When Policy Trumps Results

Marc Eisen makes sense:

Much to its credit, the Madison school board has mostly ignored the March 2007 recommendations of the district’s Equity Task Force. This earnest but unhelpful committee delved into the abstractions of what distinguishes “equity” from “equality,” how the board might commit to equity and what esoteric guidelines could measure that commitment.
………….
This point needs to be emphasized. Madisonians aren’t afraid to tax themselves. They just want good services in return and know that their money isn’t being wasted.
But I can’t for the life of me see them rallying around a pompous and abstruse equity policy, especially one that reads like it was formulated by the UW Department of Leftwing Social Engineering. (Example: “Equity will come about when we raise a generation of children tolerant of differences and engaged in their democracy to stop the processes leading to inequity.”)
The school board, after a suitable 14-month delay, should politely shelve the task force’s recommendations when it finally gets around to voting on them in May.

Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron provides a timely read after Marc’s article.

21 thoughts on “When Policy Trumps Results”

  1. It’s too bad Marc never read the report of the Equity Task Force. It contains numerous things that Marc himself has written about and advocated for to help achievement in the public schools. But that’s the “left” for you- like the proverbial “Polish Firing Squad”, standing around in a circle to execute their intended victim!

  2. David: I’ve read the report and the supporting documentation as posted on the MMSD website. It’s just dreadful stuff — written with all of the grace of a Soviet five-year plan to increase potato production — and with a barely concealed agenda of maintaining heterogeneous class groupings through high school and ending TAG classes that aren’t representative of the of the school population.
    Sample of the “equity” diktat: “School districts must examine institutional beliefs and affect systematic change in policies, practices, and structures that perpetuate inequities based on race and class. Negative or discriminatory behavior in violation of this policy shall be challenged wherever it occurs and dealt with appropriately.”
    Hopefully, firing squads won’t be involved. But I have a feeling that kids who wear Ralph Lauren polo shirts might be sent to re-education camps in Mazomanie under this policy. Marc

  3. But what about the strategies for implementation of the Equity Policy itself? What about 4 year old kindergarten? Unequal distribution of resources to schools with higher levels of poverty? Guarantees that every child, whether TAG or Special Ed or Ralph Lauren, gets equal access? I realize that some of the language is truly verbose- we had no choice given that the Attorney for the MMSD wrote the thing- but the down and dirty details are being overlooked. Realize I’m far from a policy wonk, but I think it does the community a disservice to paint this thing with a broad brush since most of the community will never read the details….and yes, much of what is contained in the report came from the month-long community meetings that the task force held. Meetings with the under-served minority communities as well as those of us (like you and I) that have complete and unfettered access to the MMSD and more.
    The BOE should take all the practical implementation strategies that they can use from the report and put them into the new policy. Yes, the edu-speak diktat that these committees evacuate can be left on the colon walls when it comes to the policy, but the meat and potatoes are worth digesting.

  4. I wrote a response to the task force request for community input.
    One thing to notice is that, of 400 responses, 120 were from Spanish-speakers. 25% of MMSD students are not Spanish speaking; someone biased this strongly toward bilingualism.
    Basically the whole thing reads like a recipe for disaster. To summarize, equity seems to mean moving resources from students “who don’t need it” to those that do.
    It’s a guide to ruining the Madison school system by providing more incentives for parents of smart, good students to move to a different district. If you’re a good student, then you don’t need resources so you have to sit in a class of 50 and become average while goof-off students get special attention.
    Also note one of the strategies is, yes again it shows up, the “mixed ability classroom.” That’s a great way to learn; sit in a class with a bunch of clowns.
    Apologies to those who worked hard on this but Marc is spot on. This document sounds like a Marxian manifesto of some sort. Off to the re-education camps for the bourgeoisie, I guess.

  5. Yeah, how dare we give resources to kids who need them at the expense of kids who don’t need resources…alas, those kids will, one day, sit next to your kid(s) in class…better hope they’re prepared!

  6. Just a point of reference on Chris’s post….the elementary school population in MMSD currently has 18% ELL (English Language Learner)students. This percentage has been growing steadily in recent years and, if trends continue, should hit 25% by about 2017, if not sooner. There are currently 10 elementary schools that have greater than a 25% concentration of ELL students, the highest being 45% at Midvale. While not all of these students are Spanish-speakers, certainly a significant percentage are. I would hope the equity policy addresses strategies to help our smart, good ELL students be successful.

