School Information System

Shook on School Funding

Dennis Shook:

Way back in the corners of our collective political consciousness I am beginning to sense that there is an answer beginning to form. It probably involves consolidating many school districts and putting in place some kind of insurance program that keeps employee costs under control on the expenditure side.

On the revenue side, it also seems we are all starting to become more aware that not every sector in our economy is pulling its weight. Most every comparative study of tax burden during the past few decades has seen a dramatic shift of the burden onto the individual property taxpayer and away from the business sector. There are also a lot of taxable entities that are not being taxed at all, like nonprofits and even fraternal and religious organizations.

National Survey on K-12 Salaries Released

A national survey of K-12 salaries appears in a recent issue of Education Week.. Among other things, the Educational Research Service that conducted the survey found that the gap between salaries of teachers and those of education professionals in higher paid positions--principals and superintendents--has steadily widened over the past decade.

Local point of interest---the salary paid to Madison Superintendent Art Rainwater in 2003-04( $153,150) exceeded the average for superintendents in the Great lakes states ($114, 026) and the average for superintendents nationally with the same years in office ($109,254) for 2004-05.

ERS Releases Nationally Representative K-12 Salary Data
Pay Varies by Size of District, Region, Amount of Per-Pupil Spending, Survey Finds
By Jennifer Park

The Educational Research Service has collected nationally representative data on the salaries and wages of 23 professional and 10 support positions in precollegiate education for the current school year.

The Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit organization has been collecting salary data for more than 30 years through its annual survey, but it just started to weight the data to represent national figures this year.

The data for 2004-05 show significant variations in pay across districts of different sizes, locations, and amounts of per-pupil spending. The survey provides interesting findings on superintendents’ salaries based on race, gender, and the number of years they have been in their current positions.

A clear relationship between the size of a school district and the salaries its employees earn emerges from the data, but that link holds only for higher-paid jobs, such as superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent, principal, and district-level director.

Salaries for superintendents who are leading districts with 25,000 or more students are about 80 percent higher than those for superintendents in districts with fewer than 2,500 students. High school principals in the largest districts make 23 percent more than their peers in smaller districts.

But no such relationship appears for lower-paying positions, such as assistant principal, teacher, counselor, librarian, or nurse. In fact, the average teacher or assistant principal in a district with an enrollment of between 2,500 and 25,000 students is actually paid more than those in districts with 25,000 or more students, according to the ERS data.

The geographic location of a school district also plays a role in pay variations across the field. Salaries are far higher in the Mideast and Far West than in the Plains and Southwest, the survey shows. In addition, education personnel working in rural communities are paid much less than their counterparts in urban and suburban school districts.

For example, teachers in rural districts are paid 27 percent less than their suburban counterparts, and 20 percent less than those in large urban districts.

Data provided by ERS on superintendents’ salaries also shines a light on pay differences based on the background of school district leaders. Superintendents get a large boost in pay when they stay in the same district for more than seven years, the data suggest.

Race, Gender Differences

Also, male superintendents make almost $3,000 more per year than their female counterparts. Minority female superintendents earn the most of all superintendents, however, making almost $20,000 more a year than their white female counterparts, and almost $15,000 more than both white and minority male superintendents.

Since ERS has weighted its data only for the 2004-05 school year, unweighted data must be used to analyze trends over time. According to the districts surveyed, salaries of superintendents, high school principals, and teachers fell this school year when adjusted for inflation.

Superintendents’ pay dropped just a fraction of a percent, but high school principals and teachers each saw about a 2 percent drop in real dollars.

Teachers are also getting the short end of the stick when it comes to salary increases over the past decade. Between the 1994-95 and 2004-05 school years, teachers’ salaries have dropped 3.4 percent when adjusted for inflation, while high school principals and superintendents have seen gains over that period of 2.4 percent and 12 percent, respectively, according to the research service.

ERS researchers speculate that some of the decline in teacher salaries is a result of new teachers entering the teaching force and retirements from the high end.

Also, the gap between the salaries of teachers and those of education professionals in higher-paid positions—principals and superintendents—has steadily widened over the past decade. ("Schools Chiefs Lead the Way in Pay Trends," June 23, 2004.)

Vol. 24, Issue 31, Page 14
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/04/13/31ers.h24.html?querystring=ERS%20releases&print=1

Madison Cares Thoreau PTO Presentation

Madison School Board President Bill Keyes & Arlene Silveira Madison CARES presentation at the Thoreau PTO on Tuesday, April 12, 2005. Video (75MB). More on Madison CARES here.

Steve Stephenson: Broken school budget led to Kobza win

Dear Editor: As a parent of children at both Madison East High School and Sherman Middle School, I am thankful for the hard work and significant positive contributions that Lawrie Kobza and her husband, Peter, have made to both of these schools.

Perhaps those apprehensive at the election of Lawrie Kobza to the Madison School Board are concerned that it won't be business as usual. Quite frankly, this is exactly why Lawrie now sits on the board. The easiest thing for a school board to do when facing a budget problem is to float a referendum to ask the voters for more money. This is similar to giving a drug addict a fix. It is only temporary and the real issues will still be waiting for you when the fix wears off.

The old saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In this case, it is appropriate to say "if it is broke, fix it." As a taxpayer, I am willing to invest in the quality of our schools if I am confident that those on the board, in partnership with our teachers, are working hard to come up with solutions. I don't believe that this has been the case as of late, which is why I was pleased to cast my vote for Lawrie Kobza.

I applaud The Capital Times for supporting Lawrie Kobza. It's not about conservative or liberal, it's about doing the right things for our children.

Steve Stephenson
Madison

SB171 Hearing on School Referenda Timing

Click on this graph for a larger version

Following is a link to 2005 Senate Bill 171 relating to the scheduling of referenda to approve school district borrowing or exceed a school district's revenue limit. A hearing is scheduled for the bill on Wednesday, April 20, 9:00 a.m., Room 400 SE, before the Committee on Labor and Election Process Reform of the Senate, Tom Reynolds, Chair. (74K PDF). Send your views on this to Senate President Alan Lasee 200K PDF ACE Whitepapers: 1. Community Services Fund (Fund 80) [64K PDF] 2. Fund 80 Media Presentation [180K PDF] Kanavas requests audit of Waukesha School District's Community Service Funds.

Senator Kanavas Requests Audit of Waukesha School District

Senator Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) has asked the Legislative Audit Bureau to audit the Waukesha School District's use of "community service funds" (called "Fund 80" by Madison Metropolitan School District) to finance high school pool project.

The following article from the April 15 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel includes a larger discussion about how funds are being used in other Milwaukee-area communities and whether those uses conform to state law.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
April 15, 2005

Senator requests audit of Waukesha schools
He questions use of funds related to pool project
By AMY HETZNER
ahetzner@journalsentinel.com
Posted: April 14, 2005

One of the fastest growing, and perhaps least regulated, of school district expenditures could get increased scrutiny because of questions over the financing of a Waukesha high school pool expansion.

State Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) has asked the state Legislative Audit Bureau to audit the Waukesha School District's use of April 2001 referendum funds, particularly as they relate to the pool.

An audit is far from certain because the bureau usually confines its work to state operations, Kanavas concedes. But Chris Kliesmet, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsible Government, said he hopes the situation will prompt the state's attorney general and lawmakers to take a stronger hand in enforcing a law that allows school districts to raise tax levies to pay for "community services" outside of the revenue caps that restrict their operating funds.

"They went and, we feel, violated if not the letter of the law, the spirit of the law," Kliesmet said of Waukesha school officials' use of the district's community service levy to pay for the pool project. "I guess that's for a court to decide."

Waukesha School Board members say they have done nothing wrong and have even consulted with an attorney and the state Department of Public Instruction for verification.

"We wouldn't have done what we did if we felt there were any issues," School Board member Daniel Warren said. "From day one, we felt it was and still feel it is an appropriate use of those funds."

Service levies up 170%

Taxes levied statewide for schools' community service funds have exploded 170%, to $45.9 million this school year, since 2000-'01 when the state first removed them from the restrictions of revenue caps, Department of Public Instruction records show. That compares with a 23% increase in the total amount levied by school districts over the same five-year period.

The community service money has paid for everything from clerical and custodial salaries related to community use of school facilities to playgrounds and anti-drug programming. And, while the Department of Public Instruction offers some guidance, districts have been largely on their own in determining what might qualify for community service funds.

But in Waukesha, a group of taxpayers is challenging their district's use of community service funds - $800,000 this school year - to help pay for an enlarged competition pool at South High School.

Voters had approved spending about $1 million in a 2001 referendum to repair the pool. That amount, as well as the pool, expanded after the Waukesha Express Swim Team offered to contribute toward a larger pool.

Critics of the pool project contend that state law allows community service money to go only toward programming, not toward buildings.

And they also contest whether the district's use of the funds is really for a community service, given that a contract to help secure more funding for the pool gives special access to the swim team.

"I had probably a dozen, roughly a dozen, constituents who asked, 'Is this kosher, the way that they're spending the money?' " Kanavas said. "I said, 'I think it is. But I'm not sure, so we can check.' "
Use of funds defended

Waukesha school officials, like those elsewhere, defend their use of community service funds.

Some school districts run the recreation departments for their communities.

In some of those cases, school officials say, the rapid growth in their community service funds just represents a recent move to account for such costs in their proper place, something that has grown in importance with the restrictions revenue caps put on their everyday budgets.

David Ewald, superintendent of the South Milwaukee School District, said he can see where there would be a "real temptation" to increase community service funds "because we're all so tight with money that we have to use whatever resources we could use."

But he said, at least in his district, that is not why the community service levy increased more than $200,000 last year, to nearly a half-million dollars. The new cash infusion is going to pay personnel and new equipment costs related to the addition of a performing arts center and fitness center at the high school, he said.

"Even though there's a commitment to having them self-funded after two years, there are start-up costs involved in those," Ewald said.

At the Hartland-Lakeside School District in Waukesha County, its $230,000 community service fund went toward adding playground equipment at Hartland North Elementary School as well as helping to expand adult education classes available to the community, according to district Business Manager Peter Balzer. The district hired a part-time community education director whose salary is paid out of the fund, he said.

Such programming would not be available if the district could not raise funds through its community service levy, Balzer said.

"We would not provide programs to those beyond Hartland-Lakeside . . . if we had to cut programs for our students," he said.

Neenah schools add staff to special ed, gifted-talented program

The following story from the April 13, Appleton Post-Crescent reports on a school district in Wisconsin that is actually adding staff to both gifted and special education.

News-Record staff writer

NEENAH — The equivalent of four teachers will be added to the Neenah Joint School District next year to enhance its special education, and gifted and talented programs.

Last week, the Board of Education set the staffing level at 480.5 teaching positions for 2005-06, compared with 476.5 this year.

The changes will cost taxpayers an additional $244,000 next year.

Two additional teachers and one additional paraprofessional will be hired for special education.

The number of special education students in Neenah has increased by 5 percent to 948 during the last 15 months because of more cases of autism and speech and language disabilities, according to Anne Lang, director of special education.

That means one in every seven students in Neenah receives special education services.

The staffing plan also authorizes 1.5 additional positions for the district’s gifted and talented program.

One teacher will be hired for a new magnet class for highly intellectual students at Shattuck Middle School. It will be an extension of the magnet class begun this year at the elementary level.

Neenah parent James Godlewski said his fifth-grade son has blossomed in the magnet class. He asked that the program be continued in middle school.

“Promoting the excellence of our talented students, whether it be in athletics, in music or academically, is a very important aspect of what makes the Neenah Joint School District an important and special place,” Godlewski said.

A half-time gifted and talented position will be added at the elementary schools, reversing a cut made last year.Neenah High School will get 2.5 additional teaching positions next year, including one for the recently approved alternative high school for at-risk students that will be housed at the Boys’ and Girls’ Brigade.

Administrators initially had sought 3.5 additional positions as a result of an accounting error.

The increase in staff at the high school will be offset by three fewer positions at the elementary schools. Administrators projected a 4 percent decline in elementary enrollment next year.

Duke Behnke can be reached at 920-729-6622, ext. 32, or by e-mail at dbehnke at newsrecord.net.

Ridgewood Apartment Changes

Cliff Miller on recent management changes and the redevelopment plans at Fitchburg's Ridgewood Apartments. This complex is very close to Madison's Leopold School. Any changes at Ridgewood may affect Leopold along with the planned expansion.

A Quid Pro Quo for Passing the Referenda

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.

QEO - What State Statute Says

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.

Comment for MMSD Employee on '05-'06 Budget

I appreciate the listing of alternative considerations but have questions and concerns about those being recommended:

• Seek a wage freeze from MTI members for a year

Correct me if I'm wrong. It's my understanding that 3.8% is a QEO requirement and it's been mentioned that MTI works considerably well with the MMSD adminstration. Other Wisconsin districts have extended higher increases ranging from 4.2-4.6%. I would hate to lose our great teachers to other locations in the state if we don't at least maintain a minimal increase. Arbitration is a scary thought as well.

• The Board should cut your losses and cancel expensive and inaccurate systems like Kronos and Lawson;

I'd like to know if it is the system that is poor; or that because it is new, staff are having a hard time learning something new.

• Freeze hiring of administrative staff. Other staff have been required to do more - with less.

To play devils advocate; the parent and community specialist may actually increase and maintain better relationships within the Madison community. Parents and citizen involvement is essential and we all know; after the referenda go away, the interest will unfortunately diminish...I'd like to see more interaction with the board, administration and community and if it takes someone to organize and maintain it; I'll support it.

• Cancel all out of state conference attendance for administration and teaching staff.

So are we decreasing teachers ability to learn, bring in fresh ideas and put on blinders by learning only within our state/district boundaries?

QEO: Good or Bad?

Ken Cole:

The perennial argument that the QEO has somehow “capped” teacher salaries just doesn’t square with the numbers because most districts voluntarily settle above the 3.8 percent total package, which includes both salary and benefits. The Wisconsin Association of School Boards database shows that total-package increases averaged about 4.5 percent in 2003-04 and 4.3 percent in 2004-05.

Prior to the law change, arbitrators intervened in stalled negotiations and brought the sides together by analyzing such data as a local school district’s ability to pay, national and regional market forces, and comparable wages and benefits in the geographic area. Arbitration was the single most important factor accounting for the period of labor peace from the late 1970s to early 1990s.

