Open Enrollment article

Phil McDade sent along a link to an interesting article on the driving factors behind open enrollment in Wisconsin. Monona Grove is a significant beneficiary of open enrollment revenue, so it is worth understanding this phenomenon:

One of the most striking findings in the recent study was that students were more likely to transfer from districts with higher property values and lower tax rates to districts that spend more per pupil. For every $100 difference in spending per student, a higher-spending district could expect about 1.7% more incoming transfers.

Such behavior suggests that families avoid higher taxes while benefiting from higher spending on education, the researchers noted.

"If you had two districts, and they had the same test scores, same population density, same minorities, but if one spent a little bit more, they would get transfers in," Welsch said. "I guess parents actually believe that spending leads to better educational outcomes."

In addition, all things being equal, for every 1 percentage point gain in students who score in the advanced category on state tests, a district could expect incoming transfers to increase by 2%, according to the research results. School districts with more extracurricular activities and a smaller percentage of minorities also attracted more transfers, although Welsch said data indicated parents were still interested in sending their children to racially diverse school districts.

It is not a suprise that OE tips students and resources toward districts with higher test scores. The fact that it does the same towards higher spending districts is, in restrospect, also not a suprise. Open enrollment provides parents with a way to enjoy the benefits of higher spending districts while avoiding the higher taxes that living in the district would entail, something that could prove disruptive.

Annual Meeting Next Monday

The annual budget of the school district requires approval each year at a meeting of the electorate. This year's meeting will be Monday October 5th at 7p.m. at Glacial Drumlin school. Note that this is not a meeting of the School Board, but a meeting of the electors (eligible voter's) of the district.

The 2009-10 budget publication can be found here. In the past this has been sent out as a flier to all residences in the district, this year we chose not to send it out as a way to save a little money. A more detailed budget publication will be available at the meeting and district offices.

In Brief (all numbers are as budgeted, actual expenditures will vary):
Total general fund expenditures will increase about $1.5M to $33,947,100, about 4.4%. 71% of the district budget goes to salaries and benefits, so they are the main driver of increasing expenditures. Health insurance premiums alone will increase 9% this year. Total expenditures (including debt service, special ed., food service, capital projects & etc.) will be $49.26M

Much of the increased expense will be offset by increased state revenue, with the state's share increasing $2.2M, largely as a result of the 4-K program enrollment. Under the state's revenue limit formula the impact on the total levy will be small, an increase in total of $100,000 (0.48%) to $23,249,000. The remaining difference between revenue and expenses will be met by taking about $600,000 out of the fund balance.

Reduction of the fund balance to pay operating expenses is of particular concern. Although we can afford it this year, continued deficit operation is unsustainable - reducing the fund balance further will increase our borrowing expenses.

The state also shows a 2% increase in the total equalized value of the district ($1.915B) - the result is mill rate of 12.14- essentially unchanged from last year.

One week to Pie!

Saturday, Oct. 3rd! Come hungry!

The end of the University as we know it...

This article from Slate caught my eye. It argues that the Internet will do to Universities and Colleges what it has done to the Cap Times and the rest of the newspaper business:

It is hard to predict the precise pace of change—but it’s possible that within 15 years most college credits will come from classes taken online. In 2007, nearly 4 million students took at least one online course, and the numbers are growing. Within a generation, college will be a mostly virtual experience for the average student. The Ivies will be much less affected than the mid-tier and local schools. But colleges that depend on tuition, and have no special brand, will be hit hard. The recession will accelerate this trend, as students become warier of taking on loans, and state schools experiment after fund cuts. This doesn’t just mean a different way of learning: The funding of academic research, the culture of the academy, and the institution of tenure are all threatened.

It is clear that the access to content that the Internet allows will revolutionize all the information based segments of the economy. I think the future will see the same effect in K-12 education as well- we now live in a world where there is the potential for every student to have access to the best content on any subject produced anywhere in the world. How this will play out I don't know, but it would be a mistake not to embrace the technology where ever it allows us to be more effective and focus on student outcomes.

Aligned by next Tuesday...

Next Wednesday's board meeting will be held on Tuesday 9/22 and will feature a presentation of the "Aligned by Design" Curriculum Model by Dr. Charles Venengoni of John Hersey High School in Arlington Heights, IL.

"Aligned by Design" seeks to align the high school core curriculum with college readiness standards to improve student outcomes. The program has been brought forward by Bill Breisch and the administration who have been working on it for several months and are proposing implementation in the MG schools. It fits in well with the assesment model we have been developing in our district.

You can read more about Aligned by Design here, I'll post more references when I can.
http://www.act.org/activity/spring2005/standards.html

Some business...

