from the 2003-2004 expenses toward a budget that matches our revenues.
To respond to my proposal, please contact me at robarts@execpc.com or all BOE members at comments@madison.k12.wi.us.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
School Board President Bill Keys is proposing that elementary strings students will have to pay $460 to take strings next year. There has been no proposal to cut the program, administrators and Board members alike say. However, a $460 fee would have the same effect.
I attended the Monday, May 10, 2004 MMSD School Board meeting and shook my head in disbelief as I listened to Mr. Keys explain his reasons for coming in with a recommendation for a string fee because after all the district needs money. His reasons included:
a) Parents ought to be willing to pay for the cost of the service if they value it so much. He didn�t suggest that hockey parents should be paying $1600 because they value hockey. He didn�t mention paying towards social workers and psychologists so that we can keep reasonable student/professional ratios. He made no mention of putting decisions on a fair playing field, reviewing all fees for information about their structure, what�s reasonable,
b) Elementary strings is redundant and and overlaps with general music so it�s not required. Mr. Keys did not have the information regarding past board decisions that approving elementary strings as part of the MMSD music education curriculum and the Board has not questioned nor changed this curriculum. Additionally, the district has no written processes and procedures for developing, assessing and changing curriculum in any systematic manner,
c) I�m starting high from a negotiating standpoint. I�m not sure who he�s negotiating with, where these negotiations are to take place. I�m not sure how much experience 9 and 10 year olds have with negotiation. I�m sure the parents see this as extortion rather than a starting point for a negotiation � isn�t a premise of negotiation fair and reasonable,
d) Bill Keys said he talked with Roger Price about his recommendation, who thought adding $500,000 back in the school�s budget for cleaning and maintenance sounded reasonable (it�s Roger�s budget, of course it sounds reasonable to him). Bill K. did not seem to feel that it would be just as appropriate to talk to the Fine Arts Coordinator nor it would seem members of the Overture Board of which he is a member.
Ruth Robarts questioned why, if the district needed money for cleaning, everyone wouldn�t contribute to paying for these costs. Carol Carstensen questioned whether this might discourage children from participating in the curriculum � the point of a fee is to defray costs but not to obliterate participation. Either Ruth or Carol asked if there were no takers at $500 what�s the point since you wouldn�t have clean schools and you wouldn�t have a program (but maybe that�s someone's point if you took a look at the information provided to Keys from the Administration). After these gentle, but pointed questions for clarification, did Bill rethink his idea? Nope, he thought it was just fine as it was.
Based on a recent front-page story in Isthmus and other data provided by MMSD, here are some conclusions about closing the achievement gap at the advanced level of the third grade reading tests.
1. Eight schools increased the percentage of African American kids scoring advanced between the 1997-1998 and 2002-2003 school years.
Nine schools showed a decrease.
Seven schools showed no change.
2. Twelve schools had no African-American students in the advanced category in the 1997-98 year.
Nine had no students in advanced in 2002-2003.
Five school had none in 1997-98 and 2002-03.
3. Between the 1997-98 school year and the 2002-2003 school year, the percentage of African-American students scoring advanced rose from 8.03% to 10.08% -- an increase of .4% per year.
4. At the current rate of increase, it will take almost 88 years to close the achievement gap at the advanced level! (In 2002-2003, 45% of the white students scored advanced. (45% - 10% = 35 divided by .4 = 88.)
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
From Dave Farber's [IP] List (Farber is Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon): Guru Parulkar writes:
I read this posting with a lot of interest because I also grew up in India and have been following changes in US and in India (as an ordinary interested citizen) for the past 20 years since I came to this country. I was a bit surprised with the generalizations about both India and US suggested in the email from Slashdot.India is a big country with a lot of diversity. The type of value system as well as exposure to science/engineering implied in the Slashdot posting (children writing essays about getting Nobel prize, children growing up aspiring to be pioneers in science and technology) apply to a small cross-section of the society. I don't think it applies to India in general or even to the majority in India. It is definitely true that the large middle class in India puts tremendous emphasis on education. However, the reason for this emphasis has been that careers in engineering and medicine have been the only way to make descent living. Right or wrong (like it or not) at a very early age kids recognize (because parents and society drill it down) that unless they do well in academics, they wouldn't be able to get into engineering or medicine and thus not have a descent life. And so kids get serious about education and they start to respect other kids who do well in the school. It is not the "love of science or innovation" that has been making people serious about education. It is simply the financial rewards down the road. A lot of us Indians here in US wonder if this academic pressure on kids in India is appropriate because this means kids study and study and don't have time to learn, enjoy, and experience other stuff that matter too in life.
Interestingly enough India has been importing the culture and value system from US, good and bad, at a phenomenal rate (thanks to globalization, Internet and all those 200+ TV channels and Hollywood movies that are easily accessible in India). The changes are amazing. On the positive side: entrepreneurship is encouraged and getting rewarded; kids have other careers besides engineering and medicine that would pay descent money; quality of production of TV programs, movies, and performing arts in general has gotten much much better, and more (btw, it is a pleasure to see (good) Indian movies these days). But at the same time, there is many fold increase on the screen of violence, nudity, sex, and everything that we don't want to see here in US. Similarly kids' and people's obsession with the TV, movie, and sports super stars has been going up and up. Needless to say a cricket star or a TV star gets more respect than a reputed scientist even in India. And so not that much different from here in US.It is possible that US is losing its dominance in science. I cannot be sure. However I believe the changes in US over the past 20 years in terms of the value system or culture haven't been as dramatic as they have been in India. For more than 20 years that I have been here in US, I believe that kids/people are encouraged to excel and excel in something: sports, academics, performing arts, business, social service, or whatever. And there isn't a strong bias in favor of or against academics. Excellence is rewarded in terms of attention as well as financial returns. Kids understand the system and are well informed about the odds of making it big (e.g. in a sports vs business major) and associated financial rewards. Most importantly, kids do respond to that. For example, when high tech was booming during 90s, computer science enrollments grew at a record pace and when the bubble burst and outsourcing moved the jobs away, the enrollments dropped. Now enrollments are on the rise in bio majors because that is considered hot. So I am ok with the encouraging excellence in all aspects of our lives and rewarding it rather than putting too much emphasis just on academics.
Of course there are a lot of things that we can do better here in US and that list is long ...