The 65% Solution?

George Will, writing from Phoenix:

The idea, which will face its first referendum in Arizona, is to require that 65 percent of every school district's education operational budget be spent on classroom instruction. On, that is, teachers and pupils, not bureaucracy.

Nationally, 61.5 percent of education operational budgets reach the classrooms. Why make a fuss about 3.5 percent? Because it amounts to $13 billion. Only four states (Utah, Tennessee, New York, Maine) spend at least 65 percent of their budgets in classrooms. Fifteen states spend less than 60 percent. The worst jurisdiction -- Washington, D.C., of course -- spends less than 50 percent.

Connecticut's A.G. to sue Federal Government

Air America's Al Franken interviewed Richard Blumental, Connecticut's Attorney General, Friday because he is fiing a law suit against the federal government. His complaint on behalf of the state of Connecticut is the federal government is illegally and unconstitutionally requiring states and communities to spend millions of dollars to administer federally mandated test. He claims it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate education to the local communities without financially backing the mandates. He is asking that other states join in............

The same could be true for Special Education mandates required by the state and federal government in Madison. Mr. Keyes repeats over and over that if the state and federal government met their promised support for S.E. we would eliminate our budget gap.
While attending a board meeting last year I asked why we could not sue the state and federal government over these mandates. While the board chuckled at the idea, I was serious. I hate frivolous law suits but sometimes publicity is worth the suit. Read more at AP.com or thealfrankenshow.com.

School Administrator Sharing

Amanda Kramer:

Lake Mills Superintendent Dean Sanders will speak to the Johnson Creek School Board at the end of April about the possibility of the districts sharing a superintendent, a business manager and possibly a pupil services director.

The move might not only save money, but it could also avoid cuts to staff and services, he said. Sanders said both districts face financial challenges.

"We all have to look at ways of making our districts run, short of cutting programs and hurting kids," Sanders said.

Madison C.A.R.E.S Presentation @ Thoreau PTO 4.12.2005

Mary Marcus forwarded this event notification: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 / 6:30 to 7:30p.m. @ Thoreau School PTO Meeting (Map & Driving Directions)

Guest Speakers Bill Keys and Arlene Silveria from Madison C.A.R.E.S. (Citizens Acting Responsibly for Every Student).

Madison CARES (Citizens Acting Responsibly for Every Student) is an organization of citizens who are concerned about the future of the public schools and have come together in support on the 3 referenda that will be on the ballot in the Madison Metropolitan School District on 5/24. At the meeting, we will provide you with information on the 3 referenda questions and how they may affect your school. We will also introduce you to our organization. There will be time for questions and answers.

WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau on State Funding for Local School Districts

Bob Lang, Director of the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau released an estimate of 2004/2005 State support for local school districts (44 Page PDF)

District's Virchow-Krause Report Less Than It Seems

The District's functional analysis report from Virchow-Krause (hereafter VK) has been touted as showing how well the District is being run. But, the report's results are less than they seem. On page three of the report, VK gives the assumptions for the report. Quoting from the report:

-------
As Superintendent Rainwater has noted, there are several key assumptions behind the functional
analysis. These assumptions are:

· Every single thing the District does is good for kids. Long ago the District eliminated all those
things that were peripheral.

· All District staff members - teachers, administrators, custodians and food service workers –
are good at what they do.

· The District has very talented people that work very hard and that work very smart.

· Site-based teachers and administrators currently have full time jobs – and they can't absorb
more work. Functions cannot move from the central office to people at the site because sitebased
staff members are working as hard and as efficiently as possible.

With these assumptions in mind, the results of the functional analysis are presented in this
report.
-------

Clearly, given the assumptions of the report, VK could not have found anything but that the District is doing everything just perfectly.

Had these assumptions not been in place, VK might have been able to inform the District, Board and public of solutions not currently in front of us.

What is disturbing, however, is that the Board doesn't truly read or understand the critical material before them, that the District can make those assumptions, probably with Board acquiesence, and then have the temerity to claim they are providing leadership, and doing all that they can do.

Madison Cares

Madison CARES:

is mobilizing neighbor-to-neighbor education, grassroots visibility, and volunteer energy. We're working from community to community, and neighborhood to neighborhood. We also will communicate through Madison-area media, the World Wide Web, and printed literature.

Referendum Coverage

Angela Bettis:

It’s official, Madison homeowners will be asked to vote on three school referenda in late May.

School Board President Bill Keys said, “This community is at a crossroads. This will determine what type of schools we want.”

But one man opposed to the referenda thinks Madison residents can keep good schools if the district is more creative.

State DPI and Number of Employees

I have lived and followed education in 3 states. Alaska, Texas, and Wisconsin. The DPI is a first. After 4 years I have tried to understand this governmental body. There is a Leader, Ms. Burmaster and based totally on the web site anywhere from 441 to 600 employees in this agency. When I have asked what all these employees do for the education of the state no one seems to know. The many teachers I asked stated their only interaction with the DPI is to renew their license. This seems like a logical function of a state but does it take 400- 600 people? When I view the directory on the DPI web site I am amazed all these people work for the education department yet none of the people I know that work at SCHOOLS actually benefit from all these state salaried persons. Can anyone educate me on the department, I mean really what they do, before I am once again asked to vote for a leader of a governmental body I fail to understand?

In Response to Richard Chandler

I have the highest respect for Rick Chandler. He earned it as head of the state's "budget shop" in the Department of Administration a few years ago.

I must, however, take issue with his defense of business taxes in Wisconsin.

The argumet over whether Wisconsin businesses carry their fair share of the tax burden gets admitedly muddied by the imprecise language of speakers like MMSD Superintendent Art Rainwater (Wisconsin State Journal) when he talked about "taxes" without specifying which taxes.

Confusion on the part of business tax critics is no reason for Rick to mistate the argument as one about whether businesses pay their fair share of property taxes.

That's not the argument. The true issue is whether businesses pay their fair share of the state taxes necessary to provide an adequate level of state aid for school districts.

They don't. The record is clear, according to the business community's own Forward Wisconsin. If you visit the Web site of this shameless corporate cheerleader, you'll read more than one item that contradicts Chandler. For example:

Wisconsin business taxes are lower than those in 35 other states. That's the conclusion of a new study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that measures more than 15 taxes that can affect corporate profits.

Wisconsin ranks fourth lowest in the nation in business taxes as a percent of all state and local taxes. The state's business-friendly attitude is reflected in positive business tax changes that have been made in every biennial legislative session since the early 1970s.

If the current "business-friendly attitude" continues in the state legisalture, we'll soon see the decline -- not only of school spending -- but in student achievement.

Ed Blume

Chandler on Business/Residential Property Taxes

Madison Resident Richard Chandler:

There seems to be an orchestrated effort under way to blame high residential property taxes on businesses. This assertion has been made recently by some legislators, a school administrator and local officials who are opposed to a property tax freeze, spending limits, and other efforts to reduce Wisconsin's tax burden by restraining spending.

The argument goes something like this: Over the past 30 years, the share of total property taxes paid by homeowners has risen while the share paid by businesses has dropped. The claim is that this shift is the result of tax exemptions for businesses. While it may serve some political purpose to make this claim, it's not true.

Simply put, the changes in the percentages of property taxes paid by different categories of property over the past three decades are primarily the result of changes in the economy, not tax breaks. During this period, residential property values have increased rapidly in Wisconsin -- and with it the amount of property taxes they pay. What's usually not mentioned is that the share of property taxes paid by commercial property has climbed along with the residential share as we've moved to a more service-oriented economy.

Referendum means it's time for finger pointing

I received this message from Brian Grau, a teacher from LaFollette who recently visited his hometown of Racine, who like Madison is going to referendum. Enjoy!

The Journal Times, Racine, WI, 3/24/05
Referendum means it's time for finger pointing
By Jeff Ruggaber

Hey Racine! It's that time again. Time to complain about money spent on schools! Who's to blame? Let the finger pointing begin! Hey, there's a group of teachers. Let's blame them. They are just over paid baby sitters! I wish. I figure if I got paid $5.00 for each kid (25 per class), for 6 hours a day, for 180 days. I would make $135,000 a year! Let's give those with a master's $7.00 and hour per kid. That's $189,000. Reality $39,000. Between my wife and I, last year we paid close to $7,000 just to keep our jobs (property taxes, classes to renew licenses, fee for licenses, and out of pocket expenses to supplement our classroom's). I love paying close to $1000 of my own salary in property taxes. Healthcare. The district offered us the plan. Would you have turned it down? Should we pay more? Remember that teachers did trade salary for benefits.

Let's point fingers at the school district. All they have done is cut spending year after year. Costs go up, spending goes down. You do the math!

Attention Racine: we have schools that were built during the Abraham Lincoln administration! Can you accurately guess from year to year how much it costs to keep these buildings running, when the ghosts of the 1800s still run through the halls! More cuts need to be made even if this does not pass. This district does not have the money to give you what this city deserves. Kids learning in run down, overcrowded buildings is a very real thing.

Next, let's point fingers at the taxpayers. Those same people who spend $1 to $2 for a bottle of water. Those people who spend a dollar a day at the soda machine at work! Those people who don't think twice at paying $4-$5 for one beer at Harbor Fest, Summerfest, Lambeau Field and the rest. Those people who are still driving their SUVs, pick-up trucks, Cadillac's, and other gas guzzling cars. Those same people who pay $40-$50 a month so they can make sure their 12-year-old has a cell phone, $50 cable bills, $200 utility bills, $40 video games to baby-sit your kids, 20 cent increase for a gallon of gas this past week, the list goes on! Complain about those. Oh yeah, those things don't go to a referendum, Why is it that when schools need more money, everyone complains? One person wants a user fee. The more kids you have, the more you pay. So I should pay more for the fire department if they put out my fire and I have 10 kids? Same concept! I've never used the fire department yet, can I get a refund? One lady offered the keys to her house. You got it! That will save three teachers jobs. Thanks! For those who think you don't benefit from Unified because you have no more kids there, well then I think we need to make Unified and Non-Unified lines at every place of business. So when you go to the store, doctor, or gas station you can only go to the line where your tax money is spent.

Now the Racine Taxpayers Association gives the referendum a thumbs down. They say not enough cuts have been made. Have you been to our schools? Have you seen the plaster falling on kid's heads? Have you seen the paint chipped so bad the wood is rotting underneath? Have you felt the below zero wind blow through the cracks in the 100 year old windows? Have you tried to teach in a classroom where the temperature varies from near 90 degrees to 60 degrees all in one day? Oh, that's right, you think teachers should pay more for their insurance. Well if we do, then I want a raise back on my salary that I gave up for the past 10 years. The bottom line is that we have a serious problem.

So either fight for a better educational system and support it, or get out of our way. The future is now!

Without support, you can't imagine how bad things are going to get.

Jeff Ruggaber is an art teacher at Red Apple School.

119M in Referendums - Lee Sensenbrenner

Lee Sensenbrenner on the 119M in planned May 24 referendums:

If the voters approve a referendum May 24 to prevent classroom and extracurricular cuts for three years, along with two other referendums to ensure adequate maintenance for five years and to expand Leopold Elementary School on the south side, the five-year property tax impact of the three referendums could amount to more than $119 million.

An alternate plan the board is considering, which would keep the maintenance and school construction but guarantee against educational cuts for just two years, would collect about $66 million in additional property taxes over the next five years.

All of this is done in the context of a school budget that totals $317 million for this year.

Madison School District Issues RFP for Auditing Services

The RFP is available for inspection on-line here (PDF):

PROPOSAL NUMBER: 3060
ISSUE DATE: 02/21/05
DUE DATE: 03/31/05 2:00 PM Local Time

PLEASE NOTE: The deadline for requested modifications to the RFP WAS March 8, 2005. A vendor conference WAS held "on March 14, 2005 at 9:00AM in room 209 at 545 West Dayton Street, Madison, to respond to written questions..."

Budget Hides Extras - Public Only Shown Cuts Not Budget: Current School Board Not Governing Budget Priorities

Mr. Rainwater says, "We are long past the time that we can solve our revenue cap problems by being more efficient or eliminating things that are nice but not necessary (March 2005 Budget Discussion Items Report - basically, budget cut document). Without the budget, this is a scary statement. Sadly, a budget would show this statement to be a scare tactic.

What's scary to me is that we may indeed need a referendum, but the current board's weak governance, lack of public discussion and review, alienation of many public groups won't be able to make the case, because educating the entire child and excellent instruction for all are not driving the board's priorities. That scares me.

The data will tell another story when the budget is released in May 2005 - extras are still in the budget and targeting academic programs goes unchecked. Money is being spent on administrators ($1.5 million increase in two years) and extracurricular high school sports ($2 million) while elementary children's fine arts curriculum is hammered - elementary strings (teaching 1,800 children) is eliminated and elementary fine arts cuts total $750,000.

Millions will be spent on a reading intervention that only serves first grade and an evaluation last fall showed Reading Recovery to be no better than other strategies (such as strategies using more phonics), and simple statements are given to the public without a board meeting or board discussion about why the Superintendent turned away $10 million (over 4 years) in Reading First money.

Cherokee School Board Candidate Forum Video/Audio

Several westside PTO's hosted a candidate forum Wednesday evening. The candidates discussed a wide variety of questions, including referendums, the budget process, strings, local education media coverage and differences with their opponents. Listen to the entire event (34.6MB mp3 audio file), or click on the links below to review specific questions & answers.

Madison Teachers Present Contract Proposal

Lee Sensenbrenner:

In a departure from their usual procedure, the two sides are first considering all the changes in contract language put forward by Madison Teachers Inc.

This proposal, covering such changes as whether teachers would gain free access to after-school events and intellectual property rights to the curriculums they design for the classroom, was presented Wednesday afternoon to Superintendent Art Rainwater and his staff.

Read My Blog: Year Old But Still Good Thoughts On The Budget

I started attending meetings several years ago and, initially, was naive enough to take Carol Carstensen at her word when she said "if you don't like our cuts, you need to tell us where to cut." Board members then claim that they "have no choice" and that critics "only criticize but don't offer solutions." This is one disingenuous ploy, since it invites people to participate but leaves the door open for the board's typical response: we know more than you do and we don't like your ideas. This is not listening.

