January
2010
MPS Reform is Uncomfortable as Fear and Cynicism Run Rampant
The restructuring of MPS is running into hurdles and roadblocks.
Critics of MPS correctly point out that the school system has been poorly managed and many business and community leaders look to the Mayor of the City of Milwaukee for a fix. Unfortuately the current system gives the Mayor no voice and no control over the running of MPS. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett would like the authority to appoint the Superintendent of MPS. Since the Mayor ends up taking on much of the blame for the failing schools, it makes sense that he would have control over it.
Not surprisingly, the MPS school board members aren’t in favor of this. They’ve rallied to maintain control and anti-reform advocates have found allies in an unlikely coalition in the State Assembly. Since any change of this magnitude for MPS would require a change in state law, a coalition of democratic legislators from the central city and the entire republican caucus has vowed to oppose the reform.
Why?
The answer isn’t obvious but it’s borne from fear and cynicism.
The central city democrats oppose it out of fear that the Mayor, whoever will be in that position, would be difficult to control and his or her could make sweeping changes that they perceive would be harmful. Urban anti-reform advocates say that this would reduce their ability to have a say in the political process since elected school board members who no longer have a say in the appointment of the new Superintendent of Schools. They miss one key element here — the Mayor is an elected position who they will continue to be able to vote for or against even if this proposal passes.
Republicans oppose the bill because it would give a win to Mayor Barrett who happens to be running for Governor. Desperate to grab onto power, they don’t feel they can allow Barrett to win on any issues — especially anything that has to do with reform. If Barrett were to succeed to cobbling together a majority of legislators to support his plan, he would emerge as a leader who has fought for reform and that would make him a formidable candidate in the election for Governor this fall.
Right now the only thing bottling up a vote on MPS reform is the State Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, a Democrat. Decker doesn’t want to schedule a vote on the bill and if it is a Democrat who kills the reform, then Barrett loses. If it turns out that it is the Republicans who have united to oppose the reform, and the bill goes down, then Barrett gets a major win because he will be able to travel the state saying that his reform efforts would have passed, but the Republicans opposed them. And who would the public like to see in office, those who oppose reform, or the champion of reform?
Share
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan
RSS feed
Link
Giving the Mayor control over the schools is not a reform. It is just a change in the leadership structure. So the mayor appoints a new super. Wow. Who cares. The problem with MPS is its size. More meaningful than mayoral control would be breaking the district down into much smaller–one high school districts. Another meaningful reform would be to allow true expulsion where school districts are not forced to pay for one school or another to “tolerate” severe discipline problems, most schools have already wasted thousands of hours and efforts on students who are discipline problems. Let expelled students put on orange jackets and pick up trash, shovel in the winter or whatever.
As for Barrett, don’t be so sure he would benefit if this legislation were defeated. How many charter schools has he proposed for MPS with his authority to do so–none. Where has his voice been on the MPS catastrophe for the last four years–nowhere. Sounds like Jonny-come-lately looking for an issue. I imagine he has no clue about what he would do given the chance.
Having the Mayor appoint the Superintendent is just one part of the solution puzzle.
I’ve got to say, I’m a little shocked that we actually agree on the expulsion issue. I’ve written about it in the past. As for size, I would like it broken up into regional districts — none any larger than a part of town. For instance, maybe we could have the Northwest Milwaukee School District, Northside school district and Southwest School district.
You’ve been tough on expulsion before. I’ve always agreed.
Breaking down the school district into much smaller units lowere the policital threshold. Perhaps it would allow schools to try things which they would not in a one size fits all model like MPS.
The idea of going suburban style (smaller units) with MPS is an admirable one, but it doesn’t address the socio-economic reality of the vast landscape that makes up MPS school locations. Yes, in a suburban landscape it allows schools the freedom to try different things. That’s because they’re isolated from social and economic burdens that plague much of the MPS school districts. They’re compartmentalized from it. In the urban arena that is MPS though, with that sort of agenda you’re talking about an action that will result in simply splitting MPS’s “kingdom” up which will result in expanding the compartmentalization and further isolating those less desirable MPS schools and locations. If the plan is to divide to isolate and better apply resources to those schools more in need of reform, then great. If not, it simply exacerbates the issue through that further isolation.