In summary
- The contrast between US and India in terms of the value system suggested in the email from Slashdot is highly overstated
- India is a large and diverse country and emphasis on education for the love of science and innovation may apply to a very small cross-section of population. For rest it is mostly driven by financial well being.
- US emphasis on "excellence in something" appeals to me as opposed to too much emphasis on just academics.
-guru
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
On Wednesday, May 5th, six of seven Madison School Board members turned in their budget amendments to the Superintendent's proposed 04-05 MMSD School Budget. Along with their budget amendments, school board members handed in recommendation on how they would "fund" their recommended changes to the Superintendent's proposed budget.
For example, Bill Keys proposed adding back into the Superintendent's proposed budget 4 FTEs (2 custodians, 1 trade and 1 maintenance worker) and $200,000 back to the building maintenance budget. How does he propose to pay for his amendments? Keys is proposing a $460/participant fee for 4th and 5th grade elementary strings. This means that approximately 1,200 children would pay for something that benefits 24,888. Thankfully, no other School Board members has proposed such a burdensome fee.
The elementary strings fee Bill Keys proposes would be the highest fee ever paid for a MMSD activity and would be more than 5 times higher than any extracurricular sports fee paid this year even though the elementary strings budget is 1/4 the extracurricular sports budget ($2 million).
A file containing the full record of Board of Education Budget amendments can be found on www.mmsd.org or downloaded below:
If the City of Madison is to have confidence in the School Board's decisions, a fair and equitable budget process that is clear and understandable to the public is essential.
In late April 2004, the District Administration responded to the Bill Keys' question about the cost of the District's elementary strings program. The following letter to the School Board is a critique of that analysis which concluded the budget and curriculum information presented to the Board on elementary strings was done in a manner inconsistent with other cost studies and was incomplete.
April 26, 2004
To Members of the Madison School Board
As a concerned parent, I have kept close tabs on the budget, and I am well aware of the budget challenges facing the District. I also believe in a fair and equitable budget process that is clear and understandable to the public.
I have reviewed the budget question #4 � Examine the costs of 4th and 5th Grade Strings that was sent to School Board members last Thursday, and I am concerned about its content and I am troubled by the tone and timing of the document as well. This is a serious curriculum issue this late into the budget process. Why did it take one month for the administration to inform the Board of the cost of the elementary portion of the instrumental music education curriculum? Couldn�t this have been done in within a week of the request so that the information could have been released publicly as soon as possible? I do not understand why someone with no curriculum experience with the District�s program was asked to write up the analysis? Who�s checking curriculum accuracy?
The document�s tone seems to sound negative and is unlike any of the other relatively "up-beat" write-ups the School Board has received. A cynical person might suspect this is purposeful, a set up to eliminate the elementary strings curriculum. That tactic would be a disservice to the community, especially the children who participate in this program, and would further erode our confidence in our School Board.
I have been asking all year long about forming a committee to address any issues re elementary strings. Carol Carstensen has asked. I was told we�re not looking at that now and the Supt. specifically told Carol that he did not want any public input now � if not now, then when. Furthermore, why was the fine arts curriculum professional not directed to work on this curriculum issue, if needed, during the past two years? I also asked the Fine Arts Coordinator during the past two years the same question as I asked Carol Carstensen, and he told me that senior administration would let him know when to organize a committee with public members � he�s still waiting to hear.
I. Questions About the Calculations
A. Numerical
a. Cost of the Program / Student Participant �
i. FTE Allocation - The analyst did not adjust the FTE allocation. Not all schools� information was collected. The total number of FTEs were used (9.5). This number used should have been proportioned for the FTE (9 FTE) and total program cost for 9 FTE would be $518,932.
ii. The program was staffed and costed based on the September enrollment in the program. The program cost per student using 1921 students and a budget of $547,762 is $285/student. This should be the starting point for starting the discussion of a fee.
b. Class Trend � Elementary strings are the first two years of the District�s instrumental curriculum. Looking only at the strings numbers is not the entire picture. You need to look at the number of string students in Grades 5, then total instrumental in Grade 6-12. This would show an increase in instrumental participation from Grade 5 to Grade 6.
B. Curriculum � This document was not prepared by a curriculum professional familiar with the MMSD�s Board approved music education academic curriculum and the curriculum errors reflect this. This document was by a budget analyst who I am sure did the best with the information they had. The Fine Arts Coordinator did not sign off on the final document nor did he have any part in writing the document. Some comments on the analysis.
a. Administrative Code � A key requirement of the Administrative Code as it relates to music education is that there is in place a Board approved sequentially developmental curriculum. MMSD has in place Board approved Music Education curriculum for instrumental music that begins in Grade 4.
My questions for the Board are what are the written policies and procedures for developing, evaluating and changing curriculum. What process was followed regarding the music education curriculum during the past year? Who was involved?
C. Outdated Information � The written background information refers to studies done in previous years but does not reference the working group that met in February 2004 to discuss these exact issues and came to recommendations that would be workable. This group involved principals, music and string teachers, the Fine Arts Coordinator, the Lead Elementary School principal and a facilitator
D. Out of Context and Unsupported Comments � statements made without backup.
a. The analysis fails to note positively that minority and low income participation in the strings program has increased over time. The document does point out that students can get the same service privately for $1500 per academic year (that number excludes instrument rental), which I believe might be difficult, if not impossible for low income students.
Further, the growth in this program for low income and minority students has been enormous over the past decade. District gives out more than 400 instrument grants to low-income students each year at no incremental cost to the District � this was not described in the District�s analysis. This is a significant benefit of the current program design.
b. The analysis points out that the reduction of $500,000+ is 5+% of the cut. In no other presentation does the Admin. provide information in this way. Did you know that cutting extracurricular sports equals 20% of the revenue gap or that a $2 million cut in the admin. budget (13%) equals 20% of the revenue gap.
c. The Administration has no information to support that strings has negatively affected children�s performance. We do know that both teachers AND parents sign off on participation in strings, which is designed to keep students out of the program who are not ready.
d. General music and strings are higher than required by DPI. Our district is above DPI requirements in many academic areas. Is this an existing Board policy statement � only curriculum DPI requires? If so, why don�t we have DPI develop our curriculum, all the state�s curriculum.
Curriculum assessment is necessary � we don�t have to offer more than one foreign language, extracurricular sports, advanced classes, etc. Are you saying that we will only fund what DPI says we must and we are no longer going to review curriculum?
e. Where is the demographic information for all the cut proposals that the district received? I saw none included with the extracurricular sports information. Why is this information included only when discussing elementary strings?
f. Where is the cost/student for all curricula and programs?
