Consensus on MPS further away than ever?

An article in this morning's Journal Sentinel, entitled Doyle, Barrett warn MPS on tax increase, underlines the fragmentation on opinions about what to do about MPS. The article is actually about three happenings:

1. The aforementioned-press release from the Mayor and Governor criticizing the just-released MPS budget.
2. A hearing held in Madison by Rep. Polly Williams' educational reform committee.
3. A press release from several Milwaukee legislators proposing that the state assume the whole cost of the Milwaukee Parental Choice program.

The Barrett-Doyle press release criticizes the timing of the release of the MPS budget, coming on the same day as an announcement of stimulus funds going to MPS. The reality is that the proposed budget is flat, but may result in large tax increases because of reduced state funding under the present formula. Barrett and Doyle do not spell out what they think MPS should do. There is an implication that they believe MPS should use the stimulus funding to offset operating funds. A couple of objections to this approach immediately come to mind. One is that this may not be legal under federal rules. Another is that it could result in an extremely large tax increase two years hence when the extra federal funds go away and MPS has to replace them.

The article then quotes three board members and a Milwaukee legislator as quoting the cost-savings proposals in recent consultant's (McKinsey) report. As is his wont, the board president is quoted as taking personal credit for any improvements in MIPS.

This is the third time to my knowledge that a serious attempt is being made to make corrections to the funding flaw to MPCP funding, that results in choice students costing property tax payers more than MPS students. The first two attempts, in 2001 and 2007, died in large part because of lack of support from members of the Milwaukee delegation (and in 2007 from the MPS board). It appeared that this year might be different because the delegation appeared to be together. Since there is no possibility that out state legislators would support complete state funding, the question is whether the press release from the Milwaukee legislators is simply a political statement about their dislike of vouchers or an attempt to deep-six the latest attempt at reform.

From the article, it appears that MPS may be facing two overseers of its spending of federal stimulus money. Tony Evers, the incoming superintendent of public instruction said he intends to appoint a "federal funds trustee" to oversee how MPS spends tens of millions of dollars of federal economic stimulus money. This trustee would join the commission that Barrett and Doyle intend to appoint which apparently would have much the same job. No word yet on who might be on the commission.

McKinsey and MPS Academic Achievement

The McKinsey report does not examine academic achievement in great depth. It does note improvements in 8th grade science and math tests, a gain in ACT participation, and a slight improvement in the graduation rates as positives.

However, its overall assessment of MPS progress is overwhelmingly negative, based mainly on three comparisons:

1. The growing gap in the percentage of students rated as proficient between MPS and Wisconsin in 4th and 10th grade state tests.
2. The gap between MPS and the state in the percentage of proficient students in every demographic group.
3. Comparing the gap between major Midwestern cities and their states on test scores, with Milwaukee showing the greatest, particularly at the tenth grade level.

Currently it is difficult to compare urban districts in different states. There is no consistency in tests from one state to another. Results for the one national test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is available for Wisconsin, but not MPS. This is due to change in the future, allowing a direct comparison to other urban districts.

Cost savings in the McKinsey report

As noted, the report Towards a Stronger Milwaukee Public Schools has both a broad based assessment of MPS' financial and academic challenges and some suggested cost savings in non-academic areas. The latter include:

1. Procurement of supplies and textbooks (Savings: $5.8-7.8 million)
a. Compare prices before ordering
b. Specify lower end computers
c. Rationalize sku’s
d. Consolidate text book purchases

2. Food service ($8.8-15.6)
a. Pre-pack school lunches
b. Reduce benefits for food service workers
c. Reduce cost of purchases
d. Increase prices to students and participation

3. Transportation ($7-14.2 million)
a. Lower prices with yellow bus companies
b. Negotiate a greater discount with county transit
c. Increase use of public transit, including middle school students
d. Put a cap on the number of miles students would be transported
e. Use smaller buses
f. Charge an annual fee to students not qualifying for free and reduced lunch (would require a change in state law)

