The Journal Sentinel published two articles (here and here) about a school board hearing attempting to close four schools. Two articles were needed because the hearing ran to 1:30 in the morning, way past the paper's deadline.
The meeting ran so long because all four schools recruited administrators, teachers, and some parents to come to the meeting and protest the closings. This is standard operating procedure in the case of school closing. It is almost a total waste of time, particularly for board members. The speakers stress that the closing is traumatic for those at the schools, which everyone probably assumed already. The almost never offer any information that would challenge the analysis that led to those schools being placed on the list (as the result of low enrollment and poor achievement ranks mostly).
I happened to tune into a short section of the hearing on my way home from teaching a class. It all seemed very familiar, very predictable, and very depressing. There were a couple of oddments: according to one speaker, the school board was closing schools and building prisons. Another speaker against a school closing appeared to be married to the administrator in charge of the closings.
So far as I could tell, no one suggested a better way of identifying schools for closing. Yet by keeping all schools open, all schools will have fewer resources.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Big changes in works?
Under the dramatic headline, Big MPS changes may be in works: civic leaders team up with school officials to create long-term strategy, the Journal Sentinel reports on a new effort by MPS, the Greater Milwaukee Committee, and the MTEA. It is not clear exactly what the effort will be doing, but my initial cynical reaction is that this sort of thing has been attempted a number of times before (sometimes with my involvement) but has never been especially successful.
I hope I am wrong.
The broad mandate, to do strategic planning, is not particularly reassuring. That implies months of meetings and uncertainty, leading to a set of mushy consensus goals. At worst, these efforts are aimed at subverting the responsibility of the school board to set policy. I would be much more reassured if the group were to look at specific issues, such as identifying strategies for the bottom-performing schools.
I hope I am wrong.
The broad mandate, to do strategic planning, is not particularly reassuring. That implies months of meetings and uncertainty, leading to a set of mushy consensus goals. At worst, these efforts are aimed at subverting the responsibility of the school board to set policy. I would be much more reassured if the group were to look at specific issues, such as identifying strategies for the bottom-performing schools.
MPS and health care
The New York Times has an article based on interviews with about half the incoming senators and congressmen. A surprisingly common theme is the need for health care reform, including national insurance.
Generally I have been critical when MPS board members try to drag MPS into issues, like the Iraq war, that go beyond education. But the health crisis directly impinges on MPS's ability to accomplish its mission. I would like to see MPS take a leadership role in reforming health care both in Wisconsin and the nation (as well as look at alternatives to its present plan).
First the major cause of the financial squeeze on MPS is the high and growing cost of health insurance. As presently constituted the health care system has major incentives for shifting costs on to generous providers, such as MPS. Second, many MPS students and families do not have insurance. Health worries can affect education. MPS has worked to find ways of serving its students but that should not be the responsibility of a school system.
Generally I have been critical when MPS board members try to drag MPS into issues, like the Iraq war, that go beyond education. But the health crisis directly impinges on MPS's ability to accomplish its mission. I would like to see MPS take a leadership role in reforming health care both in Wisconsin and the nation (as well as look at alternatives to its present plan).
First the major cause of the financial squeeze on MPS is the high and growing cost of health insurance. As presently constituted the health care system has major incentives for shifting costs on to generous providers, such as MPS. Second, many MPS students and families do not have insurance. Health worries can affect education. MPS has worked to find ways of serving its students but that should not be the responsibility of a school system.
Does MPS have a future in vocational education
A recent article reported on a new program to train adults in welding, held at the former North Division High School. Oddly, there is no mention of MPS or what happened to North's welding program. Similarly a front-page article today reports on a Public Policy Forum report slamming the city for its development efforts, particularly the neglect of workforce development. Again there is no mention of MPS. It appears that MPS has become irrelevant to preparing people for the workforce.
Ten years ago, when I first ran for the Milwaukee school board, I prepared a flyer lifting five goals I hoped to accomplish. One--allow high schools to apply admissions standards--was completely accomplished. Despite controversy and opposition at the time, there has been no effort to role it back. Three others enjoyed considerable progress--add more specialty schools, move decision making from the central bureaucracy to schools and parents, and identify and eliminate wasteful spending--although more remains to be done.
The fifth, however, was a complete failure--restore Milwaukee's leadership in vocational education. This failure hurts Milwaukee students who miss out on good jobs. It also hurts Milwaukee's economic future if companies cannot find skilled workers.