  7. I just wish that the Madison school district would continue to offer accelerated classes for the kids willing to learn at a faster rate and not force kids into the heterogenous class rooms. Much as we like to think ourselves as progressives, I don’t think many parents like to sacrifice their kids on the altar of “closing the achievement gap”, when the measures have such a faint hope of success. This might well drive families away.

  8. Every middle school offers accelerated classes, either in mathematics or via WCATY. I’ve yet to find a teacher who wouldn’t give my (elementary) kids extra work at a higher level when asked to do so- though sometimes you have to access the TAG person to get those extras. Delivery in high schools vary, no doubt. I think if folks flee MMSD only because of “equity” in resource allocation, then that says A LOT about what Madison has become.

  9. With all due respect, yes, Middle Schools “offer” accelerated programs, but what does it take to ensure your child is placed correctly within the program? Additional math are take home worksheets called sunshine math. The worksheets depend and are focused through homeschooling. Higher grade level, dedicated staff discuss options for bringing children up to speed because children are not where they need to be. Once in Middle School, your child is tracked and it is impossible to have them changed.
    Quite honestly, Marc is spot on. Equity is not the same as “equality”. Actually, equity does nothing but initiate discussions on income, which has no place within ‘public’ education. When discussions turn to income, resources are lost and those with income leave. Without resources and opportunities families have no reason to stay. It’s a vicious circle: as families leave, they remove funding and decrease the ability to pay for existing resources. Folks ARE already leaving due to lack of equality.

  10. I think it varies drastically from school to school…and any child who qualifies can do a WCATY course in lieu of their English and/or Science course (qualifying is, of course, the key). So, why did you stay (or leave)? And do you really believe that an extra position or two that is directed at a higher poverty school will actually ruin your child’s lower poverty school’s ability to deliver an education? Frankly, if the answer is yes,, then something is already terribly amiss regardless of an equity initiatives.

  11. The answer would have to be yes and I agree, something is already terribly amiss. It is within the approach and discussion; when families feel targeted due to their income level (high or low), things are amiss. Beyond positions, let’s take the example of cuts to SAGE, which were done primarily due to income level (budget cuts targeted at income); not because the program was poor. Let’s take the opportunity to participate in extra curricular activities (athletic or artistic)…honestly, equality is already unbalanced.
    A school of 700 middle to upper income children has 1 librarian compared to a school of 300 with a higher poverty, is that equal? Or perhaps, beyond numbers or statistics it is the quality of the individual within that position that matters. A dedicated staff or school leader who is transferred or whose position is eliminated definitely matters.
    Qualification for the child is the key. We participated in the Explore test this winter. Thank goodness for this site and the folks who share their experience. It allowed me, as a parent, to stay tuned to things that can minimize future obstacles. However, what do ya do when your child is the one on the bubble? These exams and tests don’t measure ability as much as they measure the academics to which each child has been exposed. The sunshine math and spelling have come to an end (even with 6 more weeks of school to complete). Our child is still in the middle without defined qualifications to enter an advanced program. This placement, puts the child in a non-challenging atmosphere without opportunity to advance.
    No one has bothered, with TAG resources at 0.25, to challenge our children’s abilities in science or math. Thank goodness for dedicated staff that raised our oldest child’s interest in these subjects. I have never heard one complaint about going to school and you bet…if this teacher’s position was eliminated or if they were transferred…yes, it would matter.

  12. And I guess, if you don’t mind my saying, to be asked: “Do you really believe that an extra position or two that is directed at a higher poverty school will actually ruin your child’s lower poverty school’s ability to deliver an education?”….means some children are more deserving than others. Perhaps this may be what is amiss and actually, why people leave or are willing to pay more for private education.

  13. This is a very interesting discussion. I think the mistake being made with equity is that it is being looked at from the top down (which is inevitable when you are using income levels and achievement statistics, or dealing with top level administration), rather than from the kid level up.
    One of the reasons why putting lower income students in with higher income students makes some sense is that the higher income parents are usually in a better position to demand that schools have programs and curriculum in place that challenges students. If the goal of equity is to reduce programs and curriculum down to the least common denominator, you lose all the benefits of mixing incomes, and you drive higher income parents out of the district.
    A better option would be to demand excellence at all schools, and not use income level as an excuse.

  14. Indeed a good discussion. It is unfortunate our newest board members ran unopposed; a shame for the democratic process; even though these positions are ‘nonpartisan’. A question for them, fellow BOE members and our community to ponder:
    Is any child more “deserving”?
    The answer to this question would help me determine my vote, primarily, because of this vicious funding circle and how MMSD resources are now being determined and allocated. If the answer would be an immediate “Yes”….spot on…that’s equity…not equality; a loss of my vote.
    I purposely did not answer if I stayed or if I departed. I’m watching this policy discussion play out…I am watching to see what will be available for my children in the years to come. To think folks will stay, while resources are cut, removed or targeted by income is a fallacy. I want to know…What is ‘public’ education and ‘who’ are its advocates?

