School Board Endorsement: Passman over Cole

The Passman-Cole race was a tough one for me as a voter.  I like both candidates personally and have no doubt as to their commitment to public education.  I asked both of them to make short comments on the post Two Educators Reflect on Eisen's Essay.

They both responded with comments that I am not going to reproduce here but I am sure you can find at their campaign websites.  The difference is this. While both acknowledge the challenge of educating all of our children, Cole was silent and Passman recognizes that there is a funding problem. 

My own opinion is that Wisconsin and Madison are in a major school funding crisis, both in terms of adequacy and equitable distribution.

If there is a major flaw in the performance of the MMSD, at both the administrative and the board level, it is the lack of aggressiveness in pursuing inequities in school funding, ranging from statutory annexation provisions to aid based on poverty.

I am working on several posts covering this topic which I will publish when more data is available within two weeks.

Comments

[Thomas J. Mertz]

Paul

Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools is gearing up for a push on a resolution from Sandy Pope Roberts on school funding. We could use your help!

The MMSD BOE Communications Committee has scheduled forum/workshop on state finance in the coming weeks. The MMSD site is down, details to follow.

TJM

[Al]

I think Cole's point is and has always been that everyone knows that the state's school funding formula is badly flawed, but you can't just throw your hands up and complain about it--you have to do the best you can with the circumstances you are given. Cole recognizes this, Passman does not. This is why I would support Cole.

[Dan Sebald]

At this point in time I'm favoring Cole for the same reason I voted for her in last year's oh-so-close election, and it is along the lines of funding like Paul mentions. Both qualified, Silviera seemed pro-referendum for a new far west side school while Cole seemed to want to do the best with existing funding and existing schools.

As an aside, I'm not sure what the thinking is with the school board. I see so few complaints from residents about spending on education. Last fall, the school board tied the new school in with other renovation expenditures to help it through referendum. Then the board president states reluctance about any additional referendum for funding because he thinks it would be too much and too soon to ask Madison for more money. The board is out of touch or being unfair. Put out referendums until the voters say no.

[Robert Godfrey]

Paul,

You've hit the nail on the head. Progressives such as myself have been trying for years to get this out to the wider public with little to show for it. Even amongst our progressive community, sadly. What has irritated me endlessly has been the candidacies of Cole, Kobza, Mathiak only cursory mention of the state's school finance disfunctionality. The result of their overall message to the less-than-engaged voting public is that a little better micro-managing of the school district's budget was going to take care of things. Unfortunately, that over-arching meme has won out. It can't be allowed to happen any more. What nonsense to think that any organization can continue to cut more money from it's budget for 15 years straight years and not have an impact on the quality of services of that organization. It's time to shed a bright light on the whole sorry mess we are facing this year and from here on out until we turn around the QEO/budget cap squeeze and ESL-Special Ed. underfunding. Jon Erpenbach and Sondy Pope Roberts are leading the good fight, but we need to do more. Sadly, there were a number of Democratic State Senators who didn't sign on to her resolution by this Friday's deadline calling for changes to the state’s public school funding formula to be enacted by July 1, 2009 (http://www.excellentschools.org/events/ReformResolution/LRB1211.pdf). Maya Cole does a huge disservice to our community by continuing to hoodwink the electorate with disingenuous talk of transparent budgets and the like, when we face an enormous crisis with the potential closing of schools and mass layoff of staff (85% of the budget) this year and every year going forward.
I direct your readers to a new blog just starting, that addresses the positive developments taking place in the Madison schools as well as the challenges it is facing http://www.madisonamps.org.
Paul, thanks for taking a leadership role in such an important issue.
Robert Godfrey

[Dan Sebald]

I'm with you Robert, but I don't see any of Cole's agenda as running counter to what you are saying. If she were using the "save the taxpayer money through efficiency" line then I'd say you are correct. Put it this way, she's no worse than most of the board with regard to the budget cap restrictions. At the same time, she's pro neighborhood school which I'd like to see more of on the board.

