MPS residency rule costs Custer HS popular teacher (Milwaukee, West Allis: middle-class, home)

[EnjoyEP]

Here is an interesting article from today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that I thought could spark some comments or debate:

JS Online: Right ZIP code, wrong city: Popular MPS science teacher loses job

Essentially, Custer High School is losing a popular science teacher of six years because they have found out that he lives in Brown Deer, not Milwaukee (he lives in the 53223 zip code which covers part of Milwaukee as well as Brown Deer and uses a Milwaukee mailing address).

From the sounds of the story, it appears he eventually learned while working at Custer that he knew he was in violation of the residency rule, but did a "no ask, no tell" type thing.

I would be curious to hear others' thoughts on this - is the residency rule for MPS teachers a good thing or a bad thing? I can see arguments both ways, although lean a hare more towards against the residency rule. But again, I can see things both ways. Anyone with thoughts?

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

Originally Posted by EnjoyEP

I would be curious to hear others' thoughts on this - is the residency rule for MPS teachers a good thing or a bad thing? I can see arguments both ways, although lean a hare more towards against the residency rule. But again, I can see things both ways. Anyone with thoughts?

If the thought behind the residency rule is to ensure that MPS teachers send their kids to MPS schools, then clearly the rule is not working, since many, if not most, MPS teachers send their kids either to private schools in the city or to suburban schools through open enrollment or the 220 program.

If the thought behind the residency rule is to have teachers be "more connected" to the backgrounds of their students, then clearly the rule is not working, since the vast majority of MPS teachers stay in parts of the city that are immediately adjacent to suburbs (they call 'em cop and firefighter neighborhoods) or in closer in neighborhoods that are nice places to live (like my neighborhood). This means the teachers don't live in the toughest parts of the city, where too many MPS students live.

If the thought behind the residency rule is to add to the City's tax base by ensuring that thousands of people remain in the city, then I suppose the rule does the trick. But there are 6,000 employees of MPS. If the district lifted the residency requirement I doubt all 6,000 of those employees would leave the city. If half of them left, the City would lose 3,000 people, out of 602,000 people. That's not exactly a mass exodus of population.

I say lift the residency requirement. People should be able to choose to live where ever they want. Being an MPS teacher is probably one of the toughest jobs in our society. Let them stay where they want.

[Nuclear_Art]

In the new days of School Choice this requirement is pure folly. Do teachers at private schools within the Choice program have that requirement? No, of course not. Yet our school tax dollars go to pay their salaries just as much as MPS teachers. There is no viable argument for the residency requirement for MPS teachers.

[Drover]

It's hard enough to get and retain good teachers in major-city school districts. Putting substantially restrictive conditions on their employment with negligible if any benefit to the district itself doesn't seem like a good way to change that situation.

[quijote]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee Ronnie

If the thought behind the residency rule is to add to the City's tax base by ensuring that thousands of people remain in the city, then I suppose the rule does the trick. But there are 6,000 employees of MPS. If the district lifted the residency requirement I doubt all 6,000 of those employees would leave the city. If half of them left, the City would lose 3,000 people, out of 602,000 people. That's not exactly a mass exodus of population.

I suspect city and school officials want the residency rule to remain in place precisely because of this reason (stability of taxpayer base and attempt to keep a middle class in the city). Though I think the rule is unfair because it limits people's options, I also kind of think it helps to keep some stability in certain areas of Milwaukee--specifically, the middle-income residents along the city's southern, south-western, and western limits. If 3,000 MPS employees left the city, they would take their partners and children with them. And not only would this tax money leave, but the demographic shift would have an impact on the neighborhoods left behind--the grocery stores, the dry cleaners, the pharmacies, and the other establishments that currently depend on those people. With the multiplier effect, such a shift could affect many thousands of people in all sorts of ways. And if some neighborhoods are more likely to experience the impact more than others, this could really put stability and property values into a tailspin. The kind of neighborhood depopulation that has already taken place in parts of the city would eventually spike; in some places, as we have already seen in formerly prosperous parts of the city, blight would set in.

Of course, this is a "worst case" scenario. Perhaps not so many people would flee to the suburbs, and perhaps many of those who flee would continue to shop in the city, etc.

Another contingency to consider: For decades, Milwaukee's middle-class border neighborhoods have been seen by people in the inner-ring suburbs as a sort of "buffer zone" against the influx of poor people, crime, etc. If the "worst-case" scenario does come true, how will the inner-ring suburbs react to the transition? Places like West Allis and Wauwatosa have already been trying to deal with this challenge, so I figure that lifting the residency rule would eventually put even more pressure on such communities.

Maybe the quandary could be expressed in this way: Would the abolition of the residency rule have a positive and long-term (educational) effect that might compensate for the negative and (at least) short-term financial effect it may have?

Would the employ of the best teachers in MPS, regardless of residence, actually entice families back into the city? Are there any examples from other metros that such action has actually benefited a city in terms of population growth or growth of the tax base and supporting commerce?