  15. David Cohen wrote “Every middle school offers accelerated classes, either in mathematics or via WCATY” and “any child who qualifies can do a WCATY course in lieu of their English and/or Science course.”
    I’d like to inject a bit of factual information into these very broad claims.
    First, some MMSD middle schools have offered accelerated math classes only very recently, as a result of the end-of-fifth-grade math assessment and a push from downtown. But you should know that some of those accelerated classes are currently under threat of extinction (e.g. at Hamilton MS, if you can believe that).
    Second, regarding David’s comment about WCATY courses (presumably he’s talking about the phenomenal WCATY co-op courses — the only school-year courses WCATY offers for middle schoolers), all of the WCATY co-op courses are language arts courses. There are no science courses. Period. So no student can do a WCATY science course in lieu of their middle school science class. Period. Perhaps what he is referring to is that there are now a very, very few middle school students who have been allowed to take 9th grade science at their high school. (Interestingly, I think I have heard of 8th graders in all attendance areas except the West attendance area being allowed to do this.)
    FYI, I think this is only the second year that any MMSD middle school students have been allowed to take the WCATY co-op courses during the school day and use them as curriculum replacement. (The MMSD is way behind — and I really do mean way behind — the rest of the state on this front.) The first year, only two MMSD middle schools had a handful of students taking the WCATY co-op courses. This year, twelve students have taken them, each via a different path. (I don’t know how many different schools are represented in that group.) As with so many essential learning opportunities for high ability students in the MMSD, accessing them requires having a parent who is “in the know” and who has the time and expertise to advocate. Where’s the equity in that?
    So in the name of equal access, let me shout it out loud: IF YOU ARE THE PARENT OF A MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT WHO IS VERY ADVANCED IN LANGUAGE ARTS (note: having them take the ACT or SAT will help you substantiate that claim), LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING YOUR STUDENT TAKE A WCATY CO-OP COURSE NEXT YEAR. Co-op courses are offered second, third and fourth quarters. The District will pay for at least one course for each student. You should be able to get the course to be used as curriculum replacement (there is now ample precedent for that across the District), so that your student doesn’t have to do the co-op course on top of their regular middle school language arts curriculum. (The co-op courses are quite demanding — which the kids love, of course.) A listing of this year’s co-op courses can be found on the WCATY website — wcaty.org .
    WCATY summer courses are another matter. WCATY summer courses bump into the as-yet-unresolved issue of whether and how MMSD high school credit will be given for non-MMSD courses.
    David Cohen also wrote “I’ve yet to find a teacher who wouldn’t give my (elementary) kids extra work at a higher level when asked to do so.” No offense, David, but bully for you. If you talk to parents from other MMSD elementary schools — no, if you LISTEN to parents from other schools — you will quickly learn that your experience cannot be generalized. In fact, one of the reasons why many of the elementary families I know have left the MMSD is their teacher/school’s refusal to challenge their child appropriately, despite the parent’s (and the TAG resource person’s) best advocacy efforts.
    David, my friend, it seems clear from your posts over the years that your three children — whether they are gifted or have special education needs — always get exactly what they need, educationally speaking, from the MMSD. We are all very happy for your family. Truly we are. You have great kids. But it is not helpful (it is not respectful) for you to project your own experience onto the rest of the MMSD community (and sometimes insinuate that there must be something wrong with parents who cannot get for their kids what you have been able to get for yours). There are many, many families — at both ends of the spectrum, though obviously I am most familiar with experiences at the “upper” end — who have tried and tried and whose children have nevertheless gone without. The number of bored and underchallenged middle schoolers in our district alone is a tragedy. And I’ll say to my dying day that it is mostly a matter of attitude and politics, not resources.