[Robert Godfrey]

Dan,

What she has said in the past is things like "I just don't buy that we're down to the bare bones" (Cap Times, Feb.16th, 2006) but admits she doesn't know for sure because a $310 million dollar budget is hard to understand. It was comments like that, playing down a crisis, that I was referring to in my comment with the rejoinder "that a little better micro-managing of the school district's budget was going to take care of things." When asked at several forums afterwards what she meant by a "transparent budget" she appeared to me to stumble to find her words on what exactly she did mean. Having made it a major piece of her election platform, I think presently as well, it is surprising to say the least. Concurrently, in the same Cap Times piece you will learn that she supported the Leopold referendum the year before, as well as the other referendums on overriding revenue caps for both operational and maintenance budgets, but, presumably because she just received the backing of the SIS blog people, and currently still is, she had decided to take a "cautious approach" toward new construction. One of the most surprising aspects of school politics, probably more likely to be confined to a liberal city like Madison, is the strange brew of supporters that a self-professed progressive can pick up, including the likes of ex-school board member and conservative Nancy Harper (who even held an event for her), and Republican party stalwarts such as Tom Ragatz, Fred Mohs, and Ken Luedtke, and the PAC, "Get Real." It can start to make your head spin.
Robert

[Bill R]

Paul, did you ask Cole whether she thought there was a funding problem? I don't think it is fair to Cole to say she has not recognized a funding problem. She is well aware of it. In fact, both she and Passman have recognized it. The difference is that Passman seems to throw up her hands and say nothing can be done about it, while Cole is exploring creative solutions.

Robert, if you think Cole is trying to "hoodwink" the electorate, you either don't know her or you are being dishonest. Maybe you should talk to her, because at one of her events I attended she was talking about funding issues and how she intends to be active with the state legislature.

[Dan Sebald]

I can't find any Feb 16 article with comments from Maya Cole (or anything similar around that time) in the archives at madison.com Robert. There is a story on the three candidates that were in a primary race for open school board seat; that's it. If you can give a link that would be good.

Anyway, I'll have to pay attention to the candidates' comments with regard to the funding cap issue.

I don't completely follow what you mean by the SIS blog contingent. Cole wasn't genuinely opposed to the new elementary school on the far west side, near few people, not in a neighborhood? I didn't follow her comments that closely to judge fraudulence based upon consistency of statements.

[Robert Godfrey]

Dan, I've pulled the article from Lexis-Nexis and posted it here http://snipurl.com/1bztj-KO1C2B. I tried to highlight some things but don't know if they’ve come through. You'll see the seeds of doubt about the district sprinkled about and whether we are in a real funding crisis. The fact of the matter is that Maya Cole is not alone in this game of briefly mentioning the state school financing mess in amongst her far more plentiful comments such as "we need to do a better job." Lawrie Kobza and Lucie Mathiak engage in the same sort of rhetorical gamesmanship, egged on in a fundamental way by Ruth Robarts and her efforts to cast her own brand of “just enough doubt” packaged in the mantle of being a folksy contrarian critic of the district administration.

Folks, were in a crisis, and no amount of responding rhetoric that says "those are the cards that were being dealt with by the state, it’s out of our hands, so now how do we deal with it?" is going to educate the wider public about the true nature of this coming train wreck. Because, in the end, when more horrible cuts are made this year and the next and the next, a Maya Cole can always come back with the type of typical line from the above article, "Every time (budget cycle) there is a flurry of painful cuts that seem to pit the interests of one group of parents against another, and that, bottom line, removes money from the classroom where it belongs." What is really being implied here and in the numerous comments over the past couple of years by her fellow travelers, is that it’s those administrators at Doyle who just don’t know how to handle their money, or, if that’s been milked too much, it’s the “teacher’s union fault,” said with just the right amount of perjoritive punch and leavened with some degree of “I support the teachers” type of cover. Maya’s newest slogan on her web page says “Support neighborhood schools, and I will not vote to close any school in the District as they are vital to their community and to the city’s growth plans.” Again, more of the same. Does anyone seriously think there is anyone in this town who “wants” to do that? Keep on eye on the discussion after March 9th when the proposal to cut SAGE from the ten or so schools with the “lowest” rate of poverty is factored out and we save perhaps 4 million and the discussion then turns to what else to cut. You will see the usual SIS-driven red herrings being trotted out by a couple of journalists in some of our fine local mediums. This time, don’t buy it. Dig deeper, ask more questions about this reporting. Also, find out what your elected state official is doing about this issue. Educate your friends and family, and stand up for public education in this dark time. Robert

