What Is Your Student Worth?

I've heard some odd language coming from school administrators and others involved in the debate over the school funding formula. In defending House Bill 1150, which would have reduced the state aid smaller schools receive for students open enrolling from larger districts, Madison superintendent Vince Schaefer made the following argument:

Schaefer said the bill's intent was to pose a question to the legislators.

"My question is this," he said. "Why is a child worth more money because they open enroll into a smaller district? They should only be worth the funding from the state formula" [Elisa Sand, "Fahrenwald: Open Enrollment Bill Distracts," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.03.04].

Mitchell super Joe Graves made a similar argument in testimony March 2 to the State Senate Education committee, saying students should have the same government dollars behind them regardless of where they choose to go to school. (If only we could swing a deal like that when a kid from Minnesota moves here!)

Rutland superintendent Carl Fahrenwald properly reframes the question:

Fahrenwald said it's not a question of what the student is worth, but rather the additional cost for smaller schools to provide the same education.

"As soon as a kid comes from Madison to Rutland, it does cost (us) more to educate them," Fahrenwald said. "But the family is wanting to come, so if the state is providing state aid for students, they should support the family's decision" [Sand, 2010.03.04].

The discussion of the worth of a student in terms of state dollars is misleading if not appalling. Schaefer and every other administrator knows that the funding formula does not declare the fiscal value of a given student; as Fahrenwald says, it reflects the marginal cost of doing business in different school settings.

But if Schaefer and other supporters of HB 1150 are annoyed by Madison students being "worth more" when they open enroll at Chester or Rutland, it must really grate Schaefer's cheese when Madison students and their families actually move to a smaller town and bring more state aid to their new school. Would Schaefer argue that a students' worth is determined by where they are born, or where they live when they enroll in kindergarten?

What if we applied this specious "student worth" argument to extracurriculars? If the debate team has 12 kids and the gymnastics team has 30, and if the head coaches get paid about the same amount, do we contend that the kid who switches from gymnastics to debate is somehow "worth more" because the coach is getting paid more per student? No: that wouldn't make sense. Coach salaries, just like school funding, reflect the cost of doing the job, not the inherent or fiduciary worth of each student.

Of course, if Schaefer wants argue that the dollars assigned by the state do directly reflect each student's worth, he should be less worried about the apparent inequity of Madison students being worth 15% less than Rutland students and more worried about the inequity that a Madison SD student is worth 49% less than a Madison WI student.

As Fahrenwald correctly points out (and no, his district's ad deal with me didn't buy this commentary), the real inequity is our state's continued undervaluing of every student and underfunding of every school, large and small. It's Pierre that views students strictly as a monetary value... as an expense rather than an investment.

-------------------
Related note: Rep. Deb Peters from Hartford testified that the intent of HB 1150 was indeed to address open enrollment. She said she wanted to make sure kids don't open enroll just because the smaller receiving school will receive a bonus. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet that when parents look at choosing a school for their kids, the dollar amount that district receives from Pierre for their child isn't among their top tier concerns. They're thinking more, if not exclusively, about finding the best educational opportunities for their kids. If Peters really wants to "address" open enrollment, perhaps she could simply encourage her home school district to offer educational opportunities that would win back the 29 kids West Central loses to neighboring Montrose alone.

Madison Supt. Schaefer Testifies on HB 1150, Shows Big-School Irritation at Small-School Success

If you were looking for Vince Schaefer at his office at MHS Tuesday morning, you were out of luck. The Madison superintendent was in Pierre to testify before Senate Education in favor of HB 1150, the bill seeking to whack small schools on the nose with a newspaper (and a funding cut) for luring students away from big schools. Schaefer's trip didn't go well: his own senator Russ Olson voted against him, as did the majority of the committee.

I listened to the audio of Schaefer's testimony. Schaefer opened by saying it was his first trip to testify to a bill in Pierre, a sign of how important he considers HB 1150. Education advocates might find it troubling that, after decades in education, Schaefer's first legislative testimony comes in support of a bill that cuts funding for education.

