It is remarkable how often the media simply swallow bad research and report it as a fact. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is no exception. A high-level editor there once expressed frustration to me at how often studies of various kinds make it to the front page.
Last week, the JS reported on a new study by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute concluding that the rule requiring Milwaukee Public Schools teachers to live in the city hurts the schools by discouraging good teachers from applying for or staying on the job. In this case, at least, the story didn’t get prominent placement, but reporter Alan Borsuk parroted the study without questioning its obvious holes.
Given the report’s emphasis on retaining experienced teachers, the most obvious question would be: How many teachers quit MPS because of the residency requirement? As it happens, the authors, professors Mark Schrug (UWM) and M. Scott Neiderjohn (Lakeland College), have an answer: A mere 5% of the 4,699 teachers who left MPS since 1992 said it was because of the residency requirement. That’s such a small number that it completely undercuts the report’s conclusions.
Perhaps realizing that, the researchers buried this information on page 14 of the study and left it out of the executive summary, the two-page run-down that begins the report. Researchers are well aware that reporters rarely read beyond the executive summary. Sure enough, Borsuk left out this key statistic.
Union and administration officials will tell you that most teachers leave MPS in the first couple of years on the job, long before they reach the level of experience (five years) this report thinks is so critical. Salary and job conditions are crucial for these young teachers, not the residency requirement.
The researchers argue that the Milwaukee teachers’ union doesn’t want to end the residency requirement because having more teachers in the city helps Union-backed candidates win office. In fact, the teachers’ union has lobbied the state Legislature to eliminate the rule.
For the union, the most important goals are higher benefits, higher wages and ending the residency rule, usually in that order. They have put the residency requirement on the bargaining table but usually pull it back because they’d have to bargain away wages and benefits to get it.
The report also argues that requiring MPS teachers to live in the city doesn’t make them identify more with the school system. Why? Because 30% of teachers with children send them to private schools. But that means the majority are sending their kids to city schools. Without the residency requirement, that could be much lower.
The most compelling statistic in the study is that Milwaukee and Chicago are the only school districts among the top 50 cities with a residency rule for teachers. But the study is clearly advocacy, and the researchers make no bones about this, offering a side commentary arguing for abolishment of the residency rule.
The rule could be eliminated at any time through collective bargaining, and Mayor Tom Barrett argues that that is the correct way to handle it. By contrast, if the Legislature ends the rule, there will be no giveback from the union in negotiations, the city would lose thousands of middle-class taxpayers and a precedent would be set for other unions (like the police) to ask for similar legislation.
In the meantime, whether you’re for or against such legislation, the latest “study” – and the story reporting on it – doesn’t offer much insight.
Is Milwaukee’s Future South Rather Than West?
Mayor Barrett has distinguished himself from his predecessor, John Norquist, by offering the olive branch to Waukesha. But a recent report by the Public Policy Forum suggests that Milwaukee might be better off looking south for allies, not west.
The report found that Milwaukee loses most of its income earners to Waukesha, while it gains from Kenosha County, which in turn gains income earners from Lake and Cook counties in Illinois. “The Chicago region appears to be fueling southeastern Wisconsin’s growth,” the study noted.
Milwaukee has been consistently losing to Waukesha for years but has gained from Dane County in four of the last 10 years. Year, after year, no county takes anywhere near as much income from Milwaukee as does Waukesha.
Urban sprawl in Waukesha is the primary cause. The county is rapidly depleting its ground water and now wants Milwaukee to sell water from Lake Michigan. This would involve transferring water across the intercontinental divide in Waukesha, a politically and ecologically complicated task. Milwaukee would also be providing the fuel for more income loss to Waukesha.
Waukesha’s Republican politicians fought to defeat light rail, not in their county, but in Milwaukee. After this extraordinarily unfriendly act, they want Milwaukee to be nice and sell water.
Meanwhile, Racine and Kenosha counties are eager to have a rail line connecting their counties to Milwaukee. Chicago residents buy boat slips and condos in Downtown Milwaukee. Northern Illinois residents are attracted to Mitchell International Airport. High-speed rail between Chicago and Milwaukee would only enhance these connections.
Milwaukee and Madison have long had misunderstandings but have more in common than Milwaukee and Waukesha. Residents in Ozaukee and Washington counties come Downtown to see shows and go to restaurants, but Waukesha residents won’t. That’s why the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and Milwaukee Art Museum have created outreach programming in Waukesha, after years of trying to attract western suburban artsgoers.
Considering the size and spin-off of Chicago’s economy, the more welcoming attitude of counties to the south and the potential for enhancing transit connections, Milwaukee’s future seems to lie south. Better to pursue relationships where they can be had than waste time arguing with an uncooperative partner.
Overblown Headline of the Week
Last Friday’s JS headline was stunningly overplayed. In huge type, the paper screamed, “Will al-Zarqawi death change face of Iraq? Above this were these tantalizing questions: “Is this a turning point? Will the insurgency be slowed?”
The syndicated stories came from The New York Times , Washington Post and Los Angeles Times , which had headlines nothing like this. And for good reason. If you read the coverage as reproduced in the JS, it was clear that even the Bush administration was cautioning not to read this as a turning point, that Zarqawi’s death was mostly a psychological blow. No one was talking about a turning point except the JS editors, who have consistently downplayed bad news about the war in Iraq with their choices on headlines and packaging.
