One year ago, I was making the case for the referendum to support Milwaukee Public Schools. I don’t regret that work–the state legislature has been knowingly underfunding public education and forcing districts across the state to repeatedly go back to the taxpayers, as we’re also seeing with Milwaukee’s neighboring suburbs.
But today, I’m collecting signatures because MPS leadership and the school board have failed us all with their budget process and staffing cuts.
THE BACKSTORY
MPS held a series of community budget sessions that identified a $46 million deficit and promised to protect classrooms, keep schools safe, invest in academic achievement, and restore financial health. But the plan for widespread staffing cuts never substantively appeared in those presentations.
Two days after the sessions ended, Superintendent Cassellius proposed cutting 263 positions; the notice went out on a Friday afternoon. The proposal went before the school board in a special meeting that Monday. Even after principals gave public comments that they were not consulted about the staffing cuts, which included assistant principals, the school board approved the proposal with few questions.
At the same time, principals were directed to withhold incomplete budget information from School Engagement Councils (SECs). Typically these school-level budget presentations happen in late January or early February. By mid-March, there was increasing uncertainty over what the school-level budgets would reveal and how much input the principals would have in discretionary spending.
Superintendent Cassellius then directed principals to host SEC meetings between March 19 and March 23, a window which included parent-teacher conferences and a no school day. At my son’s dual-language school, the SEC first received budget information on March 23, the day before official excess notices went out. The current assistant principal, whose background in special education and trauma-informed care are particularly helpful given the school’s increased offerings for students with autism, has been excessed. The replacement administrator will be based on seniority and does not need to understand or speak Spanish, have a special education background, or have previous experience in an elementary or middle school.
In the last week, we’ve learned that 201 employees who would have otherwise returned to their current jobs were cut. On April 1, the district posted 368 new teaching jobs. It is not clear how many of those were existing jobs and how many are newly created based on the updated guidelines related to classroom size.
THE GASLIGHTING
It’s hard to say how anyone would have reacted to the events outlined above if the language used to describe them were grounded in sincerity. Superintendent Cassellius publicly touted a transparent budget process while simultaneously refusing to engage principals, School Engagement Councils, and the broader community about the staffing cuts. She then acted surprised when all the major stakeholders expressed alarm at being blindsided.
At the board meeting on March 9, Director Ferguson seemed to be the only board director concerned that the principals weren’t consulted about staffing cuts, especially those related to their own leadership teams. Superintendent Cassellius said that principals had worked closely with their budget analysts and understood what was coming–even as the principals in the crowd groaned in disbelief.
Throughout the board meeting, Superintendent Cassellius continued to claim that this budget was the “most transparent” and “earliest” timeline the district had ever produced, despite last year’s school-level budget presentations happening in late January and clear accounts from principals about being excluded from key decisions.
Public messaging labeled the reductions as “non-classroom jobs,” a phrase used to include a wide variety of student-facing roles actively serving kids in schools, such as assistant principals and itinerant special education teachers. When families and staff pointed out this misleading language and the obvious contradiction with the announced budget priorities, we were collectively dismissed as not understanding the timely challenge of fiduciary responsibility.
As excessed professionals consider whether or not they want to give up their career trajectory and accept demotions, the district cheerfully advertises hiring events and promises “opportunities to grow your career.” All employees see the absurdity of offering stability and growth to potential new hires when it cannot be afforded to current staff.
THE NEXT CHAPTER
We have not yet begun to see the real consequences of this budget cycle. As principals rapidly lose faith in district leadership and feel the micromanagement that comes with centralized services, you’ll see capable leaders who value their professional autonomy trade in ambitious goals of organizational advancement for basic compliance. Very soon we’ll be asking Superintendent Cassellius what it means to “lead” a large urban district full of school leaders who are relegated to the sidelines and see nothing worth following.
The school board won’t fare any better. How long are community members expected to take a school board seriously that either didn’t know principals were excluded from the discussion around staffing cuts or just didn’t care? The public narrative has shifted considerably in the last month and there is serious doubt about whether the school board not only is capable of providing real oversight, but whether they’re interested in doing so.
As always, school staff will be caught in the middle and will be expected to manage with less. The school year will start and the impact on student services will be felt immediately. In addition to the 201 cut positions, many paraprofessionals and children’s health assistants are seeing their hours reduced to 30 per week. All of these reductions combined with the creation of new positions also increases the possibility for widespread vacancies. Although the media hasn’t been interested in reporting on the school-level cuts just yet, I’m sure a staple in next year’s negative coverage will include documenting reduced staffing at schools with safety incidents.
Worse, MPS leadership and governance will have lost the public’s trust just as it prepares what will likely be next year’s big announcement: the closing or merging of schools. When today’s frustration turns into tomorrow’s disillusionment, the hope of real change has vanished.
NOW WHAT?
If we don’t demand transparency and accountability now, we’ll be forced to deal with a host of new problems next school year. Here’s how you can get involved today:
Find out about staffing cuts at your local school
Sign the petition calling for a more transparent budget process that truly centers students and school communities
Email Superintendent Cassellius and the school board to voice your concerns
These school communities belong to us–if we don’t demand something better for our children, who will?