While this blog is focused (obsessed perhaps) on education in Milwaukee , it may be wise to take a moment to observe that there is a national election this Tuesday. How will the outcome affect Milwaukee education? Or, to suspend reality for a moment, assume there is a voter who will decide solely on who will make Milwaukee schools better? How should that voter vote?
The No Child Left Behind Act has effectively neutralized those on the Milwaukee school board and outside it who would like to roll back the measurement of student outcomes. Bush, of course, put a major effort into passing this measure, and Kerry supports it. While Kerry has criticized the funding levels, there is every reason to believe he would continue to support the use of measurement. In fact, his proposals for teacher incentives make use of value-added measures of student achievement.
Milwaukee has been a leader in opening more alternatives for students, especially charter schools and the school choice program. Both Bush and Kerry are strong supporters of charter schools. Bush supports, while Kerry opposes, private school choice. The future of school choice in Milwaukee, however, will largely be decided by state politics, not national politics.
Thus on issues, Schools Now gives a slight advantage to Bush, both because of his support for private school choice and the political capital he was willing to invest in pushing the NCLB legislation.
A second question is political courage: how willing is the candidate to support reforms that may offend important parts of his base? While Bush's support for a more active federal role in education ran counter to those conservatives who would prefer to abolish the Department of Education, his support of school choice is practically risk free. Kerry, however, risks offending an important part of his base through his support of the NCLB, of teacher incentives, and of charter schools.
On political courage on education issues, then, Schools Now gives the edge to Kerry. The danger is that teachers' unions and others opposed to school reform may expect a president Kerry to show his gratitude for their support by backing down on his positions. Yet, having shown his willingness to buck them before the election, it would be puzzling if he buckled afterwards.
A final issue is the effect of the election on the political viability of reform in Milwaukee. NCLB was the one truly bi-partisan major legislative initiative of the Bush administration. Yet despite the active involvement of Democrats like Edward Kennedy, opponents of measurement and accountability have tried to paint this measure as a plot by conservative Republicans to destroy public education. Support from a president Kerry could restore a measure of bi-partisan support to the NCLB reforms and offer a dollop of succor to Milwaukee reformers not eager to be cast as conservatives or Republicans.
Likewise, Milwaukee's charter schools are placed at risk by WEAC's current campaign attacking Republicans for supporting them. Optimistically perhaps, having a Democratic president who supports charters might take some of the wind out of this campaign.
Finally, it seems unlikely that the election will have much effect either way on the present entanglement of the school choice program with state partisan politics. As I suggested earlier, this is likely to change only when choice supporters learn how to build a political base in the low-income areas where most of the families who benefit from the program live.
Thus, in terms of making support for reform easier in Milwaukee, Schools Now gives a strong advantage to Kerry.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Larry O'Neill
Larry O'Neill is by far the senior member of the Milwaukee School Board, having been first elected in 1977. Despite his longevity, he has not left much of a mark on MPS. Cautious by nature, he seems reluctant to take the lead on issues, even those he has long supported. For example, his board profile lists a goal as "the reduction of student busing through the establishment of neighborhood schools." Yet he was reluctant to embrace the Neighborhood Schools Initiative when it was first introduced. Although likeable, he appears to have no interest in building coalitions among board members for specific measures.
O'Neill has an occasional independent streak. He was the only board member to oppose the proposed bond issue twelve years ago, probably reflecting its unpopularity in his district. Although generally considered part of the 5-member pro-MTEA majority, he regards Morales and Blewett as overly ideological. His sense of propriety is offended at Charlene Hardin's sometimes disruptive behavior; at a recent board meeting, he took time to denounce in detail her behavior in committee--without mentioning her name.
It is unclear if he will run for re-election.
O'Neill has an occasional independent streak. He was the only board member to oppose the proposed bond issue twelve years ago, probably reflecting its unpopularity in his district. Although generally considered part of the 5-member pro-MTEA majority, he regards Morales and Blewett as overly ideological. His sense of propriety is offended at Charlene Hardin's sometimes disruptive behavior; at a recent board meeting, he took time to denounce in detail her behavior in committee--without mentioning her name.
It is unclear if he will run for re-election.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Congressional candidates follow the script
I stopped by a forum today between the two Milwaukee congressional candidates: Democrat Gwen Moore and Republican Jerry Boyle. While both declared how much they respected each other, they both hewed to their party line, meaning that Boyle has no chance of election in this district. (I keep hoping that a Republican will put a seat in play by breaking with his party on one of the big issues--no such luck this time). Moore seemed to be running mostly against George Bush, not Jerry Boyle.