  16. As one of those newly-elected school board members to whom onthebubble refers, I’ll respond.
    I find that some of this conversation is being carried out at a level of abstraction that is not helpful. Of course every child is as deserving as every other child. Different children have different needs. The goal is to deploy our limited resources in a way that comes as close as possible to giving every child what he or she needs to succeed.
    As a general philosophy, I’m for whatever works. To implement this philosophy, I need to know what works and what doesn’t. That’s why I am excited about the district’s move to a value-added assessment model. While this initiative has received less attention that the Equity Task Force report, I believe it will have a far greater impact on how we direct our instructional dollars.
    In brief, the value added model unpacks standardized test scores. The analysis is being carried out by folks at the Value Added Research Center at the UW’s Wisconsin Center for Education Research: http://varc.wceruw.org. The district collects a lot of data on our students. As I understand it, the value-added assessment starts with regression analyses to determine the typical impact each of the measured factors – such as race, family income, and parent education level – has on WKCE scores.
    Once those correlations are determined, the analysis looks at the makeup of the tested student population at each school and predicts what the school’s WKCE performance will be. The predicted results are compared with the actual results, and we come up with a measure of how well the school is doing. This first step in the analysis is using, I believe, WKCE test scores from 2005-2006.
    A school might have relatively high test scores, but might have lower than average performance because the demographics of the school suggest that the test results should be higher still. Alternatively, a school might have relatively low test scores, but the school might be doing better than others when the various predictive factors are taken into account.
    This analysis allows us to establish a baseline for each school and each student. This is the first step in the value added assessment, and I understand it is close to completion for the district.
    Next, the analysis takes into account the test results for the following year (in our case, 2006-2007), and is able to track the progress of individual students from year to year. This is where we will get a clearer idea of how our schools are performing relative to each other.
    If we find that a particular school is having unusual success in teaching, say, low income students, then we’ll want to take a look at what may be different at that school and see if it can be replicated. If a school seems to be doing a substandard job in moving its kids along from year to year, we’ll want to take a look at that as well and try to figure out what should be done differently. Maybe that school needs a leadership change. Maybe it needs more resources for some reason.
    It may be that we’ll find that a school that has some of the most favorable demographics is not showing the results that we’d expect. If that’s the case, we’ll focus our attention there. We’ll try to figure out how we can ensure that kids who start out with high test scores make the kind of progress that they should from year to year.
    The advantage of this approach is that it helps us make better informed decisions and should enable us to direct our resources in smarter ways. I tend to think of this kind of data-driven process as a bottom-up approach to equity, as compared to what I see as a top-down approach reflected in the Equity Task Force report.
    We all want everyone to succeed. Once we have a better sense of how we’re doing, we’ll be better able to build on what we’re doing well and change what doesn’t seem to be working. We’ll be in a position to direct our resources to where they are most needed and can be most effective. I think that’s a pretty good equity policy.
    By the way, I understand that the Board’s push toward value-added assessments was led by Lawrie Kobza, who has a strong and unwavering commitment to equity. This is one of many examples of how the district benefited from Lawrie’s service.

  17. An extremely well thought answer, with an educationally sound approach. It is greatly appreciated, as it seems to target and measure program success.
    At the same time, how does it stop the vicious circle?
    The budget is set and even with this educational approach, more resources will be justly placed; but at who’s expense? I know, some of you are saying, just vote ‘Yes’ this fall to upcoming referenda that will minimize / prevent budget cuts. Well, that’s what I mean, if families have to pay higher taxes to get the programs, challenges and opportunities for their children, then what is preventing them from moving or paying for private education?
    Believe me, I’ve come full circle on this and empathize with the situation and our legislature’s duty to create funding procedures that benefit all children. Sadly, I no longer believe ‘public’ education, today, is what our forefathers envisioned; it is not equal.

