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.
Monday, March 07, 2005
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.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
We have a critique
Last post, I mentioned a couple of reasons for the recent dearth of commentary here. Another was the lack of responses. Real blogs have people agreeing, arguing, and accusing the blogger of being an arch-villain. In the category of be careful what you wish for, tonight I received responses to a couple of fairly ancient posts (September 10 and August 15). Unfortunately, Anonymous won't set any standards for either civil discourse or reasoned argumentation. He or she does make a couple of interesting points, however:
- He or she argues that the insurance deal I discussed saved MPS $17 million. This would be major news, if true. $17 million is the sort of money that would have a significant impact on the perennial budget shortfall. Since I played a crucial role in pushing MTEA and the MPS administration to keep working on this deal, I would add it to my resume, if I believed it. Unfortunately, I don't believe it. If it were true, I believe both the MPS administration and the MTEA would be broadcasting the good news about cooperation. And under the deal, the teachers would get a part of this savings. At a time when good news about MPS is sorely lacking I find it hard that news of this sort would be buried.
- In the other post I commented on an exchange between a retired teacher arguing that MPS teachers are underpaid (but actually talking more about working conditions) and a current teacher taking the risky position that they are not. I expressed some concern about the latter's relations with his colleagues. Anonymous adds to those concerns by saying he or she works with that teacher and then proceeding to disparage him. Perhaps in person Anonymous is both charming and tolerant of disagreement, but based on Anonymous's anonymous comments, I don't envy that teacher.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Can MPS close schools?
I have been very negligent about postings on this blog, mainly because I have been involved in other things, like work, starting a new on-line journal (first article received and out for review), and starting a website devoted to Wisconsin bicycle routes. (Talk about lack of focus!) But mainly, I think, it is because I have become increasingly pessimistic about the future of education in Milwaukee.
Part of the reason for this pessimism is underlined by an article in this morning's Journal-Sentinel, "MPS panel holds off on closing several schools." According to this article, directors Blewett, Morales, and Balistreri voted to defer any decision on closing low-enrollment schools until a "community needs" analysis can be done. This decision--or lack of decision really--is symptomatic of the inability of the board majority to make hard decisions, the kind of decisions that will rile a vocal minority but help the system as a whole. Transferring resources from more popular schools to the low-enrollment schools will only make it more difficult for all schools to operate and accelerate the downward spiral.
Theoretically, it is possible that a couple of good things could come out of this:
Part of the reason for this pessimism is underlined by an article in this morning's Journal-Sentinel, "MPS panel holds off on closing several schools." According to this article, directors Blewett, Morales, and Balistreri voted to defer any decision on closing low-enrollment schools until a "community needs" analysis can be done. This decision--or lack of decision really--is symptomatic of the inability of the board majority to make hard decisions, the kind of decisions that will rile a vocal minority but help the system as a whole. Transferring resources from more popular schools to the low-enrollment schools will only make it more difficult for all schools to operate and accelerate the downward spiral.
Theoretically, it is possible that a couple of good things could come out of this:
- With the threat of imminent closure, perhaps some of the schools will figure out what parents are looking for in schools (it is ironic, I think, that even choice schools with quite inept management seem able to figure out how to attract students).
- Perhaps they will develop an economic model for a small enrollment school, recognizing that such a school will have to concentrate on doing a few things well, and not try to be all things to all families.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Charlene Hardin
Some time back, Schools Now promised to profile the four Milwaukee School Board members facing election this year. Unfortunately it stopped at only three. Part of the reason for procrastinating is that it is hard to talk about Charlene Hardin without talking about personality and behavior.
She can be charming in person, but at board meetings is often belligerent. A typical example occurred at the committee meeting considering renewal of Afro Urban Institute. Larry O'Neill expressed is unhappiness with her behavior:
Other than passionate defenses of any group getting funds from MPS--no matter how ineffective, it is hard to associate any set of policies with Hardin.