II. Equity in Decisionmaking
Saying that a fee of $493.50 would be needed to cover the cost of elementary strings is not only inaccurate but is grossly unfair. No other fee covers anywhere near the 100% of the costs � extracurricular sports, textbooks, for example. We need the Board to ensure that a fair process is being used to make decisions. If decisions appear to be made in an arbitrary, or in a worst case, vindictive manner the community will not support the School Board. Following are some recommended steps to consider in a decisionmaking process � questions for the Board to ask the Superintendent.
1. Does the District have a policy in place regarding cuts to academic curriculum? Does the Board have a policy? What is that policy? Where can I find that policy? If a policy exists what criteria are in place for making these kinds of decisions?
2. What process does the board expect the Administration to follow before cuts are recommended?
3. Does the Board know the cost of a curriculum, service, etc., before deciding on how much needs to be covered by fees? Is this applied equitably?
4. Does the Board know the curriculum/service results?
5. Has the Board discussed and decided how much they can afford to pay? How can the Board ensure an equitable process?
6. In all cases, I would hope that the Board would expect to see the professionals carrying out the policies of the School Board, with the Administration using the appropriate professionals given an issue/question.
III. Next Steps
Lastly, I would like to know if any of you are planning to offer elementary strings as an amendment to the Budget cuts. I believe parents and the community need to know this now, because we are running out of time and this is a major issue late in the budget process � especially considering there has been no preparation done during the past year. There is only one more public hearing. The children are saying they want to be heard.
Further, before you discuss this issue further I hope that you ask that staff review the comments in this letter and make changes as appropriate to their analysis.
Nothing has changed for the last two years. In light of our dire financial situation, no action was taken to address if any steps need to be taken to assess the music education curriculum � to explore options. The Supt. directed the Fine Arts Coordinator to spend his time this year holding a workshop with principals and teachers to address issues with the delivery mechanism. That is not an indication to the public that the program will be cut.
How long do we have to wait? Our kids deserve more responsible actions from the organization�s leaders � let�s not make a bad situation worse. And let�s be equitable and work together. You need our support, and we need your leadership.
Barbara M. Schrank, Ph.D.
April 26, 2004
In an article by Vikki Kratz in the Isthmus, published on May 7, 2004, the author wonders if the MMSD is tone deaf.
"Bill Keys, president of the Madison Board of Education, recently asked for a budget analysis of the popular 4th and 5th grade strings program. ... The move by Keys was the last straw for Rick Neuenfeldt, the district's coordinator of fine arts, who says he can no longer work in the district's anti-arts atmosphere. "
The analsysis that exasperated the District's Fine Arts Coordinator was not prepared by him, but by District business professionals, unfamiliar with the academic curriculum. The analysis stated that a fee to cover the costs of the program would need to be nearly $500 per academic year.
The elementary strings program costs 1/4 what the District spends on extracurricular sports ($2 million per year) but a possible fee would be more than 5 times higher than what is currently paid for by any participant in a MMSD extracurricular sport this school year.
Examining the costs of all the District's programs and services ought to be part of a robust budget process - targeting one program seems purposeful and biased. This approach runs the risk of losing rather than building the community's confidence in its School Board.
The complete article and reference material is included below and can also be read at:
http://www.isthmus.com/features/docfeed/docs/document.php?intdocid=76
String 'em up
The Madison Board of Education considers cutting the strings program--again
Bill Keys, president of the Madison Board of Education, recently asked for a budget analysis of the popular 4th and 5th grade strings program. The board will begin recommending cuts to the school district's $300 million budget to address a $10 million shortfall. The move by Keys was the last straw for Rick Neuenfeldt, the district's coordinator of fine arts, who says he can no longer work in the district's anti-arts atmosphere. What follows is an Isthmus article, the analysis of the strings program, and an e-mail from Neuenfeldt announcing his resignation. Some of the documents have been scanned in, resulting in minor formatting changes.
Isthmus article by Vikki Kratz, 5/7/04
Analysis of the strings program
Rick Neuenfeldt's e-mail
1. Isthmus article by Vikki Kratz, 5/7/04
Is MMSD tone deaf?
Despite Supt. Art Rainwater's promise a few months ago that the Madison school district's popular fourth- and fifth- grade strings program would not be recommended for a cut this year, School Board President Bill Keys is putting it back on the table. Last month Keys asked the district for an analysis of the program, which costs about $500,000 a year.
"It doesn't mean I want to eliminate strings," says Keys. "I just said, let's talk about it. We ought not to be afraid to look at anything."
But advocates say the board should analyze all of the district's programs when looking for cuts to address this year's $10 million shortfall, not merely target strings.
"These things are important to kids. They want the arts," says Barb Schrank, a parent who organized a pro-strings rally at Monday's board meeting. "We have a very anti-arts administration."
Rick Neuenfeldt, the district's coordinator of fine arts, agrees. He's resigning his post, saying he feels shut out by Rainwater and the board.
"The report the board received about the strings program was not a report I generated or had any say about," he says, adding that the analysis came from the district's business office and he hasn't even received a copy of it yet.
Joe Quick, a district spokesman, won't comment on the report, saying only, "There was no recommendation from the district to do anything about strings." Of Neuenfeldt's resignation, Quick says, "We're always disappointed when we lose staff."
Neuenfeldt will leave in June. "I have to feel like I'm involved in the discussion about how important the arts are," he says. "I'm a bit mystified about why this is coming back on the list of cuts. There are some kids for whom arts is every bit as important as reading or math."
[End of document]
2. Analysis of the strings program
BOE Member Name(s): Bill Keys
Date Submitted to MMSD Administration: 3/17/04
BOE Question: Examine the costs of 4th & 5th grade strings.
Analysis Item: #4 - Keys - 4th grade strings.doc
This Section to be Completed by MMSD Administration
Date of MMSD Administrative Analysis & Response: 4/21/04 Administrator(s) Submitting Analysis & Response: K Kucharz BOE Members & MMSD Staff this Report was Copied To: R Price
MMSD Administrative Analysis & Response
Department: Elementary Schools
Division: Elementary Schools
Background: According to the Wisconsin Administrative Code, the recommended music allocation of time per-week for a six-hour school day is 75 minutes. Music instruction does not have to be delivered by a certified music teacher; however, it must be given under the direction of a certified music teacher. Many larger districts have a central music teacher to provide consultation to classroom teachers who integrate music instruction into the school day.