  18. Some children need more resources than others. It’s clear to see if you think of an extreme case, a non-mobile, non-vocal child. Whether that child is extremely bright or mentally impaired, he will need a lot of one-on-one physical care just to make it through the schoolday. The relative need for resources runs continuously from this extreme all the way through to what is needed by an average well-adjusted child from a middle class home with no special needs. Some people may feel more generous towards children who are mentally and/or physically disabled due to genetics, accidents, disease, etc., than we feel towards children whose needs stem from an impoverished background. Because their parents should prepare them better, provide them a better start, be more responsible and not have children until they find themselves able to give children a reasonable life. We resent the parents and transfer that to the children. It’s shortsighted to let these feelings get the best of us because whether or not you feel compassion for these children, they will grow up to be a drain on your sense of well-being and your pocketbook. Jails are expensive. Worries about things like what might be hiding behind your car in the parking lot cause anxiety that spoil life, and contribute to health problems. Pay now or pay later. I am perfectly willing to pay whatever it costs to try to break the cycle. Unfortunately, the intervention probably needs to occur earlier than K, and on a larger scale, involving the whole family, not just children.
    However, my generosity is limited to things like giving money and volunteering my time to tutor and otherwise help facilitate education for these children. As soon as the demands for my resources step over into the territory of using my child as a free resource for the schools, an involuntary continual resource, compromising his education in the process, I balk. To be clear, I do not think children should be privileged litle princes and princesses. Children should clean up messes, help the teacher, share what they know freely, and occasionally be assigned to help another child (and more than occasionally if they VOLUNTEER for such duties.) I’m all for service requirements for graduation. BUT, what is going on in public schools these days is, as far as I’m concerned, an unethical ‘taking’ from my child’s education. I use the term ‘my child’ rather loosely to refer to my children in the past tense and to all the other children like mine who are still subject to this ‘taking.’ I took David’s great advice, thanks, and ‘left, good riddance, and didn’t let the door hit me on the way out.’
    This is not about finance, since all these kids need is to be given their own class with knowledgeable teacher and appropriate curriculum. Class size needn’t be especially small. So total FTE’s needn’t be any higher than they are now to achieve this. The district does lose some flexibility in assignment when they have specially arranged classes, and it might require some movement of children among elementary schools where depending on size of school, 2 or even 3 schools might need to pool to come up with full classes, but the overall financial impact is minimal.
    The reason we don’t have appropriate education for TAG children is mostly about philosophy and a bit about money, although indirectly. The philosophy, in part, is that we can’t let these children have the kind of classes they learn best in because we need them in the mixed ability classrooms more than they need the boost they would get from TAG classes. We need them to spark discussion, provide good role models, tutor other children, etc. We think this will at least help to partially close the achievement gap and we don’t have the money to do what will really close that gap, so these kids will just have to sacrifice their right to an appropriate education, and graciously if possible, to serve this greater goal. We know we can get away with this, because everyone disdains gifted kids and their families as elitist, separatist, pompous snobs who think they are royalty entitled to the lion’s share of resources. They have no constituency.
    There are other aspects of the philosophy. For example, there’s the “We’re all just one big happy human family and we all need to be mixed together as completely randomly as possible 24/7 to prove it and make it a reality. It’s good for everyone.” Are we all happy yet?
    My motivation for supporting TAG classes has nothing to do with desiring racial separation. I don’t care a bit what color the kids are. I only care that they have somewhat similar abilities so classes can be structured to challenge and develop students. It’s unfortunate that the reality at present is that this leads to unrepresentative classes. But that is not a good justification for not providing my child a challenging education. Extra work in a mixed-ability class just doesn’t do it. The work a child is given to do on his own is only one component of what a classroom, what an education is about. Even if the teacher has the time and inclination (a big if), giving extra work separately, without all the other pieces that should be present, won’t even work for some children, who will just feel the bizarre cognitive dissonance of the situation, and turn away.
    I would actually go further than advocating for special classes for TAG kids. I think that 4th graders who can’t read and write, can’t sit at their desks for 10 minutes quietly working, can’t refrain from swearing and fighting constantly, do not belong in an average classroom. They make it impossible for the teacher to teach the average kids in the classroom a challenging curriculum. Everyone loses. The average kids and the below average kids. No one is getting a good education. I know studies show that tracking had dismal results for the below average children way back when. But that was because inadequate resources were directed at those low-ability/low-achiever classes. They had the least experienced teachers, low expectations, few materials. It should be possible to better target our resources at these kids now that we know better how to help them and now that there is more social will to do it. We could more easily redirect resources that aren’t needed for average kids this way. For example, average kids from average homes for the most part don’t really need class sizes of 15. It’s nice, but not necessary. The kids who need extra help could be given even smaller classes or more teachers in a class than at present, and class sizes for regular classes could be made larger. And of course, there would need to be avenues for mobility, so that children who make good progress after receiving intensive instruction for a couple of years in ‘how to be a student,’ would be moved into regular classrooms. Optimistically, this would be many children.
    This musing of mine does NOT include the wish to separate out kids with disabilities in general from regular (or TAG, if we had such) classrooms. There are plenty of kids with disabilities who function quite well in regular classrooms with the proper supports. There are also many children who do not technically have disabilities who do not function at all in regular classrooms.

  19. Thanks for your perspective Ed. In the end, I think the district will end up with an Equity Policy that reflects the best thinking of both the Task Force and the Board and the administration. Every parent out there has their own unique perspective, based on the experiences of their own children as well as their own set of elementary, middle and high schools. My experiences reflect those specifics. It’s healthy for the community to debate these issues. The final product will certainly be better.
    Laurie, I’m always amazed at how much you know about the Cohen family! Rock on!

  20. Hot off the press! Apropos my earlier comment, I learned this afternoon that Hamilton will retain its accelerated math class for 6th graders after all.

Comments are closed.