Schaefer made the claim that not just he but Madison taxpayers believe there is great inequity in the school funding formula and that changes like HB 1150 need to be made. Really? The Madison taxpayers—at least a hundred—who open enroll their kids in smaller schools probably don't think so. I must have missed the public poll the school district conducted to authorize the superintendent to speak for all of us taxpayers.

Schaefer and other proponents appear particularly piqued by small schools sending their buses onto our territory to pick up open enrollees. Schaefer claimed in his testimony that Madison will have to install a special streetlight to regulate busing with three other school districts sending their buses to pick up kids in Madison.

Again, really? Three buses coming to town throw our community into confusion? I thought buses helped cut down traffic and keep kids safer.

But that big yellow reminder of the success of small schools in attracting students must be an especial annoyance for administrators, so much so that Senator Knudson offered a placatory hoghouse amendment to ban receiving school districts from sending their buses into the district of residence of an open enrollee without the permission of the resident school district. Wow—talk about a turf battle! That amendment failed on a 3–4 vote (again, Russ Olson did the right thing and voted nay).

Schaefer insisted, as did other proponents, that they are not against school choice or competition; Schaefer said that we "relish" the opportunity to compete. But the whole of the proponents' testimony Tuesday suggests they don't like small schools winning that competition.

HB 1150 may be dead, but its spirit lives on. As the budget gets hammered out, expect more efforts to alter the education funding formula and take a few more pennies out of small schools' hides. Stay tuned!

Madison Superintendent Fronts Socialist Census Conspiracy?

First Governor Rounds joins President Obama's shady Homeland Security governors' council. Now our own school superintendent Vince Schaefer promotes the Census! Good grief—how can there be a Marxist conspiracy if everyone's in on it?

Actually, Vince Schaefer simply understands what everyone not wearing a tri-cornered hat does: responding to the Census provides the information necessary to help your schools and local governments as well as Uncle Sam plan the services your community needs. Not responding to the Census does more harm than good. Fill out that form!

Supt. Schaefer Resumes Duties, Speaks on KJAM Monday

Vince Schaefer is back from his two-week retirement to take the helm of the Madison Central School District. He'll also be back on the airwaves, joining Matt Groce on KJAM Monday morning for his usual superintendent's chat (you know, radio? kind of like a blog, except live, filled with more ads, and not searchable, linkable, or commentable?).

Expect Superintendent Schaefer to take time to address the whole retire-rehire issue. Whether this public discussion is something the board has asked him to do to "resolve and rebuild confidence and trust in our superintendent" or whether Vince just wants to be straight with us, I welcome this conversation, as should the entire community.

Tune in KJAM Monday, around 7:35 a.m., and the story straight from the superintendent.

Madison Rehires Schaefer as Superintendent -- Why Vince Should Blog

The Madison Central School Board earned their pay last night. They spent three and a half hours in executive session before voting 5–2 to offer freshly retired Vince Schaefer a new contract as superintendent. Of interest: the nays on accepting Schaefer's resignation in December were Mark Hawkes and Paul Weist. The nays on rehiring him last night were Steve Nelson and Michelle Tucek (who might have been reminded about something she said about contracts at the last meeting).

At least the lengthy deliberations suggest that the four other applicants who took time to interview didn't come for just a dog-and-pony show. I thank you four, whoever you are, for your efforts.

There's been some grumbling around the community about what some folks perceive as double-dipping. Schaefer's retire-rehire doesn't actually cost us taxpayers any money. The only solid problem I've seen is the hassle of cleaning out Schaefer's office, temporarily reassigning duties (Vince owes someone donuts), and going through a job search mid-year. I can also see a possible double standard: while teachers are free to try taking advantage of retire-rehire before the state legislature abolishes the opportunity with SB 18, it's unlikely teachers would create a month-long disruption of their classrooms just to increase their income... and if they did, would the school board be sympathetic?

There would have been less grumbling if Schaefer had been more up front with the community. Schaefer did say when he resigned, "It's time for me to activate my benefits," but that was all we heard. He made no public comment about his full intentions. He left all of us to guess and gossip.

