Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin

This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates.

Office	Name	Date assumed office
Milwaukee Board of School Directors At-large	Bob Peterson	April 23, 2019
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 1	Marva Herndon	April 23, 2019
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 2	Erika Siemsen	April 23, 2019
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 3	Sequanna Taylor	April 23, 2019
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 4	Aisha Carr	April 26, 2021
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 5	Jilly Gokalgandhi	April 26, 2021
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 6	Marcela Garcia	April 26, 2021
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 7	Henry Leonard	April 26, 2021
Milwaukee Board of School Directors District 8	Megan O'Halloran	April 23, 2019

This officeholder information was last updated on July 29, 2021. Please contact us with any updates.

“

Public testimony is accepted generally only at meetings of the Board’s committees, except in July, when the Board’s rules allow items to come directly to the Board as regular items of business. 1. Speaker slips and agendas are available on the long table in front of the doors to the Auditorium. 2. If you wish to speak to or to express your position on an item on the agenda, please submit a Speaker’s Slip to the Secretary. Please fill the slip out completely, including: The date of the meeting The name of the committee The number of the item on the agenda which you wish to address Your full name Your full address, including city, state, and ZIP code The organization, if any, that you represent Whether or not you wish to speak at the meeting Any brief comments that you might want to record, if you do not wish to speak Whether you support the item, do not support the item, or wish only to present information on the item. When you are called upon to speak, please state your name and spell your last name for the record before you begin your remarks. It is not necessary to give your address. 3. For the sake of fairness, and to give everyone a chance to speak, the Chair reserves the right to limit the length of time allowed to any one speaker. Usually, speakers will be allowed two minutes to make their points and an additional 30 seconds to wrap up. 4. In accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, all comments, questions, or requests are to be directed to the Chair of the Committee, who will determine the most efficient way to address them. 5. Testimony may be transmitted to the Board in care of the Office of Board Governance: The Office of Board Governance Room 273 Milwaukee Public Schools Central Services Building 5225 W. Vliet Street P.O. Box 2181 Milwaukee, WI 53201-2181 Telephone: (414) 475-8284 Fax: (414) 475-8021 email: governance@milwaukee.k12.wi.us Agendas for the meetings of the Milwaukee Board of School Directors and its committees may be accessed online at https://esb.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/.[10]

”

Revenue by Source
Fiscal Year	Local		State		Federal		Revenue Total
	Total	% of Revenue	Total	% of Revenue	Total	% of Revenue

Click [show] on the right to display the revenue data for prior years.
1993	$234,332,000	35.34%	$366,716,000	55.31%	$61,978,000	9.35%	$663,026,000
1994	$254,247,000	35.49%	$393,840,000	54.97%	$68,330,000	9.54%	$716,417,000
1995	$244,299,000	33.14%	$417,162,000	56.59%	$75,760,000	10.28%	$737,221,000
1996	$249,699,000	31.53%	$462,934,000	58.46%	$79,217,000	10.00%	$791,850,000
1997	$209,229,000	25.34%	$529,168,000	64.09%	$87,214,000	10.56%	$825,611,000
1998	$197,184,000	22.60%	$577,059,000	66.12%	$98,438,000	11.28%	$872,681,000
1999	$226,611,000	24.58%	$597,347,000	64.79%	$98,069,000	10.64%	$922,027,000
2000	$257,932,000	25.88%	$634,297,000	63.65%	$104,355,000	10.47%	$996,584,000
2001	$245,403,000	23.91%	$660,061,000	64.31%	$120,838,000	11.77%	$1,026,302,000
2002	$287,062,000	26.17%	$676,062,000	61.64%	$133,628,000	12.18%	$1,096,752,000
2003	$242,373,000	22.04%	$693,086,000	63.02%	$164,362,000	14.94%	$1,099,821,000
2004	$222,379,000	20.34%	$703,725,000	64.38%	$167,029,000	15.28%	$1,093,133,000
2005	$274,677,000	24.18%	$700,171,000	61.63%	$161,183,000	14.19%	$1,136,031,000
2006	$244,294,000	21.55%	$717,236,000	63.26%	$172,212,000	15.19%	$1,133,742,000
2007	$268,646,000	23.43%	$718,725,000	62.67%	$159,448,000	13.90%	$1,146,819,000
2008	$293,862,000	24.75%	$707,164,000	59.56%	$186,192,000	15.68%	$1,187,218,000
2009	$320,452,000	25.84%	$631,991,000	50.96%	$287,789,000	23.20%	$1,240,232,000

2010	$336,289,000	26.50%	$672,974,000	53.04%	$259,642,000	20.46%	$1,268,905,000
2011	$339,418,000	25.89%	$706,087,000	53.87%	$265,333,000	20.24%	$1,310,838,000
2012	$334,731,000	28.13%	$633,933,000	53.28%	$221,083,000	18.58%	$1,189,747,000
2013	$348,331,000	29.40%	$631,627,000	53.31%	$204,823,000	17.29%	$1,184,781,000
Avg.	$268,164,286	26.48%	$611,017,381	59.47%	$151,282,048	14.05%	$1,030,463,714

Expenditures[edit]

The table below separates the district's expenditures into five categories identified by the agency:

• Instruction: operation expenditures, state payments on behalf of the district for instruction and benefits, and retirement system transfers
• Support Services: support services, food services, and retirement system transfers for support service staff
• Capital Spending: capital outlay expenditures (i.e., construction, land or facilities purchases, and equipment purchases)
• Debt & Gov. Payments: payments to state and local governments and interest on school system debt
• Other: all other non-K-12 programs, except food services