MMSD currently provides 60 minutes a week for general music and an additional 90 minutes for those children electing to participate in Strings, totaling 150 minutes for some children. This instruction is provided directly by a certified music teacher. There is no question that the quality of music experience in the MMSD is excellent for our students. When assessing the Strings program, it is important to keep in mind that:
1 .) The combination of general music and Strings for grades 4 & 5 is above the DPI recommended levels. 2.) A reduction of approximately $547,762 for 4th & 5th grade Strings represents 5.5% of the $9,910,018 2004-05 deficit. 3.) The mandated high-stakes expectations for the achievement of 4th & 5th grade students is less effective under the current arrangement of pull-out Strings. Academic instruction (reinforcement, enrichment, extension of curriculum) for non-Strings students still occurs during the time for Strings, but not all students are present for this instruction.
There are 979 fourth-grade students currently enrolled in District Strings programs, representing 63.4% of the total 4th grade enrollment. There are 613 fifth-grade students currently enrolled in District Strings programs, representing 37.5% of the total 5th grade enrollment. Attachment 1 shows the following demographic patterns for the 4th and 5th grade students currently enrolled in Strings. The greatest Strings participation rate occurs in 4th & 5th grades and steadily decreases as students get older.
Although teachers can see the value of Strings, classroom teachers have become increasingly concerned about missed academic time for students. In recent years, a principal work group looked at scheduling issues and determined there are no alternative ways to schedule Strings classes so they do not interfere with academic offerings.
Expenditures:
Grade 4 5.84* $336,874*
Grade 5 3.66 $210.888
Total FTEs = 9.5 $547,762
* FTE and salary distribution was based on the ratio of each grades' Strings enrollment as a percentage of the total 4/5 Strings enrollment.
Revenues: A fee to cover the cost would amount to $493.50 per student.
FTE: 9.5
Anticipated Savings: $547,762 savings
Student Impact: There has been no study to indicate whether or not the Strings program has made any gains in the achievement gap. However, in 4th & 5th grade Strings, 37.2% of students are of color and 62.8% of students are white; 30.3% of the students are low income and 69.7% of students are not low income.
As a comparison, in 01-02, 52% of students were Of color and 68% of students were white; and 24% of the students were low income, and 76% were not low income.
Strategic Priorities: Instructional Excellence: The acquisition of learning to play an instrument will be diminished with the loss of this opportunity; however, the gain of instructional time and the value of less class disruption will be an asset to the classroom.
Fiscal Responsibility: There will be financial savings, and students will still have an opportunity to learn an instrument in middle school.
Board Priorities:
Effectiveness: Teachers will have more time on task with their students.
Redundancies or Availability of the Service Elsewhere: All students K-5 have 60 minutes of music per week. The Strings program is a redundancy of the state-mandated music program. For an equivalent amount of music instruction time, students can receive private lessons from Ward-Brodt for $150 per month or $1,500 per academic year.
Service Delivery: Service delivery would change. All students will be given one hour per week of music lessons, resulting in a reduction for those already enrolled in the Strings program.
CBA Impact:
[End of document]
3. Rick Neuenfeldt's e-mail
It is with a great deal of regret that I must inform you all that I will not be returning to the position of MMSD Coordinator of Fine Arts next year. This decision comes after a long period of soul-searching which actually began early this school year, and resulted in my coming to the conclusion that I am not the person to help you through the difficult years to come in this school district. Please believe me when I tell you that if this position was more like I had envisioned it to be, I would instead be looking forward to staying in it long enough to retire from the profession. You are without a doubt the FINEST group of educators it has been my honor and pleasure to know and work with, but that work has not turned out to be what I thought it would be. I have always tried throughout my career to be a builder, but in order to build, one needs to feel like their opinion is valued and they can operate in an atmosphere of support and confidence. I feel that I was in that type of environment in your classrooms, at your concerts, in our meetings and in those meetings with the local arts organizations. I also feel that it is just not the reality for me here at Doyle, and Doyle is where I work.
I am just not a strong enough person to persevere in spite of this, and I have finally accepted that.
No matter where I end up going from here, I will never forget the group of dedicated educators I was honored to work with in Madison, Wisconsin.
My very best wishes to you all.
RICK NEUENFELDT
[End of document]
http://www.isthmus.com/features/docfeed/docs/document.php?intdocid=76
� Isthmus Publishing Company, Inc.
staff | privacy statement | advertise
Fees help to pay for extracurricular, special school activities that are not required by state law but that are valuable to a child�s education. Fees for extracurricular, special activities need to be developed fairly and equitably across all activities.
Introduction: Exponential increase in social service, special education, ESL expenses � unfunded mandates that hit the District�s bottom line under revenue caps � means less money is available for school activities.
The following presentation on school fees was made by Bruce Kahn and Barb Schrank before the MMSD School Board on February 16, 2004 and addressed the following questions:
Why are there school fees today?
What are the costs of Extra-Curricular activities?
How do Extra-Curricular costs compare to instructional costs?
What happens when fees don�t cover costs?
What are some suggestions for your consideration?
Inform Parents and the Community �
Fees share the costs
Fees save academics
Fees save extra-curricular activities
Recommendation: Bring the Community to the Table � To explore alternative funding options now � to develop a plan.
Summary: We cannot wait for school funding options to be worked out � our kids are at risk of losing these important activities now. We need to take meaningful action immediately � You can e-mail Madison's School Board members at comments@madison.k12.wi.us.
Denver is the first major city to approve a salary structure that rewards teachers for the progress of their students, according to this article by Diana Jean Schemo.
As a teacher of emotionally disturbed children, Jeremy Abshire sets goals for each of his students. Geronimo, 14, an American Indian who knew only the letters for "Jerry," will read and write, and sign his true name. Shaneesa, a meek 12-year-old reading at a first-grade level, will catch up to her middle-school peers and attend regular classes in the fall.Under a proposal approved by teachers here and to be considered by voters next year, if Mr. Abshire's students reach the goals he sets, his salary will grow. But if his classroom becomes a mere holding tank, his salary, too, will stagnate.
