There has been bitterness, surprise and resentment over my vote with respect to the Lapham/Marquette consolidation. I would like to let people know why I voted to move the alternative programs to Marquette. I have a mix of emotions several days after the storm and hope you find it helpful to understand the process from my perspective.
I made this decision in the most thoughtful and respectful manner possible. Unfortunately, the process of getting to this vote is more complicated than the moment in time when the board makes a single vote. I hope those of you most affected by this can see how this transpired.
In the past three weeks, Beth Moss and I, as newly elected members of the Board of Education, have met with the staff of MMSD to get up to speed with our current programs. This process takes many, many hours. We have also spoken with teachers, visited schools, gone to public forums, taken calls, studied data, looked at programs with a critical eye and visited with many constituents.
Many of you went to forums over the past few weeks and spoke passionately about your schools and programs. I took copious notes and asked questions. Our participation and commitment was to be as effective as possible under the circumstances. Not to just listen silently and abdicate our role by letting the rest of the board make difficult choices.
Our board president urged us to listen to the public and to keep in mind that we had to make a decision soon. He wanted us to stay on task, to move the process forward and to ask the administration as many questions as needed.
In light of the enormous task at hand, we wondered, was there enough time? How could we possibly get all the information we needed? Could we get answers to questions once more information came back from the community?
At first, we were told that we would be voting on the budget the day after we were sworn in. This date was delayed by a week, but it still left us with very little time to ask meaningful questions and make meaningful contributions to the process.
As a board member, I made the motion to slow down the process and give the board two weeks to work together before the final vote. We were given one day to hand in our formal amendments. It is a frustrating process to say the least.
Much of the work on the budget and long range planning had been done in committee this past year. These were the options that the committee brought to the administration and the board. I chose to respect the time and effort of these committees, my fellow board members and staff over the course of the past few years. I respect the work and dedication of all those on the board.
Some people have asked what would have happened if I abstained. I’ve been thinking of this from the standpoint of risking further dissention on the board. Do we really want to risk board members actively and publicly working against each other? I feel we have to stand as one governing body with differing opinions. Outright dissent is crossing the line into the divisiveness for the board that our community has wanted to eliminate.
We can work to change the process. Set a better timeline that gives board members two weeks of orientation; a training session with the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) on school budgeting; a day at the capital learning about state budgeting (perhaps with another seated board member) and two more weeks to study the budget with no other items on our agenda.
In addition, I would ask for the board to revisit criteria that we could use to provide further review and analysis of specific programs so we can evaluate them. One example is the programs housed in the Teaching and Learning Department. I would like to know exactly how much we want to spend to support quality professional development whether is it effective. Can we measure it?
I am hoping we can improve on the process, but abstaining from the process would be like giving up. I contend we made the best decisions possible for the kids. We inherited a job that many board members face each year. Is it disjointed? Yes. Can it be improved? Yes, and our board can address what worked and what did not this year at our retreat. I have also contacted the WASB for advice on how we can put a process in place if we ever have to consider consolidating or merging paired schools in the future.
I would also like us to consider coming up with community-supported criteria for this process beyond square footage, programming and enrollment. That is the job of the administration. I want us to come up with clear criteria on which to base our board decisions. We are quite capable of doing this.
Lindbergh is a small, charming school in our northside community. It is similar to Leopold, another school that has dealt with overcrowded conditions and is on the edge of our district map. Both are retrofitted from the open classroom concept to divided space.
It serves as a reminder of what we did right. We visited the school and talked to as many people as we could. We held a public forum at Kennedy Heights Neighborhood Center there. Beth and I went on a tour with neighbour-advocates, parents and teachers.
And in the end, with much debate, we found that this is a school that works. It has parent participation, teacher buy-in, neighborhood support and happy kids. All the while, our children are learning and improving.
We made difficult cuts, raised fees and asked more from our community. We committed to being fiscally responsible. We took middle schools off the table until we can have more conversations with community as to what our middle schools should look like.
We made a commitment to save small class size for all of our elementary schools, a worthwhile investment in our future and our young teachers. I personally want to focus on how we can better serve our younger staff and keep the cuts from affecting them the most. These cuts serve as a reminder of how we desperately need to talk about the cost of health insurance in our district.
And when you take a look at what we did not cut; a picture appears: we took Shabazz High School off the table; we took Blackhawk Middle School off the table; and we took Lindbergh off the table. All are good schools that have strong community support, school pride and work outside the general paradigm of what makes a successful school (too alternative, too small, etc.).
In some ways, philosophically, we made a commitment to alternative approaches in education in our district. We chose to not judge a book by its cover.
And the controversy? The near east side schools of Lapham, Marquette and O’Keefe. My experience with paired schools gave me a unique perspective of the inherent difficulties with pairings: one more transition for kids; different leadership styles which can lead to kids sliding backward in their schooling; no room for kids to expand to more challenging classes if they need to “jump ahead” in a particular subject. There are many benefits to bringing this pair together at Lapham.
Mr. Winston’s motion to move the alternative programs from rental space to effectively no known space was not acceptable. I made a motion to put alternative programs in Marquette because of my commitment to these kids.
Conversely, I couldn’t support the rationale provided by those who voted against consolidation – that we would continue to remain silent on where to put alternative programs. It is too late in the process to bring up suggestions for alternative program placement the night of the budget. Our alternative programs needed us to make a decision Monday night; our kids deserve that from us.
At that moment, I recognized that although I was sworn in less than two weeks ago as an individual board member, my success is “inextricably tied to the success of [our] board.” In addition, I became painfully aware that I do not have the authority as an individual to fix the problems I campaigned to fix once we step up before the public and convene as a board.
My alternative cuts may have prevented this consolidation but were not supported by enough members of the board. I was ready to raise fees or cut back on sports programs, a move that a majority of the board is against. I had hoped to have a further discussion on the reduction or elimination of REACH. I wanted to open the possibility of creating a new revenue stream in charging parking fees for those at Doyle and perhaps throughout the district.
I will be looking more closely at these issues in the future.
I feel very sorry to have alienated many of those in the Marquette attendance area with this controversial decision. I hope after reading this you will at least understand my rationale. I chose to advocate for all kids in the community, not just for the politically affluent. I stand by my vote.
I will remain committed to forging working relationships with everyone in the community. Our work is far from over. I hope our community, city alders, the mayor and the business community can find a way to keep all of our schools open. We need leaders to support our school communities. The board’s role is to oversee the education of the children in those schools. I trust that the Marquette community can come together and support our most fragile kids. I know I will.
I feel as one of the “politically affluent” Ms. Cole refers to in her posting that I have to respond.