Click [show] on the right to display the expenditure data for prior years.
1993	$397,020,000	58.90%	$244,741,000	36.31%	$19,655,000	2.92%	$5,886,000	0.87%	$6,744,000	1.00%	$674,046,000
1994	$418,186,000	59.79%	$246,552,000	35.25%	$23,820,000	3.41%	$4,569,000	0.65%	$6,245,000	0.89%	$699,372,000
1995	$449,289,000	59.91%	$263,071,000	35.08%	$25,430,000	3.39%	$6,089,000	0.81%	$6,058,000	0.81%	$749,937,000
1996	$453,148,000	58.92%	$270,236,000	35.14%	$33,070,000	4.30%	$7,114,000	0.92%	$5,568,000	0.72%	$769,136,000
1997	$472,063,000	57.86%	$294,141,000	36.05%	$36,382,000	4.46%	$7,758,000	0.95%	$5,492,000	0.67%	$815,836,000
1998	$509,228,000	58.42%	$307,554,000	35.28%	$36,582,000	4.20%	$11,111,000	1.27%	$7,195,000	0.83%	$871,670,000
1999	$523,231,000	55.52%	$330,833,000	35.11%	$63,068,000	6.69%	$17,386,000	1.84%	$7,843,000	0.83%	$942,361,000
2000	$521,741,000	51.64%	$342,526,000	33.90%	$66,878,000	6.62%	$69,184,000	6.85%	$9,960,000	0.99%	$1,010,289,000
2001	$547,708,000	54.37%	$361,884,000	35.92%	$61,326,000	6.09%	$26,255,000	2.61%	$10,192,000	1.01%	$1,007,365,000
2002	$568,408,000	53.03%	$371,644,000	34.68%	$76,206,000	7.11%	$25,133,000	2.34%	$30,380,000	2.83%	$1,071,771,000
2003	$598,937,000	51.95%	$407,167,000	35.31%	$88,056,000	7.64%	$24,088,000	2.09%	$34,741,000	3.01%	$1,152,989,000
2004	$609,401,000	52.30%	$400,711,000	34.39%	$110,702,000	9.50%	$9,144,000	0.78%	$35,206,000	3.02%	$1,165,164,000
2005	$612,654,000	51.15%	$396,745,000	33.12%	$78,299,000	6.54%	$70,437,000	5.88%	$39,587,000	3.31%	$1,197,722,000
2006	$630,610,000	54.74%	$410,054,000	35.60%	$52,484,000	4.56%	$14,818,000	1.29%	$43,992,000	3.82%	$1,151,958,000
2007	$628,494,000	55.01%	$424,155,000	37.12%	$33,134,000	2.90%	$14,036,000	1.23%	$42,758,000	3.74%	$1,142,577,000
2008	$628,732,000	53.25%	$473,305,000	40.08%	$25,549,000	2.16%	$8,913,000	0.75%	$44,279,000	3.75%	$1,180,778,000
2009	$651,653,000	52.89%	$492,014,000	39.93%	$24,772,000	2.01%	$10,146,000	0.82%	$53,530,000	4.34%	$1,232,115,000

2010	$645,795,000	51.23%	$505,606,000	40.11%	$33,578,000	2.66%	$18,121,000	1.44%	$57,563,000	4.57%	$1,260,663,000
2011	$665,915,000	51.28%	$486,088,000	37.43%	$23,835,000	1.84%	$60,836,000	4.68%	$61,947,000	4.77%	$1,298,621,000
2012	$584,266,000	49.19%	$443,020,000	37.30%	$31,836,000	2.68%	$61,410,000	5.17%	$67,213,000	5.66%	$1,187,745,000
2013	$570,346,000	48.08%	$442,014,000	37.26%	$25,801,000	2.17%	$76,891,000	6.48%	$71,263,000	6.01%	$1,186,315,000
Avg.	$556,515,476	54.26%	$376,860,048	36.21%	$46,212,524	4.47%	$26,158,333	2.37%	$30,845,524	2.69%	$1,036,591,905

Debt

The table below shows the amount of debt retired, issued, and outstanding in the district for each year.

Debt
Fiscal Year	Retired	Issued	Outstanding

Click [show] on the right to display the debt data for prior years.
1993	$0	$0	$0
1994	$0	$0	$0
1995	$0	$0	$0
1996	$0	$0	$0
1997	$0	$0	$0
1998	$0	$0	$0
1999	$0	$0	$0
2000	$0	$0	$13,580,000
2001	$0	$0	$0
2002	$0	$0	$0
2003	$0	$0	$0
2004	$22,147,000	$303,165,000	$440,468,000
2005	$0	$0	$0
2006	$28,887,000	$26,387,000	$438,046,000
2007	$58,159,000	$35,942,000	$415,829,000
2008	$17,820,000	$7,552,000	$405,561,000
2009	$21,834,000	$6,673,000	$390,400,000

2010	$45,690,000	$72,033,000	$416,742,000
2011	$25,588,000	$0	$391,154,000
2012	$30,358,000	$0	$360,795,000
2013	$74,856,000	$49,665,000	$340,095,000
Avg.	$15,492,333	$23,877,000	$172,031,905

Teacher salaries[edit]

The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.

