A Thursday New York Times article (sorry, don't have a link) and a follow-up NPR program describe cities that have been most successful economically but find they have fewer and fewer children. Portland Oregon, for example, has about half as many children as it had in the 1960s.
On a much smaller scale than the cities described in the article, Milwaukee has also enjoyed a revival, notably in Brewer's Hill and along the river. But as with these other cities, few of the people moving in are families with children. An article about Brewer's Hill in the current Milwaukee magazine (not available on the web) describes, inadvertently perhaps, why making schools attractive to middle class parents is so difficult. Palmer elementary school is in the heart of Brewer's Hill but is considered unacceptable to most residents. By most measures, Palmer has been among the poorest performing of all MPS schools for many years.
Yet all schools, no matter how much in need of change, have their passionate defenders. The article describes a proposal from then-board member John Gardner that quickly bogged down in racial and class politics. Yet, according to the same article, few of the Palmer students came from its attendance area.
Side Note: I am increasingly puzzled by Milwaukee magazine's practice of hiring partisans to do reporting without disclosing potential biases. For example, the author of this article is a retired teacher and former union officer who ran against Joe Dannecker (an ally of John Gardner) for school board. The magazine simply describes him as a free-lance writer.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Funding school choice
At a candidates' forum this last week MPS board president Peter Blewett suggested that funding of school choice should be changed so that choice students should be included in the MPS count for figuring state aid. While he is right, his support probably comes too late to help Milwaukee taxpayers.
Some years ago I became convinced that the state funding formula for choice schools was unfair to Milwaukee taxpayers. By not including choice students in the overall count, it made Milwaukee’s financial resources per student look stronger than they really were. After considerable resistance, the choice coalition finally agreed that the fairest solution would treat those students as if they attended MPS. Once convinced, the coalition went to work and convinced the Republican leadership in the legislature to support this change.
Unfortunately this change died when none of the Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee–including those from Milwaukee–supported it. Much of the opposition seemed to stem from fear that including choice students in the MPS count would offer legitimacy to the choice schools. As became clear later some of the Democrats also hoped to defeat Republicans by charging them with favoring Milwaukee. This vote happened early in Blewett's term on the MPS board. Perhaps his involvement in support of the funding change--along with other opponents of school choice--might have changed a vote or two, saving the proposal.
In essence, Milwaukee Democrats voted to raise their constituents’ tax burden in order to thumb their noses at choice schools. I suspect the Democrats' lack of support for Milwaukee, combined with the later attempt to capitalize on the Republicans' vote, would make it very hard to enlist Republican support for a similar measure today. Sometimes, there is a window that closes if the opportunity is not seized.
Too often, the battle about school choice becomes an end in itself. People forget that the children involved are some of the neediest in Wisconsin. And Milwaukee taxpayers are not well served by this obsession.
Some years ago I became convinced that the state funding formula for choice schools was unfair to Milwaukee taxpayers. By not including choice students in the overall count, it made Milwaukee’s financial resources per student look stronger than they really were. After considerable resistance, the choice coalition finally agreed that the fairest solution would treat those students as if they attended MPS. Once convinced, the coalition went to work and convinced the Republican leadership in the legislature to support this change.
Unfortunately this change died when none of the Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee–including those from Milwaukee–supported it. Much of the opposition seemed to stem from fear that including choice students in the MPS count would offer legitimacy to the choice schools. As became clear later some of the Democrats also hoped to defeat Republicans by charging them with favoring Milwaukee. This vote happened early in Blewett's term on the MPS board. Perhaps his involvement in support of the funding change--along with other opponents of school choice--might have changed a vote or two, saving the proposal.
In essence, Milwaukee Democrats voted to raise their constituents’ tax burden in order to thumb their noses at choice schools. I suspect the Democrats' lack of support for Milwaukee, combined with the later attempt to capitalize on the Republicans' vote, would make it very hard to enlist Republican support for a similar measure today. Sometimes, there is a window that closes if the opportunity is not seized.
Too often, the battle about school choice becomes an end in itself. People forget that the children involved are some of the neediest in Wisconsin. And Milwaukee taxpayers are not well served by this obsession.
"Attract and Retain"
One symptom of becoming an adult is the recognition that the world is full of limits and trade-offs. To have more of one thing, it is often necessary to have less of something else.
One course I teach includes something call linear programming. It is part of a larger group of models described as "constrained optimization." These are based on the recognition that most real-world problems have a set of constraints or restrictions, such as budgets or limited resources. The aim, then is to find the best solution (optimize) that fits those constraints. The organization whose leaders recognize the constraints and optimize most effectively within them will prosper while others will fall behind.
Unfortunately, while recognizing constraints is the mark of a good leader, pretending they don't exist can be good politics. Of course we can cut taxes and increase spending. We shouldn't worry about global warming, running out of oil, or environmental pollution because some new technology will come along and solve the problem. The politician who also wants to be a responsible leader is at a disadvantage.
