School Board Candidates Respond to Questions About TAG

---

• Seat 3:  Shwaw Vang*, Sam Johnson
• Seat 4:  Melania Alvarez, Johnny Winston Jr.
• Seat 5:  Ruth Robarts*, Alix Olson
  

As a result of the functional analysis the District conducted a couple of years ago, the budget for what we call "talented and gifted" education (more accurately called "meeting the curricular and other needs of our high performing students") was cut in half (to just over half a million dollars), while the multi-million dollar special education budget was slightly increased (to more than 51 million dollars).  This was done despite the fact that each pot of money, according to District figures, serves approximately the same number of students -- roughly 5000 -- and despite the fact that the District has been in noncompliance with the State statutes for talented and gifted education ("Standard t") for years.

With additional budget cuts looming large, I have two related questions:

1.  How strong a statement are you willing to make about your intentions to protect the District's "talented and gifted" budget from further cuts?
2. What are your thoughts about how to continue closing the achievement gap, but without taking further resources away from the District's high-performing students -- without precipitating what some call "bright flight" -- so that instead of simply insuring that "no child is left behind," we guarantee that "each and every child -- including those who are performing well above grade level -- moves ahead"?

• Ruth Robarts (2/12) - Will get back to you this weekend. This week is BOE-oriented events every night. Will be at the WCTY program next Thursday on the west side and may want to do my written response after I hear those presentations. (see below for Ruth's full reply on 3/1/04)

• Johnny Winston (2/12) - I believe that there are many opportunities for talented and gifted students in our district.  In addition, I believe there are many of these same opportunities in our community (i.e. children attending courses at U.W. and M.A.T.C.).  However, I agree that there is more to do.  Our gifted students help make our district nationally recognized.  I’m committed to reviewing TAG as the budget is developed.  I want to be equitable in our resources as it relates to our approach to students.

Special education is driven by law.  Federal and state law mandates that the district provides specialized education for students with disabilities.  It is no secret that the numbers of special education students has increased.
However, the money to educate these students has not kept up with demand (No thanks to President Bush).

Your question is another reason why our school board needs to develop stronger partnerships with our local colleges, business community, and youth service agencies.  So that no child is left behind.
 
 

• Melania Alvarez (2/16) - Educators are always talking about how everybody is different and how we should help everyone to learn, and to cater to the different needs of each student. The truth is, that the way they have addressed these differences is by finding methodologies and curriculums were the academic standards have been lowered, and they use these standards with everybody (no difference for different needs).
 
What we have to understand about Tags' children is that not all these kids are geniuses. Actually the only requirements to be in TAGS are to have a great desire to learn, to be challenge, and to work hard. These children are hungry for knowledge. As we keep on lowering the academic standards, these children are in danger of becoming bore and/or disenchanted with the school, and we as a community are in danger of loosing some of our best future leaders and scientists.
 
If I get elected I will try not to cut a single cent more from TAGS. The MMDS's idea that these kids will make in the academic world anyway, and that they don't need any special attention is flawed and destructive.
 
If we need to reduce the budget I will reduce the budget of other programs at least in the same proportion as we reduce TAGS.  Higher expectations for all is the solution.

One of the worst things that can happen to a group of people is when they are labeled in a way that demeans them. African-Americans, Latinos, and Low-income families have been labeled as less successful academically. Future teachers take class after class at the university, were they are being taught that these people have problems learning. This translates later in the classroom in the way the teacher behaves towards these students and the teacher's academic expectations of these groups.

This stereotyping is one of the things that contribute most to this achievement gap.  I can give you as an example how as a tutor I worked with Latino children who were in fourth grade. They were doing fourth grade math with me, but when they returned to their classroom they went back to do first grade work again.  I can give you many examples like this.

Lets promote a climate of individual recognition and assessment and eliminate the paternalistic stereotypes for minorities and low-income families. This will not cost much and will greatly improve the academic development of our kids.

We should also eliminate the idea that TAGS' children are going to make it anyway, so why bother?  We should give to each child the very best we can.
 
 

• Sam Johnson (2/19) - As we are now seeing, when we don't work within our budget, it is the children that suffer.  I can make strong statements all day long about funding "talented and gifted" programs but if I don't have community concensus about  holding down labor costs, i.e., 3.5% wage increase instead of 4.5% increase, and support for consolidation of administration, then it does not matter what I say.  The money is there.  Do we have the will to stand up to the powers that be (the teachers union and administation).  I do.  Do the voters?  Do three other members of the school board?

