School Information System
Newsletter Sign Up |

Subscribe to this site via RSS: | Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas

February 19, 2011

This Budget Hawk SUPPORTS MMSD Staff - A Response to ACE

I spoke in support of teachers at Monday night's meeting (2/14). I spoke from my seat as a board member. I appear to have missed the instructions to do so as private citizens (from board counsel) because SB11 was not on the agenda.

First, I find it bizarre that board members are not supposed to respond to comments from the public during public appearances. That is a long-standing tradition in this district, and any board responses are construed as just that. Responses from individual board members, not a board vote or proposal for board policy or action.

Second, I get the anger over taxes, property taxes and school costs. I am a non-union state employee who is paying more for benefits (already), lost the pay raise I was promised, and took a 3% pay cut from what I was earning through the mandated furlough system that we work within. I am seeing a great deal of pain in both the public and the private sector as we ALL deal with job insecurity, shaky hours, and a range of nasty impacts from the bad economy.

In full disclosure, I am a former union member who was on strike for six weeks in 1980. I agree with MTI on some issues, and strongly disagree on others. I support the right to bargain collectively. Period.

I also believe that it is reasonable to assert that I typically am the most consistent critic of MMSD when it comes to budget decisions and fiscal policy. I do not always prevail, but I have fought long and hard for transparency and for decisions that minimize the impact on property taxes.

This budget hawk believes that SB11 is draconian, malicious, and counterproductive to the goals the governor claims that he wants to achieve. I do not believe that it is necessary to end the right to bargain anything but wages in order to close Wisconsin's budget gap. I also note that the gap is less than we were led to believe (unless we are now saying that the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau is a tool of union sympathizers.)

I do not believe that the proposal to recertify collective bargaining organizations each year will enhance productivity or come without significant costs in conducting and verifying certification results. And I am stumped as to how turning back federal funds for Title I (aid to schools with high levels of poverty) will in any way improve schools or close the budget gap.

Speaking on the 14th, I responded that I find it unfortunate that this is portrayed as solely a debate over benefits and pay. It is not. It is about the rights that were won through established and legal systems labor organization, union formation, and collective bargaining. It is about the attempt to de facto decertify public sector unions rather than go through a decertification vote. That this is being done in a one-week timeline is mind boggling in its exercise of unilateral power.

Simplistic rhetoric may be handy for people seeking to raise support for their cause, but it helps no one in addressing a fundamental and complex issue: should public employees have the right to unionize.

My answer is yes. The perverse claim that unionized public employees have refused to compromise on wages or benefits is simply untrue in my experience as a board member. Most of the unions that we work with have been willing to make changes to benefits and other conditions of work as we have responded to the biennial budget cuts in promised state aid. MTI has been the least willing to concede. However, its members have overwhelmingly voted to reduce health insurance costs by choosing GHC vs. the far more expensive WPS programs.

The non-economic protections afforded union members have been immeasurable in protecting staff who have spoken out in the interest of helping students, saving district funds and cutting expenses, and improving safety and well-being within our schools.This applies to the full range of staff, not just teachers: aides, nurses, nursing assistants, custodians, trades workers, social workers, psychologists, and clerical staff.

The structure of grievances and dispute resolution has been important to resolving conflicts within schools and between school staff and the district. Simply put, even when I disagree with our unions on important issues, I value the structures and processes that are in place. Unilaterally ending those structures and processes is not likely to improve much in our schools, and least of all for our students.

Worst of all, the rhetoric invoked by people supporting the governor and his trajectory, is shameful. Before any of us seek to trash the work done by public employees, it would be wise to think again about who will be out plowing your highways and streets when the next storm hits, or who is caring for your disabled neighbor or family member, or who is putting in extra time at school because their students need them.

And before trashing the board of education, I would encourage people to consider why it is that so few people are willing to run for that office when our schools so urgently need engagement and participation. We don't always agree with each other or with administration. But each one of us puts in long hours reading about the issues, consulting with the community and with staff, and working to find answers to confounding questions. If you do not like the way the board is running, there are elections every year. Run. And then do the job the way that you think it needs to be done.

In the meantime, this budget hawk will stand by our staff. Because the vast majority have stood by our children and our schools for the past 15+ years of cuts, teacher/school-bashing, and increasingly difficult challenges in and out of the classroom.

