School Information System

Madison School Board Says No to City Infrastructure Costs for a Potential New East Side School Development

There was an interesting discussion that unfortunately received no publicity during the March 24, 2008 school board meeting regarding proposed Sprecher Road [map] seven figure infrastructure costs (this spending would, perhaps have begun the process of constructing a new east side school). The Board voted 3-3 (Yes: Carstensen, Moss and Silveira; No: Cole, Kobza and Mathiak with Winston absent), which resulted in a no on these costs. Watch the video here. It would seem ill advised to begin borrowing money for a new school given the ongoing budget challenges. Last spring's downtown school closing unpleasantness is another factor to consider with respect to potential new edge schools.

Madison School District Memo on Students Taking Outside Courses

MMSD Legal Services; 18 Page 758K PDF

On January 8, 2007, the Board took the following action:

lt is recommended that the Board direct the Administration to: 1) freeze new procedures or guidelines for credit towards graduation for courses taken outside the MMSD until the Administration reports to the Board about whether current MMSD policies need to be updated or changed in view of any technological changes in the law and other opportunities; 2) develop a proposal on either the implementation and communication of the policies and procedures to parents and students for consistency across the District at the levels affected; and 3) have the Administration give the Board the pros and cons of adopting a policy like the one proposed by Dr. Mertz as a draft proposal. It is further recommended that the Administration review all nine of the policies, including the proposed "Guidelines for Coursework Outside the MMSD'" for possible revision, consolidation, or propose a newly created policy.

Attached is Exhibit 1, an amended draft of the policy previously submitted to the Board in a memo from Pamela Nash dated May 4, 2007. The amendments modify the timing of a student's appiication to take courses outside the MMSD and the response time of the District. This time frame is modeled after the Youth Options time frame.

Also attached to this Memorandum is a copy of a policy proposal previously submitted by Dr. Janet Mertz, Exhibit 2A, and the District's analysis of that proposal,

Exhibits 2 and 2B. These documents were also submitted to the Board of Education under cover of Dr. Nash's memo of May 4, 2007. This matter is scheduled to be heard before the Performance and Achievement Committee on February 25, 2008.

Background audio, video and documents are available here. The School Board's Performance & Achievement Committee meets today @ 5:00p.m to discuss this memorandum. [Directions & Map] Attend the meeting and send your thoughts to: comments@madison.k12.wi.us

Endgame: Madison Superintendent Candidate Summary

Andy Hall:

The Madison School Board will meet behind closed doors this morning to begin determining which of the three finalists it'd like to hire to replace Superintendent Art Rainwater, who retires June 30.

Three men from Miami, Boston and Green Bay who share an obsession for education but offer sharply differing backgrounds visited Madison this week to compete for the job of heading Wisconsin's second-largest school district.

Candidate details, including links, photos, audio and video:

• Steve Gallon
• Jim McIntyre
• Dan Nerad

We'll soon see what the smoke signals from the Doyle building reveal.

District SLC Grant - Examining the Data From Earlier Grants, pt. 1

The Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) recently submitted a five year, $5 million grant proposal to the US Department of Education (DOE) to support the creation of Small Learning Communities (SLCs) in all four high schools (See here for post re. grant application). While the grant proposal makes mention of the two smaller SLC grants the district received earlier, there is no examination of the data from those two projects. One would think that DOE would be curious to know if MMSD's earlier efforts at creating SLCs had produced the desired results before agreeing to provide further funding. Furthermore, one would think it important to examine if the schools implemented the changes that they proposed in their applications. It is my intention to provide some of that analysis over the course of several posts, and I want to encourage other community members to examine the Memorial grant proposal and final report and the West grant and final report themselves.

We begin by examining Memorial High School's SLC grant which was funded from 2000-2003. Memorial's SLC grant is a good place to start, not only because it was the first MMSD SLC grant, but because they lay out clearly the outcome measures that they intend to evaluate and their final report provides hard numbers (as opposed to graphics) over a number of years before and after the implementation of the SLC grant. Memorial had two goals for their SLC grant: 1) to reduce the achievement gap and 2) to increase students' connectedness to the school.

Examining student achievement suggests mixed results for Memorial's restructuring. Student GPA's indicate a slight narrowing of the achievement gap for African American students and essentially no change for Hispanic students when compared to their fellow white students over the period of the grant.

Difference Between	2000	2001	2002	2003
White & African American	1.35	1.35	1.16	1.24
White & Hispanic	0.75	0.87	0.74	0.79

Student WKCE performance can be considered an external indicator of student success, and these data indicate no change in the proportion of students scoring at the Proficient and/or Advanced levels, an especially noteworthy result given that the criteria for the WKCEs were lowered in 2002/03 which was the last year of the grant. I've included data up through this past school year since that is available on the DPI website, and I've only presented data from math and reading in the interests of not overloading SIS readers.

WKCE	99/2000	2000/01	2001/02	2002/03	2003/04	2004/05	2005/06	2006/07
Reading
African American	45.09	54.90	36.00	33.00	40.5	45.8	42.9	29.8
Hispanic	63.16	80.00	47.00	54.00	53.6	51.7*	53.1*	29.3*
White	93.33	85.55	86.00	89.00	90.2	86.2	89.0	84.2
Low Income	53.33	56.36	36.00	36.00	32.9	40.7	43.7	25.7
Not Low Income				88.00	86.9	84.7	89.8	80.2
Math
African American	18.00	27.45	20.00	29.00**	39.2	32.2	27.3	39.4
Hispanic	42.11	40.00	33.00	49.00	42.9	62.1*	59.4*	36.2*
White	77.44	76.48	68.00	90.00	89.7	89.3	89.0	86.4
Low Income	18.64	16.37	16.00	29.00**	29.4	38.4	38.7	35.7
Not Low Income				90	85.8	86.9	89.2	84.2

* note. data for Hispanic students includes 4 Native American students in 03/04 and 2 in the following two years
** note. DPI actually reports higher percentages of students scoring proficient/advanced: 34% and 37% respectively for these two cells

The data from DPI looking at ACT test performance and percentage of students tested does not suggest any change has occurred in the last 10 years, so the data presented here would suggest that Memorial's SLC restructuring hasn't had any effect on the achievement gap, but what about the other goal, student connectedness?

Memorial's final report presents data on student suspensions and expulsions as their quantitative indicators of student connectedness. It should be noted that in their grant proposal, Memorial was going to examine student responses to the annual climate survey as a way to track students' sense of belonging and relationship with the school, but, regretfully, that information isn't presented. When we look at the information we are provided with, there appears to be no change, but DPI data suggest that things have declined in recent years: suspension rate the year prior to the grant (99/00) - 4.3%, suspension rate last year of grant (02/03) - 6.1%, suspension rate for most current year's data (05/06) - 10.2%. The picture is the same for student expulsions: 99/00 - 0.20%, 02/03 - 0.23%, 05/06 - 0.6%. Data from DPI also suggest that there has been no change in attendance rates or in the percentage of students habitually truant.

The goals of the District's SLC proposal are admirable. However, this data does not suggest that the Memorial model will produce the desired results. Next time we look at West.

Board of Education Activity in 2006-07

A few weeks ago, the Madison BOE received a summary of what the board and its committees had done in its meetings during the past year. I am posting the entire document as an extended entry as community information. It provides a lot more detail, a good overview, and a glimpse at the pieces that didn't make it into the print and broadcast media.