• Alix Olson (2/21 from one of her staff) - It's so great to hear from families directly about what matters to our kids and us. I had some of the same questions when my kids were getting so much out of their TAG program.... and also, when they weren't!

Please visit our website, where Alix' position papers have been posted. You are raising some really, really good questions, and I understand that Alix is also talking with someone who is active on TAG issues in the district, both to meet with her and to respond to some questions from a parent group -- perhaps one in which you are involved.

• Ruth Robarts   (3/1/04) Thanks for encouraging me to attend the county-wide breakfast about services for TAG students on Feb. 19. It was very interesting in many regards. We had no participation from TAG students from MMSD, although several principals and other administrators attended.

As follow-up, I reviewed the current year's MMSD budget for TAG. I found that we are spending $54,134 for TAG programming in addition to approximately $582,410 in centralized staffing costs. The staff costs include $102,410 for one administrator and approximately $480,000 for 8 teachers. Clearly this budget is inadequate to provide appropriate programming for TAG students or to deal with such long-standing problems as the lack of representation of students of color, low income students and student who also receive Special Education services in TAG programs. Obviously TAG teachers are over-extended and schools must work very hard to make good use of their time and ideas.

Here are my preliminary answers to your questions.

1. Further budget cuts for TAG?  I will vote against further budget cuts for TAG.  Further cuts in the TAG funding will only make a bad situation worse.Having worked in the Madison schools for 10 years, I know that a program with resources concentrated downtown is largely in effective at the school level. Such programming requires non-TAG staff to do most of the TAG work in their non-existing "spare time". As I look at this staffing plan, I am reminded of a year when I was principal at Malcolm Shabazz City High School and received a .2 FTE allocation of school psychologist, due to the high needs of our students. Although teachers and I put many hours into trying to identify students who would benefit from time with the psychologist, handle the scheduling of her time in the school and consult with her over students,  the psychologist spent little time with our students and concluded that they would benefit very little from a continuation of the .2 FTE allocation.
2. How to close the achievement gap and not take further resources away from high performing students? Where MMSD has had the most success in closing the achievement gap between majority and "minority" students is in early reading programs. Beginning in 1998, the Board made reading proficiency by the end of third grade a major goal. Accordingly, in our early reading programs we focus resources on assessment of the reading skills of individual students before and after they receive programming, starting before kindergarten when possible. We provide special summer school help for students falling behind in reading. We direct federal and grant dollars to primary reading programs and to teacher training. We require the superintendent to report on program for all students, collectively and by group, on an annual basis. As the result of setting clear district goals, requiring reporting and using data to drive program decisions, training teachers and assessing students individually, as well as in groups, we see substantial, measurable progress for our target groups--low income and "minority" students--as well as encouraging and continuing progress for the non-targeted students.

From this experience, I draw several conclusions.  First, specific goals matter. Second,  early, effective individual assessment matters. Third, when results drive programs, all students make progress. Fourth, a strong commitment to staff training and re-training is an essential component of a successful academic program. Fifth, holding the superintendent accountable through regular reporting improves the likelihood of progress for our children in identified areas.  I think that this model of program development is not the model used to develop TAG programming and should be, just as there should be clear goals, good assessments of children's progress, adequate staff training and a structure for accountability for all programs that touch our children's lives.

Given the failure of the state and federal governments to adequately fund even mandated programs such as services for TAG children, a Board that strongly supports TAG must do two things. First, the Board must set the right kinds of goals and create a process for evaluation of programs and administrative accountability. Second, the Board must use every dollar wisely to support instruction. In the case of TAG services, the Board must abandon the notion that a small, centralized staff can deliver a strong TAG program in 45+ schools and programs. It must direct the administration to train teachers across the district --all grades and all subjects--to work effectively with TAG students.

In my mind, we cannot continue to rely on our current staff development model to solve a problem of this magnitude. Under the current model, the district spends a few million dollars each year to do piecemeal training of teachers on TAG and other topics, taking them out of the classroom and hiring substitute teachers for much of the training. At the same time, the district spends many more millions of dollars through the collective bargaining agreement to reward teachers who pursue training past their bachelor's degrees by paying extra wages for post-BA credits. We could make much quicker progress in training teachers to work with TAG students (as well as improve subject area expertise) by tying the wage increases to content-based courses through the UW or local colleges. In other words, we could require teachers seeking wage increases beyond seniority increases to take courses within a defined range of alternatives. Using that model, teachers would be engaged in more sustained training and training directly connected to district priorities. It seems very likely that the local institutions of higher education would be willing to develop summer courses for staff that would meet our needs in the TAG and other areas where staff development is especially needed.