AAPS superintendent Patricia Green at a fall 2011 meeting. (Photo by the writer.)

The board is beginning its first evaluation of the one employee for whom it is directly responsible – superintendent Patricia Green. Green joined the district on July 1, 2011, and will undergo her first formal evaluation by the board during an executive session scheduled for June 20, 2102.

At the May 16 board meeting, trustees agreed to a process for soliciting input on Green from members of the AAPS community, including parents, principals, staff, board associations, bargaining groups, and specific people invited by trustees to participate.

The board also tentatively agreed to direct the AAPS administration to form a committee representing a wide range of stakeholders to study the sustainability of transportation services in the district. And board members affirmed the “differentiated instruction” approach to teaching used throughout the district, in lieu of maintaining a separate “gifted and talented” program.

This report covers the non-budget portions of the May 16 school board committee of the whole meeting. The budget discussion during this meeting was covered in an earlier report.

Superintendent Evaluation Process

As vice president of the board, trustee Christine Stead is charged with coordinating the annual evaluation of the superintendent. At the May 16 meeting, Stead presented the board with an evaluation rubric for their consideration, and led trustees through a discussion about including other members of the AAPS community in the evaluation process via a survey instrument.

Superintendent Evaluation: Survey Instrument

The rubric Stead presented was developed by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), and contains suggestions for rating superintendents as ineffective, minimally effective, effective, or highly effective in 11 categories: relationship with the board; community relations; staff relationships; business and finance; educational leadership; personal qualities; evaluation; progress toward the school improvement plan; student attendance; student/parent/teacher feedback; and student growth and achievement.

Stead pointed out that the MASB tool is incomplete, because the state has not yet determined metrics it will require for measuring student growth and achievement. She suggested that the board should use the MASB tool to think about which categories are most important, and how the board wants to measure them as the state clarifies its requirements. For now, however, Stead suggested that the board should use the same tool it has used for superintendent evaluations in the past. She requested that board secretary Amy Osinski send a copy of the old tool to trustees, and that trustees return it to Osinski with any suggested modifications within seven days.

Superintendent Evaluation: Community Feedback

Stead asked her board colleagues if they would like to include an element of community feedback in Green’s evaluation, and they expressed general agreement that they would. Stead explained that the methodology used in the past invited a selected group of AAPS community members to complete the same survey instrument used by the board.

Trustee Susan Baskett pointed out that not many districts are doing “360-degree evaluations,” but said that the AAPS has always valued input from the community. [This type of evaluation involves a broader range of feedback, rather than just input from an employee's supervisors. For example, it can include input from people who are managed by the person being evaluated.] Trustee Glenn Nelson said that people write to the board all the time asking for that evaluation instrument.

Board president Deb Mexicotte reviewed how the collection of community feedback has been done in the past. First, board members, including the superintendent, make a list of people they would like to survey, which is intended to reflect a broad range of people in the district. Surveys are then sent to those people confidentially, along with representatives from a set of “standard stakeholders,” Mexicotte said, including bargaining units, principals, staff members, board associations, and parents. All the input that comes in is then aggregated by the board secretary and presented to the board during a closed session. “We struck a compromise between something information-seeking, but not ‘FOIA-able,’” Mexicotte said, referring to disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot said the process seems “secretive and not inclusive,” and suggested that the board seek broader input, such as a survey of all parents. However, several trustees weighed in against this approach.

Andy Thomas said that opening up the survey very broadly would produce negatively-skewed responses, because those responding would not necessarily be representative. Lightfoot argued that the current approach of selecting who gets to fill out a survey is skewed as well. Baskett pointed out that opening the survey up to everyone could mean that the board would get opinions from people who have never met Green, and that would not be fair. Lightfoot asked, “Will it be a requirement that [survey respondents] have met Green?”

Irene Patalan said she was very interested in the opinions of people who have had “professional encounters” with Green, such as meetings, interactions, planning, or other discussions. Lightfoot said she is also interested in hearing from the “not so well-placed and those that are moderately to minimally knowledgeable.” Mexicotte said, “If there are people you want heard, you can put them on the list.” Lightfoot replied that she did not have a list of people in mind, but would like instead to make the process available to everyone.

There are some people in the community who might not have had the opportunity to work with Green, Baskett said, but the board should hear from them, too. She suggested, “The broader community will know that we are doing this evaluation and will have the opportunity to reach out to us as public servants, and we can decide if we want to take their input or not.”

Stead stated that if you have not met a person, you cannot give feedback on that person. She said it would not be constructive to solicit input from everyone in the district, and that seeking “favorability ratings” would not be a good use of public funds. “I’m very interested in [the opinions of] people who have met with and worked with our superintendent enough,” Stead said. “I am less interested in [the opinions of] people who have only read articles in annarbor.com.”