I was looking through some old records the other day, and found the following message that I sent to the board over a year ago:

March 25, 2004

TO: Members of the Madison School Board
FROM: Lucy Mathiak, 716 Orton Court, parent of two sons at East High School

Re. Some modest recommendations regarding the budget

Although I agree that unfunded mandates and state revenue caps have helped to create a bleak budget situation, it is clear that complaining about external factors that contribute to the problem will not erase the fact that the district faces a serious shortfall. It is time to get on with the serious task of evaluating what district spending is essential to the district’s basic educational mission and priorities. I also urge you to initiate the processes that are demanded of other public institutions: serious assessment and review to determine which district programs are working (including external review and meaningful parent input), which programs are peripheral and cannot be afforded at this time, and which programs are no longer essential and/or are dysfunctional and should be ended. To do less is an insult to the thousands of Madison area employees who have been engaged in just such exercises as a result of state budget cuts and downturns in the private economic sector.

I’ve had an opportunity to read and consider many of the budget documents that are available on-line. I also find that the documentation that is available thus far raises more questions than it answers. Since the publicly available information is presented out of context, with no larger picture of what remains in the budget or the number of FTEs after the cuts compared to one or two years ago, I am forced to take the recommendations at face value and consider what the respective actions will or will not do to resolve the budgetary shortfall.

I am particularly disturbed about the dollar amounts that school administration proposes to cut from General Administration $514,204 of which c. $150,000 is student leadership or minority service coordinator funds and thus cuts to students. Similarly, I am unimpressed with the proposal for Business Services, which cuts $2,434,195 of which more than $1 million is in custodial and trade positions and maintenance workers; $891,000 of the balance is from building maintenance and improvement rather than administrative staff. In short, this set of proposals appears to protect high level administrators at the expense of students and workers who are among the lowest paid and least powerful.

In the past, Carol Carstensen has admonished us to tell the board where to cut if we don’t like the choices that we’ve been presented. I do have some ideas, some of which involve cuts that should be reconsidered and others concerning missed opportunities to bring in revenue. I strongly agree with the comments presented by the Madison East Booster Club, so will turn my attention to simpler suggestions rather than repeating what they already have said.

1. Eliminate the practice of having district employees deliver documents to the private homes of board members. Surely these human resources could be put to better use in one of the areas that is currently slated to be cut. Ending this practice also would save on district printing and duplicating costs and would bring central administration and the school board into line with what other public and private agencies are doing to reduce costs. There are many ways that this could be done, including development of a passworded intranet, use of word processing and/or PDF e-mail attachments, etc. All of which would result in cost savings at the administrative levels.

2. Eliminate and/or reduce the number of curriculum specialists and other coordinators at the district level and put the emphasis back on site-based service. A large number of families would agree that TAG programming at the K-8 level has suffered since site-based TAG teachers were replaced with multi-school resource teachers and a district coordinator. At a minimum, eliminating the district coordinator position would eliminate what appears to function primarily as a bureaucratic hurdle rather than a true service to schools or teachers.

Similarly, having eight math specialists working in district administration with little or no classroom responsibility seems like an incredible luxury when the district is talking about increasing student to teacher ratios. It also is an insult to the many terrific math teachers who are in the schools and are perfectly capable of engaging, inspiring, and teaching our children without the benefit of the theoretical musings of the resource staff.

3. Bring parking fees behind the Doyle Building into alignment with fees charged for comparable convenience and access downtown and on the university campus (see attached). IF the district is charging fees to park next to the Doyle Building, and it doesn’t appear that that is the case, those fees need to be revisited. If the district were to create a parking permit fee structure that takes into account the convenience of parking next to one’s workplace, annual permits would be sold for $990 at the 2003-2004 rate. With c. 80 parking stalls available to MMSD in that lot, there is a potential to generate around $80,000 per year in revenue from this source. A policy to charge additional fees for reserved personal parking stalls, would further add to the revenue stream.

NOTE: UW-Madison’s relatively low rate for Lot 91 is related to its distance from employee work sites. Lots used primarily by administrators and located adjacent to campus buildings are at the top of the fee structure ($990/year in 2003-2004).

Leopold Expansion: Ridgewood Gets New Management

Alliance Residential Management is reportedly now in charge of managing Fitchburg's Ridgewood Apartments. Visit Alliance's searchable apartment database here to check out the type of properties and prices they offer.

Mary Battaglia recently mentioned Fitchburg's possible condemnation of the Ridgewood Apartments.

It seems change is in the wind at Ridgewood, with implications for the planned Leopold expansion (Learn more about the Leopold Referendum) Leopold is 0.20 miles from the Ridgewood Apartments (map).

We need a new School Board

Carol Carstensen’s recent letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal (“Carstensen replies to Robarts”) illustrates the choices before the public in this spring’s school board elections. Many of these choices revolve around the core question of whether one can support progressive ideals and challenge the board’s go along and get along status quo.

I believe that it is not only possible but necessary for progressives to question the status quo – particularly if it results in serious board consideration of balance between employee wages and benefits as part of a comprehensive search for ways to preserve our current staff levels and programs in view of current funding realities.

In her letter, Carol Carstensen erroneously reduces my suggestions to one simplistic idea and then condemns the idea as anti-teacher and ill-informed. Perhaps it is easier to attack a straw-person concept, but it doesn’t move the community or the board closer to the honest problem-solving that is required at a time when we need all of the input and ideas that we can get.

To set the record straight, I did not recommend cutting teachers’ wages and benefits. I did recommend looking for ways to keep their increases in line with the community’s ability to pay as part of a larger plan. I did not propose to hold teacher wages and benefits to any particular percentage or to roll back employee wages. I have not suggested that any or all of my ideas would eliminate the total budget gap for next year; I do believe that this is not a zero sum game and that any reduction in the gap is a step in the right direction, an idea that Carol dismisses in her letter.

The larger plan that I have promoted includes changes that Carol and others on the board have rejected: meaningful reductions in administrative staff, serious evaluations of whether we are getting a good return on our investments in educational programs such as reading and math, and reductions in purchasing contracted services.

If we are to solve the serious dilemmas facing our city and our schools, the board must engage in a serious discussion of facts, analyses, ideas, and clear proposals rather than posturing and labels. That is not happening with the current board. A board that calls itself pro-education, pro-teacher and progressive needs to do the serious work involved in keeping teachers and custodians in the buildings and with the kids. As a progressive member of the board, it is my right and my responsibility to continue to promote informed decision-making to make the best use of scarce resources for our schools and for our community.

Ruth Robarts
(see my article: Annual Spring Four Act Play: Madison School's Budget Process)
Member, Board of Education

What is Wrong with this Picture?

The Madison School Board of Education and the District administration are proposing nearly $50 million worth of referenda and are begging for the support of the taxpaying public to significantly raise taxes. At the same time, Superintendent Rainwater bashes the business community for not contributing more tax dollars to fund public education. By accusing businesses of "eating their own young" and "contributing to their own demise" he is creating a very divisive atmosphere that makes it very difficult for taxpayers to see the value in more and more spending for mediocre results.

Ditto for Board President Bill Keys and his remarks about State Legislators, referring to them as "bastards with no regard for human beings." One of the fundamentals for gaining financial support for any effort is to reach out through the development of positive relationships.

These charges leveled by Rainwater and Keys cannot be construed in any way, shape or form as contributing to the development of positive relationships.

Furthermore, the Board and administration are not showing good cause for the need, nor are they showing good stewardship of the increasing amounts of money the District has been receiving from the taxpayers over the past few years. More money does NOT equate with better quality education. Every business operating within the boundaries of the Madison school district pays property taxes to support this school district. Rainwater and the Board continue to put the support of the public school system at risk with their divisive, accusatory and demeaning remarks.

My March 9, 2005 Presentation to the Madison Board of Education [PDF]

Don Severson
Active Citizens for Education
238-8300

Carstensen Responds to Robarts 3/15/2005 WSJ

In response to Ruth Robarts' recent letter, stripped of its satire, she is suggesting that paying Madison's school staff less would eliminate the budget gap. Her proposal is that school staff should receive a package of 2.35 percent for salary and benefits combined. There are three major problems with her proposal:

• This would impose a pay cut on almost all employees, with the deepest cuts affecting the lowest paid staff (educational assistants and food service workers)
• A 2.35 percent package would save the district about $4.6 millionthere would still be a budget gap of at least $4 million.
• State law makes such an approach impossible. The qualified economic offer law essentially requires that districts offer at least a 3.8 percent annual increase for salary and benefits combined.

Be wary of last minute proposals that sound good and promise to solve the problem without painful cuts. As a community we need to face the fact that the budget gap we face is real; it is a direct consequence of the state laws and funding decisions that affect all Wisconsin school districts.

/Carol Carstensen, Madison School Board /

Wisconsin is not Alone in Budget Crisis

I did a simple search on Google: State budget and school funding. I was not surprised to find Wisconsin sharing in their education funding crisis with many other states. On the first two pages of my search I discovered California, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, and New York have news articles about their educational funding "crisis". Each state has it's version of revenue caps, TABOR like situations, or tax restraints that cause their current problem. Some just never raise taxes and can't figure out how to fund a state and local program without taxes. Also interesting to note is Ohio and Illinois legislation funds their local schools at 51% while Washington state legislation is suppose to pay 80%. None of these states actually fund their schools at their promised level just as our federal government fails to fund it's many mandates at it's required level. I find this interesting because each time I watch the "MMSD Budget Horse and Pony Show", as I like to refer to this annually released performance, I am told how awful the state legislation is and that Wisconsin is backwards in its funding of education. While there may be some truth to that, it is comforting to know my state is not the only awful backwards state out there. That comfort however, does not solve the problem. The reason I went on this search is I have twice, maybe more, asked the board to "think outside the box". I decided since the board wants the public to present them with solutions and not complaints that I would find out how other states and communities are financing schools and present these ideas to them before they develop another "sequel".

One state that caught my attention was Virgina. To solve their school funding problem they instituted a half a cent sales tax through out the entire state. This idea was suggested by a think tank organized by Gov. Doyle in Wisconsin but it was quickly run out of Madison. The plan is something to think about,as Virgina just signed their budget that added an additional 759 million dollars to the governors original budget towards public education. I will continue this search and loft new ideas at this site. We need a new way, a creative way to fund education because we are all tired of fighting for our schools and very tired of watching "sequels" with no new plots or twist.
The Virginia link: Leesburg2day.com/current.cfm.catid=54&newsid=8927.

Madison Schools Plan 3 Referendums for May

Lee Sensenbrenner summarizes last night's Madison School Board meeting where the board approved going forward with the third of three planned May referendums.

FOIA, Blogshine Sunday & Madison School Board Election

Freeculture.org sponsored blogshine Sunday, a day when news organizations run stories and editorials in support of public access to government information.

The internet has substantially improved citizen's ability to see who is funding elected officials directly and indirectly.

The Madison City Clerk conveniently posts campaign finance information on their website. I took a quick look at PAC (political action committee) spending on school board races and found this:

Madison School Related PAC's:

• Citizens for investing in Madison Schools: apparently setup to support the June, 2003 referendum. Current Board Members Bill Keys and Bill Clingan's campaigns contributed to this PAC (1000 and 800 respectively), as did Madison Teachers, Inc. (MTI) ($1500). This PAC raised and spent more than $30K in 2002/2003.
  
  
• Get Real, a PAC that supported candidates who were not endorsed by Madison Teachers. Get Real raised and spent less than $1,000. Get Real made small donations to unsuccessful candidates Sam Johnson & Melania Alvarez. This organization's campaign finance disclosure documents are signed by former Madison School Board member Nancy Harper.
  
  
• Madison Teachers's Madison Voters raised more than $40K in 2004 and spent about $34K on direct and indirect support of endorsed candidates (Johnny Winston, Jr., Shwaw Vang and Alix Olson - who lost to incumbent Ruth Robarts). MTI Voters July 20, 2004 report [pdf] showed cash on hand of $52K
  
  
• Progressive Dane raised and spent less than $2,000 last year, including small contributions to Johnny Winston, Jr. and Shwaw Vang.

Wisconsin has a number of perspectives on this, from Feingold to Sensenbrenner to Doyle:

• Russ Feingold generally refused 3rd party PAC money during his recent campaigns.
• Milwaukee Area Republican Jim Sensenbrenner, operating from a safe seat, has taken great advantage of special interest money over the years, accepting 63% of his campaign funds from PAC's during the 2003/2004 cycle.
• Current Governor Jim Doyle has raised more money faster than former Governor Tommy Thompson (Thompson was known for raising buckets of campaign cash).
• Milwaukee's recent election difficulties were largely uncovered by Greg Borowski, who writes today about looming threats to our right to know.

Closer to home, should Madison School Board candidates accept funds from special interests?

Current Board Member Bill Clingan (Candidate for Seat 6 in the April, 2005 election) chairs the Board's Human Resources Committee which is currently negotiating a new contract with Madison Teachers. This issue was discussed at the recent Northside PTA candidate forum. Carol Carstensen, when asked for a yes or no answer to whether Madison Teachers should spend thousands of dollars to protect incumbents, answered no according to Lee Sensenbrenner. In the same article, Bill Clingan endorsed the rights of PAC's and is proud to have their support. I did not find any PAC contributions to Lawrie Kobza's campaign (pdf); Bill Clingan's opponent or Larry Winkler (pdf) who is running against Carol Carstensen. I'll update this information as additional filings (later in March) occur.

Background Links:

The District has a policy on Board Member's public responsibilities (1540).

Excellent national campaign finance information: www.opensecrets.org

State political information: www.wispolitics.com

In closing, exercise your right to know. Check out these sites and most importantly, vote on April 5, 2005.

Axing the Arts: District (again) proposes cutting popular strings program

Jason Shephard, writing in the 3.11.2005 Isthmus:

Music teachers, parents and community activists are already agitating against Madison schools Superintendent Art Rainwater’s call to eliminate the elementary strings program, as part of a proposed slate of budget cuts.

“This creates a very disturbing environment in the community,” says Marie Breed, executive director of the Wisconsin Youth Symphony Orchestra. “It’s particularly shocking for a strong arts community like Madison to dismiss elementary string education so easily, saying essentially, ‘We’re not going to support these children.’”

By eliminating the fourth- and fifth-grade strings program, Rainwater says the district can cut nearly ten full-time equivalent positions, saving about $500,000 in salaries and another $100,000 in equipment, repairs and books. In all, the district needs to trim $8.6 million to comply with state-imposed revenue caps -- or else secure referendum approval to exceed them.