She can be charming in person, but at board meetings is often belligerent. A typical example occurred at the committee meeting considering renewal of Afro Urban Institute. Larry O'Neill expressed is unhappiness with her behavior:
At the meeting, we had board members screaming, shouting at the superintendent, pounding on the table. It is false to say there was not help from the administration. The review committee recommended that it was time to revoke the charter. It was well documented. It doesn't help to do some of the things that were done at that meeting. We don't want to set up children for failure.Oddly, her outbursts often include appeals to the board to work together.
Other than passionate defenses of any group getting funds from MPS--no matter how ineffective, it is hard to associate any set of policies with Hardin.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
School board elections start
Assuming sufficient signatures survive, there will be three district school board races this April, but no primaries.
In the eighth district (south west side), Larry O'Neil decided not to run for re-election. The two candidates to replace him are Danny Goldberg and John Malloy Hagen.
Kevin Ronnie will run against School Board President Peter Blewett in the sixth district (west side).
Bernadine Bradford will run against Charlene Hardin in the fourth district (north side).
In the fifth district (east side and near south side), Jennifer Morales is unopposed, reflecting in part perhaps a belief that she was politically in synch with the political views of many of the east side activists and would be hard to beat. The lack of a contest also seems to reflect a lack of interest in MPS on the part of most east siders, few of whom have children in MPS.
More on this race as it develops. Coming up next: why MPS is important.
In the eighth district (south west side), Larry O'Neil decided not to run for re-election. The two candidates to replace him are Danny Goldberg and John Malloy Hagen.
Kevin Ronnie will run against School Board President Peter Blewett in the sixth district (west side).
Bernadine Bradford will run against Charlene Hardin in the fourth district (north side).
In the fifth district (east side and near south side), Jennifer Morales is unopposed, reflecting in part perhaps a belief that she was politically in synch with the political views of many of the east side activists and would be hard to beat. The lack of a contest also seems to reflect a lack of interest in MPS on the part of most east siders, few of whom have children in MPS.
More on this race as it develops. Coming up next: why MPS is important.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Cheating in Texas
The Dallas recently published two articles alleging cheating in several Houston schools on the Texas state tests. It appears that teachers gave students cues so they would score higher on the tests. When these students moved to middle school, suddenly their scores were much lower. Former teachers report that they were told to give their students more help.
At a few Milwaukee elementary schools, there is a similar decline in sixth grade, but it appears no one has examined the reasons.
Part of the problem is that for some schools, principals, and teachers, high test scores become an end in themselves. Rather than looking at the tests as a measure of what students are learning and using them to improve learning, teachers come to look at the scores themselves as the goal. It is then a relatively small step to look at anything that improves the scores as a good, even if it does not improve student learning, and in fact gives a false impression of learning.
Perhaps that cultural shift helps explain why such cheating can go on for years.
At a few Milwaukee elementary schools, there is a similar decline in sixth grade, but it appears no one has examined the reasons.
Part of the problem is that for some schools, principals, and teachers, high test scores become an end in themselves. Rather than looking at the tests as a measure of what students are learning and using them to improve learning, teachers come to look at the scores themselves as the goal. It is then a relatively small step to look at anything that improves the scores as a good, even if it does not improve student learning, and in fact gives a false impression of learning.
Perhaps that cultural shift helps explain why such cheating can go on for years.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
The ninth grade problem
Alan Borsuk has an article in today's Journal Sentinel on the MPS report card. Borsuk singles out the ninth grade bulge, reflecting students who are stuck in ninth grade for two or more years. Ninth grade in Milwaukee seems to be a problematic year for several reasons, and not just because students have trouble getting through it.
When I looked at test scores for individual MPS students several years ago, I found that ninth grade was the only year in which the average student scored lower than that same student did the year before. At the time, tests were given in the spring, so most growth (or in this case lack of growth) could be credited to the grade in which the test was given.