Year	Minimum	Maximum
2020-2021[12]	$19,785	$102,101

Academic performance[edit]

Proficiency assessments[edit]

Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.^[13]

Mathematics[edit]

The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:^[14]

School year	All (%)	Asian/Pacific Islander (%)	Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Native American (%)	Two or More Races (%)	White (%)
2018-2019	15	24	8	15	10-14	20	38
2017-2018	15	26	8	16	10-14	19	38
2016-2017	15	23	8	16	15-19	18	36
2015-2016	14	24	7	16	20-24	18	35
2014-2015	16	28	8	19	20-24	25-29	36
2013-2014	19	30	11	22	25-29	N/A	42
2012-2013	20	32	12	21	26	N/A	42
2011-2012	20	31	13	21	23	N/A	42
2010-2011	48	63	38	54	58	N/A	71

Reading/language arts[edit]

The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:^[14]

School year	All (%)	Asian/Pacific Islander (%)	Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Native American (%)	Two or More Races (%)	White (%)
2018-2019	18	29	10	19	15-19	23	45
2017-2018	19	30	11	20	15-19	23	45
2016-2017	20	30	12	22	20-24	25	45
2015-2016	19	29	11	22	20-24	24	45
2014-2015	26	38	17	29	30-34	45-49	51
2013-2014	15	17	10	14	20-24	N/A	36
2012-2013	14	17	9	13	21	N/A	35
2011-2012	14	16	10	13	17	N/A	34
2010-2011	60	66	53	63	71	N/A	78

Graduation rates[edit]

The following table shows the graduation rate of district students each school year:^[14][15]

School year	All (%)	Asian/Pacific Islander (%)	Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Native American (%)	Two or More Races (%)	White (%)
2017-2018	67	86	63	67	50-59	60-64	79
2016-2017	62	84	58	63	30-39	50-59	73
2015-2016	60	80-84	55	62	50-59	40-49	72
2014-2015	58	79	55	59	40-49	≥50	68
2013-2014	61	79	58	59	60-69	N/A	70
2012-2013	61	77	58	56	40-49	N/A	74
2011-2012	62	78	59	62	50-59	N/A	70
2010-2011	63	80-84	61	59	50-54	N/A	72

Student enrollment[edit]

Year[16]	Enrollment	Year-to-year change (%)
2018-2019	75,431	-0.1
2017-2018	75,539	-0.9
2016-2017	76,206	0.6
2015-2016	75,749	-2.0
2014-2015	77,316	-1.5
2013-2014	78,516	0.2
2012-2013	78,363	-0.6
2011-2012	78,869	-2.6
2010-2011	80,934	-1.4
2009-2010	82,096	-3.8
2008-2009	85,381	-1.7
2007-2008	86,819	-3.4
2006-2007	89,912	-2.7
2005-2006	92,395	-1.3
2004-2005	93,654	-3.8
2003-2004	97,359	0.1
2002-2003	97,293	-0.5
2001-2002	97,762	-0.2
2000-2001	97,985	-1.7
1999-2000	99,725	-0.1
1998-1999	99,814	-1.4
1997-1998	101,253	0.2
1996-1997	101,007	2.7
1995-1996	98,378	0.4
1994-1995	98,009	2.9
1993-1994	95,259	1.0
1992-1993	94,300	1.0
1991-1992	93,381	0.6
1990-1991	92,784	1.1
1989-1990	91,819	-0.2
1988-1989	91,996	0.4
1987-1988	91,648	1.1
1986-1987	90,657	-

About the district[edit]

Milwaukee Public Schools is located in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. It is classified as a large city school district by the National Center for Education Statistics. The district served 75,431 students during the 2018-2019 school year and comprised 161 schools.^[17]

During the 2018-2019 school year, 76.6% of the district's students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 11.9% were English language learners, and 20.0% of students had an Individual Education Plan (IEP)An IEP is a specific education plan that is tailored to the needs of a student with a disability. It describes how the student learns most effectively, formulates goals for the student and considers their ability in relation to general curriculum..^[18]

Racial Demographics, 2018-2019
Race	Milwaukee Public Schools (%)	Wisconsin K-12 students (%)
American Indian/Alaska Native	0.5	1.1
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander	7.3	4.0
Black	51.5	9.1
Hispanic	27.2	12.3
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	N/A	0.1
Two or More Races	2.9	4.1
White	10.5	69.3

Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Noteworthy events[edit]

2017: Voucher school sues district over transportation costs[edit]

St. Joan Antida High School, an all-girls Catholic voucher school that is part of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, filed a lawsuit in federal court in March 2017 against Milwaukee Public Schools over transportation costs. The lawsuit called for Milwaukee Public Schools to pay for the cost of transportation for St. Joan Antida students, which it said was required by state law.^[19][20]

When the lawsuit was filed, state law required public school districts to pay for transportation costs of students attending private schools within the district's boundaries if certain criteria were met, according to Brian Pahnke, assistant state superintendent for finance and management in the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.^[20] The criteria included:

“	If the child lives two or more miles from the private school that he or she attends If the child resides within the private school’s approved attendance area, and If the private school that the child attends is located either within the boundaries of that child’s school district, or not more than 5 miles beyond the boundaries of the district.[10]	”
—Wisconsin Public Radio (March 23, 2017)[20]

State law at the time also said, “There shall be reasonable uniformity, in the transportation furnished to pupils, whether they attend public or private schools.” The Milwaukee school district's transportation policy as of 2017 dictated that busing must be provided to both public and private schools if students lived more than two miles from their schools or if they lived more than one mile from public transportation. The policy also included an exception for citywide schools.^[19]

St. Joan Antida, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, referenced that exception in the lawsuit. “If they’re busing citywide high school students who live within a mile of public transportation, then they need to do the same for my girls,” said Paul Gessner, head of St. Joan Antida.^[19]

Gessner said transportation was a hardship for a number of his students' families. “Without transportation it definitely impacts the choice of school that parents can select. The very first thing that we get asked is, ‘Is there a bus?’”^[21]

Co-chair of Schools and Communities United Ingrid Walker-Henry said it was unreasonable for state law to require a public school to bus private school students. She said public money should be used for public schools. “We have this institution in our city that does educate all children and provides its own transportation, yet, we’re going to continue to take from these children to provide for something private,” said Walker-Henry.^[19]

President of School Choice Wisconsin Jim Bender said the lawsuit was not related to a school choice debate. “All families in Milwaukee pay property taxes through home ownership or rent,” said Bender. “State law is clear that all students, regardless of sector, are to be treated equally with transportation services.”^[21]

C.J. Szafir, vice president for policy and deputy council of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said the lawsuit was filed in federal court because St. Joan Antida had a constitutional claim. “We believe the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law are being violated by Milwaukee Public Schools where they discriminate against children who attend private and religious schools by denying them transportation,” said Szafir.^[21]

A spokesperson for Milwaukee Public Schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation.^[19]

In February 2018, federal Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled in favor of Milwaukee Public Schools. Click here to access Judge Stadtmueller's ruling. Attorneys for St. Joan Antida High School appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.^[22]

On March 25, 2019, the 7th Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision in favor of Milwaukee Public Schools. The court said the state's "decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right." Judge Diane Sykes dissented, arguing that MPS should be required to bus the St. Joan students.^[23] Read the full ruling here.