Mexicotte, Thomas, and Nelson each spoke about the fact that evaluating the superintendent is a primary task of the board itself, and that while the board can certainly choose to solicit public comments – and indeed will very likely get e-mails related to this – trustees ultimately have to make the decisions themselves.

Lightfoot argued that the board owes it to people to solicit broader input, and that the board should be less concerned with controlling what people say and more concerned with evaluating their comments. “We want all the taxpayers to give us $45 million [a reference to the technology millage that voters approved on May 8], but we only want those who have met the superintendent to weigh in,” she said.

“If we are getting complaints that people do not have access to the superintendent, then it’s a double-edged sword to say we cannot allow input if they haven’t met her,” Lightfoot added.  “…I want the public to write me.”

Superintendent Evaluation: Next Steps

Baskett suggested that it has always bothered her that the board secretary has been the person to aggregate the public comments while keeping them all confidential. She recommended getting someone from outside of the current administration to do that task. She noted that her suggestion was “nothing personal” against board secretary Amy Osinski, “who we know and love.” Baskett suggested that former deputy superintendent of instruction Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley – or someone else nearby, retired, and familiar with the district – could objectively collect the data.

Stead asked if the board wanted to do a favorability poll, and trustees indicated they did not. She then asked if the trustees wanted to create a list of people to survey, consistent with past practice, and they indicated that they did. Stead asked for suggestions about how many people each trustee could add to the list. Mexicotte suggested five to seven, but added that there should be no official limit.

Osinski said the board has usually sent out about 70 surveys, and 50-60 are typically returned.

Stead then charged Mexicotte with identifying people who could be the collection point for community feedback. Mexicotte said she would identify someone within 48 hours. Patalan said that if there was not time to find an alternate person, Osinski could perform the task this year and that would be fine.

Mexicotte asked Green if she would like to say anything, and Green replied that she had enjoyed listening to the discussion.

Stead concluded that within seven days, a data collection person will have been identified, and the board will have provided feedback on the survey tool and lists of community members to survey. Then, she said, the tool can be sent out to the community members, who will have 1-2 weeks to respond. The board will then meet in executive session on June 20 to conduct the superintendent evaluation.

Transportation Committee

Deb Mexicotte invited Simone Lightfoot to speak about a subcommittee that Lightfoot has been interested in setting up. Lightfoot introduced the idea of creating a board subcommittee to look at sustainable solutions to the transportation issues facing the district, and suggested the group could include Ann Arbor city councilmembers, the mayor, students who ride the bus and their parents, and transportation experts from the University of Michigan. She added that the board should “hold harmless” transportation services while the committee worked on a sustainable plan.

Mexicotte said it is not required that the board both set up a committee to study this and hold transportation harmless – that is, not make cuts to the transportation budget – until the study is complete.

Andy Thomas questioned whether a board committee with community representatives and members of other organizations is really a “subcommittee” of the board. Mexicotte, Susan Baskett and Glenn Nelson cited examples of other committees that have included participation by outside organizations or community members. Mexicotte pointed out that the committee that was created to redraw attendance boundaries after Skyline High School was built was an administrative committee, not a board committee, and that it worked well because it had a specific task.

Baskett asked for clarification on the difference between an administrative committee and a board committee.

Mexicotte answered that the difference is who is charging the committee, and directing its work and reporting cycle. The advantage of creating a board committee on transportation is that the board would have complete control over the process, she said. The disadvantages of forming a board committee rather than an administrative one, she said, are that board members might not be the experts needed to do the work, and it’s more work for board members as “citizen-volunteers.” She suggested that the board could task a group with creating the best plan possible to transport students if high school busing is completely eliminated in 2013-14.

Christine Stead suggested that rather than form a new committee at all, the board could ask the existing transportation safety committee (TSC) to look into this. Mexicotte suggested also considering the city-schools committee.

Lightfoot said it’s not fair to talk about eliminating transportation until the impact is discussed. “It seems like we are going to vote on the budget and then look at all the detail. How can I reconcile that black, brown, and economically disadvantaged students will take the brunt of these cuts?” she asked. Responding to the suggestion to use the TSC, Lightfoot added, “I am not for reinventing wheels. I am for inventing wheels that need to be invented, though.” She said she liked the idea of cross-governmental units, like the city-schools committee, working together.

Baskett pointed out that in the past, she has known people to feel “used” on administrative committees that are “top-heavy,” and said she wants to be sure the board affords community residents a real voice. Mexicotte said that challenge would be the same whether the committee formed is led by the board or by the administration.

Nelson suggested that it would be appropriate to create an administrative committee to take up this issue, and Irene Patalan agreed. Lightfoot said she would be amenable to that. But Lightfoot wondered what would make the process any different than what is already in place. Mexicotte answered, “The reason it’s different than people sending us things is that there is a structure, an agenda, milestones, and an expectation of an outcome. That’s what different – even though at the beginning you have a million ideas on a table, there is a process to work through them.”