They also followed the script on education. Moore talked about the need for more money; Boyle about charters and vouchers. All dog bites man stuff. Now if Moore pushed vouchers and Boyle talked about getting more resources into schools, that would be exciting.
They also followed the script on education. Moore talked about the need for more money; Boyle about charters and vouchers. All dog bites man stuff. Now if Moore pushed vouchers and Boyle talked about getting more resources into schools, that would be exciting.
Choice seat allocation toasted
Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel reports that a legislative committee shot down proposed rules to allocate school choice seats when enrollment hits the cap. The Department of Public Instruction had proposed the rules in the hopes of reducing the impact of the caps--for example, by giving priority to siblings.
By contrast, it appears that without the rules the impact will be harsher. Apparently, schools would estimate their enrollments, the estimates would be totaled, and if the total exceeded the cap all allocations would be reduced by the same percentage. This would seem to create a huge incentive to game the system: schools that overestimated their expected enrollment would see less of a cut than those who submitted a more honest estimate. At the end, it is possible that some schools would have to turn away students while others had unfilled seats.
Oddly, it seems clear that the committee rejected the proposed rules at the behest of school choice advocates. Apparently they hope that a messier implementation will create pressure on Governor Doyle to raise the caps. I am skeptical, but hope I am proven wrong. I expect the governor to blame any mess on the Republicans who control the legislature and the school choice advocates.
By contrast, it appears that without the rules the impact will be harsher. Apparently, schools would estimate their enrollments, the estimates would be totaled, and if the total exceeded the cap all allocations would be reduced by the same percentage. This would seem to create a huge incentive to game the system: schools that overestimated their expected enrollment would see less of a cut than those who submitted a more honest estimate. At the end, it is possible that some schools would have to turn away students while others had unfilled seats.
Oddly, it seems clear that the committee rejected the proposed rules at the behest of school choice advocates. Apparently they hope that a messier implementation will create pressure on Governor Doyle to raise the caps. I am skeptical, but hope I am proven wrong. I expect the governor to blame any mess on the Republicans who control the legislature and the school choice advocates.
Jennifer Morales
Jennifer Morales represents the fifth school board district, stretching from the East Side to the near South Side. For most of her term it appears that the school board has been her only employment, reflected in her comments during the board pay hike controversy: "It's very hard to hold another job while we're doing this work." However, she is currently listed as Development Director for 9to5.
Prior to joining the board, Morales worked for Alex Molnar at UWM. Her primary role there seems to have been compiling examples for an annual survey of commercialization in education. While Morales describes herself as an educational researcher, it appears she has little experience with measuring educational effectiveness and has been particularly hostile to using tests to measure student learning. When Molnar moved to Arizona, he took the commercialization center and its grants along with him and Morales' job ended.
Prior to the Molnar gig, she wrote several articles for Rethinking Schools:
"Apple Tries to Censor History"
"Buying Minds"
"Fasting for Funding"
"Massachusetts Policy Protects Gay/Lesbian Students"
"Really Rich White Guys"
"Sex Harassment Rampant in Schools"
"School to War?"
"Wisconsin Explores Funding Alternatives"
Since those articles predate the time Rethinking Schools was placed on the web, they are not easily accessible. Judging from the topics, however, it appears evident that her themes were typical of Rethinking Schools.
Despite this background in education, Morales has been surprisingly unclear as to her vision for MPS. She has expressed reservations about many of the MPS initiatives (neighborhood schools, decentralization of funding, testing, reduction of busing, etc.), but has usually acquiesced in the end. A theme both in her election campaign and since is the need for more funding, but she has not shown a viable strategy to obtain it.
While on the board, much of her energy seems to have been devoted to issues peripheral to education (bus driver contracts or the radio station), external to MPS (opposition to vouchers), or outside of education entirely (opposition to the Iraq war, support of grocery unions). She has been particularly active as a spokesperson for groups opposing vouchers.
In the view of some of her colleagues, the explosion of outrage over the board pay raise she supported and then-mayoral candidate Tom Barrett's proposal to have the mayor appoint the board shocked Morales. As a result, she has recently adopted a more moderate, and less strident and ideological tone, breaking with her ally Peter Blewett by supporting renewal of the superintendent's contract and supporting his budget proposal.
Recently, she is emerging as a Democratic Party activist. She was a delegate to the Democratic convention in Boston. She is currently running as a Democrat against Senator Alberta Darling on the North Shore. While it appears she has little chance of winning (she has little money and if the party thought it had a good chance of winning the seat it is likely they would have recruited a more moderate candidate with a better chance of appealing to independents), this race should seal her Democratic party identity.
