Finance Reform and Education

  In the news lately has been the idea that public employees have been at the public trough for too long and have been draining the pocketbook of the ordinary taxpayer.  In today's economy, I would have to agree.  This is even though I am a teacher at a public school in one of Wisconsin's worst performing districts.  Do I believe that teachers and other public employees should have their benefits and pay more in line with what is able to be supported by the taxpayers?  In principle, yes I do.  The problem where it gets tricky is in the details.  Personally, I would have no problem with paying more for my pension.  However, if I am paying more for my pension, should I not also have the ability to have my pension in a fund type that is not historically inefficient?  Should I pay more in health care costs?  With the newest contracts that teachers have signed, that is going to be put into place.  Have teacher pay be related to student performance?  This would really need to be researched and attainable goals would need to be put into place for this to happen.  Otherwise, it will be the case of the poor getting poorer ("failing" school districts and their teachers), and the rich getting richer (successful districts and their teachers).
   Let me tell you a little about myself before I go further.  I am a person who believes that you should take care of your responsibilities and not ask others to do so.  As as teacher, I do my best in order to help my students meet or exceed the state standards for 7th grade science (what I am currently happily teaching).   One of the hottest topics that is happening in the Wisconsin state capital of Madison is one attempting to cut down on the expenditures of the educational system, in MPS specifically.  It is said that if a school district is failing to help students achieve the "standards" that are assessed in the high stakes tests, that the district should be penalized by losing the funds and allowing students to attend other schools with the money that is taken away from the district.   In principle I agree with this idea.  However, this would hinge on multiple assumptions being made. The assumptions that I am able to think of are as follows:

1. The only effects on the education of students are the quality of instructional practices that the classroom teacher uses as well as the effectiveness of the teacher to implement them.  
2. The schools that receive the money forfeited by the failing district will educate the students for the full term (either year or semester).  
3. Students will meet the same standards expected of the failing district in an alternate placement.

  In regards to the first assumption, students are not a "blank slate" when they get into a classroom.  In many cases, students have a definite opinion of what school should be and how they measure their success.  Unfortunately, not all students define success the same way that teachers, parents, political pundits and the population of Wisconsin does.  Hard work, critical thinking and responsibility are foreign to many of the students who are judged as "failing" according to the high stakes standardized tests that are given to measure academic ability.  In many of the cases of "failing" students there is little or no support for either the student or the school when it comes to behavior and effort in the classroom.  I have asked many of students who choose to either be disruptive or show little to no effort in the classroom environment the reason they made the choices they did.  In some cases, students claimed boredom with the topic or the type of assignments given or with school in general.  This usually was in the case of disruptive students, but also with some students who gave little to no effort.  I have also heard that the subject matter is either too hard, too easy or the student will never use it when the grow up anyway, so "why bother?"  Another answer that has been given more times than I would like is that "I have acted this way for years, and I still pass."  I have also heard one of the most discouraging phrases, "My [parent(s)] don't care, so why should I?"  This last is one that upsets me tremendously.  I love my daughters and want them to be successful.  I want to help guide them from some the mistakes that I made so they do not need to experience some of the failures that I have.  This is not to say that I am easy on my children.  I would think that it is more the opposite.  I want them to do well.  To do well in today's work place, you need to be a hard worker, self-reliant, polite, as well as being able to provide the services the consumers of your work want and or need.  This last part means that my kids need to do well in school and learn as much as they can about the real world and how to solve the problems that they are faced with.  I can not prepare them for all of what they are going to face, but I hope that I can help then learn the tools that will be effective in crafting a solution to those problems.  But for the majority of the students that I have been in contact with for the last decade and more, this is not the case.  In many instances, students are going to be succeeding without much input from influences outside the school.  Many of my students have not had stable living situations.  Many do not have parents that can be there at night to support their child's education.  Many have living situations where they can not plan for the next test or the next grade because they are wondering where their next meal is going to be coming from.  There are so many issues that effect the ability of students to concentrate on the academics of schools, that traditional public schools will not be able to be effective for those students.
 
  Every February, I am told to expect at least 4 to five more troubled students who are "returning" from their other schools.  In most cases I am told that these schools that the students have left are "alternative" or "choice" schools who received the funding for educating the students.  Now that the funds are secured, the students are cut loose and returned to the public schools where they are guaranteed an education by the Wisconsin State Constitution.  In 1972 the Wisconsin State Constitution was amended in Article X regarding education : "The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years".  This is widely accepted as fact that if a student can not afford a private institution of learning, they would be able to go to a publicly run school.  I was not able to find an amendment which allowed for the disbursement of public funds to private entities for the means of education, but I do not have a background in law.  This is not to mean that it does not exist, but that I was not able to find one.  I also did not find that if a entity contracted to give a "free and without charge for tuition" for a student for a semester or school year, that that entity would be able to keep the money that was going to be used for that students education if that student is sent back to a publicly run school.  If "choice" schools are able to skim the cream of the crop of students, wouldn't that by definition send a public district at a competitive disadvantage?  If not only would the "choice" school be able to keep the best of the best, but also send away those that do not fit this criteria after receiving the compensation for the students, the competitive advantage of the "choice" school would grow even greater.  On the whole, if students learning is impacted positively, I am all for doing whatever is legal and more to do so.  However, if what is legal, is not moral, then I would need the merit proven to me before it is done.

  I also would not have as much of a problem with students given the ability to go to "choice" schools if they were expected to meet the same benchmarks are the students in the public schools.  The Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) is currently given to all public schools.  At this time this high stakes test which is given in the first 2-1/2 months of the school year is how school districts are determined to be either succeeding or failing.  This test is not required of "choice" schools.  As far as I know, and I may be missing a lot, there is not standardized benchmark that "choice" schools are required to meet.  If there is going to be competition, let it be fair.  Let all schools have the same benchmarks and be scored using the same procedure.  In science, if you do not control all of the variables (other than the one you are testing), and test multiple times, you are not able to determine if the results you have received have any merit. 

  All that I am asking for is that the playing field be leveled before decisions are made regarding the livelihoods of many educators.  If the Milwaukee Public Schools were to be broken up, what would have changed in the culture of the students that would allow them to be successful.  Trickle down theories are great when it comes to macro-economics, however, to build a successful school that is able to educate all of its students, you need the grass roots support from the families and community (including businesses) in order to have the impact necessary.  If teacher pay in the Milwaukee Public Schools were linked on how students perform on the WKCE, either you would have qualified, energetic teachers leaving the district that needs them the most in droves.  Until you are able to have a paradigm shift that puts the students to the top over the wants and needs of the teachers and parents and community, there will not be meaningful change.  This does not mean that throwing money at a bad situation will help, but neither will using punitive economic ideas.