Posted by Lucy Mathiak at February 19, 2011 9:00 PM
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas
Comments

Lucy:

While walking through the Capitol Square today, I thought about a number of issues:

a) During the most recent Madison Superintendent search process, I asked the three candidates if they believed in a strong, centralized, top down approach to teacher/curriculum matters, or simply hire and retain the best and let them do their thing (implying minimal oversight)?

http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2008/01/madison_superin_6.php

The three finalists unsurprisingly gave middle of the road answers.

b) Recalled my notes from the Madison School District's recent "K-12 Literacy Program Evaluation":

http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2011/02/madison_school_209.php

and was not surprised to note recommendations for more administrative staff and teacher development, the same suggestions seen in other reports such as the long lost Math Task Force.

How long must those students who can't read wait? Is the only answer truly more administrative staff, coaches and "professional development"?

I asked one of the Madison Superintendent candidates if the increased emphasis on "professional development" and coaches reflected an inability to address subpar teachers? He responded: "that may be part of it".

I know a number of very talented teachers who detest such professional development and in service initiatives as "childish". They would simply prefer to get on with teaching students but are increasingly handcuffed by administrative bureaucracy.

It seems that such expanded oversight and "curriculum police" create the need for "counter revolutionary" systems to push back - ie teacher union procedures.

To an outsider, this seems incredibly inefficient from a staff and economic perspective, particularly in tight budget times. Students seem caught in the middle - or swept aside.

Read/listen to Richard Zimman's Madison Rotary Speech for additional background:

http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2009/08/the_madison_sch_4.php

The seeds of teacher union political problems (they have them from both Democrats, some of whom feel they hold far too much influence, and Republicans, well, pick a topic) are many, with the inability to substantively deal with performance differentiation (without compensation flexibility) near the top of the list.

I walked on, said hello to many very pleasant people both for and against, took a few more photos and thought that education is ripe for significant change and it will most likely come from outside the current system.

Posted by: Jim Zellmer at February 19, 2011 11:15 PM

I applaud your willingness to speak up and be counted, as well as your taking the time to explain your rationale.

Thanks.

Posted by: Louise Robbins at February 19, 2011 11:29 PM

Jim, I am not sure how your comments relate to my post or my record as a board member. As you may recall, I am one of two board members who thought it unwise to extend the superintendent's contract. You may wish to pose your questions re. superintendents to the other 5 members of the board.

As for poor school performance, it is my sense that the people in the trenches are the BEST equipped to develop and implement curriculum. Much of the dysfunction, in my opinion, comes from the cadre of administrative curriculum 'specialists' who operate from unproved theories about learning and impose those theories on our teachers and students to the detriment of students.

The middle school math proficiency issue is a case in point. The resistance to learning algebraic concepts is not coming from the teachers, it is coming from the (renamed) T and L group who want to focus on pedagogy rather than math skills. Indeed, teachers from other districts have asked to get in on the training offered by UW-Madison to provide content proficiency.

The reorganization was supposed to give front-line staff a voice in what is and is not working. That remains to be demonstrated. I am hearing that, in fact, staff have even less input now.

My points stand. Our unionized staff are not the enemy here. If we want to lower costs and improve service, we need to listen to what they can tell us, and provide ways for them to talk with us without going through and inquisition from administration over "who talked to board members, especially the ones we told you not to talk to."

And sorry, to those who want ME to name names. Ain't going to happen until people feel safe to speak freely without fear of reprisals and the union protection to back them up.

Posted by: Lucy Mathiak at February 20, 2011 9:10 AM

Thank you for continuing to speak up, Lucy. There are many who listen and think hard about what you say. And your experiences have helped convince me to answer "never", when asked when I would try to run for school board. I doubt I could take the stress from the criticism and second-guessing. I find the board's support of open and direct bargaining refreshing, as well as the rejection of underhanded and bullheaded forcing through of legislation in a few days, that should be much more seriously considered before a vote is called.
BTW, are our administrators members of MTI too? I know they have to be licensed....

Posted by: Thinking parent at February 20, 2011 3:36 PM

Thank you!

Posted by: Naomi Rivers at February 21, 2011 11:51 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?