You mention Lindberg is “a school that works”. I am a parent that has had one daughter go through Lapham/Marquette from K through 5 and had another daughter start Kindergarten at Lapham this year. I can tell you that Lapham/Marquette is also “a school that works”. We have a very high level of parent participation, dedicated skilled teachers, huge neighborhood support and the best kids that I have ever been around.
Being a parent with some experience with children in a paired school I dispute all of your points regarding your experience with paired schools. It sounds like you spent some time at Lindberg school prior to you vote – how much time did you spend at Lapham/Marquette? I would hope that your views on paired schools, which influnced your vote to close Marquette, are not generalizations based on experience at other paired schools which would have no bearing on the Lapham/Marquette school experience. Both of my daughters have done extremely well socially and academically at Lapham/Marquette and we’ve personally felt none of the “inherent difficulties” that you mention of paired schools.
I greatly resent the implication that those of us in the Marquette attendance area, or as you referred to us “the politically affluent”, do not advocate for all kids in the community. (I would also hope that you could write a response such as yours without snide comments like calling concerned parents who regularly vote “the politically affluent”, but I can see I am wrong there . . . ) No one wanted the School Board to close any schools. I would not have been pleased with a decision to close Lindberg, knowing the impact that would have on those families. I also know the affiliated programs deserve the best the district can provide them as well. Our interests also go beyond our neighborhood – we just believe that closing schools is not the best way to achieve the district’s goals.
You didn’t alienate many (I’d be willing to bet you could say “most” rather than “many”) of us in the Marquette attendance area with your vote. You alienated us by lying during a campaign that had ended just one month before that vote. In a quote from your own campaign web site: “I will not vote to close any school in the District as they are vital to their community and to the city’s growth plans.” Ms. Moss at least indicated on her campaign web site that she would vote to close a school only as a very last resort – your stand was clear and unequivocal – no school closings. That is a pretty fast turnaround from making a stand that you knew would be popular with the “politically affluent” (who helped you get elected) to abandoning that stand the first chance you had.
Principled stands on issues, advocating for the kids in the MMSD, standing up for what’s right – that does not alienate us. Lies do.
Maya,
I’m ashamed that I helped you win. I hope your stay on the board is short and extremely painful.
Ed
The following are quotes from emails Maya Cole sent to the East High Discussion group and other groups on the East Side when soliciting their support.
” I have clearly stated that I will not vote to close schools on my campaign website but somehow it didn’t get across to some of the public.”
“If I were on the board, I would vote NO to disrupting east side schools ”
“Let me state for a fact that I am not in favor of
closing schools, consolidation or putting the
Affiliated Alternatives under one roof with Shabazz High School.”
“I oppose closing neighborhood schools and the current consolidation plans.”
“I believe that closing schools should be a last, last option.”
It seems obvious that Cole’s statement here is a ludicrous and self-serving attempt to justify her broken promises and mendacity, and I certainly hope no one reading this post will be taken in.
If anyone would like copies of the entire emails, please contact me and I’ll be happy to share.
Ed, if you are going to just completely lose it, please do it in private.
I voted for Maya even though I thought her position opposing school closure was wrong, and would come back to bite her in the behind. It’s easy to make statements such as “no closures” to people who are emotionally committed to a school, and it’s much harder to keep that pledge when faced with budgetary realities.
Maya will take some huge hits for this, but she showed me she has the intellectual honesty to change her position when confronted with reality. I’d rather have that sort of person on the board than one who sticks to a bad position no matter what the realities are.
Scott,
Your wife completely lost it when she wrote this idiotic tidbit: “I chose to advocate for all kids in the community, not just for the politically affluent. I stand by my vote.”
I am completely overwhelmed by all this. It is so deeply painful to see schools tossed like political ping pong balls when, in the history of our fine and beloved schools, we get hit by wrecking balls.
As distressing as all this is, we fully stand by our assertions FACT BASED that this collapsing of schools is wrong, wrong, wrong. I have lived in this neighborhood for almost 25 years. Our community, and the larger East area–I believe–has worked tirelessly to support the growth and vitality of our neighborhoods. To place all this effort onto some notion that we are acting solely as “politically affluent,” and taking that disrespect and disrupting the kids’ long established learning environments is an overwhelming blow. It is wholeheartedly our desire to find a fine and permanent home for the Affiliated programs, and to those new to the scene, or confined by narrow views, we have asserted this belief for a long time. The district failed to take on a real effort, and we are being blamed for being simply emotionally attached to some sort of elitist attitude.
I can’t believe this
Laura Chastain
I imagine the Administration is having a field day with the stunning success of its usual “divide and conquer” strategy. I hope that when our wounds have healed, we can remember who the common enemy is, lay bare all of the tactics they use to distract us and pit us against one another, and find a way to work together again. If we let ourselves stay in shambles and make no effort to raise ourselves up to meet the next challenges (e.g., the hiring of a new superintendent, the redesign of our high schools), then Art, John, Roger and their gang will have won not only the battle, but the entire war.
Let’s try to remember that there is a natural cycle of death and rebirth involved here. Surely I’m not the only one on this blog who once attended a Joanna Macy workshop on despair and personal/political empowerment?
We all need to do whatever it is we need to do in order to heal. But let us be mindful of not inflicting further damage as we heal.
What I want to know is why such a small savings was determined to be worth disrupting the lives of so many students and teachers? Ultimately the distract is not saving much by closing Marquette. There are other alternatives for the alternative program. Taking time to look at a careful placement is FAR less disruptive than this slap in the face to our families and teachers.
Why are there no cuts proposed at Doyle? Why can’t the alternative programs be housed there? Why is the paired school of Maya’s own children not being consolidated too?
This move seeks to tear the community apart through a lack of cooperation. Why ask any kids, of the “politically affluent” or not, to take such a hit?
Maya, I’m an old union girl. Our memories are long. I know we have to wait a year to recall you. It will happen.
Lucy Mathiak was the only member trying to get the Board to cut more administrative monies in order to keep ALL the schools open. I still get it…Art has this game set up so that the Board has to react to HIS proposals, instead of the other way around, which forces the Board into these types of quandries: Choose the lesser of two evils, in this case, the consolidation of Lapham-Marquette in lieu of closing Lindbergh and creating mega-middle schools. Given the fact that Lucy’s proposals went nowhere, and Carol’s proposals went nowhere, and Johnny’s proposal went nowhere…can we really blame Maya Cole? The game was already stacked! One solution would be for the Board to recognize this, call Art on it, reconsider their decision, and punish the administration by taking the $1.2million FROM THEM, not the east and north side schools.
This day in history, David—AMEN to what you wrote!
You and Laurie Frost have brilliantly identified how we have all been snookered by the Rainwater cabal. Maybe the best that comes out of this is that recognition by the wider audience.
However, it would be a sign of community respect and healing for the board to start over on this. Let’s not make any one member the scapegoat, especially those not yet experienced enough to see the false choices laid at their feet.