[Dan Sebald]

Oh, Feb 16, 2006. I was looking in the madison.com archives at Feb 16, 2007... The highlights came through. I'm not sure what "islands of excellence" is. :-)

Well, what exactly Cole means by her comments regarding budget transparency I'm not sure. Just seems like attempting to nuance a position to gain some political footing and set oneself apart from the rival candidate.

You ask "Does anyone seriously think there is anyone in this town who “wants” to do that?" and I think that is a valid question and I will explain my previous entry: The board seems unwilling to confront the state on its imposed cap. The referendum for the new elementary school has effectively repositioned a lot of the education resources to the outer rim of a sprawling area of the city, while there still remains a limit on resources. There was no creative funding formula that balances expenditures on a new elementary school with funding for downtown schools. The board got the new elementary school, there are impending cuts and talk is that the downtown neighborhood schools and SAGE is where that will happen. The school board is reluctant to put up another referendum to fund downtown neighborhood schools. That is unfair in my opinion. Whether intentional or not, the core neighborhood schools--it seems to me--are losing out. We've had NAFTA. We've had no child left behind. Now we have no school left alone.

[Bill R]

What I'm hearing from Passman is, "My schools are in crisis, and there is nothing we can do about it." That is unsatisfactory. And I don't believe that taking your orders from John Matthews is a good thing when you are in a budget crisis. If a voter is unhappy with the direction of the schools, he or she will not vote for the Keys/Clingen/Lopez candidate. If they are happy, they will. That is probably what will decide the election.

[Mari]

I guess I would like everyone to consider the candidates; not those from whom they have received endorsement. I believe our society has to consider for themselves, their own ideals and definition of “Public Education”. Unfortunately, it is my opinion, that our media is playing into this pigeon hole plan, developing a soap opera that honestly, I’ve grown tired.

If neighborhood schools are what you support, then it should make no difference ‘where’ that neighborhood school stands.

The post about our schools are in trouble due to school financing and an inactive MMSD board unwilling to fight for what all students need…I agree in full. At the same time, why has it taken 13 years for us to figure this out? History dictates the future and I would hate any of our current candidates be fingered the blame.

What is the answer for downtown? What is the answer for funding? Revenue caps are set by three year rolling enrollment averages. Decreasing enrollments mean a loss of revenue. We are our own worse critic(s). Perhaps we should consider some options like Monona Grove? Isn’t it funny that a dramatic drop in enrollment would gain large amounts of revenue? Maybe that’s the answer.

Come annual budget time, I’ve grown tired of the same old same old. We’ve become a district divided. When will we consider the student (our future)? Instead we will hear debates about individual programs, debates on which side of town gets the most, debates about income, ethnicity, needs and even educational level (do we cut more at high school, middle or elementary). When will we work together to provide funding for resources, that when balanced and effective, enhance all of life’s learning experiences? When will those that make this ultimate decision (State Legislature) be courageous enough to fight for what our children deserve!?!

[Eileen A]

I feel both Cole and Passman value and support Madison's public schools and both recognize and understand the negative effect of revenue caps and the QEO on the quality of our schools. Thanks to both of them for their interest in running and public service. However, I am supporting Cole, because she understands the big picture and local issues, supports and values teachers, parents, kids AND will engage the community in developing solutions, building coalitions among various groups in the community and raising the school board's credibility needed to pass operating revenues.

