AAPS Budget Forum: Class Size, Equity

I look forward to reading the school administration’s response to one of the questions mentioned in the article: namely, why aren’t the (other) alternative schools on the chopping block?

I do not know how much money would be saved if Open and Community were closed, and those students were folded back in to the mainstream schools. My lack of knowledge could be either because (1) I have not looked hard enough for the data, or (2) it has not been made available.

However, what I do know is this: closing those schools would definitely not adversely impact marginalized students who would stand to suffer from many of the cuts which have been put on the table (transportation, athletics, etc.)

The overwhelming majority of Open and Community students would do absolutely fine in the mainstream schools, but have been enjoying the luxury of an alternative that up until now, we have been able to afford to offer. In my company, we would classify this as “nice to have” rather than a “necessity”. I would suggest that the school administration take a very hard look at this.

Ann Arbor Open did a survey of parents a few years ago and found that a sizable number would have put their children in charter schools if they’d not gotten in at Open. I’m surprised those results haven’t been more widely shared this time around.

We are one of those families. Three children, 9 years each at Open, that’s 27 student-years of money that would not be in AAPS. And had

As a parent who has had two (excellent) students in AAPS, one at Community and one at Skyline, my take is that Community is a much, much better school. My son would definitely not have done as well at Skyline.

Perhaps this can help partly answer your question, Fridgeman. As far as the population of Ann Arbor Open goes, a good chunk (maybe 40% or more?) live in the 48103 zip code. Hypothetically, if AAO were to close, a huge number of those kids would be going to Wines and Bach. For instance, on my street of 11 homes, there are 3 kids in the kindergarten through eighth grade age range, and all of them go to Ann Arbor Open, but we are districted to Wines–a school which, if memory serves, is essentially operating now at 100% capacity. In other words, the space would still be needed at the Mack School building, or major redistricting would need to ensue to close that building. (Mack has close to 500 kids now.) So essentially, what you are talking about is closing the “magnet” focus of the school, not the school itself. Why would you want to do that when there are 3x as many kids wanting to get in as can get in? Ann Arbor Open does not cost more to operate than other schools, and every other elementary and middle school in the district is also served by busing.

Schoolsmuse makes a good point regarding Open, but I don’t think the same thing can be said about Community.

Let me be clear that I am not against any of the alternative-school programs. However, they are a luxury – especially Community – and I’m surprised that I have not read of serious discussion of the merits of closing them when compared to other cuts being discussed which would disproportionatly affect underprivileged students.

Actually, Community costs are also comparable to the main high schools. And I was recently told there wasn’t “space” at the other high schools either–they have a lot more kids than Clemente or Ann Arbor Tech. Costs are higher at Clemente, but that’s because they have much smaller class sizes, and there is good reason for that.

Regardless, I think any discussions of closings–including Clemente, Ann Arbor Tech, or elementary redistricting–needs a much longer timeline for analysis and discussion, and needs to involve

I meant, I was told there wasn’t space at the other high schools for the volume of Community kids. . .

What makes Community “especially” a luxury? What makes it a luxury at all? Why should the lowest common denominator education of the comprehensives be the only option?

AAPS would be well served, in my opinion, looking at the effect on students of the trimester system at Skyline. Besides not living up to its early claims (full-year courses in two trimesters, etc.), it causes staffing cuts there to disproportionately harm Skyline students, since taking courses at other schools is very difficult. And as long as we’re questioning “boutique” choices, it wouldn’t hurt to take a look at the cost-effectiveness of the magnet programs there.

Schoolsmuse, I would find it hard to believe that Community’s students wouldn’t fit (physically) in the 3 mainstream high schools. And if that was done, costs would definitely go down, because the incremental cost of adding a hundred or so kids to a high school which is already in operation is far less than operating a separate high school. How much would they decrease? I don’t know. It is possible that in practice there would be little savings.

Rod, I realize that our alternative programs are a sacred cow for many. I have no doubt that they provide a better educational experience for some students. However, my reason for specifically describing Community as a “luxury” is to contrast it with the safety net programs like Clemente or AA Tech. The majority of Community students would thrive at one of the 3 mainstream high schools. Perhaps this was not the case in the early years of Community, when the mainstream schools were, well, more mainstream… and less diverse, tolerant, welcoming, enriching, etc. than Huron, Skyline, and Pioneer are today.