Are you listening, BOE?
I think Ed Blume is exactly right and expresses how many of us feel. Maya Cole gave us her word. There was no hedging. No ambivalence. No room for misunderstanding. If this decision stands feeling betrayed is unavoidable.
I also understand how in the heat of the moment Maya Cole and Beth Moss could make a mistake. The weight and conflicting obligations of that night on the Board was way too much to ask of new members.
I am one of many hoping it’s not too late to do the right thing. Maya Cole said in her statement that she thought it was important to be united with the board and reflect the work of the long range planning committee and implied that was the best way to make a decision at this time. The Chairperson of that committee, and the President of the Board, voted against closing Marquette. The vote to close Marquette is actually the minority viewpoint without the new members. If Beth Moss and Maya Cole would reconsider their vote the decision to close can be reversed.
Lapham-Marquette is not a politically affluent community that doesn’t care about anyone else. This is a community that always cares about all of our students. That’s why our schools have been so successful. The loving, generous, dedicated, and involved families of the Lapham-Marquette communities are naturals when it comes to caring.
If the decision to close Marquette made any financial sense this community would rebound quickly and come together. But it doesn’t. It shuts down a learning environment that has given a generation of kids real opportunity to blossom and reach their full potential and without justifiable reason.
I don’t think Maya Cole set out to break her promise on purpose. She should not expect of herself to know everything. I hope she is willing to accept that. Let’s make the case to her this weekend that this decision is wrong, and should be reconsidered.
The fact Art Rainwater had a hand in this mess does not let Maya Cole off the hook for breaking the promises she used to get elected. Nor should she be congratulated for changing her position when confronted with reality, as one poster has suggested. The facts were before Maya when she pledged to keep schools open, and nothing about those facts has changed since last month. Moreover, Maya’s statement on this blog suggests that her motivation for closing Marqeutte was not purely financial, but because she believes (apparently based on personal experience, and without consulting anyone directly affected) that it is somehow better for the Marquette/Lapham pair to be split up and crammed into a single building. On this point she is emphatically wrong. Closing Marquette is devastating to the neighborhood, harmful to the quality of our children’s education, and cannot be justified based on the cost savings to the district, which are extremely modest.
Rather than stubbornly clinging to a position that is dishonest and misinformed, Maya should ask the board to reconsider the issue and try to restore some of the trust that has been lost.
It is heartbreaking to know the hostility, divisiveness, and deep distrust that this issue has fostered. There are many valid comments throughout this string. The M-L neighbhorhood is justifiably upset. But Laurie Frost makes a very important point that we have been set up by a destructive “divide and conquer” approach to manageing MMSD.
I know Maya Cole and can say without a doubt that she is genuine in her commitment to doing the right thing. She clearly struggled and continues to struggle with this issue. Personal attacks and threats do not advance anything productive, and probably deter other good and caring people from considering future BOE service.
Yes, she changed her position. I believe she felt backed in to a corner by the choices available. That Beth Moss, who lives in the M-L neighbhorhood, cast the same vote, should only demonstrate the degree to which they felt faced with a Hobbesian choice.
One post asked why the paired school where Maya’s kids attend was not considered for consolidation. The simple reason is that Franklin (330 kids)-Randall (366 kids) are each currently operating at or over capacity. But as I pointed out in a previous post elsewhere, the Randall neighbhorhood has undergone consolidation previously: Hoyt elementary school on the west end closed because it was a small (280ish kids) school. The kids were consolidated into Randall. Then Randall was paired with Franklin in order to achieve income balance. But through all these changes, the neighborhood now loves our schools.
Just some perspective. Change is always hard. Sometimes it is unnecessary and wrong. Sometimes not. But reasonable people can disagree, and come together to make the district work for all kids. The bleeding will continue to plague MMSD if we don’t change the districts approach to management/budgeting and change the state school funding formula. Remember, next year’s budget will require the same level of cuts as were needed this year. Where are those coming from?
Observing from afar, it seems as if the participants in this process are experiencing GriefWork. The first two phases are accepting the reality of the loss and experiencing the pain of the loss. May the day come soon that many are adjusting to the new environment without the lost object. It’s painful to read the bitterness.
In response to Donna Astfalk: Beth Moss does not live in the Lapham/Marquette neighborhood. She is a westsider.
Judging from the numbers I see, this won’t be the last eastside school closing. Unless MMSD does something really innovative, like creating a magnet school within a school to draw in students from the westside. Centrally located schools like Lapham, Marquette, Emerson, and Lowell would be prime candidates, since to minimize costs, would need parents to provide own transportation. How about a TAG elementary school occupying several classrooms in one of these under capacity schools? Or another language immersion school, maybe Chinese? Enrollment in a TAG school would need to be testing restricted, but others could be lottery schools. When I lived in Columbus, Ohio, the school district kept open several schools which would otherwise have been closed in just this manner. Portland, Oregon has a TAG elementary school-within-a-school to fulfill their legal obligations to educate TAG kids.
It’s heartbreaking to lose neighborhood schools. When I lived in Ames, IA they had an odd demographic which caused declining enrollment in elementary while HS was bursting at the seams. Young families couldn’t afford to live in Ames so located in outlying areas and moved into town when kids were older and they had more money. Year after year closings were proposed and there were long tearful meetings. They managed to close 2 schools before we moved and when we went back for a visit recently, we found that it was our last chance for my daughter to visit her K teacher and old classroom as they were closing a 3rd school, her old school. Five remain. It was inevitable. School districts will not indefinitely keep open long-term half-empty buildings, no matter how vibrant and beloved by their neighborhoods. Even when times are good financially, many taxpayers object to what seems to them a waste of moneyand school districts want to appear fiscally responsible.
If magnets worked as intended, could expand into middle schools as kids get older and fill middle schools this way, perhaps avoid need to build a new school on westside at some future date.
I don’t understand exactly what went wrong with Studio School. It was a bit too constructivist for my taste, but still, just the sort of thing MMSD needs to be doing. Are high start-up costs the hurdle, or worries about long term viability?
If it were possible to unpair Franklin/Randall and Midvale/Lincoln a lot of money in bus costs would be saved. I suppose the racial balance aspect makes this idea too unpalatable to take up.
It’s too bad that Maya didn’t leave herself some wiggle room before the election like Beth did, too bad. I’m sure she won’t make that mistake again.
thanks for the correction. What I was thinking when I mis-wrote was that many of her strong campaign supporters live in the M-L neighbhorhood.
Laurie Frost:
“I imagine the Administration is having a field day with the stunning success of its usual “divide and conquer” strategy. I hope that when our wounds have healed, we can remember who the common enemy is, lay bare all of the tactics they use to distract us and pit us against one another, and find a way to work together again.”