"The bottom line is, do you reward teachers for just sitting here and sticking it out, or for doing something?" said Mr. Abshire, who has been teaching for four years. "The free market doesn't handle things that way, so why should it be any different here?"
In March, Denver's teachers became the first in a major city to approve, by a 59 percent majority, a full-scale overhaul of the salary structure to allow "pay for performance," a controversial approach that rewards teachers for the progress of their students.
At a time when more and more superintendents are supporting moves away from the traditional salary structure for teachers, and finding their efforts stymied in an atmosphere of suspicion and financial austerity, Denver teachers' vote is a major breakthrough.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
by Ruth Robinson (President, Wisconsin Association for Talented and Gifted) and Susan Corwith (President, Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth)
Last year, Congress passed and the President signed a bill that has become known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Its purpose is to provide a blueprint for change, with accountability and achievement as top priorities. According to Rod Paige, U.S. Secretary of Education, No Child Left Behind is a "historic agreement to improve the educational opportunities for every American child." This is a bold statement -- and high expectations are commendable. But does the Law really deliver its promise to improve educational opportunities for every child?
The full impact of the Law is just now beginning to play out. In the effort to help each child become proficient in core subjects like reading and math, we seem to be operating in conflict with the American tradition of providing each child with a "free and appropriate public education." Carol Ann Tomlinson (Education Week; November 6, 2003) states "NCLB is a laudable advance toward equity [in educational opportunity]. Its impetus to ensure that all children achieve proficiency in the foundational skills of learning is clear ... [however[, there is no incentive for schools to attend to the growth of students once they attain proficiency, or to spur students who are already proficient to greater achievement, and certainly not to inspire those who far exceed proficiency."
National Excellence: A Case for Developing America's Talent, published by the U.S. Department of Education in 1993, reported that gifted elementary students begin the school year having already mastered 35%-50% of the regular curriculum. Without curriculum differentiation, the chances are that these students will spend much of their time reviewing and not learning new material. It is a real concern that students beginning the year as proficient will stagnate, rather than be encouraged to face new challenges in learning and understanding.
It is often assumed that gifted children will always be motivated learners. However, without appropriate instruction and encouragement, a large number of these students become disenchanted, underachieve, and even drop out of school. Eighteen to twenty-five percent of the nation's dropouts are students identified as gifted (Renzulli, Gifted Child Quarterly, Fall, 2000). School faculty and staff, and their attitudes toward gifted kids, have a huge impact. Students often report that encouragement and inspiration from even one adult -- teacher, principal, coach or parent -- is often enough to keep them motivated and excited about learning.
Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal (December 29, 2003 and February 6, 2004) highlight another problem -- the loss of programming and resources for gifted learners. In our own state, this is happening at an alarming rate. Last fall, sixty percent of the superintendents reported that their districts were cutting or eliminating programs for gifted students this year. Thinking in terms of equity, this is a problem. All children deserve to learn something new every day. Eliminating gifted services makes this more difficult.
There is another equity issue tied to eliminating programs. Giftedness is found in all populations. It is not tied to race, socioeconomic status or anything else. When we eliminate programs and services because they are perceived as "extras" or "elitist", it is children in low income situations or with parents who are unfamiliar with managing the system and finding alternatives that suffer the most.
We must value all learners. Secretary Paige tells us, "Our commitment to you, and to all Americans, is to see every child in America -- regardless of ethnicity, income, or background -- achieve high standards." This is the intent of NCLB; but the concern is that in reality, it's requirements reinforce minimal standards for students at or above proficiency.
If we are serious about closing the achievement gap and having a highly educated citizenry, public schools need to do the best job possible of serving all learners. We as educators, parents, politicians and citizens are pleased when our students perform at advanced levels. So, as we follow the guidelines of NCLB, we must insure that once those proficient and advanced scores are attained, learning continues to be encouraged and valued.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
7:00p.m. Commodore Room @ the Radisson Hotel (Odana & Grand Canyon)
Active Citizens for Education (ACE) is seeking grass roots input from interested parents, teachers and others regarding the current effectiveness and future direction of MMSD curriculum, instruction, programs, services, leadership and operations. ACE believes theinformation, experiences and suggestions from those people who are living and working on a day-to-day basis with the school system are in the best position to assist indeveloping direction and strategies for future change and development. Ace is sensitive to the concerns people have for exposure of their concerns and ideas to others andpledges to honor the confidentiality of those sensitivities. ACE needs help in formulating processes that can have an impact on the school system for improved effectiveness and performance.
More Information 82K PDF
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Lee Sensenbrenner summarizes MMSD superintendent Art Rainwater's budget proposal.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
As a sophomore at Madison West High School, Danny Cullenward tookCalculus 1, a yearlong advanced math class that put the only B on theotherwise straight-A student's transcript.Fuzzy Math at West High: A Capital Times Editorial:The same happened with Sam Friedman, the former captain of West's mathteam. Friedman, who is now at the University of Chicago, got two B's incalculus at West but went on, as a high school student, to get an A inadvanced calculus at the University of Wisconsin.Chris Moore, who is a junior at West and is already ranked among the top 30high school math students in the United States, also had trouble in his highschool course. He got a B when he took calculus as a freshman.
UW Professor Janet Mertz knows of all these cases, and cited them in aletter to administrators. She argued, as other parents have for more than ayear, that something is not right with the way calculus students at West aretested.
It's unfair, she wrote, and it's hurting students' chances to get intoelite colleges such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for whichMertz interviews student applicants.
For more than a year, a group of West High parents have beencomplaining about the way calculus students at West are tested. This week theywent public -- voicing their concerns before the Madison School Board.The first complaint came from Joan Knoebel and Michael Cullenward, M.D., onbehalf of their son, now a senior at West. They decried the fact that KeithKnowles, West's calculus teacher, reuses old tests or parts of old tests thatare available to some -- but not all -- students.Doug Erickson:According to the formal complaint, "students have obtained copies fromolder siblings, prior students, through study groups, private tutors, or by awell-defined grapevine." The school itself does not keep the tests on file.
School district administrators contend that Knowles did nothing wrong andthat there's no evidence to conclude that having access to old tests washelpful to students.
George Kelly, English chairman at East High School, said teachers share thesame interests as committee members -- to ensure that students have access tothe tests they've taken and to make the playing field level for all students.But he said a districtwide policy would be cumbersome.Joan Knoebel:"There's a larger issue here," Kelly said. "How much micromanaging does theboard want to do in instruction and evaluation?"