4. Administration ($17.3-28.6 million)
a. Restructure salaries
b. Benefits
c. Reduce administrative staffing in schools

5. Benefits ($23-43 million)
a. Lower cost packages–PPO vs HMO
b. Redesign benefit packages
c. Raise eligibility from 20 to 34 hours per week
d. Shift retirees to lower cost plan
e. Reduce retiree eligibility

6. Maintenance & facilities ($12-23 million)
a. Benefits for maintenance workers
b. Reduce salaries where above market rates
c. Better use of boiler engineers
d. Custodian staffing
e. Sick policy
f. Sell closed facilities
g. Consolidate facilities

Some of these are likely to be implemented by MPS, such as the pre-packing of lunches and more negotiating on bus contracts. Other may prove impractical or hard to implement. The day after the report was issued, one group of employees appeared at a board meeting to protest the recommendations affecting them.

The "McKinsey Report"

A few days after this month’s election, the Journal Sentinel headlined: “Study finds millions in waste at Milwaukee Public Schools.” The headline itself misrepresented both the accompanying article and the report itself, titled Toward a Stronger Milwaukee Public Schools.

The report consists of two quite different parts. One is a detailed review of the challenges facing MPS, both financially and in raising student achievement. The other has a series of detailed suggestions of ways to save money on administrative costs.

But beyond the content of the report are its implications for the future. Its funders are a who’s who of the mainstream Milwaukee funding community. The report is introduced by a letter from Governor Doyle and Mayor Barrett, in which they promise to take a much more active and continuing role in the affairs of MPS. Although Barrett and Doyle avoid spelling out specifics, they do say that “MPS must make major changes to improve its performance management.”

As the report was release, Barrett and Doyle promised to establish an advisory panel, called the MPS Innovation and Advisory Council. This panel would be charged with developing an "action plan" to improve MPS, particularly using federal money, including stimulus funding, as leverage. As of this writing, there is no indication of who might be on this panel.

ASA Landscape Poll: What Voters Think

For me, the most interesting result of the poll taken at the beginning of the year is how much voters want radical change in MPS. For example, when forced to choose between two statements:

With the right leadership in place, MPS as it exists today can make solid progress on improving achievement over the next few years

or

MPS has so many problems that something drastic needs to change for Milwaukee to make any real progress on student achievement

62% of those who answered chose the latter. This dissatisfaction is reflected in several other of the responses, including low ratings for both MPS and the school board.

From a board member viewpoint, having served for the past two years on a very divided school board, the most striking response was the nearly 90% of the respondents who preferred that the school board should "put aside their ideological differences, and unite to provide real solutions" compared to those who agreed that members "should stick to their principles."

Another striking impression is how little most results varied by district or by race. In part, this may reflect that the populations in the three districts are more similar than different. For example, they were overwhelmingly Democratic or independent; there were few self-identified Republicans. Then president-elect Obama was by far the most popular of any of the public figures mentioned in the survey.

The Creeping Takeover

The release of the so-called "McKinsey Report" earlier this month has revived the debate about mayoral control of Milwaukee public schools, or some other form of governance that would replace the present school board. Generally such proposals have been framed in an either/or, all or nothing form. Either the mayor would take over or the present structure would be left unchanged.

Less remarked upon is that we have had a sort of creeping takeover for some time. The flow of federal funds through the Department of Public Instruction, the push by the Obama administration to use stimulus money to reform public education, the federal law's expectations for improved reading and math scores, and the special education lawsuit all shift power away from the MPS board.

Thus the tools exist for a potential power shift. If the promised "MPS Innovation and Improvement Council" comes up with a sensible plan that the various non-MPS stakeholders sign on to, it is likely that the MPS administration and board will find it difficult to resists. But the makeup of the council becomes critical. One could easily envision a council chosen to reflect the various interest groups floating around MPS that could suffer the same ills as the board.