David Cohen:
“Lucy Mathiak was the only member trying to get the Board to cut more administrative monies in order to keep ALL the schools open. I still get it…Art has this game set up so that the Board has to react to HIS proposals, instead of the other way around, which forces the Board into these types of quandries: Choose the lesser of two evils, in this case, the consolidation of Lapham-Marquette in lieu of closing Lindbergh and creating mega-middle schools.”
Anita:
“The fact Art Rainwater had a hand in this mess does not let Maya Cole off the hook for breaking the promises she used to get elected.”
Donna:
“But Laurie Frost makes a very important point that we have been set up by a destructive “divide and conquer” approach to manageing MMSD.”
Joan Knoebel:
“the false choices laid at their feet.”
With the exception of Donna who at least gives a passing mention to, “and CHANGE the state SCHOOL FUNDING FORMULA. Remember, next year’s budget will require the same level of cuts as were needed this year. Where are those coming from?”,
none of you seem to get it!! This is NOT the fault of the Administration or Art Rainwater or the School Board, it is the BROKEN state funding system and as long as you go on blaming MMSD’s Administration and the budget process and local school boards (not that lies are acceptable practice) for the STATE’S problem nothing will improve. You want to put your anger to good use write letters to Legislaters not Administrators. WE need to see the big picture. Administrators and Board Members are part of WE. Where have all of you been since 1993? West side schools have been struggling with the loss of neighborhood schools via boundary changes for many years now. To their credit, many of those directly effected have come out the other side and continue to fight to change the revenue caps. To be fair to the East and North siders, since 1993, many of you have struggled to meet the needs of many of our district’s neediest families and continue to strive for equity across our district. Many of you have been the most steadfast in your votes favoring Public Education. West siders should appreciate that and be able to empathize with East and North side families now that the neighborhood schools issue has touched your children as well. Many West side families (via boundary changes) have lived through the loss of neighborhood schools that East and North siders are now experiencing (via consolidation). Can we help each other heal? Conversely, East and North siders should continue to be supportive of the new west side school, badly needed by children in that part of our district who have sat in overcrowded schools for many years. West siders should reach out to East/North siders with offers of help and concrete, tested suggestions to make the daunting task of changing schools easier for their children. Is it possible to join together and work toward a solution at the state level that will benefit ALL children? The answer can’t be no if public schools in our city or our state or our nation are to survive and thrive!
Jan, I both agree and disagree with your comment. I agree that the state funding system must be addressed asap; I believe it is everyone’s responsibility to work on that; and I appreciate the effort of those who have taken a leadership role there. I vehemently disagree, however, that the present painful situation is in no way the Administration’s fault. Our District Administration is neither trustworthy nor collaborative in its operations. Based on quite a lot of direct experience, I do not believe that would change even if the state funding system did. Thus, I do not see this as an “either-or” situation, but rather as a “both.”
Since 1993 MMSD’s Administrators, along with Administrators across our state, have been forced to cut their operating budgets. From early on these experts warned taxpayers and parents of the impending doom districts faced if the revenue caps weren’t removed. Very few listened. Each year Administrators worked to find cuts that least affected the classroom while trying to maintain a fair level of salary and benefits for the people necessary to make quality education and effective school operations a reality. Each year this task has gotten harder. Administration has been honest and upfront with taxpayers and parents and boards of education each budget cut season. They have readily admitted that most of their “recommended” cuts were not proposed because they were in any way more educationally sound but because they were more fiscally sound. Taxpayers and parents, for the most part, have supported these cuts by voting in favor of only 50% of the school referendums across our state. The contention has always been that more efficiencies could be found, wasteful spending eliminated and spending better prioritized. The anti-referenda groups across our state continue to make these claims. Now as financial times for our schools are dire these claims are losing steam. The new claim which you purport in your statement, “Our District Administration is neither trustworthy nor collaborative in its operations,” is echoed in this May 2005 letter to the editor published in the Capital Times. It starts, “I am a “liberal” citizen of Madison who supports education for both civic and selfish reasons” and ends, “Perhaps I could have been persuaded to vote “yes” had it not been for the arrogance, distorted facts and dogmatic approach of the referendum supporters. I never once heard a proposal to cut Administration before placing sacrificial lambs, like the strings program, on our altars. Even now, after defeat, they are looking only for teachers to cut. Their campaign claims of previous cuts to staff and budget were disingenuous and they vilified opponents as “anti-education.” I will continue to support education, first by advocating new leadership in the Administration. The district would be better served by an administration that looks in earnest for solutions and seeks to unite the community, rather than divide it.”
Laurie, I contend this writer’s approach is equally counterproductive. Every large organization has room for improvement and there will always be disagreement on what those improvements need to be and how best to reach them. Stating that it is the Administration’s fault is creating an easy scapegoat which can be used quite effectively by anti-referendum and watchdog groups. Any administration can rightfully be accused of making unpopular and arguably unsound decisions, depending on what data set they rely upon. Much sound educational data is conflicting and one size does not fit all, making clear cut, sound educational decisions, tricky at best. Saying it is the Administration’s fault is a no brainer, since Administration, the Board’s chosen experts, should and do make the tough, no win, unpopular and by their own admission, less than educationally sound decisions they are required to make under our current state funding system. It is technically their “fault”. But as Art Rainwater was forced to explain once again to taxpayers and parents, “None of us want to do what we’re doing here. This is not a passing fancy for any of us. This is something we’ve dedicated our lives to.”
For you Laurie to say, “I imagine the Administration is having a field day with the stunning success of its usual “divide and conquer strategy,” is highly unfair and most assuredly counterproductive to the cause you purport of, “Letting us be mindful of not inflicting further damage as we heal.” The reality is that healing is not possible until the state funding system is fixed and there are adequate resources for our schools. Once the taxpayers and parents of this state vote to fix the broken funding formula, district Administration will no longer be required to make decisions that are at cross purposes. Administration will once again have the “luxury” to balance their decisions between the best educational practices and reasonable fiscal restraints. I am not cynical enough to believe that Administrators are inherently untrustworthy and non-collaborative in their operations. An adequate system of checks and balances is in place. I still contend that it is a cause and effect, an either-or situation, not a “both”. In striving for our communities shared vision for our schools, vilifying District Administration because their “bad” choices don’t mesh with what your individual choices would have been is counterproductive and divisive. It creates more problems than it solves.
I’m not so inclined to be generous towards the Administration, and it may be most if not all Districts around the state and at the State DPI are equally to blame.
It’s not scapegoating any administration or agency to recognize that at no time have any of them been forthcoming in the assessment of the quality of the curricula and its implementation.
The problem we face is the only reliable numbers we see are in budget and financial statements and therefore we solely look at these objective numbers and argue about these secondary issues.