Now I know it's a hassle as a public employee to have one's financial decisions become a matter of public discourse, but that's the price we pay for choosing a career in public service. So why not just be completely open about it? Imagine how different the public discourse might have been if the first words on the issue were not news reports and my blogging but a blog post straight from Vince Schaefer. Imagine if we had woken up on December 14, logged onto bigdogvince.blogspot.com (it's available!), and read something like this:

I care about this school. I've done a good job and I want to keep doing a good job. But the Legislature is about to take away benefits that I was promised when I signed on for this career, and I need to take some quick action. So tonight, I'm going to submit my resignation, but I plan to re-apply for the job as soon as it's advertised. It won't cost you taxpayers a penny... and Sharon, I'll buy you donuts for covering for me while I'm out, promise [imaginary blog post from an alternative-universe Vince Schaefer, "Russ Olson Made Me Do It: Why I'm Resigning," BigDogVince.Blogspot.Com, 2009.12.14].

Vince Schaefer probably said things like this privately. There would be nothing wrong with his saying such things publicly. Leading that public conversation might even enhance his stature and demonstrate his leadership and commitment to the community.

Some superintendents do blog. It's not hard.

But apparently in Madison's political culture, we treat information as a threat. We don't talk about what's going on. We don't let people in on the deal. We keep even perfectly reasonable arguments behind closed doors. We go around and tell each other things one-on-one instead of putting everything out in the open so everyone can be on the same page.

It seems to be the same situation with the city and the Rosebud lot. We could benefit from knowing exactly why the city is waiting around to sell and develop that property. Why do we do this? Why do we miss opportunities to share information, to treat everyone as equal participants in the conversation, and run the school and the city and the county as something other than a secret?

Oh well. Vince is back on the job. And I'm o.k. with that. Vince is a decent guy. He does his job well.

But he could do his job even better with a blog and a little more public discourse.

bigdogvince.blogspot.com. It's available....

----------------
Update 12:35 CST: A little more openness up front might also have averted the need for board president Jay Niedert to speak of the need to "resolve and rebuild confidence and trust in our superintendent."

Oh yeah, and we'll be voting on an opt-out ($250K per year for four years) on April 13.

Supt. Schaefer Rebuffs Open-Re-Enrollees, Citing Sanctity of Contracts

What every blogger needs:
the GE 98757 Retractable Keypad, complete with B.S. key.

An alert reader sends me on a brief trip in the Wayback Machine to not-so-wayback: December 14, 2009, Madison Central School Board meeting. In Action #082, the board said students who have open-enrolled out of the district can't come back until the beginning of the next school year. Evidently some students who open-enrolled elsewhere would like to come back to Madison's hallowed halls now, in the middle of the school year.

If you watch the meeting webcast, around timestamp 1:28:00, Superintendent Vince Schaefer offered the following rationale for rejecting such requests:

Once this request to transfer is granted or is approved, the student is obligated to attend school in that non-resident or the admitting district, unless the boards of both districts agree in writing to allow that student to return to the resident district.

And that is exactly where that parent or guardian signs, and they sign that. To me that's... that's like the... uh, you know, contract, and you agree to do that.

About twenty minutes later, Superintendent Schaefer resigned, asking to be released from the obligations of his contract in the middle of the school year.

Board member Michelle Tucek offered the following argument for rejecting the open-re-enrollment request (approx. timestamp 1:34:30):

Because I just don't think it's a very good example on our end nor on the other school district end to simply let the kids bow out when the going gets tough. I mean to help them get through struggles, because at this age if they're thinking they can just bow out and go to the next best thing, they're not learning anything when life hands them their struggles outside of school.

A couple hours later, Tucek set an example by making the motion to accept Schaefer's resignation.

-------------------------------
p.s.: Also setting an example for the youth: board member Steve Nelson wears his cap throughout the meeting. My fifth-grade teacher, Arlis Hanson, would throw a fit. Hats off in the building, kids!

pp.s.: Someone at MHS is listening: after I noted that Mr. Schaefer was still listed as superintendent on the district website on Wednesday, I find this morning his name is gone. Not so at Chester. Hmm....