Breed, a former classroom teacher, says the benefits of the strings program are many, as teachers and parents have attested in recent years of budget debates, in which this program has been a mainstay on the chopping block.

“The strings program is important because it teaches kids about art for the sake of art -– and that teaches humanity,” Breed says. “But it also helps kids work on life skills, on finding pride in accomplishments, and with self-esteem and time management.” She cites research showing a link between studying music and higher scores on academic achievement tests.

David Lovell, chairman of the youth symphony, says lasting damage may be done if the local arts community does not get more involved -– including searching for partnerships to keep programs alive in the school. “I don’t think speaking out on school budgets is traditionally our role,” he says. “But because of what’s been happening, there’s a growing willingness to get involved.”

Richard Davis, a UW-Madison emeritus professor of music and an internationally known bassist, has won dozens of awards in Madison and around the world for his work with young musicians. He worries that the elimination of the strings programs in Madison will be a blow to minority students.

“Underprivileged children will suffer the most,” says Davis. “It’s another way of letting only those who can afford it get the opportunities. The fear is that you’re going to have a very one-sided, warped community, where one world will have all of the exposure and sophistication, and the other world won’t.”

The strings program is just one of many flashpoints for the embattled fine-arts program in Madison schools. Teachers complain about increased class loads and the loss of music rooms. Last fall, a dozen arts teachers petitioned the school board to appoint a committee to craft a “vision” for a fine-arts curriculum; the board took no action.

This week, Rainwater announced that he will wait until the summer to hire a fine-arts coordinator. The position has been vacant since last fall, much to the chagrin of arts advocates.

“This community has clearly told the Madison school district that Madison values music and art,” says citizen activist Barb Schrank. “I’m not sure they’ve been responsive to the community.”

Rhonda Schilling, a music teacher at Thoreau Elementary, says fine-arts teachers are getting fed up with the barrage of budget attacks: “It seems to be year after year in which they are cutting the arts left and right. We’re getting very tired. Clearly our opinions are falling on deaf ears.”

Rainwater’s proposed cuts also include eliminating some athletics programs and reducing to half-time the district’s gay and lesbian outreach position. These cuts, too, are sure to prove controversial.

There are those -- including the two candidates challenging incumbents on the April 5 ballot -- who suggest the board hasn’t been proactive enough in prioritizing cuts. And the contention is sure to continue after the election, as voters will be asked to decide as many as three referendum questions to approve up to $50 million in additional spending.

A meeting Monday night turned ugly when citizen critic Don Severson accused the board of “irresponsible leadership” and slammed its president, Bill Keys, for suggesting in a TV interview that the cost to taxpayers to hold a special election in May, rather than the general election in April, is minimal. In fact, this special election will cost taxpayers about $90,000 extra. Keys angrily said he misspoke on TV based on sloppy notes, then proceeded to question and lecture Severson during what was supposed to be the public comment portion of the meeting.

Board members, at virtually every opportunity, blame the state Legislature for the district’s fiscal crisis. But with no legislative changes in sight, such cries begin to ring hollow.

Moreover, several board members continue to lob bombs at outsiders, while remaining particularly sensitive to criticism directed at them. In recent weeks, Keys has referred to lawmakers as “bastards,” and Juan Jose Lopez has called a local Web site devoted to school issues, open to everyone, “destructive.” On Monday, Lopez also criticized colleague Ruth Robarts for writing an op-ed column that questions the board’s budgeting process, saying Robarts shouldn’t be questioning the process just because she’s upset with the outcome.

In fact, what’s needed is more questioning, not less. Can it really be that there is no other way for the district to operate than to continually point a gun to the head of popular programs and demand of taxpayers, “Give us more money or else?”

Background Links: Strings | Budget Send your thoughts on this issue to the Madison School Board: comments at madison.k12.wi.us

Zaleski: Schools Could use a Makeover

Rob Zaleski:

Among its many features:

Twelve students per class, each equipped with their own laptop computer.

Classes meet not in huge buildings but in small rented sites scattered throughout the area. "The idea of sending 400 - or 1,400 - kids to a central site, as we have now, is madness," Parish told me back in '92. "Especially in today's society, where there are social behaviors that nobody really wants." .....

You don't improve schools by chopping their funding, he says. But he does think the money that schools receive could be better spent.

There's no denying, for instance, that the Madison School District is top-heavy with administrators, he says, or that the schools themselves are run in an extremely inefficient manner.

3/7/2005 Madison School Board Meeting Budget Comments

Board Members and citizens discussed the Madison School District Administration's proposed budget changes (reductions in the increase, cuts and program eliminations - see this post for details. The overall budget will go up, from 317M to 327.7M as it does annually.) this past Monday evening:

• Don Severson & Bill Keys on special election costs, spending and the budget process. [29.8MB Quicktime Video]
• Strings Teacher Jack Young [18MB Quicktime Video]
• Parent Michael McGuire on the proposed Strings Program Elimination [10MB Quicktime Video]
• Barb Schrank on the budget & proposed strings program elimination [8.5MB Quicktime Video]
• Carol Carstensen Finance & Operations Committee Report [5MB Quicktime Video]

Reading, Writing, ROI

James Nevels on Philadelphia School Reform:

How did we--teachers, principals and our chief executive, Paul Vallas--do it? We defined the district's "customers" exclusively as the 200,000 children we serve. Not interest groups. Not adult constituencies. We held adults accountable for results.

To start, we instituted businesslike systems. First came a standardized curriculum so that all students would learn what we agreed was most crucial for success and could easily transfer among schools.

Elementary school students now spend two hours a day on reading and 90 minutes on math, double what they spent before. We conduct benchmark testing every six weeks in elementary and middle schools and every four weeks in high schools. This helps teachers to either dedicate more time to a subject in which students are struggling or provide advanced instruction in subjects students have mastered.

Low Turnout for MMSD Public Hearing - Channel 15 NBC Report

There was a small turnout Wednesday night for the first public hearing on whether to hold spring school referendums. NBC 15 MMSD Public Hearing

Comments to School Board - Where Are You Putting Your Increased Revenue for Next Year, Why Do You Form Collaborations With Parents and the Community for Sports, Pets but after Four Years - Still Fail to Collaborate with the Community on Fine Arts?

Dear School Board Members,

Good evening. I plan to comment on the following – a) net reductions in classroom instruction budgets while the total budget grew this year, b) cutting elementary strings 100 % inequitably targets low income (minority) children and says you do not deserve what others in Madison have, c) limited options offered to the public and pursued by the board - fourth year that the board has not pursued with parents and the community ideas and possibilities for collaborations/partnerships for fine arts.

The budget discussion items document distributed last week is not a budget it’s only one option of cuts. The board needs to ask where the increased revenue dollars for next year will be spent and they need to ask for additional sets of budget cut options.

Annually advancing only one set of a seemingly random list of cuts out of context of where the money will be spent makes parents and voters skeptical about the board’s decisionmaking ability and this year public skepticism will threaten the passage of an operating referendum for instruction.

We may very well need money for instruction, but what do we need and what options can we pursue – referendum, private funds, grants for what Madison values. The current school board will not get people to vote for a referendum if what Madison values is threatened and important questions are not asked now. Voters will not have confidence in how and where the money is being spent and in how the board is protecting children’s learning and achievement through alternatives.

We cannot continue the path of current decisionmaking, because this board continues to lead us toward a narrow, conservative vision for public education bankrupting our children’s learning.

Download comments to School Board on Budget

Waukesha School District's Virtual School Takes Off

Amy Hetzner:

Nearly 1,000 students statewide have applied to attend the Waukesha School District's virtual high school, raising school administrators' expectations that enrollment could hit 750 in the school's second year.

School Funding Update

I received the following email update from Tom Beebe (tbeebe@wisconsinsfuture.org) on school funding:

Exciting week for school-funding reform advocates
Florence High School is newest school to join Youth ROC
Baraboo brings WAES school district partnerships to 41
Two more school-funding forums held
WCCF analyzes Governor’s budget
Still not too late to tell the Governor to veto AB58

School-funding reform calendar
The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES) is a statewide network of educators, school board members, parents, community leaders, and researchers. Its Wisconsin Adequacy Plan -- a proposal for school-finance reform -- is the result of research into the cost of educating children to meet state proficiency standards.
************
Exciting week for school-funding reform advocates

For those rooting for school-funding reform─especially as a partner in WAES─it’s been an exciting week.

Governor Jim Doyle has started to release more of his 2005-07 budget. In addition to $850 million in property tax relief … by increasing state aid to public schools … the governor also included $90 million in new money in the form of additional categorical aid. Although it accounts for only modest increases, they are significant and signal the need for more revenue.

Most recently, the Governor talked about $30.9 million in transportation aid over the next two years. If approved, it would be the first increase in 15 years. To see the press release and the increase for selected districts, go to http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Mar05/Mar2/0302govschooltrans.pdf. To see the project transportation aid for all districts, go to http://wisgov.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=2542&locid=19 .

Equally as exciting, 74th District Rep. Gary Sherman, a Port Wing Democrat, says he will be introducing a bill to radically change the way Wisconsin funds its public schools, starting with the cost-out recommended by WAES. According to Rep. Sherman’s press release (http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Mar05/Mar1/0301shermanschoolstudy.PDF), “the bill requires a study of the costs of providing an adequate education under the widely varying circumstances throughout the state.”
***********
Florence High School is newest school to join Youth ROC

After taking part on the losing side in a bitterly fought referendum to keep their school district running, Florence High School students have regrouped and stepped up their commitment to school-funding reform by joining Youth ROC.

Youth Reclaiming Our Communities─or Youth ROC─is a statewide program for high school students who are committed to building a youth movement around school-funding reform.

Florence, located in northeastern Wisconsin, is in danger of losing its schools because of the state funding system. “If our community loses its school,” said junior Sadie Wendt, we lose everything. People won’t want to move here anymore. Florence would turn into a ghost town.”

With the addition of Florence, the Youth ROC organizing team now numbers 51 students from nine schools in six districts, with dozens more involved in local school clubs. To join the student coalition or learn more, go to http://www.excellentschools.org/calendar/YouthWorkshop.htm.
*********
Baraboo brings WAES school district partnerships to 41

The Baraboo School District in central Wisconsin is the newest partner in the Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools. It becomes the 41st school district in the diverse, statewide, and broad-based coalition and the 89th organization. To see all of the WAES partners, go to http://www.excellentschools.org/about/partners.htm.

WAES partners believe in four core principles (http://www.excellentschools.org/about/principles.htm): schools need additional resources; the new funding system needs to be a foundation system based on the needs of all students; local control must be maintained and expanded; and new revenue cannot come from property taxpayers.

Learn how you can join by going to http://www.excellentschools.org/about/join.htm.
********
Two more school-funding forums held

Two more school-funding reform community forums were held recently, one in Kenosha on Feb. 19 and the second, March 3, in Stevens Point. The next forum will be held tonight, March 7, at Fall River High School.

Tonight's forum is being co-sponsored by the Columbia-Sauk County League of Women Voters the school districts of Beaver Dam, Columbus, Fall River, and Marshall; and the Columbus Education Association. It begins at 7 p.m. at the Fall River High School (150 Bradley Street). The agenda includes presentations from WAES, the Governor’s office, and the Department of Public Instruction, as well as a discussion by panel members including students, teachers, school administrators, and parents.

Over 100 people attended the March 3 forum at the Charles White Library in Stevens Point. It featured Dean Ryerson, superintendent of the Wisconsin Rapids School District and a member of the Governor’s Task Force on Educational Excellence (http://www.wisinfo.com/journal/spjlocal/283360933357953.shtml). Rep. John Lehman, Democrat from Racine and the 62nd Assembly District, and 22nd District Sen. Bob Wirch, a Democrat from Pleasant Prairie, headlined the Racine-Kenosha forum in late February. You can read more about both of them at http://www.excellentschools.org .
******
WCCF analyzes Governor’s budget

Governor Jim Doyle’s budget has a significant impact on children and families, not just through public school-funding changes, but also through many other public school related issues.

The Wisconsin Council of Children and Families (WCCF) has done an excellent job of breaking the budget, now known as AB100, down and showing its impact in an understandable format. It can be found at http://www.wccf.org/pdf/govs05-07budgetanalysis.pdf.

WCCF is nonprofit, multi-issue child and family advocacy agency.
*********
Still not too late to tell the Governor to veto AB58

While Governor Jim Doyle’s budget protects public school funding, the majority party's answer, Assembly Bill 58, freezes taxes and could actually further reduce public school aid (see http://www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Feb05/Feb17/0217govfreezecomparo.pdf for a comparison of the two).

AB58, passed by the Assembly and the Senate, has not been sent to the Governor, yet. He said he will veto it, but, according to press accounts, the majority party is hoping a ground swell of opinion will convince him to sign the freeze legislation.

We can't afford to let that happen. Contact the Governor now and urge him to veto AB58. Supporters of the freeze are sending out mass answering machine messages. You need to do your part in countering this ploy.

You can e-mail Gov. Doyle at governor@wisconsin.gov, call him at 608-266-1212, or fax him at 608-267-8963.
*******
School-funding reform calendar
March 7 -- Columbus area "School-funding reform community forum" in the auditorium at Fall River High School (contact Ken Bates at ken_bates@columbus.k12.wi.us or 920-623-5950)
Postponed ... March 10 -- School-funding reform presentation sponsored by Project ABC in Waukesha at 7 p.m.

March 11 -- School-funding reform presentation at Edgewood College in Madison
March 12 -- School-funding reform presentation at the AFT-Wisconsin conference in Superior
March 16 -- School-funding reform presentation in Wausau for Marian College education program
April 14 -- School-funding reform presentation in Baraboo

Please feel free to share your copy of the WAES school-funding update with anyone interested in school-finance reform. Contact Tom Beebe (tbeebe@wisconsinsfuture.org) at 414-384-9094 for details.
--
Thomas S. Beebe, Education Outreach Specialist
Institute for Wisconsin's Future
1717 South 12th Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204
414-384-9094 (voice)
414-384-9098 (fax)
920-650-0525 (cell)
tbeebe@wisconsinsfuture.org
www.wisconsinsfuture.org
www.excellentschools.org

Failed Budget Governance: Start with Where Your Money Went this Year Compared to a Year Ago - Not with Cuts Out of Context

Our School Board is beginning a budget dialogue with the community using budget cut discussion items - wrong!

