Is there intelligent life in the Democratic Party?

The Seventh state senate district covers Milwaukee's East Side and Bayview, and the south shore suburbs of Cudahy, South Milwaukee and Oak Creek. Politically these areas differ substantially. One way to view the political variety is to examine the three assembly districts that fit into it:

1. The 19th covers the East Side and part of Bayview. It is probably the most predictably liberal district in Milwaukee and is represented by Democrat Jon Richards. In the 2004 election, the Republicans did not bother to field a candidate.
2. The 20th covers the rest of Bayview and Cudahy. It is generally considered blue-collar, pro-union Democrat, conservative on life-style issues. It is represented by Democrat Christine Sinicki (a former school board colleague of mine). In the 2004 election, she had a Republican opponent but won easily.
3. The 21st consists mostly of Oak Creek and South Milwaukee. It is represented by Republican Mark Honadel. In the 2004 election, there was no Democratic candidate.

Currently the senate district is represented by Jeff Plale, generally considered conservative for a Democrat, particularly on life-style issues such as abortion and gun control. Although I would probably disagree with him on more issues than I would with most Democrats, I thought he showed courage as one of only four Milwaukee Democrats who broke with their party to support Governor Doyle's compromise to increase the number of school choice seats. (Sinicki was another.)

Politically his positions make the 7th a safe Senate seat for the Democrats. His relative conservatism fits well with the Democratic voters of Bayview and Cudahy, and appeals to wavering Republican as well. For liberal East Siders, he is clearly preferable to anyone likely to win the Republican Primary.

As some Republican moderates also discovered, his real vulnerability is in the primary. Republicans have recognized this. A couple of years ago they launched a recall effort after he voted to uphold one of Governor Doyle's vetoes. Apparently they hoped that a liberal would enter the race against him, splitting the Democratic vote and handing the district to the Republicans. This effort collapsed when the liberals refused to cooperate and instead raised money for Plale.

This year, however, the liberals seem to have decided to play the Republicans' game. They are running a candidate against Plale whose campaign appeals to the Democratic (East Side) base: "The 7th District is traditionally Democratic. Its people deserve a traditional Democrat in the State Senate--a Democrat who will vote like one."

Republican strategists must be delighted. If the effort is successful, it could put the 7th senate seat back into play. Second, even if they don't win the 7th, a purge of Plale could signal to voters who prefer Democrats on environmental or economic issues but disagree on lifestyle issues that they are not welcome in the Democratic Party. This will make it harder for Democrats to pick up the seats they will need to regain control of the legislature.

Michael Joyce

While I often disagreed with him, Michael Joyce made Milwaukee more interesting. I think we would be better off if some of the more liberal foundations made the same attempt to develop a strategy of funding. Too often, however, they either support squishy ideas or status quo researchers. One has the sense the left has been drifting since Vietnam, often better on specific issues but lacking a clear vision. Under Joyce, the Bradley Foundation helps shift the idea advantage to the conservative side.

That said, I think Joyce could have been more effective:

1. Because the Bradley Foundation was so closely tied to the conservative movement, ideas that might be inherently appealing to liberals, such as school choice, could be dismissed simply as part of a plan to destroy public institutions. So this concept is still struggling to get into the mainstream.
   
2. As Bruce Murphy points out this week, Joyce tended to limit his support to a select group of scholars and think tanks, whose results were often easy to predict in advance. Full disclosure: shortly after leaving the MPS board, I received a Bradley Foundation grant through MSOE to look at alternative ways of evaluating schools (abstract here). I was disappointed, however, that the foundation did not seem very interested in the results.
   

MATC again

A while back, I celebrated the controversy surrounding my appointment to the panel that chooses MATC board members. Not only did it seem like old times but all the opposition allowed me to bask in the illusion that I was a threat to the status quo at MATC.

The status quo is that too many of the present board members are too subservient to the MATC teachers' union. They make decisions that may be good for the staff but not for the community or the students. Over the years, MATC has become fat and far less effective than it could be. One problem was pointed out in a recent Bruce Murphy article detailing how MATC faculty are paid more than those at the University of Wisconsin at Madison but often have only bachelors' degrees.

But the five MPS representatives have far less power to influence the future of MATC than might appear at first glance. Real change depends on whether the suburban superintendents, who have by far the largest number of votes, will decide it is worthwhile to resist union pressure and to look for effective board members. So far, they have not. The major dynamic among the suburban superintendents at the appointment meetings I chaired was to get the process over quickly and go home. MPS representatives are in an especially weak position to influence the suburban representatives, since any conversation between an MPS representative and a suburban superintendent can be considered a quorum and therefore a public meeting under a quirky interpretation of the law.

