Madison School Closings

From the debate, the motions and the votes, it seems that all of the rancor over ideological splits in the Madison Metropolitan School Board is irrelevant. There is no way of assigning a conservative and liberal interpretation to the outcome of last night's school board meeting.

School Board keeps Lindbergh open

Voting for the consolidation of Marquette and Lapham, to save $522,000, were Lawrie Kobza, Arlene Silveira, Beth Moss and Maya Cole. Opposing the measure were Johnny Winston Jr., Carol Carstensen and Mathiak.

While the board adopted Arlene Silveria's motion to

restore $735,000 to the budget to provide class sizes of 15 students in literacy and math classes for kindergartners and first-graders in 10 elementary schools that wouldn't have received small classes under the state's Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program

there is no question that the repressive state controls have taken their toll in terms of increasing class size and reducing literacy and math education.

The challenge for every Madisonian concerned about the school cuts is to take this matter to the source, the state legislature. Past history tells me the struggle will not go on.  Progressive and liberal leaders are loath to hold their legislators responsible for much of anything except highly visible (and needed) smoking bans, bicycle trails, and resolutions on Iraq - all of which I support, but quality representation does not stop there.

Thank you to the entire board for service to our children and community.

Comments

[proletariat]

Well said.

I remember back in your Mayoral days there was a lot of discussion of the importance of neighborhood schools (often in the context of segregation). I was impressed by both Cole and Moss on the Lindberg closing, but much less impressed by Silveira. I can not see myself voting for her again.

I am not sure if community vs medium size schools is a liberal or conservative, but it is hard for me to see those in favor of medium size schools as progressive by any means.

While state funding has its role, there seems to be a larger issue, irregardless of money, about community vs medium sized schools. I see community schools as the clear progressive choice - closer to the people and all, but it seems there is an emerging coalition who believe medium size schools can offer more services to more students. It all has a been there, done that feel to me.

[Dan Sebald]

Art Rainwater appeared before the state giving testimony a couple times recently. I saw Maya Cole amongst the others present in the news footage as well as a number of parents. So give them credit for that.

But still, although the state is the source of the problem, all blame can't be passed onto the state. Granted, the school board was in a bind, but somehow it was of their own making. Got to act fast sometimes, and need to recognize when that time is near. Referendum was the way to go.

Closing schools isn't progressive in this case, I would argue. If there was a clear cut case of under-enrollment and that were the reason for consolidation, fine. But that wasn't the case. Plus, it seems ridiculous to expect schools to be running at exactly capacity all the time. There's got to be ebb and flow. Claiming a consolidation of services in this case seems more rationalization.

Certainly another part of this school budget isn't progressive: the discontinuation of bus service in exchange for paying parents to drive their kids to school. That seems to translate to more cars on the city streets and conditioning children to be dependent on the automobile.

"but it is hard for me to see those in favor of medium size schools as progressive by any means."

Perhaps, but providing the best education for students is also a progressive value. There are educational pluses to closing the schools as more students in one location can provide better educational opportunities. Each member did what they thought was best for the students. A tough choice all around - I don't envy any of the school board members right now.

I would vote in favor of a referendum, but I'm pretty sure it would get voted down. It's dangerous to get people in the habit of saying no to schools.

[Arlene Silveira]

The Board has organized a community-based legislative action team to lobby the legislature on the governor's budget and the state funding issues. The group, abc Madison, is now being run by a group of community members. The next meeting is May 16. There is a listserv. You can join the listserv at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abcmadison/

Arlene

[Dan Sebald]

The first post of May 2 thinks a referendum would be or would have been voted down, but why? It's understood (or it was understood) that if you are living in Madison there is a community commitment to education, more so than in other cities. Burt Zipperer's testimony at a school board meeting gave a good history of that commitment. Also, there was an outpouring of support at that same school board meeting.

The referendum question is one of *closing an existing school* for the purposes of saving money. That is a slightly different question than that of building a new school. I think once Madison voters were informed of what is at stake, they'd say let's not close needed schools.

But in the end, what's the difference? If a referendum would have failed, we'd have been back to the same bind. Get people in the habit of voting "no"? Madison is going to start railing against schools? Then we're really in trouble. Madison is a smart voting base and doesn't vote out of habit. (Look at the casino expansion vote and its implication for tax revenues of a few years ago.)

Paul speaks of getting the Legislature to change the funding system. In a democracy, nothing would catch a politician's attention like the public sending a clear signal about revenue caps.

"There are educational pluses to closing the schools as more students in one location can provide better educational opportunities."

That I will leave to people in the system to decide, who see the process and classroom on a daily basis. (Burt Zipperer perhaps, who said in no uncertain terms that a referendum is needed.) But I think there needs to be a separating of the wheat and chaff here. If the system has some monetary leeway and *then* one argues consolidation and makes a good case for it, I'd say fine. (But I still think the argument for consolidation is weak on that basis.)

[proletariat]

"Perhaps, but providing the best education for students is also a progressive value."

Not true, liberal maybe not progressive. I know we live in an age where liberal is bad so progressive is over used but it is different. There is nothing progressive about having schools so large that all teachers are not known by name, nothing progressive about lower test scores, nothing progressive about more behavior problems etc.

Today we are told medium (lets be honest large) schools can help us with equity, tomorrow we will be told we need 30 kids in Kindergarten classroom. Its hogwash, pure and simple. I will not support a referendum that does not have an explicit vision of community schools in Madison's future.

[Dan Sebald]

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=132374&ntpid=0

What's encouraging about the above letter is how well a large number of Madisonians understand what goes into a functional, efficient city.