Common Council/Board of Education Liaison Committee – 2006/07

Members: MMSD – Lucy Mathiak (chair), Lawrie Kobza, Mary Gulbrandsen
City – Alders Isadore Knox, George Twigg, Cindy Thomas
Liaison: Mary Gulbrandsen
Meeting Date/Agenda

June 21
- Plan for Allied Drive and impact on surrounding neighborhoods
- Communication about polling place accessibility

August 16
- City requirements for mowing fields
- City and MMSD cooperation on forestry and pest control
- Demographic changes affecting neighborhoods & schools, focus on economic & linguistic changes, comparison between Allied Drive and other parts of Madison
- Changes in crossing guard staffing
- Planning for changing traffic patterns in school zones

September 27
- Traffic Safety in School Areas – changes in crossing guard staffing
- Demographic changes affecting neighborhoods and schools

October 18
-Demographic factors affecting school populations
-Traffic safety in middle and high school zones

November 15
-School safety challenges and responses panel discussion with MMSD and MPD staff
-Measures of poverty as related to school and city services planning

December 13
-School Safety presentation on disciplinary process being developed to keep children in an educational setting
-Demographic changes affecting neighborhoods and schools

January 17
-Program to increase student safety in walking or biking to school
-Traffic safety in school areas

February 28
-2005-06 Municipal Court Truancy Report
-Structure and function of the Liaison Committee

March 28
-City of Madison-MMSD Cooperation to Support Neighborhood Schools
-Structure and Function of Liaison Committee

Communications Committee – 2006/07

Members: Arlene Silveira (chair), Lucy Mathiak, Ruth Robarts
Citizen Members –
Liaison: Ken Syke
Meeting Date/Agenda

July 10
-Desired outcomes for committee
- Ways for citizens to communicate about federal and state funding to schools

August 28
Meeting cancelled – no quorum

September 11
- Communications Goal – provide information about community values, concerns, goals for school system; encouraging a sense of community ownership, responsibility for the district.
- Next Steps for the First Step of the Cycle of Engagement – coming together, moving forward, sustaining momentum
-How school board members engage in conversations about MMSD with different community members and soliciting feedback from such community members.
-Engaging the public in MMSD funding issues.

September 25
-Engaging the public in dealing with MMSD funding issues
-Modification of communications goal
-Community Conversations program

October 23
-Resolution supporting moving Security expenditures outside the Revenue Cap
-Statewide Superintendents’ response to Revenue Caps
-Resolution re: Educational Leadership for All Students
-Next steps for Community Conversations

November 27
-Update on planning for and structure of Community Conversations
-Communications to the community during a crisis
-Presentation of information to the community

January 9
-Madison Legislative Delegation
-Statute 118.24(1) Clarification

January 16
-Progress on new web page for citizens wanting to get involved
-2007-09 Legislative Agenda

February 26
-MMSD Legislative Agenda
-Analysis of Governor’s Proposed State Budget
-Planning for meeting with citizens interested in advocating for district on state budget and legislative issues

March 29 – (Special Meeting – Workshop)
-Wisconsin K-12 Public Education Funding
-Key K-12 Provisions in Governor’s Proposed Budget
-Tips for Legislative Communications
-Communication with Other Wisconsin K-12 School Districts

Community Partnerships Committee - 2006/07

Members: MMSD – Lucy Mathiak (chair), Arlene Silveira, Shwaw Vang
Citizen Members –
Liaison: Lisa Black
Meeting Date/Agenda

July 10
- Committee goals and activities
- Regular meeting schedule; establish agenda

August 21
- Strengthening partnerships with parents and caregivers
- Developing standard process for administering grants to community partners

September 11
- Parents as Partners – information gathered through SIP, communities to target for feedback, schedule for feedback sessions, ways to engage administration and school staff in feedback sessions.
- Fund 80

October 9
-Principal Panel on Best Practices for Parent Participation
-Community Service Fund grants
-Timetable and Plan for Parent Input Sessions

November 13
-Update meeting schedule for Community Listening Sessions
-Amount of funds expended for MMSD partnerships
-Review annual report African-American Ethnic Academy

January 22
-Community Organizations funded out of 2006-07 Fund 80 Budget

February 12
-Organizations and programs funded out of the Fund 80 part of the MMSD 2007-08 Budget
-MSCR student functions, supervision and operations

March 12
-Organizations and programs funded out of Fund 80 part of the 2007-08 Budget – African American Ethnic Academy, Centro Hispano, Urban League of Greater Madison

April 9
-UW Foundation Development Presentation
-Funding for Community Partners currently funded through Fund 80
-Future funding of Community Partners through Fund 80
Proposed changes to Board Policy 6491 – Use of School Buildings and Facilities

Finance & Operations Committee – 2007-07

Members: Lawrie Kobza (chair), Carol Carstensen, Lucy Mathiak
Liaison: Roger Price
Meeting Date/Agenda

July 10
- People’s Budget
- Monthly finance report
- Shared savings energy
- Energy Program re: computer shutdown project
- Making East High Field House more accessible
- Upgrading Kelliher Field
- Financing East Field House and Kelliher Field
- Leopold addition update

August 14
- Citizen’s Budget Summary

September 25
- Citizen’s budget summary
- Transportation budget analysis
- Athletics Transportation Procedures, policies, costs
- Budget calendar 2007-08

October 16
-Citizens Budget Summary
-Transportation Budget Analysis

October 30
-Citizen’s Budget Summary

November 21
-Citizen’s Budget Summary

November 27
-Process for getting feedback on the Citizen’s Budget
-Analysis of the 2006-7 Transportation budget
-Salary savings account in the 2006-7 budget
-2006-7 budget related to substitute employees
-Monthly financial report relative to the 2006-7 budget

November 29
-Citizen’s Budget Summary
-Process for getting feedback on the Citizen’s Budget

January 16
Jt w/LRP
-Considerations when redrawing boundary lines for elementary schools
-Elementary school class size

January 22
-Forecast for proposed 2007-08 budget

January 22
Jt w/LRP
-Elementary school class size

January 24
-Citizens Budget (input)

February 19
-Athletics
-Extracurricular Programs
-Citizens Budget
-Issuance of bonds and refinancing outstanding debt related to those bonds
-Impact of Governor’s proposed budget

March 7
-Citizen’s budget

Human Resources Committee – 2006-07

Members: Ruth Robarts (chair), Lawrie Kobza, Shwaw Vang
Liaison: Bob Nadler
Meeting Date/Agenda

August 21
- Committee goals and activities
- Regular meeting schedule

September 25
- WASB Presentation on Impacts of Current Health Insurance Plans

October 23
-Report on status and impact of increasing health insurance costs
-Recommendations re: district approach to health insurance costs
-Handling parent complaints about teachers, principals, or other administrators

November 27
-Review of administrative contract renewal and merit pay for administrators
-Report from Administration on
Administrative positions covered by statute governing renewal, non-renewal
Timeline for administrative lay-off, non-renewal, and renewals later in 2006-7
Policies and procedures pertaining to lay-off, non-renewal or renewal for administrative positions covered by statute
List of positions not covered by statute for administrators, supervisors, non-union professionals
Timeline for lay-off, non-renewal later in 2006-7 for administrators, supervisors, non-union professionals not covered by statute
Policies and procedures pertaining to merit pay for administrators, supervisors, non-union professionals
-Proposal to review goals and calendar for Human Resources Committee

December 18
-Recommendations re: merit pay and contract renewal of administrators

January 29
--Salary survey for administrative staff

March 5
-Annual report on minority recruitment/retention

Long Range Planning Committee – 2006/07
Members: Carol Carstensen, chair; Lawrie Kobza, Arlene Silveira
Liaison: Mary Gulbrandsen

Meeting Date/Agenda

September 18
- Overview of development for next 5-20 years and how that will impact the MMSD