Stead and Thomas each pointed out that it’s not realistic to think about transportation as sustainable. Thomas said there are two points of view in this debate – one that views maintaining lower class sizes as the most important goal, and another that views offering transportation services as an issue of social equity – that is, that transportation must be preserved, even if it means lowering the quality of education for all.

Baskett said she would support the formation of an administrative committee on transportation as a way to engage the community in future planning, and pointed out that people might suggest options that the board has not considered. She added that members of both the city-schools and TSC committees could be invited to join the new committee.

Mexicotte indicated that she was of two minds. On the one hand, she said, the administration has already vetted this budget, and she questioned pulling out one topic for extra consideration. But on the other hand, she said she was open to forming a committee, if the board thinks it requires a different level of scrutiny.

Baskett said she does not feel assured that the administration has sufficiently studied every issue. She said she has felt uninformed of the administration’s work in determining the impacts of their budget recommendations. Responding to Baskett, Nelson noted the budget proposal did have a column that listed impacts.

Nelson then said that from his perspective, what differentiates transportation somewhat is that it’s inter-governmental. He said an internal transportation committee would not be as effective as one with representation from the schools, the city, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA). Mexicotte said she found Nelson’s argument compelling.

Patalan called on district parents to help get kids to school. She said she is very interested in working with different governmental entities with the expertise of different communities and different PTOs (parent-teacher organizations). Patalan also said she believes that when the administration makes suggestions, it means they have done their best.

Stead said she would also support an administrative committee on this issue, regardless of the budget. She noted that the district could use work on placing crossing guards, and working with the city on not ticketing parents for idling their cars during pick-up and drop-off if driving to school increases due to transportation cuts. [The city of Ann Arbor does not currently have an anti-idling ordinance, although the issue has been discussed.]

Mexicotte asked for agreement from the board would like to put together a framework for charging the administration to engage in a comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of transportation in this district, with a wide range of stakeholders. The group would report back to the board by December of 2012 or January of 2013 at the latest.

Stead responded by saying  she had a different view on the milestones of the committee, adding that if transportation is fully eliminated, “we want that group to be working hard over the summer.”

Mexicotte said the board could discuss the specific charge to the committee at the next regular board meeting on May 23.

Gifted and Talented Programming

In response to a request from Christine Stead, the AAPS administration brought a report to the board explaining why the district does not have a discrete gifted and talented program, but instead focuses on employing “differentiated instruction” in all classrooms. Superintendent Patricia Green said their report would give some background on how differentiation works in AAPS. Alesia Flye, AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction, added that she will also describe “differentiated instruction” and speak to how it is used to meet the needs of higher-achieving students, and how it relates to the district’s strategic plan.

Gifted and Talented Programming: Administrative Presentation

Differentiated instruction, Flye explained, is teaching in a way that meets the instructional needs and learning styles of all students in a classroom. It is instruction that is inquiry-based, open-ended, multi-faceted, concept-centered, interdisciplinary, interest-based, and student-selected. Flexible skill-grouping is also a major component of differentiated instruction.

Flye note that differentiated instruction is well-suited to meeting the needs of both gifted students and high achievers, and that AAPS will be providing professional development to strengthen the use of differentiated instruction throughout the district.

Flye then highlighted elements of differentiated instruction used in AAPS by core subject area, and noted that overall there is a “no ceiling” policy, meaning students can always achieve higher levels of learning. In English language arts, Flye said, elementary students receive small group instruction; middle school students use My Access software to reach writing instruction far above grade level; and high school students have access to accelerated and advanced placement (AP) classes. Glenn Nelson added that AAPS students also take courses at the University of Michigan and Washtenaw Community College.

Susan Baskett asked how small group instruction is implemented in elementary classrooms. Dawn Linden, AAPS assistant superintendent of elementary education, said that literacy class would begin with whole group instruction, and then students work in leveled reading groups, with the teacher rotating from group to group. In math, Linden said, the district is piloting a guided math program that is similar. Green added that this model very significantly does not create fixed groups of students, but flexible ones. “Without flexibility,” she said, “you are tracking students – this is not that.”

Science classes at the elementary level, Flye said, are taught with an inquiry-based approach and the program supports cross-curricular tie-ins. In middle and high schools, AP courses are offered, along with magnet programs, career and tech ed internships, and a variety of extracurricular options for enrichment, such as robotics and the Science Olympiad.

In social studies, Flye noted, secondary options include AP classes, an accelerated American studies course, humanities, magnet programs, community resource classes, and integrated/blended classes.

Linden connected differentiated learning to personalized learning plans, which are a key part of the district’s strategic plan. She explained that the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) test, parent conferences, and detailed report cards offer teachers tools to identify realistic goals for every student on a quarterly basis.