West parent Joan Knoebel said Tuesday that the district continues to avoidthe real issue that her family raised, which is that a particular teacher atWest is not following the test return policy already in place at that school.Although she would like to see districtwide guidelines, she has neversuggested that the problem is widespread.
"(The district) is attacking this globally, when what you really have isone teacher who, in my opinion, is acting unethically," she said. "They'reusing an elephant gun to shoot a starling."
Common sense tells us that students with an advance copy of a test have asignificant advantage over their classmates. Assessment is meaningless underthese circumstances.This is the basis of our complaint. And this isn't just about one teacherat West. The decisions in this case emanate throughout the Madison SchoolDistrict.Lee Sensenbrenner: Former Students Defend Teacher:What's the teacher's job? To teach the principles of calculus and to fairlyevaluate whether his students learned the math. He undoubtedly knows the math,as some former students enthusiastically attest. However, because old examswere not available to all, the only thing his tests reliably measured is whoma student knows, not what a student knows.
And -- this point is critical -- he also couldn't tell whether the tests heconstructed, or copied, were "good" tests. A good test is one a well-preparedstudent can complete successfully during class time. Think of it this way.Assume there were no old tests to study -- all students were on a levelplaying field. The teacher gives a test. No one finishes or gets a high score.Did no one understand the material? Possibly, but many of these hardworkingstudents come to class prepared. The better explanation is that there was aproblem with the test itself; for example, it was too long or too complex tofinish within the time limit.
This mirrors the experience of students who didn't study the old tests.Unfortunately, they were sitting alongside classmates who'd seen an advancecopy and could thus easily finish within the class period.
Ten years ago, West High enacted a test return policy. Why? Because thiscalculus teacher, among others, wouldn't give the tests back. The policy was acompromise to give families a chance to review tests, but only underconditions that gave teachers control against copies being handed down.
This calculus teacher had a choice: offer in-school review, as is done atMemorial High, or let the tests go home under tight restrictions, including awritten promise not to copy or use them for cheating. After this policy washammered out, he elected to return his tests unconditionally yet continued tore-use his tests. The district says that was his prerogative.
What was the administration's job here? To conduct a fair formal complaintprocess and to ensure that assessment is non-discriminatory. The "outsideinvestigator" the district appointed is a lawyer who together with her firmroutinely does other legal work for the district. Had we known of thisconflict, we wouldn't have wasted our time. In reality, the administration andits investigator endeavored mostly to find support for the foregone conclusionthat a teacher can run his class as he wishes.
We greatly appreciate our children's teachers, but with all due respect,autonomy does not trump the duty of this teacher, the administration and theboard to provide all students with a fair and reliable testing scheme.
The only remedy the district offers is to let students repeat the course,either at West or at UW-Madison at their own expense -- $1,000 -- andsubstitute the new grade. This isn't a genuine remedy. It punishes studentsfor a problem they didn't create. Furthermore, it is only truly available tothose who can afford UW-Madison tuition and the time.
What was the School Board's job? To tackle public policy -- in this case,non-discriminatory assessment. With one brave exception, the board ducked, andchose to protect the teacher, the administration and the union -- everyoneexcept the students.
The solution is easy. If teachers are going to re-use tests or questions,safeguard them using the test return policy or make an exam file available toall. Otherwise, write genuinely fresh tests each time.
After 14 months of investigation and a 100-plus page record, it's worsethan when we started. Now the district says that this teacher, any teacher,can re-use tests and give them back without restriction, and that it isperfectly acceptable for some but not all students to have copies to preparefrom.
For six months, we sought to resolve this matter privately and informally,without public fanfare. Confronting the dirty little secret of the calculusclass didn't sully West's remarkable national reputation, but openly paperingit over surely does. Simply put, this teacher didn't do his job. Theadministration and six board members didn't do theirs, either. "Putting kidsfirst" needs to be more than just a campaign slogan. -->
In the Madison West High calculus class, tests are the only way astudent is evaluated -- not by quizzes, homework or classroom participation,just tests. The teacher admits he duplicates or tweaks old tests. He knew somebut not all students had copies, yet he wouldn't provide samples or an examfile.
Common sense tells us that students with an advance copy of a test have asignificant advantage over their classmates. Assessment is meaningless underthese circumstances.This is the basis of our complaint. And this isn't just about one teacherat West. The decisions in this case emanate throughout the Madison SchoolDistrict.
What's the teacher's job? To teach the principles of calculus and to fairlyevaluate whether his students learned the math. He undoubtedly knows the math,as some former students enthusiastically attest. However, because old examswere not available to all, the only thing his tests reliably measured is whoma student knows, not what a student knows.
And -- this point is critical -- he also couldn't tell whether the tests heconstructed, or copied, were "good" tests. A good test is one a well-preparedstudent can complete successfully during class time. Think of it this way.Assume there were no old tests to study -- all students were on a levelplaying field. The teacher gives a test. No one finishes or gets a high score.Did no one understand the material? Possibly, but many of these hardworkingstudents come to class prepared. The better explanation is that there was aproblem with the test itself; for example, it was too long or too complex tofinish within the time limit.
This mirrors the experience of students who didn't study the old tests.Unfortunately, they were sitting alongside classmates who'd seen an advancecopy and could thus easily finish within the class period.
Ten years ago, West High enacted a test return policy. Why? Because thiscalculus teacher, among others, wouldn't give the tests back. The policy was acompromise to give families a chance to review tests, but only underconditions that gave teachers control against copies being handed down.
This calculus teacher had a choice: offer in-school review, as is done atMemorial High, or let the tests go home under tight restrictions, including awritten promise not to copy or use them for cheating. After this policy washammered out, he elected to return his tests unconditionally yet continued tore-use his tests. The district says that was his prerogative.
What was the administration's job here? To conduct a fair formal complaintprocess and to ensure that assessment is non-discriminatory. The "outsideinvestigator" the district appointed is a lawyer who together with her firmroutinely does other legal work for the district. Had we known of thisconflict, we wouldn't have wasted our time. In reality, the administration andits investigator endeavored mostly to find support for the foregone conclusionthat a teacher can run his class as he wishes.
We greatly appreciate our children's teachers, but with all due respect,autonomy does not trump the duty of this teacher, the administration and theboard to provide all students with a fair and reliable testing scheme.
