[JPG | PDF | .xls versions] MMSD Statistics.
Paul Soglin’s observations on the MMSD’s funding issues, special ed and our politicians.
3 thoughts on “2006 – 2007 Madison School District $333M+ Citizen’s Budget”
Comments are closed.
[JPG | PDF | .xls versions] MMSD Statistics.
Paul Soglin’s observations on the MMSD’s funding issues, special ed and our politicians.
Comments are closed.
This may be so obvious, I will feel like a fool after I post it; but I think there may be a critical element we are overlooking in the discussion of the need for more equitable funding of the needs of ALL types of students, and how to achieve it. Reading Paul’s blog just now made it crystal clear to me.
The missing link is curriculum. If we weren’t watering down our curriculum all over the place — but instead increasing rigor and raising expectations everywhere — then the “TAG” piece would likely become far less important. Howard Gardner’s wife, Ellen Winner, has made this argument well, that as we dilute the regular K-12 classroom curriculum, we increase the pool of students whose needs cannot be met in that regular classroom. That means more bored and underchallenged students and more students in genuine need of evaluation and services.
At the secondary level, honors/TAG/advanced classes are probably cost efficient. Making self-selected flexible ability grouping available in all content areas to interested and motivated students (important note: THIS IS VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FROM “TRACKING,” though clearly many people do not understand that) needn’t cost us much, if anything.
Case in point: Accelerated Biology at West HS. My older son told us repeatedly over the course of the year he was in the class that the curriculum was essentially the same as in the regular Biology I classes. The critical difference in the Accelerated section was the level and intensity of the discussion and the motivation and reliability of the students (e.g., in group lab work). The teacher — who also taught regular sections of the course — even told us once “I love teaching the full range of students … just not at the same time” (or something very close to that).
The East HS students who spoke (so eloquently!) at the November East High United meeting made essentially the same point to Mr. Harris that evening, that the TAG classes at East give them a learning environment where they feel safe to be fully who they are, intellectually, and to discuss and learn at a very high level without feeling weird for being smart.
It costs little to nothing to meet our older children’s learning (and other) needs in this way. As well, it still leaves a HUGE amount of heterogeneity in the regular classroom. Finally, perhaps it would allow us to put more of those few “TAG” dollars into identifying, nurturing and supporting academically talented students of color and poverty, in order to prepare them for choosing those advanced classes when they get to high school.
Laurie, without question, it’s the curriculum!
Inadequate curriculum produces inadequate results.
“Reformers” want to rearrange everything about schools, but never want to look at curriculum.
It’s the curriculum, stupid! (I’m not saying that to you, Laurie, just paraphrasing Bill Clinton’s motto.)
…but it’s not, at least not entirely.
Even the best curriculum won’t do well by students if teachers are poorly trained in it, have inadequate materials/supplies, or if the teachers teaching it aren’t that good at teaching (which, on the last point, gets into the whole debate about teacher pay, incentives, starting salaries, mentoring and the like).
And I’d argue assessment is just as critical as the curriculum. A “new and better” curriculum that’s not linked closely and adequately with proper assessment tools is the old rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.