The board had an important meeting Wednesday, although the meeting went past eleven we heard detailed reviews of the district's RtI (Response to Intervention) program, our disproportionally data, and a review of our standardized test results (A district "report card" if you will). The data was put together and presented by John Faust, Ed O'Connor, Bill Breisch and Charlie Ellis. These gentlemen did an excellent job putting together thorough and clear presentations for the board.

RTI is a system to service students with special needs, it relies on assessment of the effectiveness (the response) to enhanced instruction provided (the intervention) to these students. The emphasis is on results, not identification. RTI is a response to the problem that student achievement tends to stagnate once students are identified as having special needs in traditional special ed systems. Our district is still in the process of implementing this system, but we do have a leadership role in Wisconsin. Some of our data already shows apparent success of this approach in MG schools at the elementary level.

“Disproportionally” refers is the difference in achievement between our minority and white students, it is manifest in academic achievement data as well is the ratio of students identified with special needs or challenges, these ratios are often 3 times greater for minority students. This is a significant problem state wide, and our district is no different.

Overall our district's academic data is not as encouraging. While both growth and achievement are well above average, results are stagnant and not improving as much as I would like to see. It’s the reason the board needs to focus on achievement and not the issues of buildings, buses and fields that have been such a distraction over these last several years.

On the subject of the budget, a succession of little things over the summer has added up to increase our projected budget deficit for the current year. From an estimated $250,000 it is up to about $600,000- but we won't know precisely until the 3rd Friday count is in next week. This will take our fund balance down to the minimum acceptable or below. Bad news, and unfortunately the state budget means that next year will be significantly worse - we will probably be needing to find $1M in the next budget.

One more thing: This year we moved the annual meeting a few weeks earlier to make it easier to meet the state deadlines at the end of October. We didn't know at the time that the date we picked, Monday October 5th, was going to conflict with the Packers vs. Vikings game. Sorry 'bout that!

I feel a need to respond to something:

As a board member I have my shortcomings, but a lack of sincerity is not among them. Every action I have taken has been out of sincere consideration of the best education and financial interests of the district. At a recent school board meeting, school board President Susan Fox made a baseless accusation that I believe was directed at me, charging that board members are acting out of a desire to be obstructive or play games. I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting these comments, so here is the clip, the rest of the meeting can be found at mononatv.com apologies for the echoing audio):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OXJOJC4Rsc

Here is the background:

At a board meeting in July, we updated school board policy 151, which governs board procedures for adopting and amending policies. This was necessary because policy changes normally come through the recently abolished Policy Committee. During the discussion I suggested we also add language requiring a 2/3rds vote for revisions or deletions of 100 series policies. This is standard language lifted directly from Robert’s Rules of Order relating to bylaws of an organization (our 100 series policies cover board governance, and so function as bylaws. Had our governance policies been titled “Bylaws," then this rule would already have been in place as part of our adherence to Robert’s.)

I offered the amendment to bring us into compliance with Robert’s Rules because it is important that the rules under which we operate have a higher standard of stability and acceptance so that there will be a consensus of buy-in to the results of decisions. A constituent might not agree with a decision, but will be more willing to accept it if the process is stable and sound -- in short, that we've followed board governance policies. I offered the amendment on that particular night because the relevant policy was on the table, so I had been scrutinizing it while keeping in mind the express desire of the board to more closely adhere to Robert’s Rules. In the past such amendments would have been made in the Policy Committee and hashed out there, but as I noted, we no longer have a Policy Committee.
In any event, the amendment passed on a 4-3 vote, and then the revised policy was approved 7-0. At the August 26th meeting, Ms. Fox placed an item to rescind the policy change on the agenda, prompting the discussion referenced above. The motion to rescind failed on a 3-4 vote.

Ms. Fox is entitled to her own opinion, but in my view she is not entitled to use the public platform entrusted to her by the voters to make spurious accusations against members of the board (or anyone else for that matter). Her suggestion that the board members supporting the amendment were acting out of a desire to be obstructive or play games is as offensive as it is false, and the fact that she knows no better than to base such accusations on out of context overheard comments is disappointing.

Do I joke with my colleagues on the board after meetings? You bet; it is my way to try and maintain relationships with people I have to work with in difficult circumstances. Did I express surprise the motion passed? Yes. But does that mean I hought it was in anything but the best interests of the district? Absolutely not.

I don’t ask for or expect an apology from Ms. Fox, but these kinds of inflammatory comments do a disservice for two reasons: they undermine the public trust in the institution and they create animosity that interferes with the functioning of the board. So if any apology is owed, it is to the community.