The evil admissions standards

A while back, one of the Journal Sentinel "community columnists," a teacher at Rufus King High School, argued that schools in the voucher program could choose their students. A supporter of the choice program wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that voucher schools were required to use a lottery if applicants exceeded spaces, but Rufus King teachers could and did choose its students.

An underlying theme in both the arguments is that there is something wrong with admissions standards. Even those benefiting from the standards, like the teacher at Rufus King, seem to think they are wrong for other people. Years ago, I took the lead in allowing MPS high schools to implement an admissions process. This proposal was strenuously denounced as a threat to democracy. I noticed, however, that those most adamantly opposed subsequently sent their children to the schools with admissions standards. Apparently they felt their children would benefit by being among other children who were serious enough to go through the process.

It appears many people look for schools with high admissions standards for their own children but oppose them for others. This seems to square with the common practice in education of people expecting others to put their children in schools we would not choose for our own.

More broadly, this opposition to matching students with classes and schools makes no sense. Of course, students can be chosen for the wrong reasons. But how would an MPS ninth-grade teacher, for instance, effectively teach a class whose reading skills ranged from those of a typical third grader to those of a high school graduate? From time to time, I partially learn something on my own and wonder if I should take a class in it. But I hesitate because it is hard to tell whether the class will teach me what I already know or whether I will be completely lost. Matching a student and the educational challenge seems the first step in successful education.

School choice and taxpayers

In the final weeks before the expansion of the choice program, Tom Barrett made a major issue about the unfairness of the funding formula. This theme was picked up by others who would have opposed the expansion no matter what the funding.

The biggest problem for Barrett was that he entered the issue late. If he had been working from the beginning to both expand the number of seats and to change the funding, he would have been in a much stronger position--especially if he could have also promised some Milwaukee votes for such a package. As it was, he entered too late and too negatively to be part of the compromise. On the plus side he did help generate a recognition of the need to reexamine the funding formula.

Assuming choice school enrollment expands by one thousand in the next couple of years, the additional cost to Milwaukee taxpayers would be about one million dollars. One might compare this to the many millions Milwaukee under Barrett has been willing to give as subsidies to projects like Pabst City and Manpower. If a recent study by the Public Policy Forum concluding that choice enrollment is flattening is correct, this estimate might be high, particularly if the additional requirements under the bill discourage the opening of new schools. On the other side the bill has economic advantages for Milwaukee. Choice schools can be regarded economically as small businesses, usually located in the most economically inert parts of the city. Much of the additional SAGE money will go to Milwaukee to hire additional MPS teachers who are required to live in the city.

One element not noticed in the whole controversy was the funding of non-MPS charter schools--those chartered by the city, UWM, or (potentially) by MATC. Unless the formula has changed since I was involved, these schools are largely funded directly by the state. So the switch of a student from MPS to one of these schools saves money for Milwaukee taxpayers.

If I were Barrett's legislative advisor, I would suggest the following:

1. Discard his proposal of simply holding Milwaukee taxpayers harmless for additional choice enrollment. It is both too modest and an unnecessary complication to the funding formula. Instead, go back to the proposal of several years ago to include choice and charter students in the MPS count. This would mean that both Milwaukee and out-state taxpayers benefit when students move from MPS to the lower-cost choice program. When originally introduced, this measure was supported by Republicans but died from lack of Democratic support. So the mayor would need to line up support for it among Milwaukee Democrats.
2. Aggressively promote expansion of the city, UWM, and MATC charter programs. In the short run, this would save Milwaukee taxpayers money, particularly if schools chartered by MPS were encouraged to defect. In the long run, it would increase the mayor's bargaining power in the legislature, since Milwaukee then would be giving something up in the move to fairer funding.
   

School Coice Expanded

Yesterday Governor Doyle signed legislation to increase the cap on school choice enrollment. Only four Milwaukee Democrats in the legislature supported the bill. This strikes me as odd, because the major beneficiaries of the expansion are Milwaukee children. Apparently most feel comfortable voting against their constituents on the assumption that poor people do not vote.

The present political weakness of the Democrats is bad for Wisconsin and the U.S. in my view. But rather than presenting a broader vision, Democrats seem to believe they can ride to power by pandering to various groups, particularly the public employee unions and ideologues whose thinking has been petrified for the past forty years.

Despite the present unpopularity of the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress, it is striking that current polls show two Republicans--McCain and Giuliani--defeating the Democratic front-runners for president. I suspect a lot of this is due to the perception that these men have convictions (in part because they have crossed swords with their own party) and the Democrats do not.

While poor people may not vote, the Democratic party has always obtained much of its moral authority by representing underdogs, those without much power. People want to support a candidate who agrees with their position on most issues, but also one with convictions.