A first place for the Board to start budget discussions would be to look at where the money went last year (Download Comparison of 03-04 budget vs. 04-05 budget)

Where did the budget increase? Building Services, Student Services, Human Resources and Education Services - $18.3 million

Where was the budget cut? Elementary, Middle and High Schools took the biggest cuts - $2.1 million.

The MMSD School Board needs to start here, ask for an estimate of revenues for 05-06 and ask for scenarios with different allocations of these revenues. The School Board would then have a place to start a dialogue with the community.

Failed Governance: No budget, yet cuts

Last May, I wrote an opinion piece that was printed in The Capital Times. Since then, little has changed on the School Board and we are re-opening the "Spring Budget Drama" that continues to fail children's learning and achievement. We are presented with no budget, but instead with budget discussion items and NO strategies.

What I wrote last May I feel is just as true today, sadly - very sadly.

May 29, 2004 - The Capital times
Barbara Schrank: Madison School Board needs more thoughtful budget process

It's true, there isn't any windfall to be found in next year's Madison school budget. But small changes in the budget could have a major effect on Madison's families and direct educational services to our children.

The following opinion piece was published in The Capital Times on Saturday, May 29, 2004.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/75315.php

Barbara Schrank: Madison School Board needs more thoughtful budget process

By Barbara Schrank
May 29, 2004

It's true, there isn't any windfall to be found in next year's Madison school budget. But small changes in the budget could have a major effect on Madison's families and direct educational services to our children.

During the final 2004-05 school budget discussions May 17, Shwaw Vang recommended that the School Board more carefully examine purchased services, operations and miscellaneous budget categories that total millions of dollars before making final budget decisions, stating that to do otherwise would balance the budget on the backs of children. The board majority (Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys and Juan Jose Lopez) did not support his recommendation.

Johnny Winston suggested that the board prioritize its work before making any final decisions. He also received no support from the board majority.

Earlier in the evening, Ruth Robarts proposed tabling discussion of a $500,000 increase in the administrators' salary and benefits until board members knew the final cuts they would be facing. Her proposal was voted down without discussion.

Rather, the majority appeared to be in a rush to approve the 2004-05 budget. The board didn't need to finalize the budget until June 30; it needed to decide what, if any, layoffs there might be before May 24.

Board members need to know what the administration's measurable goals and objectives for next year's proposed expenditures by department will be. Yet the only descriptive writing included in the 2004-05 budget document stated that last year's budget figures could not be compared to the proposed budget figures, because a new accounting system had been put in place. How can the majority of the board feel comfortable with their decision without this information?

Board members need to know what major changes in expenditures are forecasted from year to year, and they should not have to ask for this basic budget information or piece it together from previous handouts and reports. How can the board decide whether to go to referendum without discussing proposed budget changes from year to year? How do board members expect to make this clear to the Madison community?

At no time during the past two months did I sit in on any meeting that included discussions of the entire budget for next year. During the past two months, the primary focus of board members was almost exclusively on the $10 million cut list, which is less than 5 percent of the $308 million budget. That's like examining one leaf on a tree in a national forest.

The only board discussion May 17 about new fees for next year lasted little more than an hour yet added nearly $400,000 to parents' budgets next September for textbook, athletic and music fees.

Prior to that meeting, the board had not invited the booster clubs, parents, community members and coaches to work out budget and funding strategies for extracurricular sports. Maybe changes in the budget allocations might have negated additional fees. Without discussions of this sort, it's hard to know.

Neither had the board during the past two years invited the music community or parents to develop strategies that would curtail the degradation in the music and art curriculums and would not result in fees that could prove to be a barrier to student participation in the popular elementary strings curriculum.

Along with others in the community, I have been asking the administration for these discussions for two years but to no avail. I can only assume the same is true for teachers, students and families facing reduced services in special education and in the schools.

These groups are strong backers of Madison's public schools, and their continued support and hard work will be needed to help the School Board pass any future referendum. Madison's School Board needs to include these groups in a meaningful way in future budget discussions right from the beginning.

The community should expect that the elected officials who oversee a $300 million-plus budget that affects nearly 25,000 children, several thousand employees and thousands of taxpayers would devote greater concentration and effort to their "final" budget discussions.

From my personal business experience and my recent immersion in the district's school budget process, I've learned there are no shortcuts to budgeting. It's critically important to have a vision, measurable goals and objectives, and specific strategies to reach your vision.

Madison's School Board has some of those pieces in place and has been making improvements to its budget process. However, I'm hoping that board members take the time this summer and next year to develop and refine their vision for the next three to five years and that they engage the community in developing that vision

Annual Spring Four Act Play: Madison School's Budget Process

Spring is definitely coming. On February 17, the Madison School Board performed Act 1 of the four-act play that is our annual school budget process.

Act 1 is the unveiling of the Budget Forecast. In this Act, the administration solemnly announces that the district faces-once again-"The Budget Gap". The Budget Gap is the difference between what the Board wants to spend and what we can spend without a successful referendum to increase operating funds. It is not a gap caused by a drop in state funding.

To nobody's surprise, the Budget Gap is big and ugly. Under current state law, revenues from property taxes will increase about 2.35% for next year. However, the administration's "same service" budget requires a revenue increase of more than 4%. The Gap for next year is $8.6M.

Next will come a chorus of threats to slash programs and staff to "close the gap". District staff will come on stage bearing long lists of positions and programs cut in previous years to close the gap. The mood will be ominous when the curtain comes down on Act 1.

On March 7, Act 2 opens with the administration revealing--- with great reluctance--- the annual "Cut List". On the Cut List will be programs that motivate our kids to excel at school, such as fine arts, extracurricular sports, environmental field trips, and classes for students with special talent. Also on the list will be staff positions that assist kids with special problems, such as choosing classes and colleges, overcoming difficult home circumstances, learning job skills, or having special educational needs. School custodians may again appear on the Cut List, but not central administrators. "We have no choice" is the theme of Act 2.

Act 2 also involves hundreds of "extras"-parents, teachers and concerned citizens-who will line up to tell the Board why it must reject the proposed cuts. Sometimes the Madison teachers union joins the chorus to demand a referendum.

In Act 3, known as the "Board Amendments", the Board strives mightily to close the gap. Board members propose higher and higher fees to prevent the cuts, not telling the public that the fees don't actually go to help the threatened programs. They just help balance the budget until next year. Act 3 ends after Board members have faced off to "save" some programs or staff by hiking fees, increasing costs for textbooks or gutting the emergency reserve for the coming year. Act 3 is our version of "The Survivor".

Act 4 act requires audience participation. Having again watched the Board discover the Budget Gap, react to the Cut List and fight over the Budget Amendments, the public is finally drawn onto the stage for the grand finale, the Referendum. In Act 4 the community divides into camps in preparation for voting, an unfortunate ending to the play, but one predestined by the Board's willingness to stick with last year's script rather than write a new one.

Call me an optimist, but I believe that the Board of Education could write a new play. It would begin by changing its role. For starters, the Board could stop granting employee wage and benefit increases that exceed the increases going to district tax-payers. It could direct administration to cease budgeting on a "same service" basis. It could require that expensive programs be evaluated for effectiveness. It could tell administration not to reject millions of federal dollars without Board consultation. It could cut back on outside contracting and "buy outs" of staff contracts. It could direct administration to aggressively pursue partnerships with the community to shore up the fine arts and extracurricular sports programs.

We'd still be struggling to fund high quality, comprehensive programs in the face of inadequate state and federal funding and over-reliance on the residential property tax. However, we might have a better chance of getting the community to come on stage in Act 1 to help us decide which programs make the most sense for our children and how to combine private and tax dollars to fund those programs.

Ruth Robarts

Madison School Board Member

Madison Schools Budget Change Information/Links

The Madison School District's Administration announced a series of 2005/2006 budget changes (eliminate some programs, reduce the increase in others, eliminate some positions). The overall budget will increase by about 10M+, from 316.8M in 2004/2005 to 327.7M in 2005/2006 (via Roger Price's recent budget presentation. [slides pdf]).

• Barb Schrank looks at where the money went last year (.xls file) and finds that the instructional budget took the biggest cut while Building Services, Student Services, Human Resources and Education Services grew by 18M+
• Lee Sensenbrenner
• Ruth Robarts on the annual Spring Budget Four Act Play (a version of this also appeared here)
• Sandy Cullen
• The Madison School District's Summary [pdf]

After 10 years of continually reducing services to our children and community, putting this budget together has been a difficult and heart wrenching experience for the Administration. We are long past the time that we can solve our revenue cap problems by being more efficient or eliminating things that are “nice but not necessary.”

This year’s budget cuts include things that all of us value, believe in and which make our District one of the best in the country. Placing these services on the reduction list has been the most difficult decision that the Management Team members have ever faced. The Team has been guided throughout the process by the Board of Education’s directive to utilize the District’s strategic plan in making its decisions. In addition to using the Strategic Priorities delineated in the Strategic Plan we utilized the Board of Education’s three goals in determining its priorities for making the service reductions:

• All students complete 3rd grade reading at grade level or beyond.
  
• All students complete Algebra by the end of 9th grade and Geometry by the end of 10th grade.
  
• The district-wide attendance rate is at least 94%.

Research shows that children who are successful at this early stage of their education are successful learners throughout their K-12 experience.

Our next priority was to protect classroom instruction and safety in our middle and high schools. Although it was necessary to make some reductions in staff in these schools, we have protected the fundamental instructional needs and supported the measures necessary to maintain safety at each level.

Our decision to place the highest priority on these programs meets the Board of Education’s direction to follow the Board’s priorities and goals in making our recommendations. By prioritizing our limited resources to assure that children can successfully meet the Board’s goals, many other very important things must be reduced or eliminated. We recognize their importance and value but realize we can no longer keep them a reality in our district.

Every year, all of our staff are called on to give more to keep our children’s education sound. This year will be no different. The Board of Education will weigh our recommendations and make the final decisions that it feels are in the best interest of our students and our community. We wish the situation were different, but it is our reality.

Open Forum: Questions the Community Would Like to See the School Board Asking the Superintendent

I’m beginning a list of questions I’d like to see the School Board discuss and use to direct the Superintendent when the District’s budget is developed using this blog as a public forum. The state and federal governments are not holding up their end of school financing, yet our school board members need to develop a budget and to make preliminary operating decisions by June 30, 2005.

I’ve left the comments open for this blog and would like to hear what questions others might like to see the board discuss and provide further direction to the Superintendent during the budget process so that we develop a budget that puts children’s learning, academic excellence and achievement as the highest priority for our children this year and in succeeding years. I think our attention locally needs to be on how can we develop the best budget for these priorities so that we know what our funding challenges are for next year and will have better information for a referendum.

"New Revenues"
What are the expected amounts of new revenues forecasted for next year from general state fund, property taxes, lowered salaries from retirees, special education – state and federal, English as a second language – state and federal, NCLB grant monies, etc.? How is the Superintendent proposing to allocate these resources? How does the board want these resources allocated?

Costs of School Board Priorities
What are the costs of the school board’s priorities – third grade reading, algebra 9th grade, 10th grade geometry, 94% attendance? How are those dollars allocated across all children and what dollars are spent on services for children who need help reaching these priorities and children who need resources, because they exceed these basic priorities.

Consider Alternative Planning/Budget Scenarios
What other budget scenarios make sense for the school board to review in the current fiscal situation so that children’s learning is not the Plan B that is put at risk? Let’s start by seeing a budget that puts all new revenue into elementary and secondary schools and the support for children – curriculum, special ed, English as a second language. Yes, this means the cuts will be deeper in other areas – but let’s have the specifics and let’s have an open, public discussion about our options/priorities for allocating resources.
Why Did the Superintendent Without Board Discussion Not Pursue Further Reading First - What Are Our Results With Kids at Risk Learning With Different Reading Curricula - What's Lapham Telling Us?
What was the process the administration and the school board went through to decide why the district did not need the Reading First money? What do our results show for our reading curricula for low income children at risk of not reaching the reading goal? What does this cost? Are we effectively reaching the children who need the most help? What results are we seeing with direct instruction at Lapham elementary school? What are the costs? Are more children at risk for reading reached more academically effectively and cost effectively with direct instruction ?

What Is the Board Doing About Developing Partnerships and Pursuing Alternative Funding Sources for the Arts and Extracurricular Sports?
What steps has the board taken to seek alternative approaches and to secure funding for what Madison values – sports, fine arts, ropes challenge, other? What has the board done to determine the costs of extracurricular activities and what the district can afford to pay?
What are Your Questions? Log onto Comments and share them.

Board Members on the Referendums

Lee Sensenbrenner chats with current Madison School Board Members on the upcoming referendums.

Budget Process - Cuts and What Else is Next

Superintendent Art Rainwater's proposed budget cuts to balance his estimated Same Service budget forecast to expected revenues are being released to the public today. Prior to this release, the only information the school board has received relative to the budget is a macro-forecast of revenue/expenditures - assumptions about salary and wage increases, percent increase assumption for all other services, and 4% increase for MSCR expenses, for example.

At the macro-level, basically, the admin. made assumptions about increases in salaries and benefits (all contracts finalized for the major staff categories except for the teachers (current contract expires in June 2005). If you assume a 4% increase for salary AND benefits (health costs are rising outrageously for all, the teacher contract cost will be about $9-10+ million in new funds for next year. All the other labor contracts cost less than $5 million in new money, because teachers are the largest labor force in any school district.

Between the time of the release of the macro-forecast that estimated an $8+ million revenue gap and the release of the Superintendent's proposed cuts, there have been no discussions of a) estimated revenues for next year, including revenue from lowered salaries for new employees due to retirement of employees, b) allocation of new revenue dollars by area, direction of priorities from the board to the administration - priority for certain areas, c) no evaluation of existing curricula to determine what's working/not working - with teacher and parent input - as well as what the curricula is costing. The Performance and Achievement Committee has met frequently, but as one of the candidates said at the candidate forum on Tuesday, March 1st - basically dog and pony shows with no meaningful results, costs or discussions of strengths/weaknesses of curriculum.

The budget process has remained the same for the past several years that I've been attending board meetings. Release of macro-forecast for a same service budget in February with revenue gap, release of a cut list in mid-March, release of administration allocation of budget dollars to departments and schools in late March/early April based upon the administration's macro-forecast and cut list. Finally, the budget of the detailed same service budget by department is released in May 2005 followed by at least one public hearing.