I disagree that Cole, Mathiak and Kobza believe and are simply trying to make the best of the revenue caps by micromanaging the budget. The appropriate level of governance coming from Mathiak and Kobza is long overdue and has helped to save/redirect millions of dollars back into the classroom, including their "annoying" attention to the equity fund. I also believe their efforts, coupled with the improved level of discussions and decorum at board meetings goes a long way toward building the community's support for the school district, which is important to passing referendums since 70% of the voters do not have kids in the school.

I also believe there are no “easy” cuts and that all our children will bear the brunt of the state’s lack of attention to addressing school financing issues. This will likely include increases in class size.

If you want to pass operating referendums, which we'll be forced to do, because the state is not stepping up to the issue (neither democrats nor republicans), board members will need to reach across the aisles. These elections are non-partisan, but the local democratic party members and progressive dane members seem to think there is a "correct" democrat, liberal, progressive, whatever, and some of their members have gone out of their way to spread nasty rumors. Cole and Passman are democrats, liberals and progressives - I see no difference here between them. I do see differences in their understanding of the issues and the relationship of the school board member to those issues - locally and at the state level - and what they can and will do about it. There is little sympathy from the state legislature for Madison's needs, so our board members need to be very effective at the local level. Kobza and Mathiak have been so AND have worked well with all the other members of the school board to accomplish quite a bit in the last year. Isn't that what voters see and builds a positive reputation for our schools over time and community support?

Lastly, MTI is a far more demanding supporter of its candidates than the "scary right" individuals mentioned above, who have given a few dollars as individuals, but have not made demands of candidates as a group or PAC. MTI has the right and obligation (to their members) to be an effective advocate for their issues, but what effect does that have on the governance of our schools and the decisions/actions their candidates who are elected to the board will make. Witness Johnny Winston, Jr., who did not agree with their stance on a few issues (but did vote in favor of the voluntary impasse agreement, which took major items off the negotiating table) - MTI did not endorse him for the moment! Why would that be? I don’t have the Matthews quote from Isthmus, but I thought the gist of what he said was about teaching Johnny a lesson about what a Board President should be?

Isn’t that up to the voters to do that?

[Mari]

From my perspective, others including Silveria and Winston are being pigeon holed (I will also say that voting records for other BOE members would surprise the general public). To leave them out of the discussion for creating a board that is balanced and open to discussing items that were of historical taboo is once again building upon the soap opera to which I’ve grown tired. I might add, no one…none of the new board members, have been able to find the pot of gold that our citizens seem to think resides in our downtown administration facility or within the budget itself.

If this discussion is for understanding endorsements rather than issues, I would have to say I am voting for Passman…and funny enough, for the same reason you are voting for her opponent. Marj is a former teacher; 25+ years in MMSD. For me personally, there is NO ONE better as "she understands the big picture and local issues, supports and values teachers, parents, kids AND will engage the community in developing solutions, building coalitions among various groups in the community and raising the school board's credibility needed to pass operating revenues." Her experience tells me she had done it, she can do it and she has the abilities to get it done.

I have witnessed the power of a teacher. I found it awe inspiring to talk to parents of students Marj has taught, to talk to the students themselves and to witness their passion for her abilities! Our teachers have not had a voice in many of the decisions made by our MMSD board and administration. I value their opinion and therefore, I want a teacher at the table when discussions affecting all children are on the line. For me, there is no one better than Marj Passman.

[Dan Sebald]

"If neighborhood schools are what you support, then it should make no difference ‘where’ that neighborhood school stands."

I guess Mari was responding to my comments on the west side elementary. The thing is, the west side elementary school, as far as I know, will not fit the category of a neighborhood school. If it fits the mold of much of west side development it will be isolated, using lots of land, not within walking distance for many students. Parents of higher affluence will be driving their children to school. The board should have presented these issues and put the school on referendum by itself, not with other items.