The "Attract and Retain" signs that sprouted around Milwaukee a while back fit into the politics of unconstrained optimization. They tell the school board and administration it should be generous to the teachers, a sentiment that only a grouch could disagree with. Yet those displaying the signs don't suggest where the money for this generosity should come from. That a majority of the school board subscribes to this sentiment goes a long way to explain why MPS's financial problems continue to grow. Unfortunately, good leadership requires the ability to make hard decisions.
One course I teach includes something call linear programming. It is part of a larger group of models described as "constrained optimization." These are based on the recognition that most real-world problems have a set of constraints or restrictions, such as budgets or limited resources. The aim, then is to find the best solution (optimize) that fits those constraints. The organization whose leaders recognize the constraints and optimize most effectively within them will prosper while others will fall behind.
Unfortunately, while recognizing constraints is the mark of a good leader, pretending they don't exist can be good politics. Of course we can cut taxes and increase spending. We shouldn't worry about global warming, running out of oil, or environmental pollution because some new technology will come along and solve the problem. The politician who also wants to be a responsible leader is at a disadvantage.
The "Attract and Retain" signs that sprouted around Milwaukee a while back fit into the politics of unconstrained optimization. They tell the school board and administration it should be generous to the teachers, a sentiment that only a grouch could disagree with. Yet those displaying the signs don't suggest where the money for this generosity should come from. That a majority of the school board subscribes to this sentiment goes a long way to explain why MPS's financial problems continue to grow. Unfortunately, good leadership requires the ability to make hard decisions.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Wasserman poll on vouchers
State representative Sheldon Wasserman posted a constituent poll that included a question on school choice. While 43% said they did not support the program, 44% supported one of three expansion proposals (remove the income limits, expand state-wide, or do both). The remainder had no opinion. Oddly the expansion proposals are more radical than those proposed by the choice coalition. Apparently the position adopted by mayor Barrett and governor Doyle--keep the program as it is--was not included as an option.
Constituent polls are notoriously unreliable as random samples of all opinion. This poll is particularly interesting, however, when opinions on choice are compared to responses on other issues. It seems evident that the North Shore residents responding to this poll are a predominantly liberal group. For example, the ratio of those describing themselves as pro-choice to pro-life was about 3 to one. 81% opposed concealed weapons. And 71% supported same-sex marriage or civil unions compared to 27% supporting present law or a constitutional amendment.
Thanks to Davey Moore for pointing out the link to this poll.
Constituent polls are notoriously unreliable as random samples of all opinion. This poll is particularly interesting, however, when opinions on choice are compared to responses on other issues. It seems evident that the North Shore residents responding to this poll are a predominantly liberal group. For example, the ratio of those describing themselves as pro-choice to pro-life was about 3 to one. 81% opposed concealed weapons. And 71% supported same-sex marriage or civil unions compared to 27% supporting present law or a constitutional amendment.
Thanks to Davey Moore for pointing out the link to this poll.
Democrats and Vouchers (cont)
Davey Moore comments further on the Democrats problem: "At what point did petty political bickering become more important than social justice for the neediest families in Milwaukee?" I think the Democrats' weakness reflects a broader problem: they lack a vision and an overall sense of what they stand for.
Rather than come forward with an overall vision of what direction Wisconsin should be heading, they hope to develop a winning coalition by appealing to people as members of one or another interest groups. (I was first struck by this tendency twenty-five years ago as a delegate to the state Democratic convention. Resolution after resolution was passed demanding rights for this or that group.)
Rather than come forward with an overall vision of what direction Wisconsin should be heading, they hope to develop a winning coalition by appealing to people as members of one or another interest groups. (I was first struck by this tendency twenty-five years ago as a delegate to the state Democratic convention. Resolution after resolution was passed demanding rights for this or that group.)
More on MATC
In his on-line column for Milwaukee Magazine, Bruce Murphy takes a much more skeptical stance towards the shepherd article on MATC changes than I did yesterday. Certainly there are valid reasons for his skepticism. In my experience, the people quoted in the article spent most of their energy opposing an reexamination of MATC that might lead to its better serving its students, particularly the neediest students who could most benefit from the technical programs that open the door to good jobs. Thus I was surprised to find myself agreeing with their criticisms of the purported direction of MATC.
The other reason for skepticism is the Shepherd itself. Can it be trusted to fairly report this issue? Too often ideology trumps journalistic integrity, so that the story that fits the Shepherd's publisher's mindset runs whether or not it is accurate.
I continue, however, to worry that the direction implied in the article is accurate--that MATC is moving from a mission of preparing people for jobs to emphasizing liberal arts. I think the first role is unique to MATC, while the second is one that many other institutions can do better.
That said, it is refreshing to have Murphy's voice back. He helps fill the huge gap between the ideologues on the far right and the far left.
The other reason for skepticism is the Shepherd itself. Can it be trusted to fairly report this issue? Too often ideology trumps journalistic integrity, so that the story that fits the Shepherd's publisher's mindset runs whether or not it is accurate.