At no time, after the release the revenue gap or the budget cut list, does the board typically meet to discuss requesting the administration to develop different scenarios that present different allocation of resources with more specific board directed priorities. The board is resistant to seeing scenarios of a) across the board allocation of resources, b) allocating all increased revenue to instruction first, saying these do not let the administration use their expertise to determine the appropriate allocation of resources for the board to vote on.

What the board usually does following public hearings is have one, maybe two, meeting where board members proposed individual changes to certain items on the budget - any proposed addition to the budget has to be balanced with a proposed cut in another areas. This is a very specific process, affecting not much more than $10 million of a $310+ budget.

However, when you only look at an annual operating budget and do not do long-term financial planning (budget planning over several years), you get stuck in the "pick around the edges" mode, which pits parent group against parent group. This leaves the only option for the board to pursue is a referendum.

Madison Schools Budget Reductions

The Madison School District's Administration will release their proposed budget reductions (reductions in the increase - see these posts) Thursday afternoon (unless it leaks earlier). There will be an afternoon press conference (apparently 2:30p.m.). We'll link to the district's site once the information is posted. Roger Price previewed the 2005/2006 budget recently (video/audio along with slides).

Budget Time: Madison School District's Credibility

The credibility of the Madison Metropolitan School District comes into serious question with the public when Board of Education members and district staff present erroneous information through the media to the public.

Recent examples include:

• May, 2005 Special Election Costs:
  1. Bill Keys, President of the Board of Education, on the TV Channel 27 early morning news show, February 3, 2005, in referring to proposed referenda for a May 2005 vote stated that "it's only $15,000 more ($90,000) to wait until May rather than go for the April election, which will only cost $75,000." A vote on school referenda at the time of a regular countywide election incurs only a minor cost (less that $2000) to the District for graphics and ball space. Special balloting, such as that proposed for school referenda in May will incur more that $87,000 in expenses billed to the District by Dane County, the City of Madison and eight other involved municipalities with voters in the school district. A detailed report of these costs billed to the District for the June 2003 referendum ballot will be presented to the Board at its regular March 7, 2005 meeting.
  
  
• Community Input:
  2. Carol Carstensen, Board of Education member, complains that critics of the Board aren't really interested in seeking solutions to complex questions and is quoted in the "Talking Out of School" column in Isthmus, February 11, page 8, "I get a little concerned when people say, 'You should be doing this,' but then are unable to give me a better plan for how to achieve what they want." As a representative of Active Citizens for Education we have presented the Board of Education and administration with more than 29 documents including recommendations, plans, proposals, reports and analyses on a variety of issues with which the Board is faced. A list of the documents, along with duplicate copies, will be presented to the Board at its next meeting to refresh memories.
  
  
• Taxpayer Costs:
  3. Joe Quick, MMSD administration staff member, in discussing the proposed $26.2 million referendum for maintenance projects aired on the 10:00 p.m. TV Channel 27 newscast, February 28, stated that the request for revenue to support this referendum "would have no impact on taxes." The fact of the matter is that if there is no referendum or if the referendum fails, property taxes will decrease due to the retirement of revenue bonds for previous capital indebtedness.

Thoughts and Comments on MMSD School Fees Report

Last year, Bruce Kahn (parent) and I made a presentation to the School Board, meant as a supplement to the district administration's report on school fees. We asked several questions and made several recommendations for School Board consideration, which we still feel need to be considered. Currently, fees are put in at the last minute in the budget process. No one "likes" fees, but discussion is needed before they are put into place.

Parents and the Community Need Complete Information & Big Picture

Why are there school fees today?
What are the costs of Extra-Curricular activities?
How do Extra-Curricular costs compare to instructional costs?
What happens when fees don’t cover costs?
What are some suggestions for your consideration?

Next Steps - Needed But Not Being Taken

Identify what is at risk.
Develop an equitable funding plan – operating funds, fees, fundraising, partnering/sponsorships, etc., where feasible and legal to do so.
What can the District afford to pay - what other funding sources/strategies are possible.
Form groups - task forces to move forward.
Begin meaningful discussions now. Parents, kids and the community can’t wait year after year for in depth discussions to begin.
hearings or surveys will not get the job done.

Download Thoughts and Comments on MMSD School Fees Report

School-Funding Update

Reform advocates need to take action ... now!
In school, money really does matter
Support for TABOR in Wisconsin is questionable

School-funding reform calendar
The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES) is a statewide network of educators, school board members, parents, community leaders, and researchers. Its Wisconsin Adequacy Plan -- a proposal for school-finance reform -- is the result of research into the cost of educating children to meet state proficiency standards.Download School Funding Reform Update

How Can Parents Be Assured that the MMSD Budget Process Reflects Their Educational Priorities?

Two years ago in February Jane Doughty, MMSD parent and I asked the School Board questions regarding the budget process and we made some suggestions. Some changes have been made, but I think we are still missing: a) budget before budget cuts, b) discussion among board members about allocation of scarce resources, c) dialogue with the community early in the process so that your key stakeholders have a clear understanding of the issues, to name a few
You may still find the following information useful as you think about the budget.

Will the School Board:

A. Develop a clearly detailed, publicly accessible budget process - When?

B. Separate policy and budget issues - How?

C. Involve the public throughout the budget process – How and When?

Suggestions Made to the School Board in January 2003
Work With Representatives From Key Parent / Public Groups To Organize Communication with Public.

Publish Finalized Budget Goals and Objectives, Criteria, Tasks, Timelines For The Full Board & Its Committees – Backpack Mail, MMSD Website.

Make Corrections to Virchow / Krause Document (Other Documents) Prior To Use in Budget Process.

Use A Variety Of Tools That Can Gather Meaningful Input In a Timely Manner – Focus Groups, Public Workshops.

Download How Can Parents Be Assured that the MMSD Budget Reflects Their Priorities

comment section open

School Budget - Here we go AGAIN?!

What to Look for in the Next Few Weeks? Based upon the single macro-forecast of a revenue gap of $8+ million, School Board members were told a list of budget cuts would be presented to the School Board on March 7th. Without benefit of a budget, the School Board will hold public hearings, not meetings, where parents/public have an opportunity to comment on the proposed cuts.

At no time can the public have meaningful comment on the overall budget by department or the allocation of next year's revenue. Why? This information will not be presented to the School Board until May 2005, and there is only one hearing scheduled after this date. Because the cuts are distributed on March 3rd, the public will only be focusing on the cuts and not the overall budget, budget priorities, etc. This approach takes advantage of parent's wanting to protect their child's education first. Since parents are in panic mode, they cannot clearly see the bigger picture and often feel as if they are being held hostage without any alternatives or a chance to pursue/discuss alternatives.

What's Driving this Timeline? The Superintendent has said in the past that the data are not available and that the teachers' contract is another the main driver for the timeline. The teacher's contract includes dates for notices for surplus and layoff. The teacher's contract says nothing about the School Board's budget decisionmaking process. Surplus notices are not due until July 1. Layoff notices are due 10 days before the end of the school year. If the School Board had a policy directive to the Superintendent of no teacher layoffs, as they implicitly do with Administrators, the backend timeline would not be as tight. This is apparently not the case - existing teachers can be laid off but not existing administrators. Even though the amount of administrators is smaller than teachers, the policy is not equitable across all employee groups. The Superintendent says licenses requirements differ, etc. This is noise - there is no equitable policy in place.

What have I observed? a) The public is not engaged at the start of the budget process. It's February 28th and tonight the Board is taking up the discussions of communications with the PTOs. What?

Parents are only "scared into paying attention" when the cut list comes out, because we don't pay attention the rest of the year. I see no backpack mail from the board to parents on the budget, next steps, what the board wants to hear from parents, etc.

Our ideas and comments are not solicited in meaningful ways or forums. That would have had to take place in the fall.

b) Allocation of new revenues is not discussed. A brief analysis done last fall for the Board said this would mean cuts to deep to non-instruction if all dollars were allocated to instruction as a first priority. End of discussion. A next step for the School Board would have been to come back with more specific impacts and to develop a dialog with the community and an iterative process that would put the School Board more in a leadership position with the direction of the budget - something that does not exist with the existing decisionmaking process.

What am I missing, and why is there only once choice? If I was reviewing my home budget, and I felt I could manage the cuts in my budget, I would think this current board budget decisionmaking process is just fine. My husband and daughter might complain about the changes but not for long.

If I looked at my home budget and saw I could't buy all the food I needed or medicine or pay my mortgage, I would be in rapid action mode. As soon as I had an idea this was my budget problem, I would be doing something and fast. I wonder why our Superintendent, who says the district is facing this type of financial crunch, isn't more actively using his school board and getting the public on board beginning last July.

Explicit budget details are not needed to have public discussions about the annual budget, financial planning, priorities, allocation of scarce resources and different models of funding children's services that Madison values.

Yes, the feds and state are not holding up their end of the bargain - now, what are we going to do about this. Referendums are only one option, but more are needed - we are here again with only one option being presented as viable - oh yes, or cut educational services.

MMSD Budget - Parents Suggestions Over Time

Parent Presentations on the District's Budget Decisionmaking Process: Since Spring 2002, other parents and I have spoken to the School Board on a number of issues related to the District's budget decisionmaking promise. We often presented this information in a power point presentation in an easy-to-read and understand format. I'm now in the process of pulling together this information and will be uploading those previous presentations to the school board.

Information Contained in the Presentations: Much of the information presented to the School Board is still relevant today. Topics include: a) How Can Parents be Assured that the Budget Process is Meeting our Educational Needs? b) Questions to Consider when Discussing Fees c) What are the Revenue Cap and QEO?

Importance of Sharing this Information Now: We are entering the School Board's active period with the school budget - cuts affecting children are made known even if the budget is not made known until much later. The budget timeline is the same and the decisionmaking process is the same as it has been for the past several years. The Superintendent's recommended budget cuts will be presented on March 7th. School Board members say this is only the start of the process and that they want to hear from the community. In reality, very little changes from the time the budget cuts are presented until the Board approves the Budget sometime in June 2005.

Stay tuned.....

Maintenance Referendum Hearing - Video Clip

Watch a recent Madison School Board Maintenance Referendum Hearing (video). Don Severson, Roger Price, Art Rainwater and others discuss the planned maintenance referendum.

School Spending

The National Center for Education Statistics has released national K-12 student expenditure data per state. The national average is $7,734, of which $4,755 goes for instruction.

The Madison School District spends north of $12.9K (24,430 students in 2004/2005 per Roger Price's recent budget presentation) per student per year. We'll hear a great deal about the district's 2005/2006 budget over the next few months. Regardless of referendums or new federal/state aids, the district budget will go up, from 316.8M in 2004/2005 to perhaps 327.7M in 2005/2006 (again, according to Price's presentation). Via Joanne Jacobs.

Roger Price Budget Presentation

Roger Price, the Madison School District's Assistant Superintendent for Business Services presented a look at the upcoming year's district budget last Monday night (2.14.2005). Roger forwarded his powerpoint slides (260K pdf) and an excel spreadsheet on tax levies from 1993 to 2005 that he used in his presentation. You can view the presentation (or listen to an audio mp3 file) here.

Barb Schrank took a look at the video clip and has some comments below.

MMSD Budget Forecast - Board Asks Few Questions

Roger Price presented to the School Board a budget forecast (Roger Price Presentation - video/mp3 audio) for the next four years.

Watching the video I was surprised there was very limited discussion and few questions about the substance of the forecast. There was no discussion about or requests for the administration to develop alternative budget forecasts using different assumptions. There was no questions about the assumptions used. There was no discussion about setting a time to review directions to administration for making cuts - for example, what are the personnel policies? There will be no layoffs of administrators. Will that be the same for existing teachers? There was no discussion about when to discuss the financial impacts of programs that are not as effective as others and may be costing more than we can afford for the results. Examples of questions about curriculum - reading: what is being done to appeal federal $2 million, what is being done to review costs of reading and evaluating what is working best for most children, how is curriculum being evaluated at Lapham, how much are new contracts going to cost and relating this to personnel layoffs if referendums are not passed. what programs are not working, what do they costs, etc.

Basically, the majority of the school board assumed that was the gap - $29 million cumulatively over 4 years. No questions were asked about the assumptions used. This is the most important part of a forecast - what the assumptions are, what other assumptions could be considered. Unless you have a good understanding and confidence in the assumptions used, your forecast will be weakened.

The School Board received the information, said thank you and reviewed the dates needed to make a decision about going to a referendum for operating expenses. This is the first time the board has seen a budget forecast for 05-06 - no substantive discussion.

With the exception of the additional years in the budget forecast, which I was glad to see that an attempt had been made to go out several years, this presentation is the same process and discussions that I saw last year. The majority of the Board had no questions last year either - how can that be?

I think I would have lots of questions if I was facing a cumulative $29 million gap between revenues and expenditures in my budget.

Link to MMSD Budget Page

Budgeting and Financial Planning - What's the Difference?

The Superintendent of a small Massachusetts School District, East Long Meadow, prepared a clear, concise document describing his perspective of differences between budgeting and financial planning ( East Long Meadow MA Financial Planning Overview Document). He described fiscal responsibility of the school district:

"School Committee members, superintendents, and business managers have two levels of fiscal responsibility. The first level is compliance with state and federal law. Compliance ensures that the budget meets state standards and that state funds are directed to legislated accounts and programs. Compliance does not ensure that funds are being used efficiently or effectively, however. The second, higher order of responsibility is that of fiscal stewardship, which goes well beyond compliance and ensures that funds are spent on programs that make a difference and move the district toward its vision. Fiscal stewardship avoids deficit spending and the need for drastic cuts that undermine education. It requires that policy and process are in place to ensure that funds are used effectively and wisely and that deficits are avoided.

How does a School Committee achieve effective fiscal stewardship? The answer is financial planning. You would never build a new house only to tear down part of it because you didn't budget enough to finish the entire building. Unfortunately, that's how some districts often handle funds. Some build a district vision for student success one year at a time and often end up spending so much on small projects that they don't have enough for the programs that would really make a difference. But building a successful district requires a strategic plan, improvement goals, and a financial plan to support the vision--plus the fiscal stewardship to make sure tax dollars are being directed to the most effective programs and departments."