[Barb S]

If we're talking about the budget, I think we need to talk about this year in the context of the next five years. Without any changes to the state funding formula, MMSD will be facing $50 million in cuts over five years (assuming $10 million per year) - that's a huge number and will mean a very different school system from what we see today. Everything will need to be on the table - larger class sizes, fewer schools, referendums, extracurricular sports and activities, alternative funding. With numbers that huge, and no relief from the state funding formula, School Board members will be making these tough decisions, and I appreciate Kobza's leadership on the Finance and Operations Committee, including her scrutiny of the finances and work with her committee members (Mathiak and Carstensen) on the Citizen's Budget.

[Mari]

The land area surrounding many of our far west side schools is not only owned by the district but many are surrounded by city parks to which the district has no ownership. I admit, I believe parks add value to the space surrounding the facilities. For one of our newest elementary schools, parents within walking distance choose to drive their children because of individual land ownership preventing the children from walking a safe, direct route to the building.

My decision to fully support the new school was based on a need for capacity based on our current programming (SAGE). The school will facilitate, within immediate walking distance communities which will ultimately contain 35, 320, 255 and 80 homes. These numbers do not include the schools currently overcrowded or developments to its immediate west (South Point Road). If development is what you wish to minimize, I can only state this argument should not be held against the school district but rather city planning and developers.

Shoveler’s Sink which may be of concern for some conservationist is 7 miles west of the new school location and is maintained in the school district of Middleton Cross Plains which has an elementary closer than any of MMSD.

We need to come together as a city and district to understand that NO MATTER WHERE the students go to school, our enrollment is what matters. I don’t personally believe citizens market our schools very well and that’s a shame. For every family we inhibit or frighten…no manner what the family income or ethnicity…we lose money. As far as I can see, we are actually helping our fellow suburban school districts by chasing families away; increasing their enrollment and minimizing their need to go to referendum.

[Dan Sebald]

"If development is what you wish to minimize, I can only state this argument should not be held against the school district but rather city planning and developers."

Don't see why not, and yes the city council has heard plenty on the matter of the west side from me. I take it there has been no discussion between city planning and the school board on the matter of growth. That's unfortunate, given the intregral component schools play in a city.

As for the regional aspect of schools, it goes to show the lack of regional planning in the county, a topic Paul has raised here in the past.

There is a link to the layout for the new school in acrobat format:

http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/topics/newschool/

Lots of parking and winding roads. Compare to other townships if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't efficient land use and will contribute to sprawl.

What is "chasing families away"? The fact that we don't have a suburban-style country school? It seems to me that lack of quality of education is the main thing to drive families away.

[Lucy Mathiak]

A few points of reference for this debate. First and foremost, our host, Mr. Soglin, should appreciate the irony of coming out of the left and then being labeled a conservative because it serves a political purpose at election time. The fact is, we are so comfortable falling back on labels that most of our conversation neglects the facts - which are available through board minutes and the on-line broadcasts of board meetings. It isn't that simple.

I would love to see the place where I said that funding for public education isn't a disaster. However, I was elected to the school board, not the state legislature. While I can and do advocate with our delegation for a review and reform of state funding, my primary responsibility is to pay attention to where dollars are being spent. As an aside, during my orientation last year, I asked the district's lobbyist what our legislative strategy was. He asked "for what?" I said, how about something like school funding. He responded that we didn't have one and then suggested that it was because the Republicans won't change. On the 14th, I will be at the capital with Lawrie Kobza, Arlene Silveira, Carol Carstensen, and the district lobbyist to talk with our legislators about school funding. In my case, I also have discussed it with legislators from rural Dane County and the Milwaukee area who are interested in education. If you're looking for someone who is being disingenuous about the state funding formula, it ain't me, babe.

As for board roles, take an inconvenient issue like the board's equity policy, which is supposed to allocate funds according to the needs of the populations in our schools. It shows the range of alliance and political position on an important topic.

Over the past several years, I have heard the superintendent and others say that "we don't really do that" in board meetings and other settings. This year, concerned about some real imbalances in resources between schools, I tried to make a motion to direct the superintendent and his staff to allocate resources according to the equity policy until such time as it is revised. The board president tried to prevent me from bringing it to the table (he couldn't explain why he would not agree to add it to the agenda).