There are several possible explanations for this apparent backsliding. The most optimistic is that the ninth grade test is poorly aligned with what is taught in ninth grade, so that students are learning material that does not appear on the test. A far more likely explanation, in my view, is that the high schools don't know their students, so many ninth graders waste the year on material they already had while others waste the year because they are in over their heads.
A look at eighth grade scores for the incoming freshmen painted a picture of the impossible academic diversity facing a typical ninth grade teachers. A class of thirty students would include ones scoring below the average third-grader on eighth grade exams and others outscoring the average tenth grader. How could a teacher hope to meet the needs of this wildly divergent group. If I were running a high school, I would spend the first week testing the student and then sorting them into classes that would meet their needs.
When I looked at test scores for individual MPS students several years ago, I found that ninth grade was the only year in which the average student scored lower than that same student did the year before. At the time, tests were given in the spring, so most growth (or in this case lack of growth) could be credited to the grade in which the test was given.
There are several possible explanations for this apparent backsliding. The most optimistic is that the ninth grade test is poorly aligned with what is taught in ninth grade, so that students are learning material that does not appear on the test. A far more likely explanation, in my view, is that the high schools don't know their students, so many ninth graders waste the year on material they already had while others waste the year because they are in over their heads.
A look at eighth grade scores for the incoming freshmen painted a picture of the impossible academic diversity facing a typical ninth grade teachers. A class of thirty students would include ones scoring below the average third-grader on eighth grade exams and others outscoring the average tenth grader. How could a teacher hope to meet the needs of this wildly divergent group. If I were running a high school, I would spend the first week testing the student and then sorting them into classes that would meet their needs.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
What next for the Democrats?
Today's Washington Post has an interesting article on why Democrats won in Colorado:
With the concern over high taxes, Governor Doyle and the Democrats will lose if they are viewed as the party representing the interests of public employees rather than those of the public (especially the public as taxpayers). With the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Republicans are cleverly defining the contest as one between government and taxes.
Doyle and the Democrats have apparently decided that taking the WEAC position on school choice and charter schools incurs little political risk, since the parents who benefit have not thus far become an effective political force. But the political danger to Democrats may come from a different direction: that by toeing the WEAC line they position themselves as the friends of those who benefit from the status quo in government programs rather than as problem solvers. In doing so, the play the Republican game,
Colorado Democrats say their success carries a lesson for the national party. "We campaigned on pragmatism," state Democratic Chairman Christopher Gates said. "We set ourselves up as the problem solvers, while the Republicans were hung up on a bunch of fringe social issues like gay marriage and the Pledge of Allegiance.Colorado, in Schools Now's view, also has lessons for Wisconsin Democrats. Despite Kerry's close win in Wisconsin, Republicans increased their domination of the legislature. The danger is that Democrats will look to their base in Milwaukee or Madison for a solution rather than finding ways to convince voters that they can solve problems better than Republicans can.
"The notion that moral issues won the 2004 election was disproven in Colorado," Gates continued. "We offered solutions, not ideology, and won almost everything."
With the concern over high taxes, Governor Doyle and the Democrats will lose if they are viewed as the party representing the interests of public employees rather than those of the public (especially the public as taxpayers). With the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Republicans are cleverly defining the contest as one between government and taxes.
Doyle and the Democrats have apparently decided that taking the WEAC position on school choice and charter schools incurs little political risk, since the parents who benefit have not thus far become an effective political force. But the political danger to Democrats may come from a different direction: that by toeing the WEAC line they position themselves as the friends of those who benefit from the status quo in government programs rather than as problem solvers. In doing so, the play the Republican game,
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Post Election Notes: What Didn't Work
Schools Now takes note of two campaigns that apparently did not work in the recent election:
1. Ads from WEAC (the state teacher's union) accusing Republicans of favoring Milwaukee for supporting charter schools. Of the eight seats targeted by WEAC, Schools Now counts only one Democratic victory. This seemed like a strikingly stupid campaign for many reasons, but satisfaction about its failure is tempered by the increasing Republican monopoly in the legislature. Schools Now can only hope that the results might finally jolt the Democrats into thinking about developing a compelling vision for Wisconsin.