I think the point you are missing is that not all of those families would elect to stay in AAPS. Our street has a number of families, and as many kids (in four different families) who go/went to AAO and Community over the past six years as kids who go/went to Burns Park/Pioneer. In addition, there are a number of families with children who went to HDS or one of the schools that purportedly cater to gifted and talented kids. Would the all these children have stayed with AAPS?

The thing that strikes me about all the proposals with even limited data attached are drops in the bucket of the deficit and seem likely to drive families out of AAPS. The loss of even a small percentage of affected students would surely increase the financial shortages more than any of the $60,000 for band camp, $200,000 for transportation proposals would save.

There are so many other options that should be on the table before we look at cutting alternative education programs that actually *work*, i.e. students are successful, enjoy school (gasp), and bring parents to the District. As we have eliminated bussing and cafeteria workers from the District payroll, have we adjusted the number of Human Resources staff? As all schools move toward the Common Core Curriculum as the federal government is suggesting, then why do we need Curriculum directors over the secondary and elementary curriculum? There are department chairs and highly educated staff that could take this on during one of the professional development days. And while I am on the subject, the District could look at cutting outsided contracts for professional development and have the above mentioned highly educated staff lead some of these professional development days. I also just learned of a school district that uses their rec & ed department to run middle school sports – this may be a model we should also check into, in addition to cutting some freshmen sports. Just some ideas I suggested to the Board – received two responses which directed me to contact the State about funding, which I have done a million times as I am a laid off school teacher.

And another thing — Pat Lesko’s FOIA requests showed that many schools are over the classroom size limit, and Skyline is underfilled: [link]

How on earth is cutting student of choice busing to Skyline going make things better?

The thought of increasing class size scares me and I’m glad to see that folks are putting this issue at the forefront. I work as a teacher consultant (in another county) and go to public schools, charter schools and parochial schools. In my opinion, two things are extremely necessary to have an effective school environment: a) small classes and b) parental involvement. (It helps if you can cherry pick your students, but that is another rant).

The difference between a class of 25 and a class of over 30 is amazing. Now, there are teachers who can handle and make a class of over 30 work! But, common sense dictates that more one-to-one attention (esp. with more ESL kids, kids with special needs, etc.) will allow a teacher to really get to know her/his kids. I’m lucky being in special ed…I get that luxury. Imagine if every teacher had a small caseload/class and could get to know the kids, know how to motivate them, know the family, etc. (Again, of course, there are plenty of teachers who do this).

Small classes will not make up for lack of parental involvement/care, but it helps.

I am dismayed that we always seem to be in a “reactive” position to these ongoing cuts. We have a structural deficit, and massive cuts will happen every year in perpetuity until Lansing fixes our funding structure, including pension funding. Until then, we do this every year. We wait until the spring, then scramble around like crazy trying to find cuts.

Why are we not being proactive? The alternative and magnet programs in the district attract families and have extremely high success rates. Why are we not increasing these types of options? How about, next fall, we take a look at ADDING a K-8 language magnet (Arabic? Spanish? Chinese?). How many families currently outside the district in charters and private schools might come back for something like this? What if we took a currently under-enrolled and/or under-performing building and transformed it in this way? If we fill up a building, and bring in more students, we make more money. We have happy, satisfied families and students. We have high achieving students. We are not continually behind the eight-ball, thinking about cutting the very programs that are most successful. Someone mentioned that Clemente is not fully enrolled. Is this true? Can we make it a school of choice? It is extremely successful as well.

We do need to get out ahead of things, though we are still hemmed in by the fact that there are strict limits to what we can do to increase resources rather than simply make cuts. Clearly, if we are to make cuts, we need to have a plan and a full understanding of the ramifications, which takes time.

But part of the problem is the timing of State budget matters. We get our first peek at what kind of money is available for September in mid-January, at the Consensus Revenue Estimation Conference. That, in turn, forms the basis for the Governor’s budget proposal, usually released in early to mid-February. Then each chamber of the Legislature does its own take on the budget, which is where we are now. The May revenue estimation conference just took place, which by law sets the numbers that must be used to calculate a state budget which is not in deficit (cannot be by law). Now the school aid budget bills, which are sitting in conference committee, will be hammered out taking into account the May revenue estimates.

The point of all this is that schools don’t really have a good idea of what might happen until mid-January at the earliest. Last year, we got taken by surprise as the Governor proposed to use a school aid fund surplus to pay for community colleges and higher education rather than avoid a cut to schools. That happened in February, and it was a while before it was clear that the Legislature was going to go along with it.