2017: Study says city violated law to expedite sale of empty school district buildings[edit]

See also: Debate over the fate of empty school buildings

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty released a study in March 2017 that said that the city of Milwaukee had violated a law to expedite the sale of unused Milwaukee Public Schools properties. The study showed 40 Milwaukee Public School properties were vacant or underused and said that five of those 40 buildings were for sale, though there was interest from potential buyers for other buildings.^[24]

"The City of Milwaukee is acting like state law is optional," said C.J. Szafir, vice president for policy and deputy council of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. The law in question was passed as part of the state's 2015-2017 state budget.^[25]

"With a struggling Milwaukee educational system and interest from charter and voucher schools, city officials would rather see them empty than put to good use and filled with kids," said Szafir.^[24]

Officials from Milwaukee Public Schools and the Milwaukee Department of City Development said the study was misleading and pointed to errors such as listing one school district property as being at 55% capacity when it was at 99.6% capacity.^[24][26]

"We absolutely assert that the City of Milwaukee is following the law as it was written," said Milwaukee Department of City Development Deputy Commissioner Martha Brown.^[24]

Michael Bonds, member of the Milwaukee Board of School Directors, said the push to sell the district's buildings was like “asking the Coca-Cola Company to turn over its facilities to Pepsi so Pepsi can expand and compete with the Coca-Cola Company.”^[24]

Before the law to expedite the sale of buildings went into effect, Milwaukee Public Schools either refused to sell its buildings to voucher schools or asked for additional payments to combat a state funding issue. If a building was sold to a voucher school and students left the school district to attend it, the district's per-pupil state funds decreased. Because the district was responsible for paying a portion of per-pupil vouchers, the district had to pay more money to voucher schools, even if it had less money coming in. This funding issue was corrected in the state's 2013-2015 budget. When the district refused to sell buildings to voucher schools before the 2015 law went into effect, school district officials said they were trying to avoid placing a larger tax burden on the city's residents.^[27]

The 2017 study from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty also mentioned the city's tax burden. “You have dwindling enrollment at Milwaukee Public Schools that has led to buildings that just sit empty, costing taxpayers money,” Szafir said. “These empty buildings over the course of the last decade have cost Milwaukee taxpayers well over $10.2 million.”^[26]

The 2017 study called on the Wisconsin State Legislature to add penalties if the city does not comply to the law. One suggested penalty was to award attorney's fees “if the aggrieved party prevails,” in a lawsuit related to the law, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Such a penalty would have benefitted the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty as it represented school choice advocates.^[24]

“I know there are those that want financial repercussions for not cooperating,” said Sen. Alberta Darling (R-8), a co-author of the law. “I don’t know how you do that. It’s really hard to have teeth in the legislation because the ball keeps bouncing in different directions.”^[26]

2017: District faces possible $50 million budget gap[edit]

Milwaukee Superintendent Darienne Driver announced on March 8, 2017, that the district faced a $50 million gap between expenditures and revenue sources in its 2017-2018 budget projections. Driver said the gap was caused in part by a decrease in federal funding and by legacy costs from healthcare benefits for retired employees.^[28]

To offset costs, Driver said the district was pursuing donations from philanthropic sources and evaluating programs in order to fund only those that had proven successful. The district received $36 million from philanthropic sources for the 2016-2017 school year, which was more than double what it received the previous year. Driver said she did not anticipate that layoffs would be needed, but she did say that district staff might need to shift positions.^[28]

In anticipation of the budget gap, schools across the district were asked to cut budgets by six figures, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The district also moved to shut down underperforming high schools with small enrollments and to reconfigure other schools.^[28]

2017: Superintendent announces district will not share student immigration status with federal officials[edit]

Sanctuary policy conflicts

Milwaukee Public Schools was one of 15 districts tracked by Ballotpedia that debated sanctuary policies as of October 16, 2017. Learn more about these debates on Ballopedia's coverage of sanctuary jurisdictions »

Milwaukee Superintendent Darienne Driver sent a message to district families in February 2017 that promised to protect student information, including immigration status. In the message, Driver called Milwaukee Public Schools a "save haven of learning and support."^[29]

"We do not ask for students' immigration status when they enroll," Driver said in the message. "If we become aware of a student's immigration status, we will not share that information with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services."^[29]

Driver's message was sent out two days after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidance memos on the enforcement of immigration laws and executive orders on immigration issued by President Donald Trump (R). The memos called for more Border Patrol agents and prioritized the removal of individuals convicted or charged with a crime and reinforced prosecutorial discretion. Officials from DHS said that these guidance memos would not impact the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected minors brought to the U.S. without legal permission.^[30][31]

After Driver sent the message, school board members Larry Miller and Tatiana Joseph proposed a resolution to create a district policy that would require staff to not share students' legal status with government agencies. The resolution was passed unanimously on March 30, 2017.^[32]

2017: District changes new school year start date to August[edit]

See also: School administrators seek flexibility for school start date

Students attending middle schools and high schools in the Milwaukee school district started the 2017-2018 school year on August 14, 2017, rather than on September 5, 2017, when most of the public schools in the state started. The change to an earlier start time was championed by Milwaukee Superintendent Darienne Driver. She said the district needed to maximize learning time for its students.^[33][34][35]