The issue made it to the agenda under board policy after the board voted 5-2 to request that implementation of the equity policy be put on the agenda of our next meeting. (Kobza, Mathiak, Silveira, Vang yes, Winston, Carstensen no)At the next meeting, we passed the motion 6-1 (Kobza, Mathiak, Silveira, Vang, Winston yes, Carstensen no).

I believe that whether this was a progressive vote or a coup by the scoundrel neo-cons is in the eye of the beholder. Back in the day, a vote to provide from each according to their need would have been a good thing.

But I digress, the point is that while the legislature is discovering what school districts know - that we are gutting our schools - the members of the board must be at work to make sure that our decisions don't compound the damage.

[Mari]

Fact is MMSD works tightly with city planning. However, there are many areas that one would assume enrollment in MMSD and instead are Middleton/Cross Plains or Verona (at least on the cities far Westside). Unfortunately, in scanning for new school information you missed the vast amount of data the West and Memorial Task Force evaluated. The information is all available at www.mmsd.org under Long Range Planning (as is the new school).

The link to the new school is also deceiving as this is a rendering of the school and not the entire development of high density, affordable housing. There are few winding roads and considering the capacity of ~700; parking is needed for staff and safety of family volunteers. City growth / developments are not under the direct control of the school board BUT once a planning decision is made, the district plays a vital role to ensure every student is assigned to an attendance area.

You’ll have to define for me what is meant by a suburban-style country school. I’ve been very pleased with my children’s educational experience but it is obvious that citizens feel compelled to complain prior to understanding the facts. The fact that Verona has increased enrollment at a faster pace than their projections should raise the awareness that our tax base is being depleted and discussions should be initiated for better understanding and improvement.

Just to clarify Lucy, although I did not fully support your candidacy, none of my comments were directed toward you or your actions. It is those prior to this year and for the past 10 years that need to be held accountable for the lack of action toward improving school funding. If the board’s past Legislative Committees were not effective, that’s a shame. That’s what I meant by history dictates the future. This year the Communications Committee (which I think was Kobza and Silveria’s motion forward toward change) has done a great job with improvements for watching BOE meetings on TV, online, improvements on the webpage and fighting for school funding reform. Congratulations!

And as for the ‘soap opera’ comments, I only mean to point out that if district citizens want to trust the board and increase respect for their decisions, then we need to rid the barrier of the so called ‘status quo’. It is an unfair characterization when, in following board decisions for the past 3 years, there have been many “cross over” votes based solely on each board members individual beliefs and not upon that of a singular consortium. That’s why I go to the forums; to ask each candidate about their beliefs and I vote based upon the answers I receive and the ideals to which I believe.

On resources and equity, Public Education means every child, no matter the family income, ethnicity or special need. Some decisions are being unfairly shaped by primarily looking at today’s data without any interpretation for what the future will hold and how that decision will ultimately affect the community and neighborhood school. I have found ‘rules’ very inhibiting, for once defined, it is difficult to change their future ramifications. We need to talk more with school staff, the classroom teachers, and less with administration, to find out what is truly needed. What our students need to succeed is NOT a part of the discussion and I truly feel we are now going down the path of picking and choosing students who will receive some resources while others will not. We are picking and choosing which children have a better chance for success. That’s a shame because ALL students deserve the opportunity!

[Dan Sebald]

Mari writes:

"You’ll have to define for me what is meant by a suburban-style country school."

A school in the country or in a suburban style "neighborhood" where there is no retail, no work and anyone living in the community must drive to where they want to go (and drop the kids off to school before going there).

Or, to give a better example, a community as described by this blurb from Veridan homes:

http://www.veridianhomes.com/neighborhood_detail.php?neighID=102

Golf courses, "barely a tee shot away".

Regarding your statements about pick and choose and ALL students, we're coming back to the point of this being a nice school with a clearly more affluent base, yet the board for some reason will not put downtown school funding on referendum. That's pick and choose, isn't it?