Madison Superintendent Schaefer Bails on Contract Mid-Year

It feels like the Madison Central School Board gave us a bit of a misdirection play with their agenda for last night's meeting. The agenda specified that the board would discuss football coach Tom Milne's resignation (remember, fans, as Milne would say, "Winning isn't frickin' everything!"). The local press front-paged that resignation, as if the position of telling kids how to throw and hit were one of the biggest jbos in town.

But down at the bottom of the agenda, way below mention of Milne's resignation and middle school roof bids and approval of appropriations for the school's new RV, was line 23: "Presentation of a resignation." No name, no details as with Milne's announcement. Who was it?

The boss, superintendent Vince Schaefer. For the second time in a row, we've lost a superintendent after just a couple years. A mid-year resignation of a contracted school employee usually raises eyebrows, but Schaefer tells KJAM that such changes in administration are becoming more common. And it doesn't sound like there are any shenanigans surrounding Schaefer's decision to quit. He's just retiring: "It's time for me to activate my benefits. We'll see what the future brings," the soon-to-be ex-super tells KJAM.

The announcement appears to have caught the board by surprise: members discussed the resignation in executive session for an hour and twenty minutes before coming out to announce and vote. The acceptance of Schaefer's resignation wasn't unanimous: Mark Hawkes and Paul Weist voted to keep Schaefer on the job.

But Schaefer is out, effective December 31. Some new guy or gal will get the pleasure of building a budget on whatever pittance comes from Pierre in 2010... not to mention dealing with the public relations fiasco of helping Madison lose the Mundt Debate Tournament to Harrisburg.

On the bright side, there's one more job opening in Madison. The school board should be advertising the position on its website shortly. Polish your shoes and your résumés!

Superintendent Schaefer Mixing Politics and Education?

And now from our department of semi-substantiated rumor...originally posted at RealMadison.org!

Word on the street is that Madison Central School District teachers were treated to some unpaid political advocacy at work yesterday by their boss, Superintendent Vince Schaefer. Addressing the staff on their second day of pre-school workshops, Superintendent Schaefer noted that Russell Olson, GOP candidate for State Senate from District 8, would be bringing coffee and rolls to the staff in all three buildings next week.

Yum -- coffee and rolls! Who doesn't love that?

But now things get interesting: Superintendent Schaefer proceeded to tell the staff that we all need to put partisanship aside and really give Russell Olson some consideration. Superintendent Schaefer said Olson is a friend of education. To support that statement, Schaefer cited a vote by Olson in support of legislation that would have protected teacher tenure.

Now I'm all about free speech and the idea that public employees retain their right to speak out as citizens on matters of public concern. And heck, I would welcome Mr. Schaefer, Mrs. Knowlton, and all of the Madison Central staff and school board members to drop in here at RealMadison.org and exercise their First Amendment rights to their hearts' content.

But in the workplace, during work hours, can a supervisor make a political statement -- perhaps a political endorsement -- to his or her employees? Next week during teacher meetings at DSU, can our dean tell us we should consider voting for Gerry Lange for State House? Can I, a teaching assistant, stand up at that meeting and respond that Patty Stricherz also deserves our consideration, if not our vote?

Note that I'm a public employee, as well as a volunteer for Scott Parsley, Olson's opponent. I'm happy to tell folks to consider voting for Parsley... but I wouldn't think of doing it on the job, in class or at a formal staff meeting.

I've been reviewing the professional code of ethics for school administrators, and on first reading I don't see anything that clearly says Mr. Schaefer's comments to his staff were improper. The teachers' code of ethics does include these lines about what teachers shall not do:

Not exploit the local school district or governing body to promote political candidates or partisan political activities [South Dakota Administrative Rules 24:08:03:02, "Obligations to the Public," line 5, posted by the Office of Accreditation and Teacher Quality].

That language is curiously absent from the administrators' code of ethics.

But when the boss uses company time to encourage employees to... consider a certain political candidate... well, what do you think? Anyone see parallels to Wal-Mart sending its human resources managers out to stores to tell employees that voting for Obama would be bad for the company? How much on-the-job politicking do you find acceptable?