I continue, however, to worry that the direction implied in the article is accurate--that MATC is moving from a mission of preparing people for jobs to emphasizing liberal arts. I think the first role is unique to MATC, while the second is one that many other institutions can do better.
That said, it is refreshing to have Murphy's voice back. He helps fill the huge gap between the ideologues on the far right and the far left.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Have vouchers hurt Democrats?
Most of my friends who are active in Democratic politics or serve in the legislature seem to believe that, whatever the merits of the voucher program for schools, they have not hurt Democrats politically. As evidence, they point to the fact that few of the legislators who represent the inner city neighborhoods where most families benefiting from vouchers live supported expanding enrollment in the program.
So far, at least, the beneficiaries have not been organized into an effective electoral force. In part, this reflects the fact that they are by definition low-income and political participation is inversely proportional to income. It also reflects the fact that Republicans have taken too many positions that repel minority and inner city voters to win them over on this one issue. These Milwaukee seats are among the safest for the Democrats anywhere in Wisconsin.
Yet control of the legislature is not determined in Milwaukee. It is determined by a relatively few seats where support for the two parties is evenly matched. And even thought the Democrats narrowly won Wisconsin for John Kerry, they continued to lose these marginal seats, further strengthening the Republicans' grip on the legislature.
In looking at the puzzle of why the Democrats continue to lose in the legislature, I have become increasingly convinced that their opposition to vouchers undermines their ability to present themselves as the party of vision, of idealism, and of solutions. It does this in several ways:
So far, at least, the beneficiaries have not been organized into an effective electoral force. In part, this reflects the fact that they are by definition low-income and political participation is inversely proportional to income. It also reflects the fact that Republicans have taken too many positions that repel minority and inner city voters to win them over on this one issue. These Milwaukee seats are among the safest for the Democrats anywhere in Wisconsin.
Yet control of the legislature is not determined in Milwaukee. It is determined by a relatively few seats where support for the two parties is evenly matched. And even thought the Democrats narrowly won Wisconsin for John Kerry, they continued to lose these marginal seats, further strengthening the Republicans' grip on the legislature.
In looking at the puzzle of why the Democrats continue to lose in the legislature, I have become increasingly convinced that their opposition to vouchers undermines their ability to present themselves as the party of vision, of idealism, and of solutions. It does this in several ways:
- It undermines one of the Democratic Party's core values, the concern for the underdog, one that dates at least from the New Deal. When FDR saw one-third of the nation ill-clothed and ill-fed, he did not add that they should be ignored because they did not vote.
- It supports the charge that Democrats are a party of special interests, in this case WEAC.
- It strengthens the suspicion that Democrats like government institutions because they like government, rather than using government to solve problems.
Strange bedfellows
The current Shepherd Express has an article about some current trends at the Milwaukee Area Technical College. According to the article, MATC has eliminated its adult high school program and reduced the early childhead program by cutting the day care center. The implication is that these and other changes are part of a move to transition MATC as a two-year liberal arts institution, while deemphasizing programs that directly prepare students for jobs.
It is not clear from the article where adults lacking a high school degree will now turn. My understanding is that at one time MPS offered a high school program for adults but dropped it in favor of MATC. Presumably they will still have the GED to turn to but the statistics on the effectiveness of the GED are not encouraging.
If the article is accurate--and I have learned from personal experience to treat the Shepherd with skepticism--these changes seem wrong-headed. Instead of concentrating on its unique role, MATC seems to be further losing site of its vision. The critics quoted in the article, Rosen, Redovich, Goldstein, and Baker, who represent the traditional MATC constituencies, seem justified in their concerns.
When I was president of the MPS board I tried to encourage new membership on the MATC board because I thought MATC had lost focus on its vision. Too many MPS graduates, particularly minority students, were encouraged to go into the liberal arts division rather than towards the technical programs that led to good jobs. This effort was one of my more dismal failures, in large part because of opposition from the very people criticising the current direction of MATC.
It is not clear from the article where adults lacking a high school degree will now turn. My understanding is that at one time MPS offered a high school program for adults but dropped it in favor of MATC. Presumably they will still have the GED to turn to but the statistics on the effectiveness of the GED are not encouraging.
If the article is accurate--and I have learned from personal experience to treat the Shepherd with skepticism--these changes seem wrong-headed. Instead of concentrating on its unique role, MATC seems to be further losing site of its vision. The critics quoted in the article, Rosen, Redovich, Goldstein, and Baker, who represent the traditional MATC constituencies, seem justified in their concerns.
When I was president of the MPS board I tried to encourage new membership on the MATC board because I thought MATC had lost focus on its vision. Too many MPS graduates, particularly minority students, were encouraged to go into the liberal arts division rather than towards the technical programs that led to good jobs. This effort was one of my more dismal failures, in large part because of opposition from the very people criticising the current direction of MATC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)