Below Jeff Henriques posted a response from the MMSD to a letter criticizing Reading Recovery.
The critical letter concludes:
"Reading Recovery has not met the needs of these lowest performing students. Most significantly, its excessive costs can make it more difficult for a school to provide help for all students in need, especially those who are behind in the upper grades. Thus, Reading Recovery is not a productive investment of taxpayers’ money or students’ time and is a classic example of a “one size fits all” method."
Read the full letter letter on Reading Recovery's flaws.
Ed Blume
The New York Times on April 13 reported on a study by the Northwest Evaluation Association that shows there is a decline in the improvement of students in schools since the enactment of NCLB. To quote the article in part:
"Since No Child Left Behind, ... individual growth has slowed, possibly because teachers feel compelled to spend the bulk of their time making sure students who are near proficiency make it over the hurdle.
The practice may leave teachers with less time to focus on students who are either far below or far above the proficiency mark, the researchers said, making it less likely for the whole class to move forward as rapidly as before No Child Left Behind set the agenda."
The following link is to the actual report from the NWEA site, for your reading pleasure.
In response to criticism of Reading Recovery here and on the Madison TAG Parents web site, MMSD Reading Recovery Coordinator, Sharon Gilpatrick, provided TAG staff with information in response to the letter about Reading Recovery and asked that it be shared with the community.
According to the Reading Recovery Council of North America the Internet letter criticizing Reading Recovery was not an "unbiased review of evidence. It represents a narrow but vocal minority opinion." They also state that it has a number of biases and omits important findings. You can draw your own conclusions by reading their letter signed by their group of international researchers.
The District must have a budget process that allows the Board of Education and the public to review the budget, and balance the interests of the public, students and staff to accomplish the effective and efficient operation of the School District, and to ensure that its priorities are addressed.
The current timeline for budget approval does not allow the Board or the public to have reasonable and informed access to the information necessary to balance those interests, or to ensure those priorities.
Instead, current and past budget practices allow staff contracts to be accepted, budget cuts to be proposed, and additional programs to be considered, all without the ability to place these items within the budget as a whole, and therefore balance all interests.
Modifying the budget process to allow this balancing, to me, is non-negotiable.
I, for one, will not be supporting any of the referenda on the May 24 ballot, unless the budget process is fixed.
I will be voting in favor of all the referenda on May 24, if and only if the Board takes actions prior to the referenda to ensure all proposed staff contracts and other agreements are incorporated into the previously published budget and not acted separately upon by the Board; and, if and only if, all cuts to programs are proposed and presented in the context of the previously published budget, and not acted separately upon by the Board.
In order to get my vote, the 2005-2006 budget process and timelines need to be modified, even at this late date, to conform. We cannot reneg on any contracts already voted on by the Board, and we cannot review the failure to consider adminstrative renewals by the Board, and we cannot pull back the publicly proposed cuts to await the timely arrival of the budget.
But, we must be delivered an estimated 2005-2006 budget sooner than the proposed May 2nd to give the public time to review it, place the proposed cuts into its budget context, and plan for alternative budget adjustments. At the latest, the budget can be delivered to the Board and public on April 22nd, even under the current timeline, by posting the budget on the website prior to or instead of printing (we might even be able to save printing costs!).
Accepting the referenda for a changed budget process is a quid pro quo contract between the Board and the public. It is a prototypical win-win agreement. All sides to the coming debate over the referenda get everything they want. Those in favor of the referenda get the referenda passed; those who want a significantly better budget process get their interests heard.
Accepting such a challenge might even avoid the coming, and, what I perceive to be, very devisive battle among the many sides to debates.
For those who find such an agreement more of a compromise than a win-win agreement, consider it progress towards opening up the budget process – progress that could have been accomplished years ago.
The real debate has not started, but I’ve already heard some loose lips. I’ve heard it said (paraphrasing), “If you can’t afford the tax increases, take a mortgage out on your home.” And I’ve read comments that said (paraphrasing again), “If the Leopold expansion was in a white area, there would be no problem. The opposition are racists.”
Unless some agreement is accepted, I don’t see a reasoned and tempered debate occurring in the next month and a half.
Instead, we’ll be spitting at each other.
There is some difference of opinion about what state law requires under the QEO statutes, particularly regarding the "required" 3.8% increase. For what it's worth, this is how the statute is worded:
SOURCE:Updated 03−04 Wis. Stats. Database 22
111.70 EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
(nc) 1. “Qualified economic offer” means an offer made to a
labor organization by a municipal employer that includes all of the
following, except as provided in subd. 2.:
a. A proposal to maintain the percentage contribution by the
municipal employer to the municipal employees’ existing fringe
benefit costs as determined under sub. (4) (cm) 8s., and to maintain
all fringe benefits provided to the municipal employees in a
collective bargaining unit, as such contributions and benefits
existed on the 90th day prior to expiration of any previous collective
bargaining agreement between the parties, or the 90th day
prior to commencement of negotiations if there is no previous collective
bargaining agreement between the parties.