The only remedy the district offers is to let students repeat the course,either at West or at UW-Madison at their own expense -- $1,000 -- andsubstitute the new grade. This isn't a genuine remedy. It punishes studentsfor a problem they didn't create. Furthermore, it is only truly available tothose who can afford UW-Madison tuition and the time.
What was the School Board's job? To tackle public policy -- in this case,non-discriminatory assessment. With one brave exception, the board ducked, andchose to protect the teacher, the administration and the union -- everyoneexcept the students.
The solution is easy. If teachers are going to re-use tests or questions,safeguard them using the test return policy or make an exam file available toall. Otherwise, write genuinely fresh tests each time.
After 14 months of investigation and a 100-plus page record, it's worsethan when we started. Now the district says that this teacher, any teacher,can re-use tests and give them back without restriction, and that it isperfectly acceptable for some but not all students to have copies to preparefrom.
For six months, we sought to resolve this matter privately and informally,without public fanfare. Confronting the dirty little secret of the calculusclass didn't sully West's remarkable national reputation, but openly paperingit over surely does. Simply put, this teacher didn't do his job. Theadministration and six board members didn't do theirs, either. "Putting kidsfirst" needs to be more than just a campaign slogan.
After hearing West High graduates who had returned home for winterbreak defend their former calculus teacher, the Madison School Board decidedit would seek the advice of department heads before potentially changing anypolicies on math tests.Doug Erickson:Noah Kaufman, a freshman at Dartmouth College, told the board Monday nightthat complaints against calculus teacher Keith Knowles -- who parents sayrepeated exam material without providing universal access to the old tests --were "entirely unreasonable.""Had I memorized numbers and calculations from old exams, and passed themoff as my answers, I would have failed my class, without question," Kaufmansaid.
"Mr. Knowles did not use the same questions on different tests. What he diddo was ask questions that involved similar applications of the concepts. Allof these concepts were explained thoroughly in the textbook, as well as by Mr.Knowles himself.
"A student could have access to the concepts and examples of applicationsby simply doing the homework and paying attention in class."
arents of a Madison West High School senior urged the School BoardMonday to make sure that teachers who recycle exams from year to year also tryto keep copies of the old tests from circulating among students.Either that, or a sample test should be made available to all studentsequally, said Joan Knoebel.She said her son, Danny Cullenward, and other students were at adisadvantage during several semesters of advanced math, because the teacherrecycled tests even though he knew that some but not all students had accessto old copies. Danny said that when he privately asked for help, the teachertold him to find old tests but refused to supply them.
Said his mother: "Exams should be about what you know, not who you know."
She said her son, a National Merit Scholarship semifinalist, becamesuspicious when some students breezed through the exams while he struggled tofinish on time.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
About forty elementary string students serenaded the School Board members as they entered the McDaniels Auditorium Monday evening, May 3rd. Nearly 200 parents and children filled the auditorium to demonstrate to School Board members their support for the academic program.
If you have not written the School Board about the strings program, take a moment to compose an e-mail. Ask your children if they want to write a letter to School Board members (545 W. Dayton Street, Madison, 53703) - School Board members read these letters AND THEY DO MATTER.
MMSD School Board e-mail: comments@madison.k12.wi.us
Public Hearing on the Budget - May 13 5:00 p.m. in the McDaniels Auditorium.
The MMSD School Board members will be submitting amendments to the proposed budget cuts. At this time elementary strings is not part of the proposed cuts but that does not mean that a School Board member could not propose cutting the program. Here's the current published budget schedule
May 5 - School Board member budget amendments due at Doyle by 3 p.m.
May 10 - Board workshop to discuss amendments to the budget cut.
May 13 - Public Hearing on the Budget
May 17 - Budget workshop to discuss additional budget amendments
May 24 - Budget workshop - determine layoffs
Letters in support of the elementary strings program are very helpful. The BOE does read their mail. If you haven't written yet, please consider writing board members. If you've already written but have another idea, write again.
School Board email: comments@mmsd.k12.wi.us.
Attention: Parents and Teachers of Adolescents
Join the Cherokee PTO and Dr. Hugh Johnston, Clinical Associate Professor of Child Psychiatry, UW Medical School & Department of Educational Psychology for a Question and Answer session on Adolescence and Depression Tuesday, May 18th (formerly May 12th) 7-8:30 pm Cherokee Heights Middle School LMC 4301 Cherokee Drive
Dr. Johnston will give a brief overview of Teen depression and the antidepressant medication controversy. The remainder of the evening will be devoted to an informal question/answer discussion.
Dr. Johnston is a child psychiatrist, on the clinical faculty of the UW Psychiatry Department and co-director of the Child Psychopharmacology Information Service. In addition to his educational and research endeavors, he volunteers as the medical consultant and board president for the Rainbow Project, Inc., a non-profit mental health clinic that serves young children and families challenged by a variety of mental health issues including abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and domestic violence.
In lieu of a speaker�s fee, Dr. Johnston asks attendees to consider a donation to the Rainbow Project.
Barb Schrank published a Strings Call to Action last week. This evening, many parents and children attended, demonstrated and performed at a School Board Meeting.
 |  |
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
There is a tremendous disparity across the district in the availability of AP courses and thus accessibility to AP exams, and, by extension, the opportunity to earn college credit. The explanation is that there is a debate about the efficacy of the program with individual high schools reaching different conclusions. I come down on the side of the AP. Whether you agree on the merits, it's still of concern that there is such wide variability across district high schools. Who should decide?
My West HS junior took an AP English Language exam today out at Promega in Fitchburg. As a threshold matter, the exam process was very inefficient, to wit, students were required to arrive at 7:15 am for a three hour exam to begin at 8 am, and were not let out until 12:05 pm, i.e., nearly five hours due to lost or unlabelled papers, etc. Several students were enrolled to take the French AP set to begin at 12:00 pm back at Edgewood--obviously they were late, and probably exhausted.
But those glitches aside, consider the wide disparity in representation across MMSD. There were 148 area students taking the test, about twelve from West, 20 from LaFollette, a small number from East and more than sixty from Memorial. (The remainder were from suburban schools.) The difference is due almost entirely to Memorial's embrace of the AP program. Memorial's AP students routinely graduate with between 30 and 45 AP credits. Only a handful of West students take more than one or maybe two tests, i.e., five or ten credits, due in large measure to the dearth of AP courses offered.