Flye said that AAPS has not been consistent about providing uninterrupted blocks of time for literacy and math instruction at the elementary level, but that her team is working closely with all the buildings to achieve this. Green noted that “what has traditionally been done is those master schedules are set around the specials [art, music, physical education, library, and humanities] and those become the drivers, but this will totally reverse that.” She said that standardizing instruction blocks will make better use of district resources, and be a step forward instructionally.

At the secondary level, Linden said, personalized learning plans bring in career development and contain both short and long-term goals.

Flye closed the presentation by summarizing the gifted and talented programming in two comparable districts – in Utica, Mich., and in Waterloo, Iowa. In Utica, she said, students are identified at the end of third grade and participate in enrichment activities led by teachers or parents outside of the school day, such as social studies olympiad, science olympiad, Lego robotics, and chess club. In Waterloo, Flye explained, the district pays for a special teacher who provides direct support to academically gifted and talented students in the classroom and offers them some extended activities.

In both cases, Flye said, formal identification of academically gifted and talented students leads to a program serving roughly 3% of the district’s students.

Gifted and Talented Programming: Board Discussion

The board expressed appreciation for the presentation, and support for the idea of focusing on differentiated instruction over creating a separate program for academically gifted and talented students. Their primary questions related to the testing necessary to support a differentiated instruction model.

Simone Lightfoot argued that the amount of testing is a concern, and asked if any more tests would be added. Flye said that no more tests would be added and that the district is “data rich.” Flye added the challenge is teaching teachers to use data to plan instructionally for each student, and noted that the NWEA test is a tool that provides immediate information – it really helps cater instruction to individual students.

Lightfoot asked whether any of the other tests being used can be replaced with the NWEA, and Flye said the district is looking into that. Green added that in both of the previous states where she had worked, districts she was in had done just that. “We cut back on testing that we did not feel was value-added.”

Deb Mexicotte said she agreed entirely that AAPS should be looking at its testing schedule, and ask whether “some tests that we know teachers are comfortable with are meeting our needs anymore.” She expressed skepticism that the redesigned state assessment would be rolled out on time and that it would be a good tool. She suggested that AAPS might be able to pursue a waiver if the NWEA test meets the state testing requirements. “I would rather we did the one that served our students best,” she said. Flye said a waiver might be an option.

Andy Thomas said he would like the district to continue doing differentiated learning in lieu of having a gifted and talented program. Flye agreed, and said that AAPS has not yet maximized its potential in terms of differentiated instruction. “We can get more out of our staff in terms of instructional delivery,” she said.

Christine Stead said she is worried about the effectiveness of differentiated learning in the district, and also about the awareness of differentiated instruction in the wider community. Saying that she worries about charter schools using the lure of a gifted and talented program to pull students away, Stead suggested that AAPS needs to figure out how to compete effectively by articulating how its top students are continuing to progress. She said she thinks the NWEA test will help show that, but that the story of how differentiated learning is happening needs to be captured and communicated.

Stead also suggested that tenure reform could allow the district to offer incentives to teachers to ensure that all students are progressing and not “capping out.” She said she would like to see that AAPS is able to reward teachers who can respond to differentiated groups.

Linden observed that consistency is the district’s biggest problem. Master teachers are differentiating on a daily basis, and AAPS needs to highlight what is being done. She also noted that some teachers are still uncomfortable with the NWEA tool.

Stead said that the NWEA should serve as the foundation for personalized learning plans at the elementary level, and that perhaps there should be additional parent conferences held midway through the school year. “We need to spend more time and energy packaging these things, showing the data,” she asserted.

Nelson said he likes the “no ceilings” approach, and does not like labeling kids. In addition to aggregate scores, he suggested that individual stories could illustrate the differentiated approach, such as a 10th grader taking a calculus class at the University of Michigan.

Baskett wanted more information about the opportunities to take college courses, and information about related costs. She said there are equity issues in terms of how such information is communicated in the district. Mexicotte asked the administration to send out those numbers to the board.

Flye said the district is creating a curriculum pathways document that will illustrate the complete path for elementary, middle school, and high school – all the AP classes, dual enrollment options, and all the routes through programs. Green said she is also trying to work differently with community centers and the NAACP to see if information can be disseminated through those organizations. Lightfoot urged the district to be sure the pathways document is simple to understand and not convoluted.

Irene Patalan said this approach really resonated with her as a parent and as a former teacher.

Mexicotte said it would be nice to have a phone number of someone who has complete understanding of the curriculum pathway, and that it opens doors to be able to have a conversation. She also said she really likes the idea of stories, and noted that as a special needs parent, differentiated instruction is “the word.”

Along with “no ceilings,” Mexicotte said she wants to ensure that there are “no floors and no doors, either.” For example, she said, placement testing is so rigid that it practically prevents students from being able to do it. Saying she appreciates differentiated instruction and wants the district to make it stronger and better, Mexicotte added that she also likes it because there is no gatekeeper. She also suggested that the district look into allowing accelerated students to take more than seven classes by expanding online learning options. Flye said that she was supportive of online options.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, at 7 p.m. in fourth-floor conference room of the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte led the trustees in their budget discussion at the May 16 committee meeting. The formal budget presentation from the administration will come at the May 23 meeting.

