Whitewater YES is Right, for Now

Over at the Whitewater YES for Education Facebook page, they’ve a post describing the WUSD budget proposal in supportive terms.

Here’s part of what they have to say:

….The school board reviewed the District Leadership Team’s (DLT) program and staffing proposal at the April 20 board study session. The DLT created a proposal that aligned with the message shared with the community during the 2014 referendum. Part of the message the district shared with the community was that a passed operational referendum would still result in annual reductions each of the four years of the life of the referendum, with an anticipated reduction for 2015-16 of approximately $300,000. The governor’s proposed cut in categorical aid added an additional $290,000 to the district’s deficit. The DLT proposal delivers on the referendum message by utilizing enrollment-driven reductions and identifying savings through efficiencies, while keeping district programming intact. Although it is accurate that several identified positions will not exist in the district next year, the district is utilizing attrition and reassignment to avoid laying off staff while maintaining targeted class sizes. The district is also utilizing savings from the changes in the employee health insurance plan design to further avoid eliminating programs….

That’s right – the 2014 referendum’s approval was almost certainly a vote to prevent program reductions or increases in class size.  This budget proposal does prevent significant cuts to programs or increases in class size.

So why do I say that they’re right ‘for now’?  Because the Whitewater Schools operate within a wider labor market, and like the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, their ability to attract competitive employees long-term is uncertain.  The WUSD and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater also exist within a competitive market for applicants (newcomer families with children, new college students, respectively).  Their ability to attract families and competitive college applicants is uncertain.  

There’s no question that district officials, at least, see this problem.  They see it so well that they were willing, last year, to tout (absurdly and deceptively) narrow ACT scores as a wide success.  The idea was that publishing these scores would inspire people to move here, one supposes. 

That’s too funny: no one literate and well-read would be fooled by dodgy data of that kind.  Those who pushed it must think people outside the city are jackasses. 

(So we’re all clear: people outside the city are not, in fact, jackasses. Town squires should feel free to repeat the preceding sentence until the concept sinks in.)

The problem of advocacy is that it has, in this case, a limit.  Competitive families and students will demand a competitive faculty and competitive peers.  They won’t settle for bottom-shelf hires to round out a roster, or distorted data to create a false impression of success.

In the same way, young, talented employees entering the job market will look elsewhere.

That’s why the appearance of success is at best short-term.  See, from yesterday, Kidney-Selling as a Threat to the City’s Future. 

It’s a free market, and no one in Whitewater is more persuasive or influential than the signals that the market (a collection of many) sends for or against a course of action. 

The WUSD budget proposal does (for this year) prevent the loss of programs & of greater class size (mostly).  The present fix doesn’t come close, however, to solving the kind of competitiveness problems that both the school district and university face.