State Superintendent Tony Evers has released a proposed framework for school finance reform in Wisconsin- its about time.  The current system, put in place in 1993 under Governor Thompson, and there is general agreement that it is broken and needs significant reform.  Ever's proposal has received initial support both from the WI School Board Assocation and WEAC - I think not so much due to the specifics of the proposal but because it is an important step to jumpstarting the process that will lead towards overdue reform. 

Evers' proposal includes items like redistributing the school levy tax credit funding directly to schools.  Currently schools levy a higher amount and then the state refunds a portion to property taxpayers- rather than providing the money directly to schools district so they don't levy as much in the first place.  The school levy credit adds an unneeded layer of complexity and, because it is based on local property tax rates, it changes the distribution of state funds from that intended.  The school levy credit also helps the state "balance the books" on paper because it doesn't pay out until the following fiscal year.  The proposal is property tax neutral.

Some of the other items in the proposal include reviewing and streamlining the 40 different "categorical aids" distributions -this is money delivered to districts earmarked for specific purposes, and adding poverty metrics into the aid formula calculation.

You can read more here.

Although school finance reform is overdue, in my view arguing about where the money comes from and how it flows through the system is a minor point.  The important question is: How much funding is adequate for an educational system that meets the needs of the Wisconsin and its residents, and are we going to commit to providing it? Click here for more on the topic of adequate funding.

Total WI K-12 funding as a percentage of GDP has been declining over the last 10 years, the education "share of the pie" has been shrinking.  What I would like to see is a commitment to a constant (in GDP terms)  funding level predicated on adequacy. Call it "A percentage for Kids".  But its not really about children, its about securing a prosperous future for everyone.

Not much to report these days:

I spent much of the day participating in the interview process with candidates for the position of Business Services Director to replace the departing Mary Ellen VanValin.  Although only time will tell if anyone can  live up to the high standards set by Mary Ellen, I think we were pleased with the quality and experience of the leading candidates for the position and I'm satisfied that we have some good options from which to choose.

Concussions

At the June 9th board meeting Jeff Schreiner presented a proposal for the the district to participate in the WI Sports Concussion Collaborative.  This would provide access for MG students in contact sports to take baseline testing of cognitive function in the pre-season, the baseline tests could then be compared to tests taken after a suspected of diagnosed concussion.  This protocol allows physicians to both better diagnose concussions and to manage the injury.  An important aspect is that the testing can help determine when and if it is safe for the student to return to play.

I've been looking at the research which has revealed more reasons to be concerned about the potential for long-term injury or disability from concussions.  This appears to be especially true for a second injury occurring before a full recovery is made from a previous concussion.  This "Second Impact Syndrome" can even in rare circumstances be fatal.
 
Last year 14 MG student athletes had concusions - suprisingly most of them were among our girl soccer players.  In light of recent reseach I think it's important we take advantage opportunities to better manage these injuries.

Tonight in meetings...

The newly reconstiuted Policy and Curriculum committees will meet this evening for the first time.  I originally intended to focus the first Curriculum meeting on laying out goals for the year, but considering that our Continuous Improvement and Assesment Coordinator Ed O'Connor is leaving the district at the end of the month  I've asked Ed and Bill to give us an overview of the related structures and resources in place in the district.  I view both continuous improvement strategies and assessments as key to improving the quality of outcomes in the district, and we need to understand the support that is needed to keep moving forward.

http://www.mononagrove.org/cms_files/resources/CurrAgenda061610..pdf

More on contracts:

More on union contracts:  So far the district has settled 3 contracts, those with the clerical, custodial and food service employees.  The clerical employees agreed to a 2% increase offset by furlough days over the next 2 years for a net zero increase.  Subsequent contracts will use the 2% increase as a starting point.  The custodial employees agreed to a pay freeze, in exchange for a bit of job security: the contract has language that prevents the district from replacing any additional custodians with contractors for the life of this contract.  Custodians could still be laid-off (not that anyone wants that to happen) but the work can not outsourced.  The food service employees agreed to a similar structure a few months ago: a 0% increase, but a commitment that the job of any current employee would not be outsourced.  