The reasons that vocational education is so difficult to promote in MPS is not totally clear to me, but stems partly from a culture that only values college, from the economics of shop classes, and from a seniority system that does not recognize experience in the trades.
My guess is that leadership in this area will have to come from somewhere else than MPS. For example, the mechanisms are in place for a charter school sponsored by MATC, a trade union, or an industry group.
Ten years ago, when I first ran for the Milwaukee school board, I prepared a flyer lifting five goals I hoped to accomplish. One--allow high schools to apply admissions standards--was completely accomplished. Despite controversy and opposition at the time, there has been no effort to role it back. Three others enjoyed considerable progress--add more specialty schools, move decision making from the central bureaucracy to schools and parents, and identify and eliminate wasteful spending--although more remains to be done.
The fifth, however, was a complete failure--restore Milwaukee's leadership in vocational education. This failure hurts Milwaukee students who miss out on good jobs. It also hurts Milwaukee's economic future if companies cannot find skilled workers.
The reasons that vocational education is so difficult to promote in MPS is not totally clear to me, but stems partly from a culture that only values college, from the economics of shop classes, and from a seniority system that does not recognize experience in the trades.
My guess is that leadership in this area will have to come from somewhere else than MPS. For example, the mechanisms are in place for a charter school sponsored by MATC, a trade union, or an industry group.
Goodbye to ideology?
While I don't wish to compete with the many post mortems on this Tuesday's election, for me one of the most gratifying results is the apparent rejection of ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. By ideologue I mean someone who believes that there is only one correct set of beliefs about most major issues, and that those who disagree with those beliefs are not only mistaken but at best dupes and at worst evil.
I had my own run-ins with ideologues, generally of the leftward persuasion, while serving on the Milwaukee school board a few years ago. On a number of issues, there was simply no room for discussion. Most notable was the question of vouchers that would allow low income kids to attend private schools. But other only slightly less emotional issues were busing (theoretically for integration) and standardized tests. It is certainly possible to have a serious discussion of the pros and cons of any of the issues, but members of this group wanted none of that. (In fairness, right-wing ideologues weren't entirely absent; a candidate questionnaire asked only one question--whether I agreed with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. It is hard to think of any issue less relevant to decisions of a school board.)
The Bush administration and the congress that enabled it reflect the dangers of government by ideologues. Sharing the right "conservative" beliefs seems to have been far more important than competence or honesty. This was compounded by the stress on loyalty and efforts to intimadate critics. Rather than relishing discussion and argument they created an intellectual wasteland in which those who might challenge their actions were driven out or marginalized, as moderate Republicans came to discover.
While the Bush administration tried to win by narrowing its ideological base, the Democrats succeeded by broadening theirs, recruiting an ideologically diverse group of candidates. While the heretic burners on the left are still active, the two attempts at purges I am aware of--against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Jeff Plale here in Wisconsin--ultimately failed.
So both for the way the Republicans lost and the way Democrats won, I think there are hopes for us pragmatists. But we will see what lessons are taken from the election.
I had my own run-ins with ideologues, generally of the leftward persuasion, while serving on the Milwaukee school board a few years ago. On a number of issues, there was simply no room for discussion. Most notable was the question of vouchers that would allow low income kids to attend private schools. But other only slightly less emotional issues were busing (theoretically for integration) and standardized tests. It is certainly possible to have a serious discussion of the pros and cons of any of the issues, but members of this group wanted none of that. (In fairness, right-wing ideologues weren't entirely absent; a candidate questionnaire asked only one question--whether I agreed with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. It is hard to think of any issue less relevant to decisions of a school board.)
The Bush administration and the congress that enabled it reflect the dangers of government by ideologues. Sharing the right "conservative" beliefs seems to have been far more important than competence or honesty. This was compounded by the stress on loyalty and efforts to intimadate critics. Rather than relishing discussion and argument they created an intellectual wasteland in which those who might challenge their actions were driven out or marginalized, as moderate Republicans came to discover.
While the Bush administration tried to win by narrowing its ideological base, the Democrats succeeded by broadening theirs, recruiting an ideologically diverse group of candidates. While the heretic burners on the left are still active, the two attempts at purges I am aware of--against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Jeff Plale here in Wisconsin--ultimately failed.
So both for the way the Republicans lost and the way Democrats won, I think there are hopes for us pragmatists. But we will see what lessons are taken from the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)