October 23
-Third Friday Enrollment Counts and Districtwide Enrollment Projections
-Enrollment Projection Methodology
-Socioeconomic Status by School
-Considerations with Redrawing Boundary Lines
-Dealing with Overcrowded Elementary Schools
-Elementary Schools with Declining Enrollment

November 13
-Enrollment history and projections by school
-Elementary school potential maximum physical capacity
-Actual vs projected enrollment by school
-2007 enrollment projections and maximum physical plant capacity by attendance area
-MMSD Elementary School Boundaries in the West/Memorial attendance areas

December 18
-Considerations when redrawing boundary lines for elementary schools
-Dealing with overcrowded elementary schools
-Elementary schools with declining enrollment
-Dealing with two elementary schools that are currently overcrowded and will continue to be for the 2007-08 school year

January 10
-Ideas to address overcrowding at Lake View Elementary School

January 16
Jt w/Fin & Oper
-Considerations when redrawing boundary lines for elementary schools
-Elementary school class size

January 18
-Ideas to address overcrowding at Chavez Elementary School

January 22
Jt w/Fin & Oper
-Elementary school class size

January 29
-Dealing with overcrowded elementary schools
-Elementary schools with declining enrollment
-Proposed solutions for overcrowding at Chavez and Lake View

January 31
-Ideas to address overcrowding at Lake View Elementary School
-Long range facility use planning process, and next steps

February 6
-Ideas to address student overcrowding in the East Attendance Area
-Long range facility use planning process, and next steps

February 12
-Report on Northeast Area meetings
-Options to address overcrowded schools in the East Attendance Area

March 19 (Special BOE Meeting)
-Budget impacts of Long Range Planning re: Options to address overcrowded and underenrolled schools in the east attendance area and budget deficits

March 25 (Sunday) Warner Park
-Ideas to address the use of elementary school facilities in the East Attendance Area
-Long range facility use planning process and next steps

March 27 (Tuesday) Black Hawk
-Ideas to address the use of elementary school facilities in the East Attendance Area
-Long range facility use planning process and next steps

April 12 (Thurs) Kennedy Heights
-Long Range Facility Use Planning Process
-Ideas to Address use of elementary /middle school facilities in East Attendance Area in relation to proposed 2007-08 Budget Reductions and next steps

Community Partnerships Committee – 2006/07

Members: MMSD – Lucy Mathiak (chair), Arlene Silveira, Shwaw Vang
Citizen Members –
Liaison: Lisa Black
Meeting Date/Agenda

July 10
- Committee goals and activities
- Regular meeting schedule; establish agenda

August 21
- Strengthening partnerships with parents and caregivers
- Developing standard process for administering grants to community partners

September 11
- Parents as Partners – information gathered through SIP, communities to target for feedback, schedule for feedback sessions, ways to engage administration and school staff in feedback sessions.
- Fund 80

October 9
-Principal Panel on Best Practices for Parent Participation
-Community Service Fund grants
-Timetable and Plan for Parent Input Sessions

November 13
-Update meeting schedule for Community Listening Sessions
-Amount of funds expended for MMSD partnerships
-Review annual report African-American Ethnic Academy

January 22
-Community Organizations funded out of 2006-07 Fund 80 Budget

February 12
-Organizations and programs funded out of the Fund 80 part of the MMSD 2007-08 Budget
-MSCR student functions, supervision and operations

March 12
-Organizations and programs funded out of Fund 80 part of the 2007-08 Budget – African American Ethnic Academy, Centro Hispano, Urban League of Greater Madison

April 9
-UW Foundation Development Presentation
-Funding for Community Partners currently funded through Fund 80
-Future funding of Community Partners through Fund 80
Proposed changes to Board Policy 6491 – Use of School Buildings and Facilities

Performance and Achievement Committee – 2006/07

Members: Shwaw Vang (chair), Carol Carstensen, Ruth Robarts
Liaison: Lisa Wachtel
Meeting Date/Agenda

August 21
- Goals and Activities 2006-07
- Meeting schedule
- ESL Program

October 9
-Schedule for 2006-2007

November 13
-Report on MMSD Fine Arts Program

December 11
-Disproportionality in Special Education
-Credits for Courses Outside the MMSD

December 18
-Creation of Fine Arts Task Force

January 8
-Math Masters Grant Program

February 12
-2006 Summer School Report and 2007 Budget Recommendations
-Nuestro Mundo Proposed Expansion

March 5
-Alternative Programs
-Student Services

Special Meeting of the Board of Education – 2006/07

Members: All Board Members
Liaison: Art Rainwater, Mary Gulbrandsen, Roger Price
Meeting Date/Agenda

July 17
- Proposed Wellness policy
- Schedule, Process for Supt’s Evaluation
- Waiver to change number of days of school

August 7
- Financial Transactions
- Proposed policy – Animals on School Premises
- Modification to Policy re: Pets on School Premises
- Supts Goals Report
- Supt’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

August 14
- Granting Supt authority to use internal promotion procedure
- Purchase of land for a school (Exec)
- Negotiations (Exec)
- Supt’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

August 28
- Plan CP2a boundary changes if Linden Park elementary school referendum fails
- Plan CP3a boundary changes if Linden Park elementary school referendum passes
- Negotiations (Exec)

September 11
- Negotiations strategy for SEE, EA, Sec Assts, Trades, FS, Local 60, Administrators (Exec)
- Supt’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

September 18
- Equity Task Force Interim Report
- Expulsion Process, Expungements, Early Readmission Procedure, Special Education Procedure
- Supt’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

October 2
- Supt’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

October 16
-Superintendent’s Goals Report (Open)
-Superintendent’s Goals for 2006-7 (Open)
-Superintendent’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

October 23
-Expulsion
-Negotiations strategy re: SEE, EA, Security Assistants, Trades, Food Services, and Custodial Collective Bargaining units
-Compensation for administrators and other non-union represented employees

October 30
-Student Recognition
-Finalization of the 2006-07 Budget and Adoption of Tax Levy
-Resolution re: Educational Leadership for All Students
-Resolution supporting moving Security Expenditures Outside the Revenue Cap
-Ratification of Custodial contract
-Superintendent’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

November 6
-Presentation from MATC representatives re: serving MMSD students (Pres. Betsy Barhorst and Board Member Carousel Bayrd)
-Food Service Ratification
-Play and Learn Program
-Positive Student Behavior in Safe and Secure Schools
-Superintendent’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)

November 13
-Expulsion (Exec)
-Supt’s Performance Evaluation (Exec)
-Amendments to balance the 2006-07 Budget

November 20
-Negotiations strategy re: MTI Teachers Collective Bargaining Agreement (Exec)
-Change of health insurance options for administrators, non-represented employees, security assistants (Exec)
-Options relative to the Board making health insurance contributions to administrators (Exec)
-Impact administrative salary schedule modifications on administrator salaries (Exec)
-2006-7 Goals for the Superintendent (Open)

November 27
-Movement of administrators and non-represented employees to the three HMO Plan on 7/1/07
-High Schools of the future
-Increase in building permit fees
-Waiver of requirements for hiring administrators relative to filling a newly created administrative position
-Annual salary increase for non-represented employees relative to adoption of new salary schedule (Exec)
-Negotiations strategy regarding the MTI Teachers Collective Bargaining Unit (Exec)

December 4
-Expulsions (Exec)
-Report by Madison Partners for Inclusive Education
-Increase in MMSD Building Permit Fees

December 11
-Financial Transaction
-Annual salary increase for NUP and salary increase re: adoption of new NUP salary schedule (Exec and Workshop)
-Negotiations strategy re: MTI Teachers CBA (Exec)
-Increase in MMSD building permit fees
-Positive student behavior in safe and secure schools
-Student code of conduct – Board Policy 4502