Officials in other school districts in the state expressed their desire to also switch to earlier start times, but due to a state law, they were unable to start before September 1, 2017. The Milwaukee school district had more flexibility in scheduling their school calendars than other districts.^[33]

A bill that would have repealed the September 1 start date law was re-introduced in the Wisconsin State Legislature in February 2017. It did not move out of committee before the 2017-2018 school year started on September 5, 2017.^[36] A similar bill was introduced in past sessions but was never passed.^[37]

School administrators in favor of starting earlier than September said it would give high school students more time in class before they took advanced placement courses in May and that it would help maximize learning for other students as well. Administrators said students were more ready to learn in August than they were in the spring when teachers started seeing declining results.^[33]

Officials with the Wisconsin Hotel & Lodging Association, the Tourism Federation of Wisconsin, and other city and county visitor centers, however, said they relied on student workers to close out the season through Labor Day. In 2015, the month of August brought in $130 million more in tourism revenue than the month of June, according to the Wisconsin Department of Tourism.^[33]

2017: District partners with higher education institutions to increase college readiness[edit]

Milwaukee Public Schools partnered with the Milwaukee Area Technical College and the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee to create an education initiative called M-Cubed in January 2017. The initiative was created to make sure the three education institutions were teaching subjects in similar ways, according to Vicki Martin, president of the Milwaukee Area Technical College. It was also created to increase college readiness, increase the expectation of continuing to learn after high school, and increase the understanding of the importance of higher education, according to Wisconsin Public Radio.^[38]

"Students have a hard time with math," Martin said. "With our students, as well, they hold off 'til the last semester because they want to avoid it at all costs. So what we realized is that we could together start working on a curriculum early to make sure that we are all aligned."^[38]

One-third of Milwaukee's high school students do not continue to the 10th grade, according to Milwaukee Superintendent Darienne Driver. "Everybody's who's in the college readiness game knows how important 9th grade is," said Driver. "But again, this is not work that we can figure out by ourselves. We have to have partners that are helping us get our students over those different benchmarks, getting them to the finish line."^[38]

2016: Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program[edit]

See also: Battles over school governance (2016)

Background[edit]

The Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program (OSPP) was added to the proposed state budget by the Joint Finance Committee on May 20, 2015, on a party-line vote with Republicans in support and Democrats against.^[39] It was co-authored by State Sen. Alberta Darling (R-8) and State Rep. Dale Kooyenga (R-14).^[40] It remained in the budget that was passed by both chambers of the Wisconsin State Legislature in July 2015 and signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker (R) on July 12, 2016.^[41]

The OSPP set up the takeover of up to three of the Milwaukee school district's lowest-performing schools by an independent commissioner appointed by the county executive for the 2015-2016 and the 2016-2017 school years. According to the law that set up the program, five more schools could be added each year thereafter. All employees in those schools were supposed to be fired and required to reapply for their jobs. The program also gave the commissioner the ability to convert any of the schools to private, non-religious voucher schools or independent charter schools.^[39]

Before the governor signed the budget into law, Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers urged Walker to veto the program. He did not agree with taking away the Milwaukee school district's right to close or reorganize its schools. He pointed out that it was a right every other school district in the state had.^[42]

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele said he would do his best to make the OSPP work, although he did not ask for such responsibility. He told Darling and Kooyenga that he wanted to keep coming back to lawmakers and discussing what worked and what did not work with the program. Abele also said the state voucher system was unfairly designed and punished the Milwaukee school district with a disproportionate funding rate.^[43]

Abele did not think the new program was going to fix all of the district's problems, but he thought it might be a chance to try out some solutions. "I'd rather be on the side of suggesting any idea that might improve MPS rather than simply sit on the sidelines saying I don't like that attempt to improve it and idly watching while something I think we all agree, we need to do better at, as it continues to worsen," said Abele.^[43]

Some members of the Milwaukee community thought Abele, a lifelong Democrat, should have turned down the offer to appoint the commissioner. One retired district teacher told Abele "to stand up to Governor Walker and say no." She was backed by the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association. According to the association's president Kim Schroeder, they looked into every option to fight the program.^[40][44]

The Milwaukee school district was the only district in the state affected by the proposal for the 2015-2016 school year, as it met the following three criteria:^[39]

1. it had over 15,000 students,
2. it received the lowest rating on the annual school report cards for two years in a row, and
3. it received state aid to transport minority students within district boundaries.

Two other districts in the state—Madison Metropolitan and Racine Unified—had the possibility of qualifying due to student enrollment and receiving state transportation aid. Madison, however, received "meets expectations" ratings in 2013 and 2014, and Racine received "meets few expectations" ratings both years.^[39]

Protests[edit]

Before the OSPP was implemented with the passing of the state budget, several protests were held in the district in what organizers called "a week of action." On May 27, 2015, a school defense action was held at Auer Elementary School, where hundreds of students, educators, parents, and community members linked arms around the building.^[45] A petition containing nearly 6,000 signatures of those who opposed the Opportunity Schools Partnership Program was delivered to Darling's office on June 4, 2015. Protestors also gathered outside of North Division High School on June 5, 2015.^[46][47]

In August 2015, 22 community groups, including labor, religious, and civic organizations, formed a coalition called "Schools and Communities United" in order to fight against the OSPP. Leaders of the coalition called on Abele to appoint a commissioner who opposed the privatization of public schools. They also called on state lawmakers to overturn the program.^[48]

In response to the rallies, Darling released the following statement:

“	I find it reprehensible that the county board and the teachers union would rather trap children in schools where zero kids are proficient at reading. Zero. While the county board and MTEA waste time and energy with useless resolutions and pay raises, we have enacted reforms that will improve the educational opportunities and outcomes for kids stuck in failing MPS schools. These reforms have worked in places like Memphis and New Orleans and it’s time to let them work here in Milwaukee. For the sake of the children, I hope the unions and county board come to their senses and finally put children first.[10]	”
—State Sen. Roberta Darling (R) (2015)[49]

Educators across the state also weighed in on the program. Approximately 30 teachers in the La Crosse school district protested outside of the district's Central High School to show their support and solidarity with Milwaukee teachers and their opposition to the OSPP.^[50]

Commissioner appointed[edit]

On November 12, 2015, Abele announced that he had appointed Dr. Demond Means, superintendent of the Mequon-Thiensville School District, as the commissioner of the OSPP.^[51]

Means graduated from the district's Riverside University High School and had worked in the education field since 1994. Before becoming superintendent, he served as a classroom teacher, assistant principal, principal, human resources director, and assistant superintendent.^[51] Means also served as Wisconsin's representative on the Education Commission of the States in 2010, and he chaired a statewide task force on the state's achievement gap in 2014.^[52]

Means said he did not intend to leave his position as superintendent of the Mequon-Thiensville School District. "We just moved to Mequon this fall, so I am very committed," he said. Means said his tasks as commissioner of the OSPP would be completed during his personal time. He also said he did not know how long the position would last, or if he would be paid to take it on.^[53]

Along with the announcement, Abele published a news release with the following statement:

“	In the classroom and as an administrator, Dr. Demond Means has made a commitment to reach and uplift every single child. His relentless pursuit of excellence, coupled with his background as a long-time social justice advocate and supporter of Milwaukee Public Schools, makes Dr. Means a unique fit to partner with MPS Superintendent Dr. Darienne Driver and the MPS community to strengthen our public schools. We can all agree that our children, teachers, families and communities are better served when every child has the opportunity to achieve the kind of success in school that’s required to live a better life.[10]	”
—Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele (November 12, 2015)[51]

Means issued a statement after the announcement, saying:

“	As a proud MPS graduate and native of Milwaukee who still has scores of family and friends directly impacted by the trajectory of educational opportunities in the city, the role of commissioner of OSPP is important to me. As Milwaukee goes, so goes Wisconsin. It is imperative that we do everything in our collective power to assist in closing achievement gaps in Milwaukee and around the state. I have high expectations for the professionals entrusted with the responsibility of educating our students and am passionate about ensuring we maximize the academic, social, and emotional growth of all children. I am excited to work with concerned citizens from Milwaukee, the region and the state to ensure that the city’s youth have greater access to high-quality educational opportunities.[10]	”
—Dr. Demond Means (November 12, 2015)[51]

OSPP plan proposed[edit]

Means unveiled his proposed plan to takeover one of the district's poorest performing schools to the Milwaukee School Board on April 21, 2016. Means proposed that the school, which had yet to be chosen, be transferred to the opportunity schools district for the 2016-2017 school year, and he left the possibility open for more schools to be added in later years. The school would remain part of MPS in the way charter schools were treated. The district would retain its per-pupil funding, but at the reduced charter school rate, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Means also proposed that the staff at the schools retain their jobs and benefits through the district.^[54][55]

The proposed plan also detailed that schools in the opportunity schools district would transition to year-long community schools by the 2017-2018 school year. Students in those schools would take the same assessment tests as other students in Milwaukee Public Schools. Schools would be considered successful if their students performed better in math and reading or graduated at higher rates than the district's students. Schools that showed improvement would transition back to the Milwaukee School Board's control after 60 months.^[54]

Milwaukee board member Terry Falk compared Means' plan to "a shotgun marriage." He told Means, "It's almost impossible for us to walk down the aisle with you and say 'I do.'" Means said he understood the plan "was not ideal," but he said it was a "best case scenario." He told the board that failure to agree to the plan could result in more involvement from the Wisconsin State Legislature.^[54]

Board member Michael Bonds voiced support for the plan's concept. He said the board "risked harsher treatment" from the state legislature if they did not agree to it, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.^[54]

Though the Milwaukee School Board would have retained some of its powers over the school transferred to the opportunity schools district in Means' proposal, that school would also have had an "independent, autonomous school governing body," according to the law that set up the program. The governing body would have power to get involved in the budget and principal appointment processes.^[54]

“We have found a way to comply with the law without hurting MPS,” Means said. “This is not a takeover. This is not New Orleans; this is not Detroit.”^[56]

OSPP plan rejected[edit]

The school board, along with Superintendent Darienne Driver, announced their rejection of Means' proposal on June 17, 2016. Driver said they could not accept Means' original proposal because it was vague, had an unclear funding plan, and conflicted with state law. MPS administrators suggested an alternative plan: that the OSPP create a charter school with an early childhood program in an existing MPS building.^[57]

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele said he was disappointed with the rejection of Means' plan. Both Abele and Means said a rejection of their proposal could lead them to bring in outside operators.^[57]

Prior to rejecting it, the board sent Means' plan to the Milwaukee City Attorney's Office to determine the board's options.^[54] Though the deadline to choose the first school to join the opportunity schools district was May 25, 2016, Abele announced that deadline would not be met as district officials did not meet with him and Means.^[55][56] Abele and Means met with district officials after the proposal was rejected, but no progress was made. Means resigned six days later.^[58]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said that school district officials had to start working with the OSPP. He said the state would not rule out changing the law if the two entities could not agree.^[55]

Commissioner resigns[edit]

Means served as commissioner of the OSPP from November 12, 2015, to June 29, 2016. When announcing his resignation, Means said he was leaving due to his inability to form a collaborative partnership with the school district.^[58]

“	Over the last several months, it has become clear to me that efforts to implement the Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program law will become increasingly adversarial at a time when adversity is the last thing our children need.[10]	”
—Demond Means (June 29, 2016)[58]