That still leaves a $7 million gap to be addressed as the district faces a $17.8 million deficit for the 2012-13 school year, which begins July 1. There was general agreement on the board to use some amount fund equity to meet the budget targets, but no agreement about how much to use. Hypothetically, the entire $17.8 million shortfall could be covered by drawing on the fund equity the district has to start FY 2013, which is $18.73 million.

But without some cuts and revenue enhancements, that fund equity would be close to just $1 million by the end of the year, which is a half percent of the district’s currently proposed  expenditure budget for FY 2013 – $194 million. In addition, it would leave insufficient reserves to manage cash flow through the summer. And by the end of the following year, fund equity would be projected to be negative $23.5 million.

At the May 16 meeting, most trustees expressed support for leaving Roberto Clemente Student Development Center in place in its current form for at least another year, while evaluating the program’s educational effectiveness. Much of the board sentiment on Clemente was reflected in an exchange between trustees Simone Lightfoot and Glenn Nelson near the end of the three and half hour budget discussion. Lightfoot asserted that Clemente’s parents are “not caught up in test scores – they are just happy that their children want to go to school” and that their students are getting “some basics in place – social and mental.” Nelson responded, “I’m willing to grant that in that part of education, they are doing a good job, but for $18,000 [per-student cost], I’d like both the academic and social/emotional learning.”

The administration’s budget proposal called for the elimination of between 32 and 64 teaching positions, but trustees were in broad agreement that there should be no cuts to teaching positions, if at all possible. Nelson suggested that by hiring less-experienced new teachers to replace retiring teachers, the district would still be able to save roughly $960,000, without incurring any rise in class sizes. Trustees expressed support for that approach, which board president Deb Mexicotte dubbed the ”Nelson model.”

While trustees showed a consensus about maintaining teaching staff levels, they were divided on the issue of transportation. Lightfoot suggested a “hold harmless” approach to transportation this year – as the districts forms an administrative committee with broad stakeholder participation to develop a sustainable transportation plan. Taking almost an opposite view on transportation was trustee Christine Stead, who advocated several times during the meeting that all non-mandated busing should be cut. Based on the board discussion, busing for Ann Arbor Open will likely be preserved via a cost-neutral plan that relies primarily on common stops at the district’s five middle schools. Also likely is that the 4 p.m. middle school bus and the shuttles to and from Community High School will  be cut. Some board members also indicated an interest in “phasing out” busing to the magnet programs at Skyline High School.

The board took no formal votes during their committee-of-the-whole-meeting on May 16. However the board’s consensus on various issues, convey to the AAPS administration, will inform the final budget proposal. That final proposal comes to the board for a first briefing and public hearing on May 23.

In addition to the budget discussion, the May 16 committee meeting included four and a half additional hours of discussion on: discussing gifted and talented programming in the district; outlining the superintendent evaluation review process; and creating a framework for a broad-based committee to study the sustainability of transportation in the district.

Budget Discussion Process

Board president Deb Mexicotte began by outlining an approach to the budget discussion that would first identify areas of consensus on the proposed budget reductions. After that, it focused the board’s conversation on areas where opinions diverged. The idea was to determine “what [the board] will be able to tolerate” as it addresses the $17.8 million budget deficit. AAPS superintendent Patricia Green added that her administration had brought additional information to inform the discussion.

The board held three rounds of discussion. In round one, trustees briefly considered each of the 27 proposed reductions put forth in the administration’s budget proposal , and were encouraged to reach consensus on items that could be eliminated with very little or no discussion.  During this round trustees agreed on cuts to 13 budget items totaling $1.9 million.

In round two, trustees discussed each of the remaining 14 budget items in detail, but did not try to come to consensus about how to balance them against each other. This round ended with an administrative presentation and lengthy board discussion on the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center.

In round three, trustees tried to reach consensus on a subset of the remaining suggested reductions – in the context of the required fund equity that would otherwise be needed to balance the FY 2012-13 budget. In the end, trustees were able to agree on another $2.8 million of cuts.  They disagreed on the question how much of the remaining $7 million deficit to address by using fund equity versus deepening the budget cuts. Almost all the consensus cuts came from the administration’s core budget proposal (Plan A). The exception was a 10% cut to the district-wide discretionary budgets, which was part of the suggested second-tier of additional cuts (Plan B).

The Chronicle has organized this report by first listing the cuts the board adopted with little or no discussion. After that, discussion and general agreement reached by the board on the remaining proposed reductions are grouped into the following categories: Clemente, transportation, teaching staff, and other district-wide cuts. The report concludes at the same point the trustees’ discussion ended – with a brief discussion of next steps in the process, and general agreement that AAPS should pursue revenue enhancement via advertising.