December 13
-Public Hearing re: installation of cell towers – Memorial and West High Schools

December 18
--2007-8 Budget Preparation
-2005-6 Audit Report
-Expulsions (Exec)

December 20
-Public hearing re: Studio School
-Proposed Studio Charter School

January 8
-Employment status of two administrative employees

January 16
-Positive student behavior in safe and secure schools and impact on student Code of Conduct
-Timeline for naming the new school at Linden Park Site
-Hiring a consultant to assist the Board in selecting a new superintendent

January 22
-Proposed Studio Charter School
-Superintendent’s Math Goal

January 29
-Financial transaction
-Charter school proposal date change
-Negotiations Strategy- MTI Teachers and SEE (exec)

February 19
-Professional development
-RFP/Qs for consultants to conduct Superintendent search
-Regular education transportation contracts
-Expulsions (Exec)

February 26
-Studio Charter School
-Special Education Services
-RFP/Qs for consultants to conduct Superintendent search
-Negotiations Strategy – MTI Teachers (Exec)
-Contributions for administrators for insurance (Exec and Open)

March 12
-2007-08 Proposed Budget
-Health insurance contributions for administrators
-RFPs/RFQs for consultants to conduct a superintendent search
-Potential Boundless Playground at Elvehjem
-Expulsions (exec)

March 19
-Public hearing on suggested names for the new school at Linden Park
-Budget impacts of Long Range Planning
-2007-08 Proposed MMSD Budget

March 26
-Recognition Ceremony
-Virtual campus
-Financial transactions
-Proposal to hold a referendum
-Referendum to cover the costs of 2007-08 Proposed Budget Cuts
-Impact of Budget on LRP re: Options to address overcrowded and underenrolled schools in East Attendance Area and Budget Deficits
-Joint swim team sponsorship
-Girls hockey cooperative sponsorship

March 28 (Weds)
-Public hearing re: consolidating or closing schools and moving students
-Cooperative team sponsorships

March 29 (Thurs)
-Wisconsin K-12 public education funding
-Key K-12 Provisions in Governor’s Proposed Budget
-Tips for Legislative Communications
-Communication with other Wisconsin K-12 school districts

April 2
-Expulsions

April 9
-Virtual Campus

April 16 10:30 and Noon
-Introduction of Math Task Force Members
-Charge and Expertise of the Math Task Force
-Research, surveys, analysis, resources, etc. the Math Task Force
May use
-Introduction of Proposed Oversight Committee relative to proposal requesting funding from the National Science Foundation
-Proposal requesting funding from the NSF

April 16
-Recognition of retiring Board members
-Superintendent’s Goal on Mathematics Program Evaluation
-Appointment of Math Task Force Members
-Process and Procedure the Math Task Force
May use to reply to its charge
-Equity Task Force Report
-2007-08 Proposed Budget

April 17 (Tues) LaFollette (Exec)
-Negotiations re: SEE Unit

April 17 (Tues)
LaFollette
-Public hearing on 2007-08 Proposed Budget

April 19 (Thurs)
Memorial
-Public hearing on 2007-08 Proposed Budget

April 23 Workshop
-Swearing in of newly elected Board members
-Superintendent’s Goal on Communications
-Proposed 2007-08 MMSD Budget

April 25 Workshop
-Update on legislative activities
-Planning for long-term legislative advocacy to change the revenue limit law
-Identification of people who would continue to lead the process of advocating and next steps

April 30 Workshop
-Expulsions (Exec)
-Finalization of 2007-08 Budget

May 7
-Negotiations Strategy re: Madison Teachers (Exec)
-Acquiring Land for a School (Exec)
-Proposed Contract Compliance Plan
-Summer Scheduling

May 14 Workshop
-Reconsideration of Lapham/Marquette Consolidation
-Reconsideration of Cut to Small School Allocation for Spring Harbor
-Reconsideration of the 2007-08 Budget

May 21
-Expulsions (Exec)
-Financial Transactions
-2007-08 Layoffs of employees in the MTI Teacher Collective Bargaining Unit
-Public Hearing re: Waiver of certain SAGE Requirements to continue to provide alternative SAGE block schools design
-SAGE Resolution
-Proposed Contract Compliance Plan
-Proposed changes to Board Policy 4502 Student Code of Conduct
-Reconsideration of 2007-08 Budget to complete restoration of the Lapham/Marquette pair

May 22 Workshop
-Interviews with consultants to conduct a Superintendent Search

May 23 Workshop
-Interviews with consultants to conduct a Superintendent Search

May 29
-Evaluate consultants to conduct a Superintendent Search (exec)
-Select consultant to conduct a Superintendent Search
-Establish topics the Board will consider for 2007-08

June 4 Exec and Open
-2007-08 Proposed salary increases for administrators
-Negotiations strategy re: MTI Teachers
-Wexford Ridge Neighborhood Center Financing Extension (exec and open)
-Evaluating consultants to conduct Superintendent search (exec and open)
-Expulsions

June 11 Exec and Workshop
-Negotiations strategy re: MTI teachers (exec)
-Progress on MMSD High School Redesign
-Smaller Learning Communities Grant Opportunity

June 18 Workshop
-Ratification of MTI Teacher contract
-Renaming Vang Pao Elementary
-Alternative school locations
-Transportation for Spring Harbor and Wright Middle Schools

June 20 Workshop
-Superintendent’s Implementation of MMSD Strategic Plan
-Setting Board priorities

June 27 Workshop and Exec
-Financial transactions
-Expulsions (exec)

Audio / Video: Madison School Board Vote on the MTI 2007 - 2009 Agreement

The Madison School Board voted 4-3 (for: Carstensen, Moss, Silveira and Winston; no: Cole, Kobza and Mathiak) Monday evening to approve the proposed MMSD / MTI 2007 - 2009 agreement. The new arrangement, which does not include substantial health care changes, was set in motion by the "Voluntary Impasse Resolution Document" - also approved by a 4-3 vote (Carol Carstensen's alt view). This document, approved before negotiations began, took health care changes off the table if the discussions resulted in arbitration.

• 30 Minute Video Clip
• 34MB MP3 audio recording of the entire board meeting (MTI Agreement vote discussion begins at about 6 minutes
• MTI's useful synopsis of the Agreement: 150K PDF, including the extension of the TERP (Teacher Retirement Extension Program) through 2011
• Going to the Mat for WPS by Jason Shephard
• Lawrie Kobza notes that changes in health care would have increased salaries by 2.8%, rather than the current 1%.
• KJ Jakobson's health care cost/benefit analysis
• A teacher noted the recent MTI vote.
• Susan Troller: Board approves teachers contract deal on 4-3 vote.
• TJ Mertz:

  Three Board of Education members voted against the MTI contract on Monday, June 18, 2007. My initial reaction was that it was a ‘free” vote, a vote without consequences. When elected officials know that there are sufficient votes to pass or defeat a measure they can use their votes to make a statement without taking responsibility for what would happen were they to prevail. This is what happened on Monday, those who voted against the contract knew that it would pass and that they would not be held responsible for the serious consequences that would ensue had they been in the majority. Upon reflection, I realized that in fact the vote has the consequences of exacerbating divisions among our teachers that are hard to justify based on their stated rationales for opposing the contract.

Statement on MMSD/MTI Tentative Collective Bargaining Agreement Vote

After much consideration, I have decided to vote against the tentative agreement negotiated by the District and the MTI teachers union. I will do so because the agreement fails to include significant health insurance changes, and as a result, unreasonably depresses the salary increases that can be provided to our teachers.