[Nuclear_Art]

Originally Posted by quijote

Would the employ of the best teachers in MPS, regardless of residence, actually entice families back into the city? Are there any examples from other metros that such action has actually benefited a city in terms of population growth or growth of the tax base and supporting commerce?

I think it would have a positive impact although it would be a hard thing to quantify. Generally with a good teacher students can learn more and even get a thirst for learning. MPS should actually have a "Teacher Choice" program instead of school choice which would allow students to decide the teachers they want. In college many students will withdraw from classes if they don't get the section with the better teacher. It should be the same for high school.

[quijote]

Originally Posted by Nuclear_Art

I think it would have a positive impact although it would be a hard thing to quantify. Generally with a good teacher students can learn more and even get a thirst for learning. MPS should actually have a "Teacher Choice" program instead of school choice which would allow students to decide the teachers they want. In college many students will withdraw from classes if they don't get the section with the better teacher. It should be the same for high school.

In college, if students withdraw from a class due to the instructor assigned, it's more frequently because the teacher has a reputation for being tougher and more demanding than other teachers. On the other hand, some highly effective teachers do attract a lot of students, but most students will continue to take a course with a less celebrated teacher if that teacher is considered moderately acceptable.

I'm not sure I agree that high school students should be allowed to "vote with their feet." In my experience, most students confuse "effective teaching" with a teacher's personality and ability to entertain. In other words, sometimes some of the best teachers for students are precisely the ones that the students (think they) don't want. Though student input on the educational process/experience is crucial, most students--by definition--don't know or care enough about end-point educational attainment in order to weigh in authoritatively on policy.

For similar reasons, I'm not much of a fan of allowing students to decide their own curriculum. A good education may be important in a democratic republic such as ours, but education itself is not, and should not be, a primarily democratic process.

[Nuclear_Art]

Originally Posted by quijote

In college, if students withdraw from a class due to the instructor assigned, it's more frequently because the teacher has a reputation for being tougher and more demanding than other teachers. On the other hand, some highly effective teachers do attract a lot of students, but most students will continue to take a course with a less celebrated teacher if that teacher is considered moderately acceptable.

I'd say from my experience that more people will drop a class due to an incompetent instructor than a difficult teacher and that is at a UW system school. Of course I was in engineering so students would rather have a more demanding prof.

Originally Posted by quijote

For similar reasons, I'm not much of a fan of allowing students to decide their own curriculum. A good education may be important in a democratic republic such as ours, but education itself is not, and should not be, a primarily democratic process.

Actually students decide with the permission of their parents. Choice programs for example require parental permission.

[EnjoyEP]

Originally Posted by quijote

Another contingency to consider: For decades, Milwaukee's middle-class border neighborhoods have been seen by people in the inner-ring suburbs as a sort of "buffer zone" against the influx of poor people, crime, etc. If the "worst-case" scenario does come true, how will the inner-ring suburbs react to the transition? Places like West Allis and Wauwatosa have already been trying to deal with this challenge, so I figure that lifting the residency rule would eventually put even more pressure on such communities.

This is an interesting point.

I think one of the biggest travesties to me personally is how little middle-class areas are left in Milwaukee. Milwaukee has become a city of either the very affluent areas or the more poor areas...there aren't a lot of solid (say $160K to $200K home neighborhoods) left.

[Milwaukee Ronnie]

Originally Posted by EnjoyEP

This is an interesting point.

I think one of the biggest travesties to me personally is how little middle-class areas are left in Milwaukee. Milwaukee has become a city of either the very affluent areas or the more poor areas...there aren't a lot of solid (say $160K to $200K home neighborhoods) left.

So very true. I live in one of those solidly middle class neighborhoods, and if the residency requirements (not just for teachers but for city employees in general) were to go away, I'm sure we would lose some folks. But I really don't think we would lose that many. People choose to live in my neighborhood, they don't live in my neighborhood because they have to. In that sense it's not a "cop and firefighter" neighborhood, which is esentially the suburbs but with a City of Milwaukee address.

I think if the residency requirement were to be lifted, the places that would see the greatest change would be those neighborhoods on the far south side (down by the airport), far west (near the zoo) and far northwest sides (near the Meno. Falls line) that are strongly suburban in character. Those neighborhoods exist because of the residency requirements.

But having said that, this city really needs more middle class. We need to attract more middle class, and grow more middle class. I actually am cautiously optomistic on this. While some places have gone from middle class to more upscale (East Side, Bay View) other places have been able to maintain middle class status for many years (Riverwest, Washington Heights, Sherman Park, etc).

Moreover, I'm optomistic about Milwaukee's growing Latino middle class. Sure, many of these folks have bounced for the southern suburbs as incomes have grown. But I'm seeing some emerging Latino/mixed, solidly middle class neighborhoods on the south side of the City. The Layton Boulevard West neighborhood comes to mind.

Where I continue to be troubled, however, is in our City's long-running failure to grow and sustain a strong African American Middle Class. But, sadly, this is a national phenomenon seen nearly as much in Black Middle Class "meccas" like Atlanta and Charlotte as it is in Milwaukee.