Abele said he accepted Means' proposal with regret.^[58]

After the announcement, the district released a statement saying, “We are surprised by today’s news. We recognize Dr. Means’ service to education and children in our area and agree that actions must be child-centered.”^[58] Officials from the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association called Means' resignation a victory.^[59]

Abele had 120 days to appoint a replacement commissioner. Kooyenga said legislators were going to back to the drawing board.^[59]

MPS no longer meets criteria for takeover[edit]

Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers announced in October 2016 that Milwaukee Public Schools no longer met the requirements to have its schools be considered for the OSPP. Evers said that due to changes in the way the state's report cards were calculated no districts in the state met the qualifications for takeover for the 2016-2017 school year. The changes included emphasizing student improvement over proficiency as well as taking poverty levels, English language learners, and students with disabilities into account.^[60]

District officials said Evers' announcement reflected improvements at the district's schools. “While we are energized by the progress we’re making, we still have significant work to do,” Driver said in a statement.^[60]

Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association President Kim Schroeder also issued a statement after the announcement. "The MTEA applauds the work of all educators, parents, and community members who have worked tirelessly to fight this legislation both through grass-roots organizing and direct action," Schroeder said.^[60]

Kooyenga said the OSPP acted as a good incentive for the district. He also said, "Rest assured, there will be more reforms."^[60]

2016: Report shows high percentage of teachers leaving Milwaukee area[edit]

A report released by the nonprofit Public Policy Forum on April 25, 2016, showed that the number of teachers leaving the profession in the greater Milwaukee area increased by 25% over the previous five years. A normal turnover rate was about 10%, according to Joe Yeado, the study's author and senior researcher. “Since 2009-10, we’ve seen the number of teachers leaving the workforce increase by about 23 percent. So we do have more people leaving the workforce,” said Yeado.^[61]

Yeado said teachers leave the profession for a number of reasons, including retirement, family reasons, or switching to a higher-paid career. He also said Wisconsin's Act 10, which ended bargaining rights for teachers' unions, played a part in the high attrition rate. “In the year immediately following the adoption of Act 10, the number of teachers leaving the workforce spiked,” Yeado said. “And it spiked again in the most recent year, which corresponds to the end of union contracts in large districts like Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha.”^[61]

The report also showed that the number of students enrolled in teaching programs in Wisconsin shrunk by 28% over the previous six years. Enrollments in programs in Michigan and Illinois shrunk by nearly 50%. Linda Darling-Hammond, head of the national Learning Policy Institute, said the downward trends would continue until policies affecting teachers changed and public perception of teachers improved.^[61]

2016: District awarded funds to increase student fitness[edit]

Milwaukee Public Schools received a $250,000 award over a three-year period to provide more physical education classes for district students. The district received the award from the Medical College of Wisconsin’s (MCW) Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. In addition to working with MCW, the district worked with the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee, Marquette University, and the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association to improve students' fitness levels and to teach them lifetime fitness habits, according to Wauwatosa Now.^[62]

2015: District cancels international trips for 2015-2016 school year[edit]

In December 2015, officials from the Milwaukee school district announced that they had canceled international student trips for the 2015-2016 school year. The district also canceled student travel to Washington, D.C. in 2015. The officials listed terror concerns as their reason for the cancelations. Approximately six trips were affected, including an annual trip to Denmark that students from Golda Meir, a school for gifted and talented students, had taken for over 20 years.^[63][64]

The district released the following statement about the cancellations:

“	On November 23, 2015, the United States Department of State issued a Travel Alert due to worldwide terror attacks in countries including France and Denmark through February 24, 2016. Due to these heightened safety concerns, MPS is regrettably cancelling all foreign student travel for the remainder of the 2015-16 school year. Safety is always our primary concern when students are in our care. We are disappointed these trips cannot take place and share the frustration of our students, families and staff. We are also aware that cancellation deadlines are approaching for some trips and wanted to make sure families could recover most, if not all, of their deposits. The district is working to find alternative experiences for students. Out-of-state field trips will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. All Washington, D.C. travel for students and staff has been cancelled for the remainder of 2015. We will re-evaluate travel to Washington, D.C. in early 2016. We want our students to have robust, out-of-the-classroom experiences. But we also feel an obligation to make sure they are safe. We will continue to monitor federal guidelines on travel and hope we can resume educational travel experiences for our students and staff as soon as possible.[10]	”
—Milwaukee Public Schools officials (December 2015)[63]

Parents of students from Golda Meir School who were supposed to go to Denmark decided to continue the trip despite the district's cancelation. They raised funds through fundraisers and auctions to come up with the required $1,800 per person. Prior to the cancelation, students had raised thousands of dollars, but those funds were deposited with the district. Since the trip was canceled, those funds could not be accessed.^[64]

Parents said canceling the international trips reinforced fear and took away what might be the only opportunity a student had to see the world. “Having an open mind and learning to be accepting of other cultures sets these kids up for success in the future,” said Ricky Francis, father of a daughter who traveled to Denmark.^[64]

2015: State budget requires Milwaukee to sell unused buildings[edit]

In July 2015, the Wisconsin State Legislature passed the 2015-2017 state budget. With it, a law to expedite the process of selling Milwaukee's empty school buildings was also passed. The law set up a sales process that included deadlines for when buildings had to be sold. It required the empty buildings to be put on the market by October 2015, but the city of Milwaukee said it was prevented from following this deadline by the law itself.^[25]

The law gave Milwaukee's superintendent and the commissioner of the Opportunity Schools and Partnership Program (OSPP) 60 days to submit letters of intent for the buildings. After those 60 days were up, charters schools and vouchers schools outside of the district's jurisdiction were supposed to have a chance to submit their own letters of intent for the buildings. Because a commissioner had not been appointed for the new OSPP by October 2015, the city said it was prevented from moving forward. “The bottom line is the clock does not start running until the commissioner is named. That’s how the city attorney’s office reads the statute,” said Milwaukee City Clerk Jim Owczarski.^[25]