While the total salary and benefit increase to our teachers under the proposed agreement is 4.02%, our teachers will only receive a 1% increase in their salaries in each of the next two years. This is so even though we ask our teachers to do more and more each year given budget cuts and changes in our student demographics. The rest of the increase is eaten up by benefits, the vast majority of which is for health insurance.

I would like to see our teachers’ salaries increase by more than 1% per year. I believe a greater increase is well-deserved, and is needed to continue to keep and retain excellent teachers. I also believe a greater increase is needed so that the District’s starting salary for new teachers is competitive.

While money is obviously very tight, we could provide teachers with higher salaries if the District and the MTI teachers union - working together - would negotiate health insurance changes. The District’s initial proposal regarding health care insurance was to offer teachers the choice of three different HMO options or WPS. If a teacher chose one of the HMO options - Group Health Cooperative, Physicians Plus, or Dean Care- the District would pay the full cost of that HMO. If however a teacher chose coverage under WPS, which would still be available, the District would only pay the cost of the most expensive HMO, and the teacher would pay the rest of the cost of WPS. This proposal would have provided for a 2.81% salary increase for teachers for 2007-2008 - as opposed to a 1% increase.

The District and other employees groups have successfully worked together to revise health insurance coverages during this past year with the result that more money was available for employee wages to these groups. I was hopeful that similar results could be achieved for our teachers.

When I have raised this concern about how teacher salaries have been unreasonably depressed by the increasing cost of WPS, I have been told by some that it is none of the District’s business how MTI decides to split the negotiated salary and benefit package. I just cannot agree with this view.

While it is true that the total dollar impact to the District is the same regardless of how MTI splits the money between salary and benefits, I believe it is very important to the District how the money is spent. It is essential to the District that we have good, competitive teacher salaries and that our health insurance costs not drain money away from those salaries. It is essential that our teachers are paid fairly and equitably. It is not fair that a teacher who takes WPS insurance should receive $7,500 more in salary and benefits than a teacher who takes Group Health Cooperative. It is not fair that a majority of our teachers take Group Health Cooperative, yet they continue to have their compensation reduced to fund the benefits of others.

I am extremely disappointed that the District and MTI, working together, could not reach an agreement that puts more money into teachers salaries and less into health insurance costs. I truly believe that if the interests of the whole had been put first, this could have been done. Because we failed to take advantage of this opportunity, I feel I have no choice but to vote against the tentative agreement.

Open Letter to BOE Re. High School Redesign

Dear BOE,

Hi, everyone. We are writing to share a few thoughts about Monday night's Special Meeting on the High School Redesign and SLC grant. We are writing to you and copying the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent -- rather than writing to them and copying you -- in order to underscore our belief that you, the School Board, are in charge of this process.

It seems clear to us that the SLC grant requirements and application process will be driving the District's high school re-evaluation and redesign. (So much for the "blank slate" we were promised by the Superintendent last fall. With the SLC grant determining many of the important features of the redesign, obviously some redesign possibilities are already off the table -- whether or not we are awarded the grant, we might add.)

Given that cold, hard fact, it seems to us essential -- ESSENTIAL -- that we understand how our local SLC initiatives have fared before we move forward. That is why Laurie asked on Monday night how the community can access the before-and-after SLC data for Memorial and West.

Memorial and West are, in effect, our "pilot projects." It seems to us that we need to be thoroughly familiar with the results of our pilot projects in order to write the strongest follow-up grant proposal possible. It further seems to us that we need to know if the SLC restructuring programs we have implemented in two of our high schools are achieving their objectives (or not) before we expand the approach to our other high schools (and before we commit to continuing the approach, unchanged, at the first two schools). Let's not forget that our highest priority is to educate and support our students (not to get grant money). In order to do that as well as we possibly can, we need to know what's working for us and what's not working for us. (We imagine the Department of Education will also want to know how our pilot programs have fared before deciding whether or not to give us additional funding.)

The Superintendent said on Monday night that the High School Redesign Committee had "gathered all of the relevant data from each of the four high schools" as part of their early work. And yet, it did not sound like before-and-after SLC restructuring data was part of that effort. We found that very confusing because what data from Memorial and West could possibly be more relevant to the present moment than whether and how their SLC restructuring programs have worked?

With all that as background, we'd like to ask you, the BOE, to:

1. compile the before-and-after SLC data for both Memorial and West, as well as all progress and final reports that Memorial and West have been required to submit to their granting agency (presumably the DOE);
2. make those data and reports widely available to the community;
3. convene two study sessions -- a private one for yourselves and a public one for the community -- where the background and empirical results for the Memorial and West SLC initiatives are thoroughly reviewed and discussed.

   Based on our reading of the SLC literature, as well as our direct knowledge of the West grant proposal and daily life at West, we think there are a couple of other things we need to know.

4. We need to know and understand the extent to which the Memorial and West initiatives are consistent with the recommended "best practices" in the SLC literature. Example: the literature recommends a maximum SLC size of 400 students and that students select into their (ideally, content or theme-based) SLC. In contrast to those recommendations, West students are assigned to their (generic, unthemed) SLC based on the first letter of their last name ... and there are 500 or more students in each SLC.
5. We need to know and understand the extent to which Memorial and West are actually doing what they told the DOE they would do in their grants. In general, there is a lot that is promised in the West grant that has never happened. (We are in the process of compiling a detailed list.) Example: a huge and important piece of any successful SLC initiative is communication with and outreach to parents, with the clear goal of increasing parental involvement with the school. At West, responsive communication from the school is so far from the norm, the PTSO leadership had to talk with the principal about the complaints they were receiving. In addition, there has been very little targeted outreach to parents aimed at enhancing involvement. What little there has been (PTSO meetings and other events held off-site, in West attendance area neighborhoods) have had dismal attendance, with no follow-up from the school. Interestingly, we don't even have PTSO officers for next year!

A final word about Monday night's meeting --

We found the meeting to be way too structured, to the extent that it prevented open and free-flowing dialogue. Most of what community members were allowed to say had to be in response to things the administration asked, which means the administration controlled the evening's conversation. There was neither time nor support for audience members to ask what they wanted to ask, or to share their full reactions, concerns and recommendations. Ultimately, it felt like a somewhat shallow gesture of interest in community input, not a genuine desire for real, substantive, collaborative dialogue.

We hope you will make sure that we all have the opportunity to educate ourselves about the details of the Memorial and West SLC initiatives, as well as a chance to have real conversation about the future of our high schools.

As always, thank you.

In partnership,

Laurie Frost and Jeff Henriques
West High School Parents

West HS English 10: Time to Show Us the Data

According to the November, 2005, report by SLC Evaluator Bruce King, the overriding motivation for the implementation of West's English 10 core curriculum (indeed, the overriding motivation for the implementation of the entire 9th and 10th grade core curriculum) was to reduce the achievement gap. As described in the report, some groups of West students were performing more poorly in English than were other groups of West students. Poor performance was defined as:

1. not electing to take the more rigorous English electives offered at West during 11th and 12th grade and
2. failing one or more English classes.

The current West 10th graders -- the first class to take English 10 -- has almost finished two semesters of the new course. As well, they registered for their 11th grade courses several weeks ago. Seems to me it's about time to take a look at the early data.

I would like to know what English courses the current 500 or so West sophomores signed up for for next year and if the distribution of their course selections -- broken down by student groups -- looks significantly different from that of previous 10th grade classes? When final grades come out later this month, I would also like to know what the impact of the first two semesters of English 10 has been on the achievement gap as defined by the "grade earned" criterion.