Line Item Cuts – Round One

The board’s first pass at line item reductions yielded $1.9 million in savings. Mexicotte led trustees through a comprehensive list of the 27 proposed budget reduction options one by one and asked if there was consensus to retain each item on the list of cuts. She started a list of any items on which the board wished to have more extensive discussion on chart paper set on an easel at the front of the room.

Via this method, the board agreed to the following 13 reductions with very little or no discussion:

1. Eliminate four high school counselors ($400,000);
2. Eliminate middle school athletic directors ($37,500);
3. Eliminate funding for athletic entry fees ($58,000);
4. Move lacrosse to club sport status ($93,000);
5. Outsource noon-hour supervision ($75,000);
6. Eliminate district subsidy for summer music camps ($60,000);
7. Reduce budget for substitute teachers ($200,000);
8. Combine bus runs for Bryant and Pattengill elementaries ($16,560);
9. ITD restructuring ($200,000);
10. Move Rec & Ed director and office professional positions to Rec & Ed budget ($205,000);
11. Eliminate the early notification incentive for retiring staff ($40,000);
12. Enact Phase V of energy savings capital improvements ($500,000); and
13. Reduce health care costs ($100,000).

Regarding the reduction in counselors, Stead asked for clarification on whether the positions would come from attrition or retirements, and which schools would be affected. AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that three of the four positions would be reduced via retirements – one each at Forsythe and Scarlet middle schools, and Huron High School. Those three schools can reduce one counselor and still meet the contractual counselor-student ratio of 1:325, Flye said, but a staff reassignment would be needed to fill the position left by retirement at Scarlett. The fourth counseling position would be eliminated  at Pioneer High School – a suggestion that came from that school’s administration.

Trustee Susan Baskett questioned whether the reduction in counselors would have an effect on the district’s ability to enact the new counseling and guidance programming, which was presented at the February 2012 committee of the whole meeting.  Flye said it will be a challenge to deliver some of the new plan’s services, and that a reduced number of counselors at each building could be problematic down the road.

Trustees got clarification that the athletic entry fee was beyond the fees associated with regular conference participation for all sports. Baskett asked whether students would have less exposure to recruiters. AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen answered that recruiters would still be able to come to many events.

Mexicotte tallied up the total amount saved from the above cuts, and it came to $1,985,060. Trustees agreed to employ all four of the revenue enhancement suggestions proposed by the administration (Schools of Choice, Medicaid reimbursement, MPSERS offset, and best practices incentives), totaling $6 million.

That left $9,814,940 as the remaining amount the board was still looking to cut as it moved into the next phase of discussion.  [$17.8 million – $1,985,060 – $6 million = $9,814,940].

Roberto Clemente Student Development Center

At the May 16 meeting, four people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of the Roberto  Clemente Student Development Center. AAPS administration also presented a new set of information for board review, including a set of options for relocating or restructuring the school, and a large amount of data on achievement, attendance, graduation rates, staffing, course offerings, and cost comparisons between the six district high schools. Additional board discussion on Clemente, including its summer school program, followed the administrative presentation.

Allen introduced the proposed reduction to Clemente as potentially saving $400,000, which included savings related to the building, principal, office professional, custodian, and utility costs. Moving the Clemente summer school to Pioneer would save another $80,000.

Clemente: Public Commentary

Barbara Malcolm, a community liaison at Clemente, asserted that the board members are no longer representing the community that elected them. She said she has been appalled by “actions, lies, and deceit” and that the school board has lost much of its credibility in the community. Malcolm said the district still faces the same level of attacks on blacks, poor people, and disenfranchised students as it did when she was a student at AAPS. She said it was shameful that Mexicotte has called Clemente “racist” and “a one-way street.” Calling superintendent Patricia Green an “outsider” who was “not part of the community, only paid by it,” Malcolm accused Green of dismantling a pillar of the community. Malcolm asked Green at least to “own” a statement Green had made at the beginning of her tenure as superintendent that Clemente was not on the chopping block. She argued that AAPS needs to educate all students, “not just those who do well on standardized, biased tests.”

Charlae Davis said that if the process is sloppy, the outcome will be sloppy, and said she had serious concerns with the budget proposal process. She argued that denying families and students a role in the planning process is a form of oppression and said the process has been “victim-blaming.” She asked board members to consider whether they would be satisfied with this process if their own children were at Clemente.

Georgina LeHuray shared the story of her grandson’s switch to Clemente and the positive effect it has had on him. She argued that test scores are the wrong measurements to use in evaluating Clemente, and asked what will mean the most to these kids in 10 or 15 years – test scores or [the support] they get from these people at Clemente. LeHuray urged the board, “If you save one kid at Clemente, it’s worth every damn tax dollar we put on these kids … Do not fail these kids. Appreciate what you’ve got at Roberto Clemente.”