Verona? Cross-plains? Middleton? Again, regional planning.

The Sun Prairie school was another dodgy referendum. During a primary race with low turnout where just those affected need turn out and the developer donates land. So, now the developer is the city planner I guess. It's like the U.W. getting so many donations for buildings. Somehow "public" is disappearing from our education.

[Thomas J. Mertz]

It might be bad long range planning, it certainly is a combination of unexpected enrollment patterns and state finance changes in some categorical aides that had unanticipated impacts, but to the best of my knowledge the possibility of a school closing anywhere in the very near future was not seriously raised (that I know of) when the last referendum was being drafted. The East Task Force had studied closing options and found that they were not needed and did not make sense. Theer was no conscious decision to build in one place while putting a school in another palce at risk for closure. I was a Co-Chair of CAST and looked at this stuff pretty closely.

Things have obviously changed since then.

Successful referenda need careful planning, you can’t just through them on the ballot. Each failed referendum can make the following ones harder. A referendum to keep a school open is also much different than one to build a school. It would be an operating referendum and would probably have to be recurring in order to prevent the same problems in the future. Recurring referendums are the hardest to pass.

All this is context for saying, I don’t think anyone has refused to hold a referendum to keep all the current schools open, but the issue has come up unexpectedly (December?) and there really wasn’t time to get a well thought out measure on the ballot and organize any kind of campaign before the April election. A hasty attempt would most likely have failed, making passage of the next referendum (which I believe should be some sort of targeted operating referendum) that much harder.

Just my take. I will add that I think pitting one area of the district against another doesn’t help our schools or our kids. Like or not, MMSD is large and must do its best for all the neighborhoods and families.

TJM

[Thomas J. Mertz]

It might be bad long range planning, it certainly is a combination of unexpected enrollment patterns and state finance changes in some categorical aides that had unanticipated impacts, but to the best of my knowledge the possibility of a school closing anywhere in the very near future was not seriously raised (that I know of) when the last referendum was being drafted. The East Task Force had studied closing options and found that they were not needed and did not make sense. There was no conscious decision to build in one place while putting a school in another palce at risk for closure. I was a Co-Chair of CAST and looked at this stuff pretty closely.

Things have obviously changed since then.

Successful referenda need careful planning, you can’t just throw them on the ballot. Each failed referendum can make the following ones harder. A referendum to keep a school open is also much different than one to build a school. It would be an operating referendum and would probably have to be recurring in order to prevent the same problems in the future. Recurring referendums are the hardest to pass.

All this is context for saying, I don’t think anyone has refused to hold a referendum to keep all the current schools open, but the issue has come up unexpectedly (December?) and there really wasn’t time to get a well thought out measure on the ballot and organize any kind of campaign before the April election. A hasty attempt would most likely have failed, making passage of the next referendum (which I believe should be some sort of targeted operating referendum) that much harder.

Just my take. I will add that I think pitting one area of the district against another doesn’t help our schools or our kids. Like or not, MMSD is large and must do its best for all the neighborhoods and families.

TJM

[Thomas J. Mertz]

Sorry, I forgot to add that when the idea of a an April referendum was floated, I raised the difficulties outlined above and volunteered to help trying to get it passed if it was put before the voters.

I think the next good date for a referendum is February of 2008. Again, just my take (and mine alone) as a concerned and involved advocate for our schools.

TJM

[Mari]

Hmmmm…for a moment there Dan, I thought you held condemnation for my neighborhood. But to your last statement, we agree “Somehow "public" is disappearing from our education.”

As for closing a school, you’ll find I also agree with you, primarily because we need future space in the East and Lafollette attendance area. While working to advocate for our newest school, I also tried to educate folks on capacity needs throughout the district. I try to ask questions and learn more about our entire district because; each of us contributes to our success as a whole. Unfortunately, I can not say the same for most citizens and I empathize with their struggles to find details and information. It’s tough to do in a city where historical perspectives are held strong.