Thinking about the need to evaluate the impact of English 10 brings to mind the absence of data on English 9 that became so glaringly apparent last year. [English 9 -- like English 10, a core curriculum delivered in completely heterogeneous classes -- has been in place at West for several years. And yet, according to Mr. King's report, it is not clear if English 9 has done anything to reduce the achievement gap in English among West students. (More precisely, according to email with Mr. King and others after the SLC report was made public, it is not clear that the impact of English 9 on the achievement gap at West has even been empirically evaluated. Readers may recall that some of us tried valiantly to get the English 10 initiative put off, so that the effect of English 9 could be thoroughly evaluated. Unfortunately, we failed.)] I would like to know what has been done this year to evaluate the impact of English 9 on the gap in achievement between different groups of West HS students.

Bruce (King), Heather (Lott), Ed (Holmes) and Art (Rainwater), I do hope you will soon "show us the data," as they say, for West's English 9 and English 10. And BOE, I do hope you will insist on seeing these data asap.

While we're at it, what do the before-and-after data look like for Memorial's 9th grade core curriculum? (In contrast to West, Memorial implemented only a 9th grade core curriculum. TAG and Honors classes still begin in 10th grade, as does access to Memorial's 17 AP classes.)

With the District in the process of applying for a federal grant that may well result in the spread of the West model to the other three comprehensive high schools, we should all be interested in these data.

So should officials in the Department of Education.

Madison Schools' "Restorative Justice"

"Madison Parent":

The superintendent, school board president and other school board candidates are already talking as if this were a done deal. But what is “restorative justice,” and what will it mean to have student misconduct addressed with a “restorative justice” approach? A layperson’s online search leads to academic papers in the criminal and juvenile justice area from fields ranging from sociology, social work, philosophy and theology, but not much specific research or data on whether or how “restorative justice” has been found to work as an approach to addressing misconduct in schools. The decision to move away from a discipline-based approach to a “restorative justice” approach will have an immediate, on-the-ground, daily impact on the school climate and educational experience encountered by the students and teachers in our schools, and parents of children in the public schools here may very well have the following questions:

Notes and Links on the Madison K-12 Climate and Superintendent Hires Since 1992

Madison Superintendent Art Rainwater's recent public announcement that he plans to retire in 2008 presents an opportunity to look back at previous searches as well as the K-12 climate during those events. Fortunately, thanks to Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web, we can quickly lookup information from the recent past.

The Madison School District's two most recent Superintendent hires were Cheryl Wilhoyte [Clusty] and Art Rainwater [Clusty]. Art came to Madison from Kansas City, a district which, under court order, dramatically increased spending by "throwing money at their schools", according to Paul Ciotti:

In 1985 a federal district judge took partial control over the troubled Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) on the grounds that it was an unconstitutionally segregated district with dilapidated facilities and students who performed poorly. In an effort to bring the district into compliance with his liberal interpretation of federal law, the judge ordered the state and district to spend nearly $2 billion over the next 12 years to build new schools, integrate classrooms, and bring student test scores up to national norms.

It didn't work. When the judge, in March 1997, finally agreed to let the state stop making desegregation payments to the district after 1999, there was little to show for all the money spent. Although the students enjoyed perhaps the best school facilities in the country, the percentage of black students in the largely black district had continued to increase, black students' achievement hadn't improved at all, and the black-white achievement gap was unchanged.(1)

The situation in Kansas City was both a major embarrassment and an ideological setback for supporters of increased funding for public schools. From the beginning, the designers of the district's desegregation and education plan openly touted it as a controlled experiment that, once and for all, would test two radically different philosophies of education. For decades critics of public schools had been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." Educators and advocates of public schools, on the other hand, had always responded by saying, "No one's ever tried."

Cheryl Wilhoyte was hired, with the support of the two local dailies (Wisconsin State Journal, 9/30/1992: Search No Further & Cap Times Editorial, 9/21/1992: Wilhoyte Fits Madison) by a school board 4-3 vote. The District's budget in 1992-1993 was $180,400,000 with local property taxes generating $151,200,00 of that amount. 14 years later, despite the 1993 imposition of state imposed annual school spending increase limits ("Revenue Caps"), the 2006 budget is $331,000,000. Dehli's article mentions that the 1992-1993 School Board approved a 12.9% school property tax increase for that budget. An August, 1996 Capital Times editorial expressed puzzlement over terms of Cheryl Wilhoyte's contract extension.

Art, the only applicant, was promoted from Acting Superintendent to Superintendent in January, 1999. Chris Murphy's January, 1999 article includes this:

Since Wilhoyte's departure, Rainwater has emerged as a popular interim successor. Late last year, School Board members received a set of surveys revealing broad support for a local superintendent as opposed to one hired from outside the district. More than 100 of the 661 respondents recommended hiring Rainwater.

Art was hired on a 7-0 vote but his contract was not as popular - approved on a 5-2 vote (Carol Carstensen, Calvin Williams, Deb Lawson, Joanne Elder and Juan Jose Lopez voted for it while Ray Allen and Ruth Robarts voted no). The contract was and is controversial, as Ruth Robarts wrote in September, 2004.

A February, 2004 Doug Erickson summary of Madison School Board member views of Art Rainwater's tenure to date.

Quickly reading through a few of these articles, I found that the more things change, the more they stay the same:

• Pamela Cotant, in a September, 1992 article:

  Hanson said the shortfall is partly due to about $1 million in underestimated expenditures. The largest of these are health, dental and othertypes of insurance costs that came in $300,000 over estimates; extended employment and extra duty costs, $300,000; and teacher salaries, $250,000.
  In addition, the district did not receive as much as expected in areas suchas disabled tuition, Chapter I aid, food service income and interest income.

• Pam Cotant, writing in a May, 1991 article:

  School board President Nan Brien also said the board and district are in a tough spot because so many programs have been cut to bring the budget proposal ($149M) under the cap.

  ``The cuts he made are going to give the board some real difficult times,''Brien said.

  Brien said she was satisfied that Travis appeared to make his cuts across the board rather than in one area of the budget.

  Travis cut $2.3 million in staff requests. Cuts include a phasing out of the birth to age 2 program for children with special needs and $86,000 in funding to the Bootstrap program for students at risk of not graduating.

  Other cuts include 11 regular teachers and seven special education teachers, four positions in health services and about 10 custodial positions. Reductions also include $157,000 for a new child care program that would have helped students in the district's School-Age Parenting Program, more than $35,000 for staff training and professional improvement, and $33,000 for an after-school program (AIMS) for minority students.

• December, 1992: Citizen / School Board call-in to discuss the then $180M budget by Gail Perry.
• April, 1999: Budget Cuts Likely for Madison Schools: Declining Enrollment and Special Ed Costs Blamed by Doug Erickson.
• Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal archive searches (many articles):
  • Cheryl Wilhoyte
  • Art Rainwater
• April, 1999 Wisconsin State Journal Editorial: Rainwater will Face Tough Choices
• October, 1992; Joyce Dehli's Wisconsin State Journal article: Travis, Matthews: Schools' New Boss Must Create Unity
• October 1994 Wisconsin State Journal Editorial: Either Back Wilhoyte or Fire Her
• School safety and spending were the topics of this September, 1992 article
• SIS comments on Art's public retirement announcement

Fascinating. Perhaps someone will conduct a much more detailed review of the record, which would be rather useful over the next year or two.

2007 - 2008 Madison School District Budget Discussions Underway

Watch Monday evening's school board discussion [Video | Download] of the upcoming larger than usual reductions in revenue cap limited increases in the District's 2007 - 2008 budget (they are larger than normal due to the recently disclosed 7 year structural budget deficit). The 2006 / 2007 budget is $333M+ (it was $245M in 98/99 while enrollment has remained flat, though the student composition continues to change).