It appears Morales is a good bet to win reelection in the fifth district, even if her interests are less in how to make MPS more effective than the traditional liberal issues played out in the legislature. As a woman, Hispanic, and "out-bisexual," she hits the trifecta of identity politics important to many in the district. Particularly if Bush is re-elected, stoking anger among Democrats, her emergence as a Democratic activist should play well in the district.
Prior to joining the board, Morales worked for Alex Molnar at UWM. Her primary role there seems to have been compiling examples for an annual survey of commercialization in education. While Morales describes herself as an educational researcher, it appears she has little experience with measuring educational effectiveness and has been particularly hostile to using tests to measure student learning. When Molnar moved to Arizona, he took the commercialization center and its grants along with him and Morales' job ended.
Prior to the Molnar gig, she wrote several articles for Rethinking Schools:
"Apple Tries to Censor History"
"Buying Minds"
"Fasting for Funding"
"Massachusetts Policy Protects Gay/Lesbian Students"
"Really Rich White Guys"
"Sex Harassment Rampant in Schools"
"School to War?"
"Wisconsin Explores Funding Alternatives"
Since those articles predate the time Rethinking Schools was placed on the web, they are not easily accessible. Judging from the topics, however, it appears evident that her themes were typical of Rethinking Schools.
Despite this background in education, Morales has been surprisingly unclear as to her vision for MPS. She has expressed reservations about many of the MPS initiatives (neighborhood schools, decentralization of funding, testing, reduction of busing, etc.), but has usually acquiesced in the end. A theme both in her election campaign and since is the need for more funding, but she has not shown a viable strategy to obtain it.
While on the board, much of her energy seems to have been devoted to issues peripheral to education (bus driver contracts or the radio station), external to MPS (opposition to vouchers), or outside of education entirely (opposition to the Iraq war, support of grocery unions). She has been particularly active as a spokesperson for groups opposing vouchers.
In the view of some of her colleagues, the explosion of outrage over the board pay raise she supported and then-mayoral candidate Tom Barrett's proposal to have the mayor appoint the board shocked Morales. As a result, she has recently adopted a more moderate, and less strident and ideological tone, breaking with her ally Peter Blewett by supporting renewal of the superintendent's contract and supporting his budget proposal.
Recently, she is emerging as a Democratic Party activist. She was a delegate to the Democratic convention in Boston. She is currently running as a Democrat against Senator Alberta Darling on the North Shore. While it appears she has little chance of winning (she has little money and if the party thought it had a good chance of winning the seat it is likely they would have recruited a more moderate candidate with a better chance of appealing to independents), this race should seal her Democratic party identity.
It appears Morales is a good bet to win reelection in the fifth district, even if her interests are less in how to make MPS more effective than the traditional liberal issues played out in the legislature. As a woman, Hispanic, and "out-bisexual," she hits the trifecta of identity politics important to many in the district. Particularly if Bush is re-elected, stoking anger among Democrats, her emergence as a Democratic activist should play well in the district.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Peter Blewett
Peter Blewett is an adjunct faculty member at the university of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he teaches several sections of an introductory writing course. He also writes poetry. On the MPS school board, he represents the sixth district on Milwaukee's west side and is currently the board president. Like the other three members in this series, his term expires in April, with the campaign starting December 1.
The major theme of Blewett's first campaign--recurring often since--was the need for more money from the state. He can be counted on to appear at any rally protesting funding levels. Given the current obsession with high tax levels, it is not surprising that these efforts have been totally unsuccessful.
He and Jennifer Morales are considered the most ideological members of the board. Even those who are normally allies are discomfited by this pair's tendency to use their position on the board to promote various causes, including some with little connection to MPS.
It appears he does not have a broad vision for MPS. While strongly opposed to testing, he seems to have given up on altering the MPS assessment policy. His initiatives have largely consisted of trying to give something to various groups, including trying to mandate that all schools have librarians or involving MPS in negotiations between bus companies and their drivers. While these initiatives would further restrict schools and consume resources, they are most striking for their irrelevance to the big issue at MPS, increasing student achievement.
Blewett has been active in opposing the school choice program. When Rudolph Giuliani visited the Milwaukee voucher schools, according to an anti voucher newsletter, "Blewett organized protests in Milwaukee at every stop." Those fighting vouchers in New York then brought Blewett, Morales, and Charlene Hardin to New York for an anti-voucher forum.
A theme in Blewett's opposition to school choice is the need for "full accountability for all schools receiving public funds." It is ironic, then, that he joined in killing a proposal to explore inviting the choice and charter schools to participate in the MPS testing and data collection program. The irony deepened when he opposed terminating the contract for the failing Afro Urban Institute charter school.
As plans to invade Iraq heated up, Blewett and Morales introduced a resolution to require all MPS schools to devote at least one period to discussing the war, a proposal that was widely seen as an attempt to politicize the public schools. Eventually it was replaced by a resolution restating MPS policy that deals with controversial issues.
