REMINDER: The MMSD district is holding its second of four “Information Sessions” regarding the referendum tonight (Thursday, October 16), 6:30 pm, Jefferson Middle School. You are urged to attend.
The Madison Metropolitan School District seeks approval of the district taxpayers to permanently exceed the revenue cap for operations money by $13 million a year. In the meantime, to establish that new tax base over the next three years, a total of $27 million in more revenue will have been raised for programs and services. The district has also projected there will continue to be a ‘gap’ or shortfall of revenue to meet expenses of approximately $4 million per year after the next three years, thereby expecting to seek approval for additional spending authority.
Whereas, the Board of Education has staked the future of the district on increased spending to maintain current programs and services for a “high quality education;”
Whereas, student performance on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exams has languished at the 7, 8, and 9 deciles (in comparison with the rest of the state’s schools where 1 is the highest level and 10 is the lowest) in 4th, 8th and 10th grade reading, math, science, social studies and language arts exams for the past five years. The total percentage of MMSD students performing at either “proficient” or “advanced” levels (the two highest standards) has consistently ranged in mid 60%s to mid 70%s;
Whereas, the district Drop Out Rate of 2.7% (2006-07) was the highest since 1998-99. With the exception of two years with slight declines, the rate has risen steadily since 1999.
Whereas, the Attendance Rate for all students has remained basically steady since 1998-99 in a range from 95.2% (2005-06) to a high of 96.5% (2001-02);
Whereas, the district Truancy Rate of students habitually truant has risen again in the past three years to 6.0% in 2006-07. The truancy rate has ranged from 6.3% (1999-2000) to 4.4% in 2002-03;
Whereas, the district total PreK-12 enrollment has declined from 25,087 (2000-01) to its second lowest total of 24,540 (2008-09) since that time;
Whereas, the district annual budget has increased from approximately $183 million in 1994-1995 (the first year of revenue caps) to approximately $368 million (2008-09);
Whereas, the board explains the ‘budget gap’ between revenue and expenses as created by the difference between the state mandated Qualified Economic Offer of 3.8% minimum for salary and health benefits for professional teaching staff and the 2.2% average annual increases per student in the property tax levy. The district, however, has agreed with the teachers’ union for an average 4.24% in annual increases since 2001;
Whereas, the district annual cost per pupil is the second highest in the state at $13,280 for the school year 2007-08;
The Madison Metropolitan School District seeks approval of the district taxpayers to permanently exceed the revenue cap for operations money by $13 million a year. In the meantime, to establish that new tax base over the next three years, a total of $27 million in more revenue will have been raised for programs and services. The district has also projected there will continue to be a ‘gap’ or shortfall of revenue to meet expenses of approximately $4 million per year after the next three years, thereby expecting to seek approval for additional spending authority.
Whereas, the Board of Education has staked the future of the district on increased spending to maintain current programs and services for a “high quality education;”
Whereas, student performance on the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exams has languished at the 7, 8, and 9 deciles (in comparison with the rest of the state’s schools where 1 is the highest level and 10 is the lowest) in 4th, 8th and 10th grade reading, math, science, social studies and language arts exams for the past five years. The total percentage of MMSD students performing at either “proficient” or “advanced” levels (the two highest standards) has consistently ranged in mid 60%s to mid 70%s;
Whereas, the district Drop Out Rate of 2.7% (2006-07) was the highest since 1998-99. With the exception of two years with slight declines, the rate has risen steadily since 1999.
Whereas, the Attendance Rate for all students has remained basically steady since 1998-99 in a range from 95.2% (2005-06) to a high of 96.5% (2001-02);
Whereas, the district Truancy Rate of students habitually truant has risen again in the past three years to 6.0% in 2006-07. The truancy rate has ranged from 6.3% (1999-2000) to 4.4% in 2002-03;
Whereas, the district total PreK-12 enrollment has declined from 25,087 (2000-01) to its second lowest total of 24,540 (2008-09) since that time;
Whereas, the district annual budget has increased from approximately $183 million in 1994-1995 (the first year of revenue caps) to approximately $368 million (2008-09);
Whereas, the board explains the ‘budget gap’ between revenue and expenses as created by the difference between the state mandated Qualified Economic Offer of 3.8% minimum for salary and health benefits for professional teaching staff and the 2.2% average annual increases per student in the property tax levy. The district, however, has agreed with the teachers’ union for an average 4.24% in annual increases since 2001;
Whereas, the district annual cost per pupil is the second highest in the state at $13,280 for the school year 2007-08;
Whereas, there has been a significant growth in the numbers of MMSD graduates who are required to take remedial math, English and writing courses at post secondary institutions of higher learning in order to enter regular, beginning level courses;
Whereas, the 2008 MMSD Math Task Force Report states that MMSD students are required to take less math than other urban schools in Wisconsin; and, there are notable differences in the achievement gap;
Whereas, there is district acknowledgement of a serious achievement gap between low-income and minority student groups compared with others. There are no plans evident for changing how new or existing money will be spent differently in order to have an impact on improving student learning/achievement and instructional effectiveness;
Whereas, there are no specific plans and strategies for changes in the response and reporting systems for safety, use of appropriate technology and for curriculum and services for helping students, staff, parents and the community develop shared responsibilities for safety and conflict resolution;
Whereas, there are no cost-sharing and collaborative initiatives taking place with city and county governments to reduce costs, minimize duplication of services and create better-defined roles and responsibilities;
Whereas, the district is not demonstrating full disclosure, accountability and transparency by providing data and information to show and verify criteria, assumptions, base lines, calculations and analyses for stated efficiencies, savings, past and current projects, cuts and reductions;
Whereas, the board will make budget cuts affecting programs and services, whether or not this referendum passes. The cuts will be made with no specific assessment/evaluation process or strategy for objective analyses of educational or business programs and services to determine the most effective and efficient use of money they already have, as well as for the additional spending authority they are asking with this referendum;
Whereas, there is a lack of a data-driven basis for the re-allocation of existing funds, as well as for the allocation of new funds to programs and services for the greater benefit of all students; therefore, all students are in harms way and are impeded in their academic achievement and personal development;
THEREFORE, THE question is: “Why authorize more spending for the same programs, services and personnel which are NOT attaining desirable results with cost efficient and benefit effective performance?