As MMSD takes its first small, positive public steps developing a multi-year budget, there is valuable information in this budget that can provide guidance for questions to ask about multi-year financial planning and not simply the same budget with inflated expenses.

I sent a copy of this memo to Carol Carstensen earlier this month. I have been asking for a long term financial picture, as has Ruth Robarts and others in the community. I am encouraged to see that the District Administration has taken the first step in that direction on February 14th.

Janet Morrow on the School Finance System

Janet Morrow weighs in on the current school finance system.

Madison Schools Proposed Athletic Field Fees

A reader forwarded me comments that were sent to the Madison School Board regarding the proposed athletic field fees:

As you would guess, many of us who have watched a soccer game, t-ball game or football game and enjoyed the unencumbered spirit and play of our children and have personally mowed the grass, or lined a field, you may oppose the school board proposal of a user fee for the athletic fields during non-school hours.

I sent a letter to the comments section of MMSD school board. Send yours to: comments@ at madison.k12.wi.us

My letter to the school board stated:

I notice there is a proposal whereby the school board wants to consider placing a user fee on the school athletic fields for any use of these fields outside of school functions and MSCR activities. I am opposed to this proposal for a few reasons:

1. The school boards refusal to look at cutting administrative costs downtown as part of any budget proposals. Continuing to cut teaching positions and programs that affect learning is not reasonable and needs to be discouraged. Also would encourage looking at savings in terms of health care costs by negotiating HMO contracts rather than giving the teachers the comprehensive health insurance they presently receive.

2. The lack of maintenance of the fields by the schools. I have personally mowed the soccer fields at Cherokee, lined the fields and have watched coaches donate time and equipment (goals) to make the fields playable. I doubt that the maintenance or quality of equipment will improve with the user fee proposed.

3. Anything that can be done to encourage childhood fitness rather than discourage it should be the stance of the school board. Using the fees towards an improved PE curriculum with daily PE through 12th grade, improved athletic facilities both indoor and outdoor or promises of daily physical activity time outside of PE would be a first step in garnering my support of such a fee.

If the fee is assessed, I will not be interested in supporting the proposed referendum for a new school or capital improvement.

Madison Schools Maintenance Referendum: Fox 47/27 Report

Fox 47/WKOW 27 broadcast a report on the Madison Schools planned maintenance referendum Tuesday night [3.9MB Quicktime Video] The story included an interview with Superintendent Art Rainwater and ACE's Don Severson. Lee Sensenbrenner has more here and here. UPDATE: Aubre Andrus has more on the recent board meeting.

ACE Maintenance Referendum Testimony

Don Severson forwarded a pdf [67K] of ACE's presentation to the Madison School District's Board of Education on the proposed maintenance referendum.

Don also forwarded ACE's suggestions for the Board of Education's strategy. [97K PDF]

ACTIVE CITIZENS FOR EDUCATION
Public Hearing Presentation to Long Range Planning Committee of MMSD Board of Education
January 19, 2005

By law, the members of the Board of Education of the Madison Metropolitan School District are to be held in a fiduciary responsibility to the public in the operation of the schools. As elected officials, this responsibility is expected to be based in trust, confidence and openness to those served.

Trust, confidence and openness are key factors by which the greater Madison community of taxpayers will judge your decisions regarding the promulgation of a referendum seeking tax revenues for future maintenance projects in our schools. Your decisions and communications will be expected to demonstrate that the public can have confidence that:

1. expenditure requests for maintenance
a. are an integral and continuous part of the total budgeting process
b. show the implications for projected near term and long term revenue shortfalls
c. differentiate clearly one-time projects proposed for referendum support from ongoing operations budget maintenance expenditures
d. show the potential for seeking taxpayer approval to raise the revenue cap for general operations monies

2. maintenance is an ongoing business expense addressed in the operations budget with expenditures prioritized by using written objective criteria

3. funds allocated for maintenance in the operations budget will be ‘held harmless’ from reduction and/or re-allocation to other budget line items

4. proposed maintenance projects are considered in relation to proposed and/or actual closing or change of functional status of school buildings or other facilities

5. maintenance decisions are related to purposes which are good business decisions according to established criteria

6. balanced assessment of infrastructure and equipment using actuarial studies of probable useful life combined with appropriate evaluation of the current condition of the systems within the context of same use and/or changed use

7. there are separate categories and prioritization of energy conservation projects; capital projects; and, day-to-day operational maintenance

8. policies are initiated and implemented consistently and fairly with regard to Request for Proposals (RFPs) and for scoring projects for contracting out vs projects for possible completion by in-house staff with follow-up evaluation

9. energy saving a. initiatives are planned and costs are determined in advance b. calculations are delineated and justify the investment and return on investment c. paybacks and savings are accounted for and re-invested in the maintenance program by the district

10. accountability for the true costs of management and administration and staffing levels for projects is spelled out in project estimates and final costs

For the District to continue along the same pathway as has been evident the past few years is NOT acceptable. The highly questionable accountability will indeed put the children of this community further at risk. The lack of sound decision-making and poor performance will continue to put more and more homeowners and renters at risk thereby forcing us out of our homes, neighborhoods and the community. The taxpayers of this community have long been abundantly generous in the support of the Madison school system (and we believe will likely continue to be so). There are, however, higher expectations and demands for effectiveness, performance and efficiency within affordable means. Every household in this community is impacted through taxes levied for the schools--over 70% of these households do not have children. We are expecting much better and higher levels of accountability from the policy makers and administrators of the school district.

Presented by: Active Citizens for Education; Don Severson, President; 238-8300; info @ activecitizensforeducation . org

Winkler Letter to Keys & School Board on Administrator Contracts

Madison School Board Candidate, Parent and activist Lawrence Winkler forwarded a letter to Board President Bill Keys regarding Madison School's budget process if cuts must be made for the 2005-2006 School Year.

Winkler provides some useful background information and offers a suggestion to move forward with an improved decision making process. Click below to read his letter or here for a 37K pdf print version.

Dear Mr. Keys, Members of the Board

The Board is to consider issuing non-renewal notices for administrative staff positions at the Special Board meeting of January 24. Unlike others, I do not at this time recommend issuing non-renewal notices. It does not foster my goals toward establishing a better decision-making process.

The Board’s decision-making process is flawed, in part, because the timing of critical budget-related decisions occurs piecemeal (sequentially) throughout the year. The result of sequential decision-making has several negative consequences.

1. Not all stakeholders are at the table during the budget negotiations

2. The Board and other stakeholders are unable to negotiate in light of the total needs of MMSD and other stakeholders.

3. The degrees of freedom open to the Board have been lost.

4. Different interests groups dominate at each stage, desiring only to “get their cut”, without being forced to consider the best interests of all.

5. It is well known that the result of sequential decisions is less than optimal (and certainly different) compared to a process where all decisions are made at once.

The Board is bound by Section 118.24 Wis. Stats. regarding the timing of non-renewal notices, appeal processes by affected staff, etc., but the timing is based on contract expiration date, and the contract expiration date is not explicitly determined by statute.

Therefore, I propose that the Board consider extending the expiration date of the Administrative contracts to August 31 from the current June 30, and modify HR Policy 9.04 accordingly.

Because the Administration offers a proposed budget model in February, with the Board approving the potential cut list in March, there will be opportunity to better consider the budget as a whole. Letters of non-renewal, if so decided in light of the whole budget, would occur on April 1, with hearings requested by affected staff on May 1.

I believe this proposal offers a viable alternative to the current process, and would allow the Board to make better budget decisions.

Thank you and the Board in advance for considering this proposal.

Sincerely,

Lawrence J. Winkler

Cc: Art Rainwater

Posted by Jim Zellmer at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Dane County School Funding Forum Followup

Margaret Stumpf sent a followup message to the recent Dane County School Funding Forum.

Please check with Channel 10 on the televised version of the State Budget Information Seminar held on WED, Jan 12 at Monona Grove HIgh School if you did not attend. It was very informational. I also have hard copies (as daoe Amy through me) of the infor passed out at the meeting.

All are encouraged to contact Governor Doyle IMMEDIATELY (as the budget is in the works) to encourage him to accept Superintendent Burmeister's and the Governor's Task Force on Educational Excellence's proposals for school fuding.

Letters can be sent to:

Governor Jim Doyle (web email link)
Officer of the Governor
115 East
State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
608-266-1212
608-267-6790 (TTY
608-267-8983 (FAX)

They can be sent individually or en mass. As we all know, a lot of what individual districts are able to do is based on state aid, and the lack of in areas that the state had committed to (such as 2/3 special ed funding) that was later revoked.

Kobza letter to Keys: Don't cut teachers

Madison School Board Candidate, Parent and PTO activist Lawrie Kobza forwarded a letter to Board President Bill Keys regarding Madison Schools financial priorities if cuts must be made for the 2005-2006 School Year.

In past years, the district limited its budget options when it passed on non-renewal of administrator contracts by February 1 (the MMSD is required to provide six months non-renewal notice prior to the July 1 administrative contract start date).

This date, February 1, passes long before detailed public discussions begin on the next budget. Inevitably as cuts, or reductions in the increase must be made, school staff such as teachers and custodians (or wrestling, or strings in 2004) are the target (because the administrative contracts have not been given the required six month non-renewal notice).

Kobza's letter (28K PDF) & Linda Hall's Administrative contract background 2 pager. (77K PDF)

Robarts & Severson on the planned MMSD Maintenance Referendum

MP3 audio file (22 minutes, 3.8MB) of Ruth Robarts & Don Severson's recent appearance on local AM radio station wiba.

Focus is on education

Patricia Simms and Phil Brinkman Wisconsin State Journal
January 13, 2005

Gov. Jim Doyle on Wednesday used his State of the State speech to put forward a potent "education agenda" for Wisconsin.

It included:

• Increasing math and science requirements for high school graduation.

• Giving school districts more money for 4-year-old kindergarten and for reducing class size in the early grades.

• Rating child-care providers on quality as he promised last May.

Continue Reading "Focus in on Education"

Milwaukee Area School Chiefs Pay Outpaces Teachers

Amy Hetzner:

More than three of every four school districts paid their superintendents more in 2003-'04, when measured against what the average teacher was paid, than they did in the 1995-'96 school year, according to a Journal Sentinel analysis of data reported to the state.

In addition, with perks such as payments to tax-sheltered annuities added in, fringe benefits for superintendents in about half the five-county Milwaukee area districts have increased at a higher rate than their teachers' benefits. But while rising costs for teachers' health insurance and pensions have strained contract negotiations, escalating superintendent benefits have gotten little attention.

All of this has happened despite a provision in state law that requires school boards to restrict compensation raises for school administrators to 3.8% or the same percentage increase given to teachers the prior year.

Since the law was enacted in 1993, the Legislature has approved enough loopholes that the law can be largely ignored. There also is apparently no oversight other than local school boards and their voters.

"I mean, so what? So you break the rule," said Roger Danielsen, a member of the Waukesha School Board, which approved a 15.9% salary increase for its superintendent this year. "I don't think there's any enforcement, although we're trying to stay true to the (teachers') package."

MMSD Committee Considers Building and Maintenance Referenda - But What About the Rest of the Budget

I'm puzzled. The MMSD School Board's Long Range Planning Committee and Community Advisory Committee have spent the fall discussing plans to build a new school on the grounds of the existing Leopold Elementary School and $26+ million maintenance referenda. But, what's the School Board been considering?

A new school and a new five year maintenance referendum are being given careful public consideration and discussion. But, there's been no discussion of the overall budget of which these two items are only two parts.

What about the rest of the $350 million school budget and its priorities? When will this be discussed? If you look at the present proposed timeline for development of the 2005-2006 budget, cuts won't be presented until March, at the earlies. Cuts are not a discussion of the budget.

Why haven't discussions been taking place about what the needs are for instruction and instructional support and what the budget costs of these needs will be for 2005-2006? What education for our children do we envision the next 3-5 years? What are ways to get to those goals?

We've heard about curriculum development, but have not seen dollars and effectiveness of those dollars being given much discussion publicly?

When did the School Board decide to discuss building an maintenance referendum, but decide to wait until March to consider the rest?

What plans are underway to maintain curriculum the community values and children/parents want? What new partnerships are being explored by the Partnerships Committee?

Debt buydown to pay for maintenance? Where's the discussion about using the debt buydown to pay for instruction and instructional support? When will the School Board have these discussions?

Let's consider the buildings and their maintenance, but let's keep the big picture in mind and present. Any addition to the budget needs to be weighed against the district's overall priorities, and there needs to be more public discussion and problem solving - soon, very soon.

Upkeep Of Schools On Ballot? - Lee Sensenbrenner, The Capital Times

Committee Ponders Two Referendums - Sandy Cullen in Wi State Journal

MMSD Hiring Freeze - Capital Times Editorial

In a recent editorial The Capital Times praised Supt. Rainwater's announcement of a hiring slowdown that is intended to maintain educational quality while saving money. Teaching positions will be filled, but non-teaching positions will only be filled if there is a clear necessity for them. The District expects to save $600,000 by holding open as many as 40 positions.

The Capital Times Praises MMSD Hiring Slowdown as Necessary and Prudent

School District To Be Cautious In Filling Vacancies

Sandy Cullen, Wi State Journal reported December 11, 2004 that "The Madison School District put the brakes on filling job openings Friday in anticipation of a potential $1 million shortfall in its utilities budget due to price increases."

Filling School Vacancies on Hold

Taxpayer Information I'd like to see from the Madison School District

Given this and the probability of three spending referendums this spring, I would like to see the Madison School District's finance folks publish the following information (in html, on their web site):

The District's sources and uses of funds over the past 10 years, including:

• total spending (education, special ed, services, staff/admin, other)
  
  
• Employment numbers (teachers, staff, part time, mscr)
  
  
• revenues (by source: grants, local taxes, state & federal funds), fees
  
  
• Student counts, including low income changes, special ed and population changes across the district (from school to school)
  
  
• Supporting numbers, notes and comments to the data.