Clemente staff member Pat Morrow asserted that AAPS has failed the children who attend Clemente. She argued that achieving high test scores is not as relevant as getting a high school diploma, and said that sending Clemente students back to the comprehensive high schools would be setting them up to fail. “We can get kids into colleges, Morrow said, “and they can go onto be productive citizens.” She said the board needed to let the Clemente community know right now what its fate is.

Clemente: Short-Term Focus

Green said the presentation her team brought to share was developed in response to questions from the previous committee of the whole meeting about what the options the district had to make changes to Clemente. Lightfoot noted that she was not comfortable getting this information for the first time at 11:20 p.m.

Flye reviewed how Clemente is made up mostly of 9th and 10th graders, but includes some upperclassmen as well. The goal of the program, she said, is to help students return to their home school by making use of smaller learning environments, among other program features. Flye said that the administration’s short term goal was to maintain the philosophy, initiatives, and structure of the Clemente program, with the long-term of possibly redesigning the program.

Green added that the district has been talking about the possible redesign of alternative programs, and noted that A2 Tech’s name change came out of those talks. She noted that when she had been interviewing for the position in Ann Arbor, she heard that cutting alternative programs had come up during last year’s budget discussions. Green also addressed an accusation made repeatedly at recent board meeting public commentary sessions about a statement she made on Clemente’s future: “When I had visited over there early in the year, at the time I was asked, ‘Are you planning on closing the school?’ I said there had been no conversation about that – it was very early in September. None of these conversations had taken place.”

Clemente: Restructuring Options

Flye described four options for restructuring Clemente:

1. Relocate Clemente to the A2Tech building and run both programs separately;
2. Relocate Clemente to A2Tech and create a blended version of both programs;
3. Relocate Clemente to a dedicated space in either Pioneer or Huron; or
4. Integrate Clemente students into their home high schools, with the Clemente program principal coordinating support of Clemente students in the comprehensive schools.

Flye then explained why (option 1) and (option 2) were not seen as desirable. She briefly touched on how (option 4) was envisioned, and then went into detail about how (option 3) could work.

Flye noted that there might not be enough space to keep the programs fully separate in the same building (option 1). She also said that the principals of A2 Tech and Clemente had said it would not work well to blend the programs (option 2), because the two programs have such different areas of emphasis. Clemente targets mostly 9th and 10th grade students, Flye said, while A2 Tech targets older students.

If Clemente students were integrated into their home high schools (option 4), Flye said that some instruction could be delivered by Clemente staff, that some instruction could consist of “touchpoint” classes delivered with technological enhancements, and that” wraparound services” would be offered.

On the topic of relocating the Clemente program to Pioneer or Huron (option 3), Flye and Green suggested that modified schedules could be used to keep Clemente students totally separate from other students if that was desired. The modified schedules might include separate lunch periods, or alternative starting and ending times. At the comprehensive high schools, Clemente students would benefit from an enhanced set of opportunities, they said, including sports, arts, career and tech education and other electives, while maintaining Clemente’s mentoring approach and weekly “rap sessions.”

AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent led the administration in describing the spaces within Pioneer and Huron that could house Clemente. At Pioneer, he said, there are seven classrooms in the D wing that could be available, along with an eighth room upstairs that could be used if necessary, an administrative area, a separate entrance, and a large lecture facility that could be used for the weekly rap session. Clemente would displace math classes currently using the space, which Pioneer’s administration said would be a good change for the school, Flye added.

At Huron, the available space would be an isolated area with eight classrooms would be on the third floor of the arch, Trent explained, noting that students would have to walk through the entire building to reach the space. Flye allowed that world language and language arts classes would be impacted by the classroom shift at Huron. However, she reported that Huron’s administrative team had indicated it would not be a problem to relocate those classes and provide office space to accommodate the Clemente program.

Stead questioned how much would be saved by relocating the program intact under (option 1) or (option 3) versus blending the program with A2 Tech under (option 2) or integrating Clemente students in to the comprehensive high schools under (option 4). Allen answered that only the blended program in (option 2) would save the targeted $400,000. The other three options would save around $200,000 – because those options preserve Clemente’s administrative costs.

Lightfoot asked if there had been any consideration of ways that $200,000 could be saved while leaving the Clemente family as it is – like marketing the program to bring in more School of Choice students, or opening it up to more 8th graders. No, Flye answered. Lightfoot asked when such alternatives would be considered. Mexicotte responded to Lightfoot by saying that the board would use the meeting to decide whether to move forward with one of the options presented by administration, or make no change to the program.

Clemente: Data

Flye presented the board with data on Clemente’s student achievement, attendance, graduation rates, staffing levels, and course offerings, and comparative data on student achievement, graduation rates, and cost per student for all six AAPS high schools.