First things should come first. There is only one First Thing and that is the delivery of quality education. For that we need honest assessments. And we need people who actually know what constitutes honest assessments and know how to make the measurements, and how to analyze the results so we can adjust our efforts to be more effective. Money can be saved by doing things right.
At no time have I seen anything even approaching honest appraisal. And I don’t see any hint that such appraisal is forthcoming.
Actually, I don’t believe honest appraisal is even within the competence of the general educational establishment.
Though I have reviewed material I believe shows there are people who actually understand the area of assessment, and the strengths, weakness, and limits of different approaches, they seem to be as rare as an honest politician. Everyone else is just blowing smoke.
Jan, My comments are based on direct experience over the course of many years that goes well beyond the budget.
Laurie,
Obviously, you and I have polarized opinions. My direct experiences over the last 12 years with district Administrators must have been very different than yours. We cannot hope to change each other’s minds. My hope is that this discussion has given others with less experience some points to ponder.
Celeste,
Your observation that the numbers point to other school closings is something that concerns me as well. I agree that the state funding situation desperately needs fixing, as some have again asserted in this thread, but are we realistic to expect that substantial change will come in the short term? In the meantime, what do our district’s agonizing budget woes mean for the future of other schools that are located in buildings that are underutilized? It seems likely that future school closings/”consolidations” on the east side will be proposed.
What can we do to make these schools less of a viable target for closing/consolidation? I advocate the kind of thinking that Celeste suggests–can we creatively come up with programs that would help fill these buildings? Could a charter school help to fill an elementary school building and make it clear to taxpayers that the school is operating at capacity and is home to a vibrant, innovative program that parents will go out of their way to seek out? I see the success of Nuestro Mundo and know that we have the community resources to come up with other programs that could be just as beneficial in offering unique learning environments for our children.
Charter schools are grassroots efforts by parents and teachers who want to try new ways of doing things. There are so many possibilities that could be explored in Madison–a “green” school, a math/science/technology charter, an arts school (with the Studio School being one of many possibilities), a Montessori charter, etc. Look at other districts around the state and you’ll see that there’s no lack of ideas.
Having worked on the last charter school effort, I’m quite familiar with many of the political arguments that are made against charter schools. Yet I still believe that charters can be implemented in ways that could benefit our east side schools. We have space that could be used to try distinct approaches/different curricula. While this may not be looked upon favorably by the current administration, I believe that parents and educators could propose ideas that would resonate with community.
I’d hate to see a repeat of the sadness and frustration that I hear in the posts of those hurt by the L-M consolidation. Are there others willing to consider how we might be able to work to prevent this?
The community might want to have this discussion: a charter school vs. a magnet school, and elementary or middle school..or both…to keep schools open and to utilize space efficiently, all while having some creativity in the curriculum.
I agree with David that the schools marked for closing and consolidation should be opened for charter/magnet schools.
This would keep a “neighborhood” school open (schools are a key to neighborhood vitality) assuming the city’s goal and result is to not kill existing neighborhoods, then gentrify them (I’m not hopeful here).
Then, if such a school is opened, it should be constituted to attract from more than the local neighborhood area, but citywide, which might lessen overcrowding in some schools, and in the longer term, perhaps increase the number familiies with children in the declining population neighborhoods.
Frankly, we do need some mechanisms stop the sprawl and building of new schools on the west side, and make all parts of the city attractive for families (and significantly less attractive on the west side).
Paving the way for more charter and magnet schools is a great idea, and they will probably be essential to the continued existence of District schools in the City proper.
But the elephant in the room continues to be the community’s and district’s failure to embrace the concept of “neighborhood” schools, and the various commitments that must follow. This concept has been both talked to death and totally avoided in the sixteen years I’ve lived here.
If neighborhood schools are to be a reality, this community will have to come to grips with the political and economic implications of building neighborhood schools, and find the mechanisms to make it happen. To date, there’s been a lot of talk about wanting them, but has there been a comprehensive analysis of the various costs and benefits? With gas nearing $4 a gallon, perhaps it’s time to reopen the discussion.
I fully realize that a commitment of this type would press the buttons of those who say that maintaining socio-economic balance in our schools mean equal access. (Dirty little secrets abound about that topic.)
It would also anger the Far East and Far West taxpayers who help provide funding for our District. It would anger people in Fitchburg who want it all for free (or at least significantly less than retail).
Everyone will dislike some of these ideas, so take your pick as to which one is most palatable (or has a chance of happening):
Dismantle or restructure currently pairs Midvale/Lincoln and Franklin/Randall, which no longer serve the new demographics and/or transportation logistics of our city. Keep each attendance area linked to its neighborhood school. These pairs were developed in response to a legal threat in 1979. There are three times as many people who don’t want the pair than do (especially in M/L). K-2 children are bused up to 20 miles a day to know the joys of Midvale. MMSD has consistently stifled any real talk of breaking the pair, and people are voting with their feet.
How about a referendum to establish a “neighborhood school” policy? Create “core” City attendance areas that use neighborhood boundaries as their school attendance area. If you don’t live within the core area, your child will be subjected to busing to a school which has available space. (This alone would be enough to make Fitchburg, Maple Bluff and the Far West side cringe. Shorewood’s ace in the hole would be the fact that the school is physically located within the Village.)
Push the City to follow through with initiatives for funding and resources to improve high-crime, low-income, low-test score school attendance areas (For example, The Villager Mall project (Lincoln), slowly ramped up by the City, now apparently hung out to dry for that wonderful Central Park project and its accompanying TIF dollars. I guess the L-M folks will just have to settle for Lapham, and enjoy the Park.) If City government is not behind the neighborhood school movement, it will not happen.
Push Administration to move MSCR to an Isthmus location, and put the Hoyt School back into circulation. This item has repeated been raised in budget discussions (as has the sale or repurposing of Doyle), then conveniently ignored by Administration. I asked about the idea of moving MSCR to Lapham two years ago, when closing Lapham was the current word. Roger Price said that it would take 500-600K to reopen the school. It could at least go back to being used to alleviate some of the overcrowding elsewhere on the West Side, and would decrease some of the costs associated with building a new facility.
Is it possible to launch a recall of the vote to build the new West Side school, or request an injunction to delay its completion until more is known about its real impact on the district’s finances?
Does someone who’s been in Madison for many years know more about the background and subsequent developments of Midvale-Lincoln pairing? The reason I ask is because I was looking at an MMSD map of block-by-block #’s of K-5 kids enrolled in MMSD from 2 years ago. When added up, only about a third of M-L kids come from Midvale neighborhood. If schools were decoupled now, Midvale would have really low enrollment. One could have guessed that from looking at low-income #’s in district data, but this is definite. When schools were paired, did Midvale have such low numbers? Have housing patterns changed, with fewer children in households there, or are so many of the kids at QOP and Edgewood?