Both of you are right as far as your views on school control. It can be the right step if it is actually the first piece of the puzzle. If it becomes just more of the same, then it’s simply a management change.
Martin:
The problem with MPS is socio-economic. But since school districts are not institutions designed to right socio-economic wrongs, the idea that we should just wait for conditions to resolve themselves is foolish. I would argue that the civil rights of students who want to learn are violated daily at schools plagued by violence and poor discipline. To remedy this injustice I would provide school districts with the power to quickly deal with trouble-making students through expulsion–expulsion which would not place a district under financial responsibility to educate that student at some other, more expensive venue. I’m always told that 99% of students and families at MPS are “great.” I agree. Lets save them. We won’t notice the difference with the others. But lets not let them sabotage education for the rest.
I don’t recall anyone saying we should just wait for conditions to resolve themselves. The problem’s a 30 year problem now, and it’s not about to resolve itself as is plainly evidenced. However what would be foolish is to think that the hollywood movie Joe Clark mentality is a solution to a mutli-faceted problem. Or that it’s that 1% that is the cause of the state of MPS – that’s just scapegoating, and a misrepresentation of what I was stating by socio-economic. Very plainly, I was referring to the schools in those locations, not the people – we’re talking about the ongoing issues of funding problems, outdated resources, inadequate teachers or the segregation of better teachers to other less hit districts in MPS because the other ones “don’t deserve them”. Or are you trying to state all the MPS facilities, resources, and teaching experiences are equal and top shape? A violation of civil rights would be simply expelling students deemed as “problem children” supposedly holding MPS hostage? The ones not showing up to school are the problem children. The MPS Mission Statement clearly states “educates all students”, not some. It is indeed their job to try and reach and educate those with behavior and discipline problems, no different than it is to educate those with learning problems, mental retardation, or any other student. It furthermore states “Children will be provided maximum educational opportunities to become responsible citizens who make positive contributions to their communities.” The violation of civil rights is the violation of that mission statement, when a simple sampling of the various MPS locations – specifically the ones in these socio-economic hit areas – shows that not to be the case. I recall having to take a summer “senior English composition” course at an MPS school at the end of my high school days. Besides the complete shock in school facilities differences, there was also the fact that a senior composition class in the suburbs had consisted of analyzing novels and knowing what an expository paper is for instance, at MPS I was learning how to address an envelope.
So Martin, what you’re really saying is business as usual. Its either the socio-economic problems or the structure which, if I read your comments correctly, cannot be solved by breaking the district up or keeping it together. We can’t hold students who continually break the rules and ruin the learning for others responsible–that would violate their civil rights and we don’t want any southern govenor types standing in the door saying “behave here or get the “F” out.” So lets not do anything tangible to change the schools except throw more money in to solve “funding” problems in a district which spends more money per pupil than a majority of other districts. Instead, lets wring our hands about what changes we could make which would not offend a union or teacher or socio-economic group–a change so vanilla, so small, so incremental that we can continue this discussion for thirty more years.
Since you are so concerned about the rights of thugs in schools–and they are there–how about this: we give them portable education credits that they could later use when they have decided they want to learn.
Either way, to try nothing is a savage violation of civil rights which gives far too much weight to those who disrupt learning and those who allow it to go on. Disruptive students are not the entire problem at MPS, but they are a problem we could solve once we recognize that not disruptive students have civil rights, too. Perhaps if discipline were not a problem at MPS, we could quickly move on to the next issue.
Christopher, I have to assume by now that either you just like to argue, or went to MPS and have reading issues. I’ll repeat it for you again – “I don’t recall anyone saying we should just wait for conditions to resolve themselves.” I.E. nobody is saying to do nothing. Likewise “Both of you are right as far as your views on school control. It can be the right step if it is actually the first piece of the puzzle. If it becomes just more of the same, then it’s simply a management change.” I.E. both of you had some good ideas on steps to be taken in your previous posts.