2. The ads paid for by at least one pro school choice group and run on black-oriented radio stations. The only likely effect is to increase antagonism among legislators who, by rights, should be the strongest supporters of school choice. Schools Now suggests that the folks sponsoring these ads should also take a long break to think about how to win friends and influence people.
1. Ads from WEAC (the state teacher's union) accusing Republicans of favoring Milwaukee for supporting charter schools. Of the eight seats targeted by WEAC, Schools Now counts only one Democratic victory. This seemed like a strikingly stupid campaign for many reasons, but satisfaction about its failure is tempered by the increasing Republican monopoly in the legislature. Schools Now can only hope that the results might finally jolt the Democrats into thinking about developing a compelling vision for Wisconsin.
2. The ads paid for by at least one pro school choice group and run on black-oriented radio stations. The only likely effect is to increase antagonism among legislators who, by rights, should be the strongest supporters of school choice. Schools Now suggests that the folks sponsoring these ads should also take a long break to think about how to win friends and influence people.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
School Boards and Secrecy
In his response to Ken Johnson's letter criticising his visit to the MTEA (the Milwaukee teacher's union) during negotiations, Peter Blewett devotes considerable space to arguing that everything said in an executive session should be secret. This could represent a major advance for the cause of school board secrecy.
Here is an example. Let's say a school superintendent wants to inform the board about major financial problems, but does not want the press or public to pick up on the story. So he asks for an executive session of the board, only to be informed that state law requires that discussion of district finances be held in public. Thus he is out of luck....or is he?
However the board can meet in executive session to discuss its bargaining strategy with the union, one of the exemptions from the state open meetings law, on the theory that disclosing the strategy to the other side could put the negotiators at a disadvantage. As part of the discussion of strategy, the superientendent may talk about the district's precarious financial situation as background to why the offer cannot be more generous.
If board members are now obligated not to disclose anything they learned about the district's financial situation, on the grounds that this information came out in an executive session, the superintendent is able to achieve his original, illegal, goal.
For a more detailed critique of this expansion of secrecy, see my letter here.
Here is an example. Let's say a school superintendent wants to inform the board about major financial problems, but does not want the press or public to pick up on the story. So he asks for an executive session of the board, only to be informed that state law requires that discussion of district finances be held in public. Thus he is out of luck....or is he?
However the board can meet in executive session to discuss its bargaining strategy with the union, one of the exemptions from the state open meetings law, on the theory that disclosing the strategy to the other side could put the negotiators at a disadvantage. As part of the discussion of strategy, the superientendent may talk about the district's precarious financial situation as background to why the offer cannot be more generous.
If board members are now obligated not to disclose anything they learned about the district's financial situation, on the grounds that this information came out in an executive session, the superintendent is able to achieve his original, illegal, goal.
For a more detailed critique of this expansion of secrecy, see my letter here.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
New Flash! Peter Blewett reads Schools Now!
Schools Now welcomes MPS board president Peter Blewett to its ranks of loyal readers. In July, we published an item that Blewett had been freelancing in negotiations with the MTEA. Yesterday, we received the response to our freedom of information request:
- A letter from board member Ken Johnson to Blewett charging him with an improper visit to the MTEA (which was mentioned in our earlier item) and accusing him of impugning the integrity of the MPS staff. This letter is heavily redacted--meaning lots of heavy black lines hiding the good stuff, so it is hard to tell what Blewett proposed to do with the information he got from the MTEA.
- A response from Blewett denying the accusations (the visit was purely to gather information; he has "high respect" for the staff), and waxing indignant that someone leaked this controversy to Schools Now. Exhibit 1 is a printout of the offending post from July.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Who is better for Milwaukee education--Bush or Kerry?
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.
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 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)