Related Links:

• 2007 / 2008 Budget Outlook: Glass Half Empty or Half Full?
• Susan Troller's Summary of Monday Night's meeting:

  The report outlined 10 areas, now called "discussion topics," where the administration and board will look to trim or slash programs, personnel or services in an effort over the coming months to balance the district's 2007-2008 budget.

  "We cannot call these recommendations, but they are areas we will need to look for cuts. This will be a very difficult budget," he added.

  The suggested topics for discussion include cutting athletics and extracurricular activities, consolidating schools, increasing ratios of students to teachers, reducing custodial staff and maintenance, reducing administrative staffing, reducing various services from technology to transportation, and reducing supplemental staff like school social workers, nurses and psychologists.

• Arlene Silveira mentioned the possibility of a Spring, 2007 referendum. She asked what the timeline might be. Roger Price said the deadline is February 1, 2007 (about 32 minutes into the video). I've received a few emails regarding the timing of the public disclosure (11/18/2006) of the District's structural deficit vis a vis the successful far west side new school November referendum. An April referendum would indeed be a bold move.
• WIBA's Vicki McKenna and Active Citizens for Education's Don Severson discuss WISTAX's 2006 School Facts [1.4 PDF] in light of the upcoming budget discussions. [10.5MB mp3 audio]. The School Facts report compares student population (a significant factor in a school district's ability to raise taxes/grow revenues) spending, achievement, staffing and the tax base of Madison, Appleton, Green Bay, Janesville, Kenosha, Middleton - Cross Plains, Milwaukee, Racine, Sun Prairie and Verona. The Madison School District spends about 23% more per student than the state average.
• Barb Schrank noted in November, 2005 that from 2000 to 2004, the Madison School District lost 174 students while the surrounding Districts gained 1,462. Revenue value of 1,462 students is $13.16 million per year.
• Memo to the School Board outlining spending growth reduction discussion areas.
• Presentation of a "balanced" 2007 / 2008 budget will be the first week of April, 2007 (3 school board seats are up for election that same week, April 3, 2007).

Board of Education meeting of 30-Oct-2006

The October 30, 2006 Board of Education met to discuss a series of resolutions, and approve the final 2006-07 MMSD Budget, and approve the AFSCME Local 60 contract.


The video of the meeting is 210MB, and 2 hours and 30 minutes long. Click on the image at left to watch the video. The video contains chapter headings which allow quick navigation to sections of the meeting. The video will play immediately, while the file continues to download.

Public Appearances
There was a public appearance by Barbara Lewis who expressed concern over the apparent change in policy of MMSD in granting high school credit for courses taken at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Both Superintendent Art Rainwater and Director of Alternative Programs Steve Hartley discussed the issues with the Board and clarified that the policy statement which Ms. Lewis had received, and which apparently was being misinterpreted by some high school staff referred only to Independent Study. The Board, noting confusion of parents, school staff and themselves, requested that these issues be placed on the Board agenda as soon as possible.

Agenda Item #4
Resolution supporting expenditures for school security be placed outside the revenue caps.

Agenda Item #5
Resolution supporting language by the Superintendent and other superintendents that the State adopt the Adequacy Model for school funding.

Agenda Item #6 - Discussion and Approval of 2006-2007 Budget
This portion of the meeting begins at approximately 20 minutes into the meeting and continues until the Board votes to approve the tax levy amount at 2 hours into the meeting. Final approval of the full budget is rescheduled for a later meeting. The discussions included issues of fund equity, the fund reserve, the unexpected decrease of State support, liquidation of earnings on Chavez building funds, changes in the budget necessary to offset decrease in State support, and the minimum decisions the Board needed to make to meet budget deadline.

Agenda Item #7
Approval of the AFSCME Local 60 contract, in which the District and Union agree to a health care package containing only HMOs, saving the District significant healthcare costs, in exchange for a generous wage increase.

A bit of Sunshine on the Madison School District's Budget Process: 2006/2007 Madison School District Budget & $6M "Structural Deficit" Discussions

video here

There's been a fascinating school board discussion over the past few weeks as the 2006/2007 $332M+ Madison schools budget is finalized.

(about 41 minutes into this 61 minute video clip) Lawrie Kobza:

"Why did our equity go down this past year since we, the board, passed a balanced budget in 2005/2006? Why did it go down by $2.8M (about a 1% variance in last year's $319M+ budget)?

Answer: "Negative expenditure of $6M in salaries (tuition income was down, special ed high incidence aid was down) $5.9M "structural deficit in place"."

Art Rainwater:

"The way we have attempted to deal with maintaining the quality of education as long as we could was to budget very, very aggressively, realizing that we had an out of fund balance ($5.9M in 2006/2007). We made the decision 7 years ago or so to budget aggressively and try to manage to that budget believing that we would use less fund equity over time than if we set aside a set amount. So that's been our approach. That fund equity has now come down to the point that we believe we can't do that any more and we will not bring you a balanced budget that is aggressive particularly where it gets into aggressive on the revenue side in how much efficiency we believe we can budget. So, what the effect of that is to increase the amount you have to pay.

Lawrie Kobza:

We budgeted under this CFO/COO account, we budgeted that we were going to find $6.1M somewhere without saying where, and we didn't. We found all but 2.7M of that. In this year's budget, we have the same type of thing. We have budgeted that we're going to find $5.9M somewhere. So, while we can look at all of our budget items, oh, we're doing great we're right on budget for salaries, transportation, for whatever. We can't just meet our budget, we have to do $5.9M better than our budget. We're going to take this up in the Finance committee to see if there is a different way we can present some of this, to be able to track it.

Roger Price mentioned that this was not a new item, but was in place when he arrived in the mid 1990's.

Ruth Robarts asked about a February 2006 consultant's forecast of the District's equity versus Roger Price's Numbers (52 minutes). Ruth also asked about the financial implications of the District's retirement buyout commitments through 2009. "I've been on the Board a long time and did not see in the documents I've seen that kind of structural deficit".

Watch the video here or listen to the mp3 audio.

Bottom Line: Thanks to Lawrie Kobza's digging, the public knows about the Madison School District's $6M "structural deficit". This also means that next year's balanced budget will require significantly greater reductions in spending increases, or "cost to continue approach" than we've seen in the past. It would also be interesting to see how our District's "equity" or cash reserves have declined over the years.

The good news regarding the budget's "Fuzzy Math, or the balanced budget that isn't" (there must be some)? The discussion happened publicly, on MMSDTV, and the community is now aware of looming larger budget changes than we've seen in the past. Unfortunately, I've seen no mention of this in the traditional media.

Run for school board!

Performance and Achievement of August 21, 2006

The Performance and Achievement Committee meeting of August 21, 2006 has been posted to the at Performance and Achievement sub-blog.

The agenda of the meeting was to cover which topics would be the focus of this academic year's meetings, and received a report on ESL from the ESL Coordinator Amy Christianson.

Should Schools Be Included in Taxpayer Amendment

Mike Ellis:

Unfortunately, it appears the controls proposed for school districts under the constitutional amendment could undo all that. Just as troubling, it also appears the amendment could seriously disequalize taxes and spending across school districts in Wisconsin – something that itself would appear to violate an existing constitutional mandate that requires school districts to be “as nearly uniform as practical.”

When the proposed amendment was introduced last month, I asked the Legislative Fiscal Bureau to analyze its effect on school levies compared to the statutory revenue controls in current law. Because the proposed constitutional limits would not be in effect until the 2009-10 fiscal year, the bureau analysis estimated the effect of the amendment if it had been in effect for the current school year rather than the current statutory controls.