I know the district must keep track of number of kids in each boundary area in private school/home school, because our elementary principal last year told me that those kids are counted in totals to determine eligibility for Title 1 funds, etc.- which makes it more of a hurdle to qualify. Does anyone have a link to those numbers, or do I need to contact Kurt Kiefer or someone else?
What happens if a Lincoln-area child gets sick at Midvale during the day and needs to go home but parent has no transportation? Does MMSD transport children home?
I believe strongly in neighborhood schools. But there is a difference between being forced on a bus out of one’s neighborhood, and freely choosing another school because one sees an opportunity in that. I think magnet schools can be structured either as school within a school or as one big magnet which maintains access for neighborhood children. In either case, neighborhood kids wouldn’t be forced out, as apparently happened in NEST.
When the Supreme Court decides its 2 education cases soon, it may have some bearing on pairings like M-L. Even if they don’t directly impinge, they will show direction of court.
Kathleen, I didn’t understand a comment of yours about Fitchburg, et al. Do they pay lower school taxes than Madison residents? Oh, by the way, that map I mentioned shows that Maple Bluff has all of 50 K-5 kids in MMSD. Not sure how many would be expected, but it’s a fair guess that the majority are not in MMSD.
Let’s please not let this discussion descend into a pitting of one neighborhood against another. The entire MMSD community needs to pull together to support the needs of all of our neighborhoods and their schools.
School property taxes are paid at the same rate for all areas of our district, including Fitchburg. All neighborhoods have a right to expect and demand a strong neighborhood school.
Let’s focus our frustration and energy on addressing the current school funding system. Let’s also look to supporting an operating referendum to carry us through the time needed to make these changes at the state level.
Celeste, the following post will be long-winded. My apologies. Here is what I know after about 8 years of living in Westmorland, one of the neighborhoods included in the Midvale attendance area.
If you look at our neighborhood, currently a small slice of the neighborhood is in Thoreau, and the rest in Midvale/Lincoln. Westmorland and Sunset Village have strong ties to Queen of Peace (I’m not aware if this is the case with Midvale Heights, too, but I think it’s likely.). Some neighborhood children also go to the Wingra School, Edgewood and Blessed Sacrament. All of these schools are wonderful in their own ways. (Our former neighbors actually spent three hours a day shuttling their oldest child to Madison Country Day until they burned out on it, and moved to Waunakee.)
The pairing was formed after a legal challenge asserting that Madison’s schools were segregated. Initially, Thoreau (in Nakoma) was to be paired with Lincoln. I have been told by a former School Board member that 11th hour pressure was applied to remove Thoreau from the pairing, and Midvale was selected instead. I suspect Midvale was selected because of the large number of children attending nearby Queen of Peace. Given the demographics of the neighborhood at the time, probably less opposition was voiced to the pairing due to the high level of parochial school attendance. Still, many people left the neighborhood, and, for a number of years, fewer children lived in Westmorland.
The upshot is that Lincoln area children attend Midvale for K-2, then Lincoln for 3-5, and vice-versa. An additional split occurs because the Midvale kids then go to Hamilton Middle School, and the Lincoln kids go to Cherokee. Many people I know have been thrilled with the Lincoln program, and I know the PTO and staff has gone above and beyond the call trying to make the pairing work. Many of the people trying to make it in the Lincoln area are being kicked while they are down socially and economically, and the neighborhood surrounding the Lincoln School has been struggling with underdevelopment and high crime for a long time.
A look at the MMSD attendance area map will show you that the paired areas are a huge area of the city. The Arboretum does run through the area, but it is still very large. The neighborhoods are not adjacent to one another, unlike Franklin/Randall and Lapham/Marquette. The Midvale and Lincoln campuses are about six miles apart, using the Beltline only. Leopold is just two miles from Lincoln, across the Beltline. (If anyone doubts the impact of this commute on small children, I suggest that you get in your car and drive the attendance area and bus routes. It is eye-opening.)
I don’t know about the court decisions you mentioned, but I would be interested in reading more. If anyone is aware of a post, I would appreciate knowing its location. I would also be interested in knowing the transportation costs associated with administering the pairing. If anyone has access to this information, please let me know. Thanks.
An Open Classroom program exists within Lincoln, which is largely attended by Midvale area kids. These kids tend to be middle- or upper-middle class, and are predominately white. Test scores by ethnicity and socio-economic factors show that children who are both minority and economically disadvantaged perform significantly less well than the non-minority, economically advantaged kids. Not surprising. Attempted discussion of the inequities of this situation with MMSD goes nowhere.
Now, more families are moving into our neighborhoods that want to send children to public school, and more families are living elsewhere and commuting to Queen of Peace. (Hence, the issue with the private school busing cuts.) MMSD has been approached by individuals and at Long Range Planning meetings to dismantle the pairing. MMSD has shut down any substantive discussions, and the PTO shows no signs of doing anything but what MMSD wishes on the issue. Supt. Rainwater’s budget document included a separate item on lifting the student to teacher ratio on Lincoln to be aligned with other schools of its type, stating the lower ratio was intended for five years only, and that the desegregation goal had been achieved. If that’s the case, the ratio should have been changed mid-1980’s, and this pair should have been disbanded years ago.
It is not difficult to see why, as a Near West neighborhood with high real estate values and taxes, that our real estate values have escalated, but not to the extent of surrounding neighborhoods. People are leaving. To a certain extent, this is balanced by incoming families who want to be near the parochial and private schools, but they cannot have three-car garages and home theatres. We are starting to see the first signs of tear-down culture, so that larger houses can be jammed on to 50×120 lots. Some of this activity will probably be suppressed by R2 zoning regulations, but variances are not uncommon in our area.
If you are willing to go further west, you will likely go to Crestwood, Stephens or Van Hise. If you are willing to carry a larger mortgage, you will probably go Nakoma, University Heights or Shorewood to avoid the hassle, or just up and leave the City. If you stay, you will deal with the pairing, or send your child to parochial or private school, while still paying top dollar for your house and taxes. (At least with Franklin-Randall, the areas are geographically close to each other, and Franklin’s demographics have changed substantially since the pairing began. And that pairing directly influences your housing values. My house in Vilas would probably sell for another 100K.)
Ironically, it will likely take another legal action to change MMSD’s position on Midvale/Lincoln. That legal action will probably be generated by an individual or group of taxpayers who sees redlining of district attendance areas based on outdated demographics, resulting in suppressed and constrained home values.