Not everyone agreed with the city's take on the new law. C.J. Szafir, an associate counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said the city's position on the law did not make sense. “The law isn’t written as clearly as it could be, but its intention is clear. It’s designed to sell the unused and underutilized buildings and do so expeditiously,” Szafir said. According to Szafir, the commissioner would not be able to buy any of the buildings even if there was a commissioner. “No funding has been provided for OSPP. It doesn’t have its own budget. It won’t be in any position to purchase anything," he said.^[25]

Superintendent Darienne Driver submitted her required letter of intent, which expressed interest in the district keeping “all school buildings determined to be ‘eligible school buildings.’” Voucher and charter school operators and nonprofits also filed letters of intent. Owczarski said the city clerk's office had the letters on file and would be prepared to move forward with them once a commissioner had been appointed and given 60 days.^[25][65] In January 2016, Commissioner Demond Means said he had no intention of acquiring any of the district's empty buildings.^[66]

In March 2015, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty submitted a letter to the city clerk's office questioning Driver's appeal and demanding the city begin negotiations with the qualified organizations that had submitted letters of interest.^[4] The organization threatened to sue the city if officials did not comply with the law.^[65]

“	The intent of the statute was to remove unused and underutilized school buildings from the control of MPS. It would not make sense to allow MPS or the superintendent to retain control of these properties by attempting to acquire them in lieu of the ‘education operators’ expressly defined in the statute. Nor would it make any sense to allow MPS to delay or frustrate the purchase of an eligible building by an education operator by asserting that MPS is a competitive bidder.[10]	”
—Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (March 2015)[4]

MPS spokesperson Tony Tagliavia disagreed with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty's take on the law. He said, "The law clearly gives the superintendent the authority to submit a letter of interest.”^[4] Milwaukee City Attorney Grant Langley, however, said the school district could not be considered an educational operator under the new law. He also said it was a "poorly written statute," and that it contained contradictory language. He told the city zoning committee that the city could be sued if it did not begin selling school buildings.^[65][67]

On April 12, 2016, the zoning committee recommended that the Milwaukee Common Council approve education operators in order to determine who could buy the buildings. The committee also recommended that the council set up a review committee for sale proposals.^[68]

The Milwaukee Common Council on April 15, 2016, approved five private and charter schools as education operators, enabling them to buy the school district's surplus buildings. It also passed a measure to create a school building proposal review committee.^[68]

Milwaukee District 3 Alderman Nik Kovac, who was re-elected just weeks before the meeting, voted in favor of the measures, but he voiced his frustration with the position the Common Council had been put in. "This is an extremely poorly written state statute. They’ve clearly established that up is down by claiming that the largest education operator in the state is not an education operator," said Kovac. He also said he was "extremely frustrated that state legislators saw this as the solution to its problems.”^[68]

Tagliavia also voiced frustration at the district's situation. “We are disappointed and concerned that this latest development may limit our ability to continue to grow programs with a track record of success that families in our community are seeking,” he said. “Moving forward, our goal and our concern is retaining the ability to continue our strategic, planned growth of successful programs.”

The Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty issued a statement after the vote that said, "We are glad to see the city do its job."^[69]

2015: Milwaukee superintendent speaks out at state budget hearing[edit]

Milwaukee Superintendent Darienne Driver joined hundreds of protesters on March 20, 2015, at the second of four public hearings on the state budget proposed by Gov. Scott Walker (R). Driver spoke out against the proposed funding cuts to education.^[70] The Milwaukee school district expected to lose more than $12 million if the proposed budget had been passed.^[71]

“It doesn’t matter what city we’re leading. It doesn’t matter the size of the district. What we’re talking about are students. We’re talking about children,” Driver said.^[70]

The first public hearing on the proposed state budget, held on March 18, 2015, also drew hundreds of attendees.^[72]

The final budget signed by Walker on July 12, 2015, did not cut education funding in the state, instead keeping it flat for the 2015-2016 school year. The 2016-2017 school year saw a $69 million increase in funds. Under the new budget, school districts did not have the ability to increase spending.^[73]

2014: New superintendent appointed[edit]

Dr. Darienne Driver was appointed the new superintendent of Milwaukee Public Schools in October 2014, after serving as interim superintendent for three months. Driver was the district's first permanent female superintendent. She replaced Dr. Gregory Thornton, who left the district in July 2014 to serve the Baltimore City Public School System.^[4]

Driver first joined the district in July 2012. She served as the chief innovation officer—the first to hold such a role in the district—before taking on the position of interim superintendent. Before coming to Milwaukee, Driver served as the deputy chief of empowerment schools for the School District of Philadelphia.^[4]

Contact information[edit]

Milwaukee Public Schools
5225 W. Vliet St.
Milwaukee, WI 53208
Phone: 414-475-8393

See also[edit]

Wisconsin	School Board Elections	News and Analysis
List of school districts in Wisconsin Public education in Wisconsin	Wisconsin school board elections, 2021	Analysis of spending in America's largest school districts United States school shootings, 1990-present

External links[edit]

• Search Google News for this topic
• Milwaukee Public Schools
• Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
• Wisconsin Association of School Boards

Footnotes[edit]

v • e List of the largest school districts in Wisconsin Appleton Area School District • Eau Claire Area School District • Green Bay Area Public School District • Janesville School District • Kenosha Unified School District • Madison Metropolitan School District • Milwaukee Public Schools • Oshkosh Area School District • Racine Unified School District • Sheboygan Area School District • Waukesha School District

	v • e State of Wisconsin Madison (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/Milwaukee_Public_Schools,_Wisconsin
Status: cached on November 18 2021 16:09:56