Wisconsin Property Taxes

Several recent articles highlight the ongoing problem of state & local taxes growing faster than Wisconsin personal income:

• Wisconsin Taxpayer's Alliance released a study that forecasts 2005 property taxes will go up more than 6 percent. They also forecast that the local school portion of property taxes will go up 7.3%. They also found that property taxes will account for 4.1% of Wisconsin taxpayer's personal income. (via JR Ross)
  
  
• Unsurprisingly, The Taxpayer Bill of Rights continues to be discussed in Madison. This will continue to be a hot button issue as long as state and local spending continues to rise faster than personal incomes (there will be a reckoning unless the economy grows faster...., here's an example: Judy Wagner, 65, a Milwaukee substitute teacher, said her property taxes were forcing her to postpone her retirement. Her property tax bill had risen from about $3,000 in 2000 to just under $4,700 now, she said.

  "My options are to work until I'm 75 or 80 or sell my home and move south like three of my friends have," she said.) Via Patrick Marley & Steven Walters.
  
  

• This will help, to some degree, though we must create a more robust environment for tax paying entrepreneurs. True statewide, 2 way broadband (not the current slow DSL and cable modem services) and a much simplified tax/paperwork process would be a great start.

WEAC Survey on Revenue Caps & School Spending

WEAC:

The Wisconsin Education Association Council and Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators annual survey of school administrators uncovered a new trend in the 2003-2004 school year: districts are being forced to cut academic programs because of state-imposed revenue controls. Revenue controls severely limit the funds school districts can raise and spend.

At a Frontier of School Reform, Getting Millions, Seeking More

JACKSON, Ky., Dec. 3 - As New York City schools celebrate the findings by a court-appointed panel that could bring them $5.6 billion more every year, the schools under the sawed-off mountains here in the heart of coal country tell a hopeful but cautionary tale of what may lie ahead.

Once the Kentucky Supreme Court said the state's school system needed revamping, in a ruling that inspired court cases and decisions around the nation, lawmakers here enacted one of the country's most thorough education overhauls within a year.

At a Frontier of School Reform, Getting Millions, Seeking More

Comments on MMSD's Buyout of East High Principal

Last spring four Board members –Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys and Juan Lopez—voted to authorize the superintendent to buyout problem employees and pay them up to five months in wages and benefits. Members Ray Allen, Shwaw Vang and I voted no. The decision was retroactive to cover deals with two teachers that the superintendent had already made.

Now we see the results of this bad policy decision,

as the Board finds that its role in buying out the former principal of East High School is limited to approving her resignation tonight, effective March 31, 2005. Her wages and most fringe benefits end on March 31, but her eligibility for district-paid health insurance continues through April 2005. In total, she receives at least six months of compensation.

One reason to vote no on the resignation is that the period of wages and benefits clearly exceeds the spirit of the policy.

Another reason to vote no is that the superintendent will fund the buyout with dollars not used for the wages and benefits of a Fine Arts Coordinator, an important position that remains unfilled. Recently we learned that a super-majority of the Board---5 members-- is necessary every time that the superintendent moves funds from one department to another. This buyout moves at least $37,000 from one department to another. No Board vote occurred on this transfer before the superintendent signed the agreement on November 29.

Reason Number 3 is that the superintendent hired outside counsel---an expensive attorney from a Milwaukee firm—to advise him on the deal. Never mind that the District has six attorneys on its payroll, all of whom are qualified to represent the district on employment termination agreements. This action—also not approved by the Board--- is an abuse of the superintendent’s discretion to purchase services for the district. This purchase of private counsel has not been explained. Nor does the Board know why the superintendent chose to exclude the Board’s attorney from the negotiation process.

Overall, this buyout has the appearance of the cover-up. The superintendent has sole discretion to reassign a problem employee in emergency circumstances. However, the employee has a right to a due process hearing on the reassignment, with legal counsel, the right to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine the district’s witnesses and other protections. The reassigned employee may request--- as did this employee-- a hearing before a private hearing examiner, as we routinely provide in expulsion hearings. The purpose of this hearing process is to safeguard the interests of the reassigned employee and of the district. In a hearing we would see the reassignment from both perspectives, whether we heard the case ourselves or assigned it to an outside examiner.

In extreme situations, I can understand that both parties might decide that a buyout is preferable to an adversarial hearing. But in those situations it is critical that the superintendent not be able to keep the whole process from the Board. We are the party to this buyout, not the superintendent as an individual. He is our employee and accountable to us for the judgment to reassign this employee and for how the reassignment process was carried out.

As the elected representatives of the public--- as we vote tonight--- the Board does not know whether there were good reasons for the buyout or not. We do not know whether our superintendent and assistant superintendent properly followed reassignment procedures or not. We do not know why our staff attorneys were considered not good enough for the job. We have no way, in short, to assure that the superintendent has negotiated a buyout in the best interests of the district or in his own interests. We just don’t know.

We have the bill for the outside attorney. We may eventually vote on which departmental funds are used in the buyout. We should not rubber-stamp this resignation. We should get answers to these and other important questions before we again retroactively approve a buyout by the superintendent.

Above all—however this vote goes---the majority should reconsider the policy that let this situation develop. It delegates major responsibilities of this elected body to one employee and such excessive delegation leads to abuse or at least the appearance of abuse of discretion.

Comments at the December 6, 2005 meeting of the Madison School Board. The Board voted 5-2 to accept the resignation of the principal. Voting yes were Carol Carstensen, Bill Clingan, Bill Keys, Juan Lopez,
Ruth Robarts and Johnny Winston, Jr. Shwaw Vang and I voted no.
Member, Madison Board of Education, 1997 to present

Long Range Budget Planning - Larry Winkler Public Appearance before MMSD School Board

On November 8, 2004, Larry Winkler spoke before the MMSD School Board about the need for long range budget planning and consideration of priorities in planning.

LarryWinkler's Comments Before MMSD School Board

Put School Costs Back on the Agenda - WI State Journal Opinion

Can Wisconsin cover the real expenses of schools without raising overall taxes? With each passing year of neglect, the task becomes more daunting.
Wisconsin schools will collect 7.3 percent more this year in property taxes, the largest boost in more than a decade, the state says. Wisconsin's 426 school districts expect to levy $3.61 billion on tax bills being sent out this month, compared with $3.37 billion last year.

Sen. Mike Ellis, R-Neenah, a lonely voice calling for wholesale overhaul of education financing, says even bigger levies are coming if government fails to revamp a financing system that no longer accounts for the widely varying types of financial pressures facing public schools.

Read the full Opinion piece from December 5, 2004

WI Journal Opinion: Put school costs back on agenda

Superintendent Art Rainwater's recent comments on the Budget and the Reading First rejection

I recently received a copy of the minutes of the November 3, 2004 Superintendent's Faculty Committee meeting. During this meeting Superintendent Art Rainwater discusses a variety of topics, including the recent rejection of $2M in Reading First funds and the district's budget. The minutes are available in this 350K pdf document. Highlights:

On Declining Federal Funds: "This situation (declining federal funds) presents a dilemma for a Superintendent - not so much for me because I've done what I want to do and am looking at the end of my career. But for a young, career-building Superintendent in a struggling district it would be very hard to decide whether you accept desperately needed money and compromise program, or turn it down because you know you have something better."

"What was the reaction to the district saying no to federal money? I read a little about it in the newspaper. That was it - there was no other reaction."

on Reading First:
"The Reading 1st grants are designed to support schools where reading is an issue. Like everthing in NCLB, they are based on a relatively sound principle but farther down the line you find something insidious about that. . ."

On No Child Left Behind:
"By the year 2013, if we have one single student in the whole district who is not proficient or advanced in reading, math and science, then our district would be designated a failure. Much research has been done by a variety of educational associations. They show that, after six years, 80% of districts will be failing. When that is the goal, people don't take it seriously. An important part about making change is having attainable goals."

In response to a question on the budget,"Are we headed for another $10 million in budget cuts?" Art answered, "The best case, which I believe we are heading for, is between $6-7 million. The worst case would be if the Legislature passes a property tax freeze and the Governor can't veto it, which would result in somewhere between $15-17 million."

Madison School Performance Series: Reading Instruction

The Madison School Performance Series of issue briefs will offer parents and others accessible information and analysis of critical school program and funding issues. The first paper on Reading Instruction is attached. In a question and answer format it discusses the failing Reading Recovery program and how the District’s commitment to the program is costing us more per student than other more effective programs. Upcoming papers will address issues such as fine arts, programs for talented and gifted students and administration funding.

View this 1 Page PDF File [72K PDF]

Private funds padding public schools

Sarah Carr on the growing use of private funding sources in public schools.

School Tax Bill Increase Modest / Board Votes to Go Ahead with Leopold Elementary New School Design

School Tax Bill Increase Modest

Tuesday, October 26, 2004
By Lee Sensenbrenner The Capital Times

After a year of budget cutting and no referendums, Madison property taxpayers will see a modest increase in what they'll pay for public schools next year.
For the owner of the house that perfectly follows the city's statistical averages, rising in value this year from $189,500 to $205,400, the bill from the Madison Metropolitan School District will climb by $54. The total bill will be about $2,362, according to administrators' figures.

For the few whose assessments did not increase, the school property tax will decline; the budget that the Madison School Board passed Monday cuts the tax rate from $12.18 to $11.50 per $1,000 of assessed property value, a 5.6 percent dip.

Overall, the portion of the $317 million budget supported by local property taxpayers rose by 3.16 percent this year, from about $196 million to $202 million. The year before, when voters approved a referendum, the same levy rose by almost 10 percent and school taxes for the average homeowner went up by $216.

Each fall, after counting official enrollment and making other adjustments, the Madison School Board formalizes the budget it set the previous spring. In this cycle, the board cut nearly $10 million worth of services that were squeezed out as cost increases pressed against the state's cap on school spending.

Board member Ruth Robarts was the only dissenter in the votes to authorize the budget. She has criticized the administration for bringing up only parts of the budget for debate and scrutiny and she feels greater efficiencies could be found through fresh analysis and a more open process.

Other board members Monday praised the administration for a thorough and exhausting effort to come up with the best possible budget, given that nearly $10 million worth of services would be taken from schools.

"This is the budget of clarity," board President Bill Keys said, adding that it underwent more scrutiny and was presented in more detail than ever before.

*

Leopold Elementary: On a unanimous vote, the School Board also moved closer Monday to building a new school on the city's south side.

Their vote gives the administration permission to get architects' designs for the school and to propose wording for the referendum that would fund its construction.

So far, the plan is to build a school on the campus that connects to Leopold Elementary. The old building would serve kindergarten through second grade and the new school would serve third through fifth grade, creating a campus with some 800 or more elementary school students.

The initial estimates put the cost for the project at roughly $11 million.

Leopold Elementary has been crowded for several years and many students who would be within its enrollment boundary are bused to schools on the west and far southwest side. Administrators say new subdivisions in the area are expected to further speed the influx of new students around Leopold.

"Not trying to build a school on that site would represent a break in faith with the Leopold parents," board member Bill Clingan said. "This really is the only practical thing to do."

Juan Jose Lopez, a board member who also spoke in favor of the school, brought up the two perennial concerns of trying to build a new elementary school. He said the district must find a way to convince those without children and those who live away from the south side to vote for it.

For the second group, there is, among other things, talk of districtwide boundary changes for elementary school enrollment.

E-mail: lsensenbrenner@madison.com

School Board Oks Budget For 2004-05 / Board Voted Unanimously to Pursue Building a Second Elementary School

School Board Oks Budget For 2004-05
Taxes On The Average Madison Home Will Increase $54.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Doug Erickson Wisconsin State Journal

The Madison School Board passed a final budget Monday that raises taxes by $54 on the typical city home.
The owner of an average-priced home in Madison, now valued at $205,400, will pay $2,362 in school taxes for 2004, according to the district.

In 2003, the average home was valued at $189,500, and the school tax bill on it was $2,308.

The board passed a preliminary budget in May. Adjustments are made every October after fall enrollment and state aid become clear.

Monday, the board approved total spending of $317.2 million for the 2004-05 school year. Comparisons to last year are tricky because the district is including more than $7 million worth of grant money in this year's total, said Roger Price, assistant superintendent of business services. In the past, grant money was not part of this total, he said.

Price said last year's budget of $305.1 million compares to $309.5 million this year, an increase of 1.4 percent.

Of the total budget, $202.4 million will come from the local property tax levy, an increase of $6.2 million, or 3.2 percent.

The district's tax rate actually declined this year by 5.6 percent because the total value of property in the district rose due to factors such as inflation and new housing growth. However, most homeowners will pay more school taxes because the assessed value of their homes increased an average of 8.3 percent from last year to this year.

This year's tax increase of $54 on the average home is one-fourth of last year's $216 increase. That's because the one-year spending referendum passed by voters in June 2003 has expired. Also, board members cut programs and raised fees this year to make up a $10 million difference between what the district wanted to spend and what state law would allow it to spend.

District enrollment this year is 24,710, down 178 students.

The vote on the budget was 6-1, with Ruth Robarts dissenting. "There are efficiencies that we must look at, and I have very little confidence that we've done that with this budget," she said.

Also Monday:

* The board voted unanimously to pursue building a second elementary school on the campus of Leopold Elementary, 2602 Post Road.

The South Side school has 678 students -- the top end of its capacity. Many more students are expected in the next five years due to home construction in Fitchburg.

Monday's decision allows the administration to work with architects on a preliminary design. However, the board has not yet authorized a referendum. That decision will come in a later vote. The board is strongly leaning toward putting the issue on the ballot in April.

The district's Long Range Planning Committee recommended earlier in the evening that the board pursue the second school.

Because Leopold's attendance area is a peninsula that borders other school districts on three sides, changing boundaries would be an impractical solution, said Superintendent Art Rainwater. The district would be forced to change the attendance areas of many schools, in some cases busing children past their neighborhood schools to get to schools on the Isthmus or the East Side that have space.

"The only way to look at it is that you wipe out all the current boundaries and start over," he said.

The estimated cost of the new school is about $11 million.

MMSD Budget Amendments and Tax Levy Adoption for 2004-2005

On Monday, October 25, 2004, the MMSD approved the final budget and tax levy for the 2004-2005 School Year. The budget was updated to include new grant revenues, accounting adjustments, 3rd Friday of September 2004 student count and State Aid certified by Department of Public Instruction.

The School Board passed three resolutions:

Resolution 1:

Be it resolved that the Board of Education approve amendments to the 2004-05 budget to reflect the adjustments between funds, departments and major functions as presented (October 25, 2004 document) and further that the Board of Education amend the 2004-05 budget to increase revenues and expenditures in the amount of $7,237,466.

Roger Price's Presentation for Resolution 1: Posted by Barb Schrank at 12:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack