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.
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.)
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