Regarding the school population at Midvale, I think that paired, they are currently at capacity or a bit over. In my neighborhood, I am aware of about 30 children within about a three block area. There are around 15 children within my block and the adjacent block alone. Do some of these kids go to parochial or private schools, or are they home schooled? You bet. Do some of them go to these schools because of the situation with the pairing, and the logistics involved? Yes. Do you think MMSD wants the public to know how many children are being home-schooled? No. So, to answer your question, I suspect that the Midvale attendance area demographics would change significantly if the pairing was broken. I am aware of many families with young children moving into Sunset Village and Midvale Heights as well. I suspect that it would force Midvale to be overcrowded, and that the next logical step would be to reopen nearby Hoyt. We know the District will avoid that at all costs, because it means they would have to move MSCR to a location that actually serves the larger community.
To answer your question about illness policy for the pairing, I am not aware of the current policy, but I will be exploring that topic in our analysis of whether to stay or go. Let’s just say that the daily decision about picking up your K-2 child at Midvale or letting your 3rd or 4th grader take the bus ride because of the concurrent release times is stressful enough for many parents.
Deb, the current school funding formula is broken, no doubt.
My comments about Fitchburg were not intended to assert they are exempt from school taxes, or that some people do not deserve neigborhood schools. Fitchburg does pay school taxes. They have also been building expensive, land-swallowing housing at an alarming rate, and it has been a struggle to build support within their community for something as basic as a library. Do they bear the same city service and infrastructure burden as City residents, including roads, fire, water and police and ambulance services? No. This portion of the equation must change in some respect.
Lower property taxes have been a main attraction for locating there. Verona, Oregon and Madison have been picking up the tab for years. Verona went so far as to build a school in Fitchburg. An attempt was made to have Madison build one at Fitchburg Center, which was shot down. As Verona grows closer to maximum capacity, it will be interesting to see if Verona will require some type of supplement from Fitchburg, or modify district policies to ease the crunch on their schools.
I am sorry the vote was made to consolidate Lapham/Marquette, and I hope it is overturned. But in revisiting the consolidation, we need to look at the larger picture of school pairing and neighborhood school policies for the district. Otherwise, we will continue to fight the same fight over and over again with every single school in the Near and Central neighborhoods. Some parity must be applied to policies around pairing and neighborhood schools, and we need to understand the full impact of them on citizens and finances.
In other words, if Lapham and Marquette return to their pre-consolidation status, we need to start a discussion of a city-wide neighborhood school policy, and residents who are willing to make some concessions to keep the city livable and reduce sprawl must be shown some consideration. It has been a struggle on the West Side for some time, and now the East Side is feeling the effects of the lack of a real policy.
I think this conversation will shake our City’s attitudes on race, economics and social justice to its core, and I think it has been avoided. It has to happen. It is our chance to avoid becoming Milwaukee, Baltimore, Hartford, or 1970’s era-Boston.
This issue is larger than schools, it’s about municipal governance, and the City has got to stop letting the other players in the district drag them around by the tail.
Kathleen raises an important point–the mayor and council have been silent on school issues like closings, consolidations and new construction, pretending that this is somehow apart from urban planning. The silence during this past election’s debates on this subject was deafening.
I am not sure who Kathleen is or whence her claims to expertise, but her statements about the demographics of the Open Classroom magnet at Lincoln are flat wrong. I don’t care to speculate about income, but can say that 1 or possibly 2 out of 16 children in my daughter’s classroom there are from the Midvale catchment area.
This makes me doubt the truth of her other claims. I wouldn’t use her as my guide to information about the Midvale-Lincoln pair or any other school issue.
If you’d like to see who attends Open Classroom, stop by and visit sometime!
I think if you talked with parents involved with the Midvale-Lincoln PTO, you’d find that they are doing not “what MMSD wishes” (why should they?) in supporting these schools, but what *they* wish–because they find something positive there for their children and their community.
Celeste – Administrators, Psychologists, Social Workers, School Nurses, and Teachers have all helped with transporting students home when their families don’t have access to transportation. These people have also gotten families food, clothing, alarm clocks, teaching parents how to drive (or connections to a drive), working with local churches for transportation etc. These are the things that most people don’t know about what MMSD staff will do for a child in need. This happens in almost all schools if not all schools.
Kathleen – No children are on buses to public elementary schools for more than 45 minutes, and I think it is actually no more than 35. One can easily drive from Midvale to Lincoln without going on the beltline, I don’t know if those buses really do touch the beltline or not.
I am not sure where you got your info about Fitchburg. The city of Fitchburg became a city in 1983, Madison became a city in 1856, I am not sure why you are compairing the two because one doesn’t have a library? They do have the bookmobile along with many other communities around Dane County.
Residence of Town of Madison, Maple Bluff, Blooming Grove, Shorewood, Town of Middleton, Fitchburg, etc. may have some students attending MMSD, and if property owners, they pay MMSD school taxes. They pay their community taxes which in turn take care of their community water, fire, police, roads, ambulances, etc. One should not expect someone who shopped in Middleton, or work at the University or Government Buildings and lived out of town to pay for Madison roads. Everyone in Dane County pays for the county highways, and everyone in the state pays for the state highways. If people own property in the MMSD district which is not the same as the city of Madison, they pay property taxes towards the MMSD schools. This include people who own businesses and may live outside the MMSD district. Did you know that there are people who have Madison addresses yet end up going to Verona or Middleton because of where they live? The board of education decides the borders of the entire district, they will trade land with other communties based on what their district needs. For instance, a large community in Fitchburg was traded by the board of education approximately 5 or 6 years ago, so Madison could have more students (to raise their state monies) and Oregon was worried that this area would explode the size of their schools.
There is a lot of politics out there that people are unaware of, and then we all start pointing fingers without getting all the information.
The real question is why do some pairings of schools work, while others don’t? Lapham has reopened not to many years ago because the Marquette was getting crowded is my recollection. If we look at it, Lapham went from bussing kids for 6 years to Marquette to only 3. That would make families happy. But I think it even goes broader than this. This was the area where “hippies” lived, and when looking back upon the original intention of hippies, it was peace, love, and harmony. It was also not competing with the Jones, but what can I do to help others. This is a community that has kept this philosophy going. In these neighborhoods, the families sit on their porches and everyone knows everyone. I also believe that this area has a homeless shelter in the neighborhood.
I look at Leopold years ago fighting to keep their school together. Again, I feel that this is a unique community. This neighborhood has children walking to school from both rich (those who are not considered low income) and poor (those who would be labeled low income) neighborhoods. The school is on the Madison/Fitchburg line, and kids in both cities walk to school. This area has mixed economic level neighborhoods. Many people also don’t realize that Fitchburg has a large number of poor students who attend not only Leopold, but also Chavez, Thoreau, Glen Stephens, and Crestwood. Not everyone in Fitchburg is rich the way some think. In most schools either the rich or poor are bused in.