Active Citizens for Education
www.activecitizensforeducation.org
Don Severson, President
608 577-0851 infor@activecitizensforeducation.org
I am puzzled by this document.
It starts out with a number of “whereas” clauses that collect the points ACE and Mr. Severson have identified over the past few years suggesting that the District’s students could and should be doing better. While the points lack context, neither I nor anyone else associated with the District would deny that we have a lot of room for improvement in the critical area of student achievement.
But that’s not to say that ACE’s figures should be uncritically accepted. Here’s an example. The document states that “the district annual cost per pupil is the second highest in the state at $13,280 for the school year 2007-08.” I was unaware of this figure, so I decided to check it out. I went to the website of the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance, which I believe is the source for many of ACE’s figures. The latest data on the website are for school year 2006-07. A table lists per pupil spending for all districts in Wisconsin. In order to make the comparisons more meaningful, the WTA excludes transportation, debt service, capital expansion, non-program costs and miscellaneous expenditures. So which is the one school district that spends even more per pupil than we do? Well, I don’t know, because I counted 33 school districts that WTA listed as having higher per-pupil spending than Madison. This is not to suggest that Madison’s spending is not above average – it is – but it does underscore the point that ACE’s figures are often misleading, and always in a way calculated to make the Madison schools look bad.
The larger point is more troubling. These various “whereas” clauses are to be understood as support for the document’s conclusion that poses a rhetorical question designed to lead to the answer that the referendum should be defeated. But how does this follow? Students are not learning as much as they should, so we should deny necessary funding to the schools? This is like the parents of a struggling student deciding to withhold the funds for extra tutoring help because the student’s grades aren’t good enough. It’s a pure non sequitur.
Yes, we need to work hard on improving student achievement. In many cases, strategies for improvement will require additional spending. If enhanced student achievement is the goal, defeating the referendum and therefore consigning the district to three more years of budget slashing is a remarkably poor strategy for attaining it.
The document goes on to assert that there is essentially no planning going on in the district and that, regardless of whether the referendum passes, budget cuts will be made willy-nilly, uninformed by any overall strategy.
As Mr. Severson knows as well as anyone, the hope behind the referendum is that the district can gain three years of breathing room so that we can undertake the sort of long-range planning Mr. Severson champions, leading to the identification of strategic goals, measurable outcomes and meaningful accountability standards. Arguing against a measure designed to lay the groundwork for this process on the ground that a process like it has not already been completed is another striking non-sequitur.
Perhaps the passage in this document that grates the most is the assertion that “the district is not demonstrating full disclosure, accountability and transparency by providing data and information to show and verify criteria,” etc. As I understand it, in the few months he has been here, assistant superintendent for business services Erik Kass has made time in his schedule to meet with Mr. Severson on at least seven occasions. Mr. Severson might as well have his own desk in the Doyle Building. In person, Mr. Severson goes out of his way to compliment the new administration for their openness and responsiveness. And yet, when it comes to making a public statement on behalf of ACE, the assertion is exactly the opposite. The statement is simply inexplicable if one assumes that words are to have meaning.
This is a disappointment. I think it is valuable to have a watchdog group that casts a critical eye on school district operations and decisions. Mr. Severson and ACE have aspired to fill that role, and, by default as much as anything else, have been assigned that role by the media.
But a watchdog group has to be credible. If the light it purports to shed on school operations is unreliable, then the valuable function it can serve goes unfulfilled. It really does all of us a disservice when the product that the watchdog group produces is as misleading and unhelpful as this is.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Ed. Critical analysis is only as good as it is accurate. For many years, much of the critical analysis of the MMSD has been anything but accurate, which, in turn, allowed the MMSD administration to brush it off as such.