This situation is unusual: usually these contracts are left until after the teacher's union settles, and increases are based on the total negotiated with the teacher's union.  But this year is a little different both in terms of the length of time of the MGEA negotiations and the district's financial situation and budget cuts.  As you can see from the results, job security was a big concern of the unions this round.

It's always Sunny in Monona

Sunny gets it wrong again: Last week Sunny Schubert called the board a bunch ignorant monkeys, an opinion informed by her own ignorance of the situation. This week she backs off the statement, but steps in it again by stating that the board has abdicated its responsibility by not having members in the room during the negotiations with the teachers union. To be fair Sunny asks for an explanation, but don’t you think it would be better if she asked the questions first before going to press? Sunny’s “shoot first, ask questions later” style of “journalism” gives her an opportunity to take irresponsible pot-shots without those troublesome facts getting in her way. And yes, it is lazy. (Am I being a little hard on Sunny? - Well I’m not the one who started this off by calling people “Ignorant Monkeys” in print).

As for the question about why the board doesn’t participate in negotiations: In the past I’ve had numerous discussions with experienced board members on this topic, many of whom did participate in negotiations with MGEA (a few more times than Sunny has, I might add). The consensus I have gleaned is that having board members in the room doesn’t add much, and in their experience actually hinders the process. The negotiation process is difficult, delicate and detailed, and it is better to have the experienced professionals representing the board’s positions and interests - there is less animosity and negotiations are more productive.  Further, no subset of the school board has the power to deal with the contract issues on their own anyway. All issues would have to be reported back to the full board to be debated and decided.

This is a judgement call, but its my judgement that the public’s interests are best served by handling the negotiations as they are now. We aren’t abrogating our responsibilities, but living up to them. Yes, board members have participated in the past – but that experience is why we don’t today. In recent negotiations the board has offered to participate provided that both sides agree to the process of “Consensus Bargaining”. Consensus bargaining has been used successfully in this district in the past, but in recent years the MGEA has declined the offer.

Oh and Sunny, my number is 661-9534 - just in case you have a question in the future.

Food service changes...

Do to scheduling issues we are having a special meeting this Wednesday (June 2nd) where we will be considering one issue in open session: contracting out our food service operations.  Food service in the district is intended to be self sufficient, but recently the food service operations have been running a deficit requiring supplement from the general fund of about $50K per year. 

Last November the district started investigating the possibility of outsourcing the food service operations, and after significant study and review of proposals from 5 potential vendors the administration is recommending the district consider a contract with Chartwells School Dining Services. 

Chartwells is a national company providing institutional food services in a large number of settings, and indicates in their proposal that they will expand the menu choices available and continue to improve the nutritional value of the food service.  If approved Chartwells would hire current District food service director Barb Waara, and guarantees a small net to the district.  Chartwells makes money on a management fee of 4 cents per meal.  The Chartwells website can be found here:  http://chartwells-usa.com/.

Update 6/3:  Last night the board did approve proceeding with a contract with Chartwells after a presentation by Barb Waara, our financial and food service staff and the Chartwells representative.  Some of the details:  Barb and our current staff will retain their positions but working for Chartwells.  Chartwells is promising to improve the variety and quality of the food available, including efforts to provide fresh fruits and vegetables and incorporate local farm produce into the menu.  Chartwells projects a significant increase in participation due to their belief that they can provide a more appealing product.  Its easy for me to see how a larger organization would have the purchasing power and expertise to provide better service that the district is able.
The contract is mandated by the USDA to be a one year contract, which must be renewed each year and re-bid every 5 years.  If we don't like how it is going we can terminate the contract at the end of the year.   We shall see, I'd like to hear from you on the subject next school year.