b. In any collective bargaining unit in which the municipal
employee positions were on August 12, 1993, assigned to salary
ranges with steps that determine the levels of progression within
each salary range during a 12−month period, a proposal to provide
for a salary increase of at least one full step for each 12−month
period covered by the proposed collective bargaining agreement,
beginning with the expiration date of any previous collective bargaining
agreement, for each municipal employee who is eligible
for a within range salary increase, unless the increased cost of providing
such a salary increase, as determined under sub. (4) (cm)
8s., exceeds 2.1% of the total compensation and fringe benefit
costs for all municipal employees in the collective bargaining unit
for any 12−month period covered by the proposed collective bargaining
agreement plus any fringe benefit savings, or unless the
increased cost required to maintain the percentage contribution by
the municipal employer to the municipal employees’ existing
fringe benefit costs and to maintain all fringe benefits provided to
the municipal employees, as determined under sub. (4) (cm) 8s.,
in addition to the increased cost of providing such a salary
increase, exceeds 3.8% of the total compensation and fringe benefit
costs for all municipal employees in the collective bargaining
unit for any 12−month period covered by the proposed collective
bargaining agreement, in which case the offer shall include provision
for a salary increase for each such municipal employee in an
amount at least equivalent to that portion of a step for each such
12−month period that can be funded after the increased cost in
excess of 2.1% of the total compensation and fringe benefit costs
for all municipal employees in the collective bargaining unit plus
any fringe benefit savings is subtracted, or in an amount equivalent
to that portion of a step for each such 12−month period that
can be funded from the amount that remains, if any, after the
increased cost of such maintenance exceeding 1.7% of the total
compensation and fringe benefit costs for all municipal
employees in the collective bargaining unit for each 12−month
period is subtracted on a prorated basis, whichever is the lower
amount.
c. A proposal to provide for an average salary increase for
each 12−month period covered by the proposed collective bargaining
agreement, beginning with the expiration date of any previous
collective bargaining agreement, for the municipal
employees in the collective bargaining unit at least equivalent to
an average cost of 2.1% of the total compensation and fringe benefit
costs for all municipal employees in the collective bargaining
unit for each 12−month period covered by the proposed collective
bargaining agreement plus any fringe benefit savings, beginning
with the expiration date of any previous collective bargaining
agreement, including that percentage required to provide for any
step increase, as determined under sub. (4) (cm) 8s., unless the
increased cost of providing such a salary increase, as determined
under sub. (4) (cm) 8s., exceeds 2.1% of the total compensation
and fringe benefit costs for all municipal employees in the collective
bargaining unit for any 12−month period covered by the proposed
collective bargaining agreement plus any fringe benefit
savings, or unless the increased cost required to maintain the percentage
contribution by the municipal employer to the municipal
employees’ existing fringe benefit costs and to maintain all fringe
benefits provided to the municipal employees, as determined
under sub. (4) (cm) 8s., in addition to the increased cost of providing
such a salary increase, exceeds 3.8% of the total compensation
and fringe benefit costs for all municipal employees in the collective
bargaining unit for any 12−month period covered by the collective
bargaining agreement, in which case the offer shall include
provision for a salary increase for each such period for the municipal
employees covered by the agreement at least equivalent to an
average of that percentage, if any, for each such period of the prorated
portion of 2.1% of the total compensation and fringe benefit
costs for all municipal employees in the collective bargaining unit
plus any fringe benefit savings that remains, if any, after the
increased cost of such maintenance exceeding 1.7% of the total
compensation and fringe benefit costs for all municipal
employees in the collective bargaining unit for each 12−month
period and the cost of a salary increase of at least one full step for
each municipal employee in the collective bargaining unit who is
eligible for a within range salary increase for each 12−month
period is subtracted from that total cost.
2. “Qualified economic offer” may include a proposal to provide
for an average salary decrease for any 12−month period covered
by a proposed collective bargaining agreement, beginning
with the expiration date of any previous collective bargaining
agreement, for the municipal employees covered by the agreement,
in an amount equivalent to the average percentage increased
cost of maintenance of the percentage contribution by the municipal
employer to the municipal employees’ existing fringe benefit
costs, as determined under sub. (4) (cm) 8s., and the average percentage
increased cost of maintenance of all fringe benefits provided
to the municipal employees represented by a labor organization,
as such costs and benefits existed on the 90th day prior to
commencement of negotiations, exceeding 3.8% of the total compensation
and fringe benefit costs for all municipal employees in
the collective bargaining unit required for maintenance of those
contributions and benefits for that 12−month period if the
increased cost of maintenance of those costs and benefits exceeds
3.8% of the total compensation and fringe benefit costs for all
municipal employees in the collective bargaining unit for that
12−month period.
. . . a growing body of evidence is showing that preteen students do better when they can remain in their familiar elementary schools for longer -- with better grades and fewer disciplinary problems than their middle-school peers.Via Eduwonk & Joanne Jacobs. . . An early study tracked hundreds of middle-school-age students in Milwaukee public schools, comparing those who switched to a new school in grade seven with their counterparts in a K-8 school who didn't have to make any switch. The research found that those who switched had more negative attitudes toward school and lower grades. Girls in particular didn't recover in middle adolescence (grades nine and 10) when it came to self-esteem and participation in extracurricular activities.