Blewett also created controversy within the board for his actions in the current labor negotiations. While president he met with union leadership to discuss their proposal on medical insurance. He then suggested that MPS adopt the union proposal. This action was criticized for undercutting the district's negotiators and raised concerns about a possible sell-out, especially because he is dependent on union political support.
While Blewett and Morales seem ideological soul-mates, recently there are signs of a split, at least in style. Morales, always smoother and less blustery than Blewett, seems intent on building a more moderate image. For example, she supported renewing the superintendent's contract, while Blewett voted against it.
The major theme of Blewett's first campaign--recurring often since--was the need for more money from the state. He can be counted on to appear at any rally protesting funding levels. Given the current obsession with high tax levels, it is not surprising that these efforts have been totally unsuccessful.
He and Jennifer Morales are considered the most ideological members of the board. Even those who are normally allies are discomfited by this pair's tendency to use their position on the board to promote various causes, including some with little connection to MPS.
It appears he does not have a broad vision for MPS. While strongly opposed to testing, he seems to have given up on altering the MPS assessment policy. His initiatives have largely consisted of trying to give something to various groups, including trying to mandate that all schools have librarians or involving MPS in negotiations between bus companies and their drivers. While these initiatives would further restrict schools and consume resources, they are most striking for their irrelevance to the big issue at MPS, increasing student achievement.
Blewett has been active in opposing the school choice program. When Rudolph Giuliani visited the Milwaukee voucher schools, according to an anti voucher newsletter, "Blewett organized protests in Milwaukee at every stop." Those fighting vouchers in New York then brought Blewett, Morales, and Charlene Hardin to New York for an anti-voucher forum.
A theme in Blewett's opposition to school choice is the need for "full accountability for all schools receiving public funds." It is ironic, then, that he joined in killing a proposal to explore inviting the choice and charter schools to participate in the MPS testing and data collection program. The irony deepened when he opposed terminating the contract for the failing Afro Urban Institute charter school.
As plans to invade Iraq heated up, Blewett and Morales introduced a resolution to require all MPS schools to devote at least one period to discussing the war, a proposal that was widely seen as an attempt to politicize the public schools. Eventually it was replaced by a resolution restating MPS policy that deals with controversial issues.
Blewett also created controversy within the board for his actions in the current labor negotiations. While president he met with union leadership to discuss their proposal on medical insurance. He then suggested that MPS adopt the union proposal. This action was criticized for undercutting the district's negotiators and raised concerns about a possible sell-out, especially because he is dependent on union political support.
While Blewett and Morales seem ideological soul-mates, recently there are signs of a split, at least in style. Morales, always smoother and less blustery than Blewett, seems intent on building a more moderate image. For example, she supported renewing the superintendent's contract, while Blewett voted against it.
Friday, October 01, 2004
George Bush the Liberal
For a certain type of liberal, good intentions trump good results. Thus it doesn't really matter if an integration plan actually promotes integration so long as its supporters sincerely want integration. If an alternative to the plan is suggested, supporters instinctively attack the motives of those suggesting the alternative. Whether or not the alternative would do a better job of promoting integration is largely irrelevant.
Likewise, these people admire the school board members who loudly demand more money from Wisconsin, even though the results have been nil--and will continue to be in the present financial climate. Milwaukee School Board meetings always attracted a disproportionate number of people demanding the board prove its concern for children by taking some action that had no chance of success.
Watching the debate last night, I was struck that George Bush had adopted this liberal mindset. The president talks about his good intentions, firmness, etc., as if those justify the lack of a well thought out plan for success. Confirming their belief that intentions are all that count, Michael Moore-type liberals construct elaborate conspiracy theories about Bush's evil motivations for the invasion. I think a more plausible explanation is that a sincere conviction in the rightness of one's intentions can lead to a simplistic view of the world, ignoring information that does not fit that view.
Likewise, these people admire the school board members who loudly demand more money from Wisconsin, even though the results have been nil--and will continue to be in the present financial climate. Milwaukee School Board meetings always attracted a disproportionate number of people demanding the board prove its concern for children by taking some action that had no chance of success.
Watching the debate last night, I was struck that George Bush had adopted this liberal mindset. The president talks about his good intentions, firmness, etc., as if those justify the lack of a well thought out plan for success. Confirming their belief that intentions are all that count, Michael Moore-type liberals construct elaborate conspiracy theories about Bush's evil motivations for the invasion. I think a more plausible explanation is that a sincere conviction in the rightness of one's intentions can lead to a simplistic view of the world, ignoring information that does not fit that view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)