It is past time to look at local options. Other communities, both here and in other states, look to raising significant amounts of money through private giving to their local educational foundations. It’s time we did the same. Second, a county-wide enhancement millage is the only path we have to raise operating funds without begging Lansing. We need to seriously consider giving this another shot. We are running out of options.

Steve, I agree with everything you said. But i still think we can do both. If, for example a K-8 language immersion magnet is good for the district, pulls in families, creates high achieving students, appeals to gifted kids, any number of benefits ultimately financially good for the AAPS, then why not just do it regardless of what Lansing does?

A2Person, I agree in principle. I’m not sure if that one solution would win out over others, but I do like the idea of pushing with innovative programming. But we can’t ignore what Lansing does – what they do determines our entire operating budget here. Bold initiatives of the kind you describe would have been easier to pull off a couple of years ago, before we were this close to the wall. It’s hard to sell people on the idea of a new magnet program when we’re eliminating transportation and cutting yet more teachers.

They’re anticipating a $13 million deficit for next year, based mainly on expected retirement rates and projections in health care costs. Every penny we don’t cut now (and cover from the reserve fund) will be added to that deficit next year. If we take $5 million from fund equity this year to close the gap, that means we have burned the reserve down to $9 million and will have an $18 million gap to fill next year. There is absolutely no reason to believe that school aid payments will be going up significantly anytime soon. There is also a practical limit to how many students we can attract from other districts.

We need to buy ourselves some time, and some room to maneuver. We can do that with drastic and permanent cuts to basic programming, or we can do that by providing more resources locally to our schools. Effectively, that means either or both massive private giving and/or a county enhancement millage. As I said, we are running out of options.

Thanks for all the additional info, Steve. Big ups to Jennifer Coffman who has been tirelessly reporting the facts on this evolving story.

Some of us who have met over the past couple of weeks (parents, students, community activists from across the alternative and comprehensive schools in A2) are trying to coordinate for next steps like the ones about which Steve and others have mentioned.

Contact me if you want to help build this. We need to meet and coordinate in-person so we can better hear each others’ positions, issues and concerns.
kulanova@gmail.com
734-330-9707

I agree, big “ups” to Jennifer Coffman.

Steve, can you explain how the retirement bill that I understand our legislature is currently discussing would affect next year’s budget? (If I understand correctly, it’s making new teachers get a 401(k) type plan, instead of a vested retirement plan.)

re 19: [link]

Not “currently discussing,” matter is decided.

A clarification re 20: The MPSERS reform bill, SB1040, has passed in the Senate, but still needs to be evaluated by the House before receiving final legislative approval.

I think there is a public hearing tomorrow. I got this on Facebook:

“The House Appropriations Committee is holding a rare Monday meeting to take testimony on House Bill 1040. Committees don’t usually meet on a day when the Legislature is not in town. They must really want to move this. The meeting is set for 9 a.m. Monday May 21 in Room 352 on the 3rd Floor of the Capitol. The meeting is open to the public.”

Yes, House Appropriations is holding hearings on SB 1040 as I write. I don’t know if the House has any plans to make significant alterations.

The big changes from the original version (on which we testified: [link]) is that they did not increase the age to qualify for health benefits, but they did change all new employees to a fully DC (401k/403b-style) plan rather than a hybrid plan that has been in effect since 2010. What is perhaps most notable is that the DC plan would include a 4% employer contribution plus up to 3% matching contribution (for a total of 7% employer and 3% employee contributions. These amounts would be MAXIMUMS, with lower amounts apparently permissible. (Compare that to the 2:1 matching, 10%-5%, offered to UM staff members.) Employers will also make up to a further 2% contribution in lieu of retirement health care coverage (which will end).

On the one hand, the immediate effect would be to reduce required school district contributions by 3.5%, or a bit more than it was expected to increase for next year. However, in the year after (FY2013-14), the required contributions would INCREASE by 4% because new employees would not be paying into the existing pension plan.

So, for AAPS, while I don’t have hard figures, I imagine that SB 1040 in its current form would save the district about $2 million for the next year. However, that savings would disappear for some time starting in FY2014. It’s possible that the legislature would absorb the additional costs of closing-out the DB pension plan, but I’m not holding my breath.

On the other hand, this is based on the Senate-passed version, and I’m hearing that the House has already proposed important changes. So, we’ll have to see.

Look! I just read this article: [link]

Lincoln schools are adding a language immersion magnet. In this environment of cuts. Because it will be good for the district, bring families in, increase achievement. AAPS could totally do this, it would be a great idea.