According to the Fiscal Bureau analysis, “In the absence of the statutory revenue limits, the total allowable levy under the joint resolutions would have been $3.71 billion, which would have been an increase of $117.8 million compared to the actual 2005-06 levy.”
That begs the question, why would we amend the constitution to increase property taxes more than $100 million? How can that be labeled taxpayer protection?

Notes from Performance & Achievement Meeting on Ability Grouping

At this past week's meeting, Adam Gamoran from the UW Center for Educational Research spoke to the Board about ability grouping. Dr. Gamoran talked about how ability grouping often ends up grouping students by race and SES because these students enter school having had different early childhood experiences and different educational opportunities (recall Donna Ford discussing the number of books in the homes of low income and middle income families).

Dr. Gamoran noted that there are often differences in the classroom experiences of high and low ability groups of students in regards to teacher expectations, academic rigor, and teacher ability.

He also emphasized that there is no simple solution to the achievement gap. Heterogeneous or homogeneous grouping by themselves will not reduce the gap in achievement. However, there are some clear cut solutions that are obvious according to Dr. Gamoran.

1. No more dead end classes like general math for the low ability students;
   
2. high academic expectations for students of all ability levels; and
   
3. teachers should not be assigned in a way that results in only the newest and least experienced teachers working with the low ability students, in other words, all students deserve quality instruction.

In discussing heterogeneous grouping, Dr. Gamoran noted that differentiation is hard work for teachers, and they need a lot of support and training in order to be successful.

Dr. Gamoran also shared an example of a school where heterogeneous grouping was successful. This was a school that was 51% free and reduced lunch, but because the school had a strong, dynamic leader and had gotten grants, they were able to recruit a top notch staff. Not only was the principal able to select which teachers worked in the school, but approximately half of the student body had to go through an interview process to get into the school, so this magnet school was selective about its teachers and its students. Class size was kept to 15 students and instruction went at a fast pace. Students who were struggling were expected to attend tutoring sessions on Saturdays. I think there was an expectation that parents would be involved in their student's education, but I am not sure about that.

Obviously the situation in the Madison schools is different from this ideal, and that's why I think it is important for the Board and the administration to hear from students and parents what it is like in the classroom. I should add that Bill Keys was very annoyed that the Board was even discussing this issue because he believes that the Board has no place in the classroom. According to Mr. Keys this is the responsibility of the teachers and administrators and they know better than the members of the Board what should be done in the classroom. However, I would argue that the teachers and administrators don't know any better than the Board does about what happens in the classroom, and they certainly don't know what it is like for high ability students in those classes. Those of us who have sat around the kitchen table while our children talk about their boredom, frustration, and lack of challenge need to help them understand and make our voices heard.

East / West Task Force Report: Board Discussion and Public Comments

Video | MP3 Audio

Monday evening's Board meeting presented a rather animated clash of wills between, it appears, those (A majority of the Board, based on the meeting discussions) who support Fitchburg's Swan Creek residents and their desire to remain at a larger Leopold School vs. those who favor using existing District schools that have extra space for the 63 Fitchburg children (no other students would move under the plan discussed Monday evening), such as Lincoln and/or the Lincoln/Midvale pair.

Lawrie Kobza and Ruth Robarts suggested that the District's overcrowding priorities are: the Memorial area first (District forecasts that area at 111% of capacity by 2011 [3:08 minutes into the video]), LaFollette second (106% in 2011 [3:10], which was not addressed by the Task Forces) and 3rd, the West attendance area (West currently under capacity, according to the District, will be at 98% capacity in 2011). They further suggested that any building decision should be part of a district wide 5 year plan. Johnny Winston argued that the Board should "give the people what they want [28:42] and that the District should look for alternative financing options, such as naming rights [22:00]. The Board made a commitment to the community when it acquired land from Oregon. You will be attending Leopold School." Mary Gulbrandsen discussed bus routes and forecasting.

Video | MP3 Audio

This video clip includes the public comments.

The MMSD has had opportunities over the years to construct a facility in Fitchburg. The District turned down an offer of free land from Promega during the mid-1990's. Eagle School occupies that land today.

Local media roundup:

• Susan Troller: School Board Split on Referendum
• Paul Soglin notes recent discussion on further school district consolidation (Milwaukee & Suburbs) and mentions that Madison did this

  within its school district by pairing Franklin-Randall and Lincoln-Midvale. There was success, it could have been greater.

  There are certainly no shortage of views on the pairing results, recently expressed within the West Side Task Force.

Facilities are always a tough issue. A reader emailed that Thoreau, for example, does not have a lunch room. Students march in and out of the gym.

Well worth watching, particularly when these questions are sent to the voters via a referendum.

As a parent, taxpayer and citizen, I very much appreciate the questions Lawrie Kobza raised Monday evening (I strongly supported her candidacy last spring). The District's fiscal challenges are not small: flat enrollment, revenue caps which limit growth in the district's $321M budget to 2.5% annually - as long as enrollment is flat, high property taxes and two recent failed referenda. In my view, the District must exhaust all options, thoroughly, before asking for more money. I was glad to see Johnny suggest that other means be pursued to fund these facilities. Finally, Fitchburg's public school climate is a challenge to read. Our neighbor to the south voted down the Leopold expansion referenda last spring. Linking Leopold expansion to a new far west school - built on land which was purchased last fall before the west task force began its work - (part of the Memorial attendance area) is an interesting approach to the question (and, perhaps the April School Board elections).

Another update: another reader emails that four members of the west side task force represented Leopold's interests vis a vis currently or recently enrolled children.

MMSD TV Internet Video and Podcasts

Marcia and Gray at MMSD TV have been rather busy lately, posting interviews and a BOE meeting online and distributing some of them via podcasts and vidcasts. Links and feeds are available here. I hope we see all BOE meetings available in this manner soon. Great job.

06 - 07 Budget Positioning: HR and Business Services Presentation to the Madison School Board

The Madison School Board heard presentations this past Monday from The District's HR Director, Bob Nadler and Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Roger Price. Both described the functions that their organizations provide to the District.

Bob Nadler's Presentation: Video	Roger Price's Presentation: Video

The District's Budget increases annually ($329M this year for 24,490 students). The arguments begin over how that increase is spent. Ideally, the District's curriculum strategy should drive the budget. Second, perhaps it would be useful to apply the same % increase to all budgets, leading to a balanced budget, within the revenue caps. Savings can be directed so that the Board can apply their strategy to the budget by elminating, reducing or growing programs. In all cases, the children should come first. It is possible to operate this way, as Loehrke notes below.
Learn more about the budget, including extensive historical data.
Steve Loehrke, President of the Weywauga-Fremont School District speaks to budget, governance and leadership issues in these two articles:

• Is it Possible to Have a Good School District with Less Money?
• How to Reform Your Local School Board.

September 20, 2004 MMSD Board of Education Meeting Audio/Video Clips

Barb Schrank collected video & audio clips from last nights Madison School District Board of Education Meeting:

• Don Hunt: Retired West High School Art Teacher Fine Arts Statement [MP3 1.4MB] [Quicktime Video] [Transcripts: html | PDF]
  
  
• Barb Schrank Fine Arts Presentation [MP3 1.6MB] [Quicktime Video] [Transcripts: html | PDF]
  
  
• Mariel Wozniak Fine Arts Presentation [MP3 1.9MB] [Quicktime Video] [Transcripts: html | PDF]
  
  
• Juan Lopez lecture to Ruth Robarts [MP3 2.7MB] [Quicktime Video] [Transcripts: html | PDF]
  
  
• Athletic Fees Presentation [MP3] [Quicktime Video] [Transcripts: html | PDF]

Lee Sensenbrenner summarized the meeting as well.