According to the Capital Times in 2006, the Midvale Lincoln pairings began in 1984 due to segregation and they had to do something legally. Even if you drive in the neighborhoods today, their is definately a have and have nots. Their are very few appartments in the Midvale neighborhood and I wonder how many would even are Title 8. Lincoln on the other hand has a large number of Title 8 (low income) dwellings.
To the most part, people don’t choose to be poor or homeless. It could happen to any of us. A medical situation, bad financial choices, company downsizing, or even a stock market crash could put any of us in the low income bracket. Children have no say on what kind of situation they are brought up in, shouldn’t they have equal opportunities to learn no matter where they live? Why should one school be able to make a hundred thousand dollars for their PTO to spend on what they want (based on the families donations and location of the school) where another school is so poor that the PTO can’t even afford purchasing the basic school supplies for it’s students (and the families can’t afford them either).
Joan, would you want Dane County, the State, or even worse Federal Government to get involved in Madison politics? I feel they shouldn’t and feel this way about having Madison getting involved in MMSD politics. The Mayor has talked about trying to create the city where rich and poor live next to each other rather than the segregation that has occured in the city. In order to do this, then neighborhood buildings (apartments and homes) would have to have more Title 8 housing, and more well to do people need to move into the more “poor” neighborhoods. Is anyone ready to turn hand over their block in the wealthier neighborhoods to allow for low income housing, or well to do families willing to move to Park Street or Northport Drive? Unfortunately, too many of us will look at what is best for us, way before we look at what is best for the community. To me, this is the only way that neighborhood schools will eliminate pairing schools.
Families who have money have the option to look at alternative education. Poor families only have that option when they learn about the financial aid/scholarship/sponsorship packages that some of the schools offer, which many of them don’t even realize are out there. These are not public knowledge because then everyone would apply for them. My view is that we need to MMSD first priority needs to be for those families who truly financially have not options. These children need to have a break in there lifes. They don’t know when their next meal is during non school days, squeezing their feet into shoes that are to small because they don’t want to spend the money that will keep the lights on for another week. There are a lot of good kids out there who need MMSD to give them an equal chance.
Kay, I did not say that I am an expert. Say what you like, and dispute my opinion if you wish, but I’ve lived on the Near West side for 16 years, and have owned a home in Westmorland (Midvale) for the last 8 years. Like many other parents in the pairing, I am evaluating whether the pairing is the right fit for our family.
We bought a home here when there were few children in the neighborhood due to flight, and many would have flatly dismissed it due to the nature of our pairing. Many people chose Franklin/Randall instead, because they are close together, and the demographics between the two schools are not as wide (and are closing daily).
To me, a reasonable evaluation includes reading MMSD and state information, as well as speaking with friends, neighbors and neighborhood association folks regarding the pairing.
As far as the sources of my information, I have consulted MMSD information, WINSS data and spoken with numerous friends and neighbors with children in the pairing (including former school board and PTO members), and some that are sending their children to private or parochial school, or have left. Some families have stayed and had a fabulous experience. Others have not.
Lincoln is not a magnet school, as seems to be your assertion. You mentioned that you don’t care to comment on income in the Open Classroom. Income is a huge factor within the pairing. MMSD makes representations that the pairing is progressive. More affluent families are shown advantages within the pairing.
PTO’s exist to support their schools. The Midvale/Lincoln PTO has had to fight to help make the pair as successful as possible. But I also think that what’s happened at Midvale/Lincoln is that parents who have differing opinions have been excluded from the conversation, and that’s exactly what the MMSD wants. Part of supporting teachers and children includes challenging administration when their interests are not taken into account. MMSD has publicly stifled any movement toward breaking the pair, even though there is considerable support within the neighborhoods, and it is growing. I hope the Board, in particular, is listening to the community going forward, as has just occurred with overturning the Marquette decision.
Edukation4U, I am quite aware of the politics. Don’t jump to the conclusion that I am pointing fingers, or am not familiar with the issues. Overall urban and municipal planning are needed components of the school debate, and it’s long overdue. Up to now, it has been been reactive.
The legal decision and settlement which created the pairings occured in 1979. The district had five years to implement changes. The Midvale/Lincoln pairing began right about the time that the city of Fitchburg (at 35 square miles, a little less than half the size of Madison) was created by a court decision involving the city of Madison.
Fitchburg has been a mecca for high-end residential development, and it has grown tremendously over the last 20 years. Of course there are some areas of Fitchburg that are less affluent. Property taxes are also low in relationship to home values, and other municipalities bear the economic weight of a very basic community component, school systems.
I don’t think it outrageous that a city of 20,000+ residents create the infrastructure for basic community services, such as a school system and library, especially when many homes sell for over 500K.
Of course separate municipalities pay taxes to support their own infrastructure! Of course lots of people live outside of, but work in Madison! The expense of maintaining infrastructure in the City to support other municipalities’ participation in the district is very high.
The MMSD once stated that the square footage of the real estate portfolio for the district matches that of the Sears Tower. Some cities institute wheel taxes to address these issues. I believe Paul Soglin proposed a wheel tax at one point, but it didn’t make it off the ground.
In boundary and balancing discussions, it seems fine to leave Midvale-Lincoln as is — with a very high poverty level and low test scores, even though the stated intent was to balance attendance areas. Midvale/Lincoln families of limited means will still struggle to participate their children’s school life; limited money, perhaps no car or time, and the added burden of a commute. That doesn’t even address cultivating a sense of school community.
Given their close proximity, linking Leopold with Lincoln was raised when the Leopold expansion was being discussed, and never allowed serious discussion. Linking these two schools would have helped Leopold obtain a larger campus, and Lincoln kids would have benefitted from a shorter commute, as well as the advantages of access to an up-to-date facility in a somewhat better neighborhood. It would have bolstered South Madison, which needs serious help!
Joan’s assertion that the City be involved is reasonable. The schools are an extension of municipal governments. The City and MMSD often negotiate land swaps. Dane County intervention is unavoidable to a certain extent due to the fact that their are numerous municipalities and other districts involved with those cities, towns and villages in our district, such as Oregon, Verona, McFarland and Monona Grove. The Blackhawk development had a heated debate with the city about whether or not they could be part of Madison, but aligned with the Middleton school district.
Many of the economic and political demographics are similar between Near East and Near West neighborhoods, as well as our ideas about social justice. Midvale has some Section 8 eligible housing, but certainly not as much as Lincoln. But the Near East side has become increasingly gentrified, no doubt!
This district will continue to grow, and the social and economic demographics will shift, as it has, from area to area. The City needs to put the money into the former Town of Madison, and other areas of the City to help build stronger neighborhoods, and create a better mix of affordable housing that encourages more affluent folks to live in more challenged neighborhoods.
If the MMSD is going to pair schools, at least make them closer to one another to limit transit for these families, and save on transportation costs for the district.