There are several implications, first, credit and, by extension, college placement and possible tuition savings; and second, if a student successfully takes AP exams before their senior year, the advantage of this information in the admission process. (AP awards honors to those with high scores on three or more AP exams, for instance.)
Those opposed to the AP employ the "teaching to the test" argument; they don't like an AP-dictated curriculum. Plus teachers are required to get certified by the AP which requires a commitment of extra time and energy. The flip side is that the program sets a uniform, consisten standard and offers the various advantages I mentioned above.
The bottom line---how do folks feel about the individual high schools having such widely disparate approaches to this program? Where should that decision be made?
A new study of remedial programs for students with dyslexia shows "that more aggressive treatment can make dyslexic brains work the way normal brains do, activating a region that plays a vital role in reading fluency".
April 27, 2004
VITAL SIGNS
Learning Disabilities: A Clearer Path to Reading Fluency
By JOHN O'NEIL
Remedial programs for students with dyslexia often succeed only in making bad readers into slightly better bad readers. Now a new study shows that more aggressive treatment can make dyslexic brains work the way normal brains do, activating a region that plays a vital role in reading fluency.Good and bad readers handle tasks differently, brain scanning research has shown, from the processing of sound to the recall of vocabulary. Last year, a study showed that dyslexic students who were tutored with typical methods made limited gains but continued to use cumbersome mental pathways.
The new study, to be published in May in the journal Biological Psychiatry, was the first to compare the effect of standard and aggressive treatments before and after pupils received them.
One group of 37 poor readers, ages 6 to 9, received an average of two hours a week of instruction using a systematic, phonics-based curriculum. A comparison group of 12 poor readers continued to receive their school's normal remedial help: about an hour a week.
Testing showed that in one year the intensive teaching group made up about half the gap between their initial scores and those of a control group of normal readers, while the other students fell further behind.
The brain scans showed that the children who received the intensive remedial tutoring had begun to activate an area of the brain known as the word-form region the way the average readers did.
Dr. Sally E. Shaywitz of Yale, an author of the study, called that change crucial. "The word-form region allows a child to look at a word and to automatically know how to pronounce it, spell it and know what it means," she said. "If a child is not a fluent reader, he or she will avoid reading; it's too effortful."
Posted by Ruth Robarts at 6:35 PM | Comments (134) Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom:
The Madison TAG Parents Group has an extensive website www.tagparents.org that covers the direction of the district's math curriculum, the current budget crisis, the restructuring of West High School, as well as resources and research articles on issues related to students performing well above grade level. It's worth checking out.
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
In a USA Today interview, Intel CEO Craig Barrett discusses outsourcing, competition and US K-12 Education: "We do not send our basketball teams to compete against the rest of the world, saying the other teams have to play slower because our folks aren't fit enough to run as fast.":
Q: In K-12 education, what would you like to see that you are not seeing?A: If we could capture 1% of the hot air that has gone out on this topic and turn it into results, it would be wonderful. The results are how our kids compare to their international counterparts, particularly in math and science. The longer kids stay in the system, the worse they do compared to their international counterparts. In fourth grade, our kids are roughly comparable. By eighth grade, they are behind. By the 12th grade, they are substantially behind other industrialized nations.
Q: What are the hurdles?
A: One is very simply the teachers. I'm not criticizing teachers, per se, but 25% to 30% who teach math or science in K-12 are not educated in the math and science they teach. If you are going to be an engineering major, you are going to need 12 years of solid math. What are the odds of getting 12 consecutive good teachers in a row if 30% of them are not qualified?
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
A group of West High math teachers recently wrote a letter to the Editor of the Isthmus criticizing the direction of the MMSD's math program.
sthmus (April 2, 2004)more at Madison United
Dear Editor:Reporter Vikki Kratz quotes our Madison School District math coordinator, Linda McQuillen, as saying: "We no longer need courses below algebra in high school," and she attributes this to the "success" of the new feeder programs in the middle schools.
First, let's set the record straight. The truth is, we are not allowed to offer courses below algebra in the ninth grade. At West High, we were told by the administration that, beginning this year, we could no longer offer our pre-algebra course, a historically successful preliminary course, to the students whose preparation of algebra was inadequate. This came directly out of the school board mandate (ordered without teacher consultation) that every student must pass geometry by the end of 10th grade. This effectively forces all students, ready or not, into algebra in the ninth grade.
At West, to address the problems of inadequate preparation, we offer an extra hour of math per day in a class called Algebra Extended. There are 11 sections of this class. This is how more kids "complete ninth grade math in the ninth grade," not because of some touted "success" of the feeder programs in middle school.
As a matter of fact, the algebra skills and problem-solving skills of my geometry students have been generally worse every year, and my experience is echoed by many of my colleagues who teach classes beyond geometry. The kids are frustrated and angry as well, feeling, rightfully so, that it's not their fault.
Moreover, parents of future West High students should take notice: As you read this, our department is under pressure from the administration and the math coordinator's office to phase out our "accelerated" course offerings beginning next year. Rather than addressing the problems of equity and closing the gap by identifying minority math talent earlier, and fostering minority participation in the accelerated programs, our administration wants to take the cheaper way out by forcing all kids into a one-size-fits-all curriculum.
It seems the administration and our school board have re-defined "success" as merely producing "fewer failures." Astonishingly, excellence in student achievement is visited by some school district administrators with apathy at best, and with contempt at worst. But, while raising low achievers is a laudable goal, it is woefully short-sighted and, ironically, racist in the most insidious way. Somehow, limiting opportunities for excellence has become the definition of providing equity! Could there be a greater insult to the minority community?
Like all "geeks," minority "geeks" are under enormous pressure to dumb down for their peer groups. Most smart kids are afraid to look "too smart" in the larger school population, and that is why accelerated course are so important. These kids need a socially safe place to be smart, and a peer group based upon intellect, not just grade level, in order to truly flourish.
Susan Lochen
Madison West High School
(co-signed by other West math teachers: Janice Cis, Keith Knowles, Carol Michalski, Jackie Hubbard, Daniel Boyland, Artie L. Orlik, Stephen Lang, Stephen Land, Tim Goldsworthy)
Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
While MMSD hasn't had to deal with this issue directly, yet, it's worth noting what's out there with regard to creationism. (A recent poll found over 63% do not accept evolutionary theory.) As a former biologist, I'm stunned at the effort to shackle children's ability to think critically. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/arts/01DINO.html