Chart 1. Average cost per student at Ann Arbor Public School high schools. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

AAPS director of student accounting Jane Landefeld said that it was challenging to determine the degree of student academic growth at Clemente, because students enter the program at all times of year and stay for different lengths of time. Landefeld said she had reviewed the transcripts at the end of the second trimester for each of the 87 Clemente students enrolled at that time, and determined that 39 of the 87 (45%) then had higher GPAs than they had had when entering the program. However, she also noted that many of Clemente’s classes are slower-paced, and so “it’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges in terms of which classes they are taking.”

Trustee Andy Thomas questioned the relevance of graduation rates – because the goal of Clemente is to return students to their home school for 11th and 12th grades. Landefeld confirmed that students do not graduate from Clemente because “Clemente is a program, not a school.” She explained, however, that “somewhere along the way, the state listed it as a school, so if a student ends at Clemente, they are considered graduating from Clemente.” Stead suggested that AAPS should communicate to the state that Clemente has been misclassified as a school.

Chart 2. Michigan Merit Exam scores by subject by AAPS high school. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Nelson asked about the capacity of Clemente’s building. Trent explained that the building has 18 classrooms, which can fit up to 15 students each, with some larger rooms as well. Nelson noted that many classes at Clemente have fewer than 15 students. Flye added that Clemente strives to keep class sizes averaging 10-12 students. Landefeld stressed that Clemente gains students throughout the year, so the number of students fluctuates. There are  currently 104 students in the Clemente program, according to the analysis of student growth presented by Landefeld.

Mexicotte said that when she was first elected to the board, Clemente’s enrollment was around 170 students. She pointed out that for the purposes of current discussion, the board has been using a population of 100 students.

Clemente: Long-Term Focus

In the long term, Flye said, Clemente and other alternative programs in AAPS could be redesigned to offer expanded distance learning opportunities made possible through digital technology, and additional course offerings. The administration could also continue to explore the implementation of a middle college concept, and more flexible day and evening schedules. Flye concluded by saying that AAPS will continue to develop early interventions for at-risk students.

Clemente: Board Discussion

Baskett asked if there was any discussion of team-building – in a scenario where Clemente students are moved back into the comprehensive high schools in any way. Flye said the schools would welcome them, and that team-building with staff and students was acknowledged to be a very important part of the process.

Thomas said he had a number of concerns, beginning with the fact that decisions about Clemente should take program effectiveness into account, as well as potential cost savings. Regarding the student achievement data presented, Thomas said that on one hand, the fact that 0% of Clemente students are proficient in writing [See Chart 2] seems like “a pretty strong indictment of the Clemente program.” However, he said, the real question is, “At what level are students when they enter the program, and where are they at the end of one year, two years?” Thomas said that student growth is not being clearly measured except by GPA, which he argued was an “imperfect” measure.

Thomas also expressed concern about the timeline of implementing any changes in the Clemente program by fall 2012, and said that the district needs more time to prepare. He suggested that AAPS keep Clemente intact for one year, during which it completes a comprehensive evaluation of the program based on data, not anecdotal evidence. “And if that costs $200,000 or $400,000 plus transportation costs, that’s the price that we pay for not dealing with this earlier in the year,” Thomas said.

Stead said her thoughts on Clemente were similar. She said she was willing to trade off all transportation to preserve education as the district’s primary mission. She said she could support a change to Clemente that is led by a focus on the program, and would be discussed for a year by the principal, parents, families, and students involved. She felt like the district is now “trying to retrofit” a solution.

Directing her comments to two Clemente students still in attendance at the meeting [at 12:30 a.m.], Stead called the Clemente achievement data “extremely concerning,” and said, “You can roll your eyes and say it’s not important, but I can tell you – these numbers are important.” She agreed that Clemente warrants further review and discussion, and that while there is not time to fix it this year, “We need to do right by these students.”

Lightfoot said that she believes Clemente has done a “great job,” and that she is interested in the district considering better marketing of the program so that perhaps AAPS can “get it up to capacity” and bring in new revenue.

Nelson said that how he will vote on preserving Clemente will come down to where the money comes from, saying, “If it comes from the 32 [teaching positions districtwide], I just can’t go there. I really believe in those 32 [teaching positions].” If the money for Clemente would be taken from fund equity, Nelson said, he would “want to be convinced by the evaluation people that in fact there is reason to think there is something different we are going to know eight months from now because I find the achievement data very disturbing.”

Responding to Lightfoot directly, Nelson questioned how AAPS could effectively market this program when the test scores at Clemente are so much worse than at the comprehensive high schools. Nelson questioned whether performance at Clemente was actually decreasing the achievement gap and asserted, “The averages for African-Americans would go up if you took these students out of the mix.”

Lightfoot said that she was also upset by the data, but noted that African-Americans’ scores are low throughout the district, not only at Clemente. She asserted that Clemente’s parents are “not caught up in test scores – they are just happy that their children want to go to school” and that their students are getting “some basics in place – social and mental.” Nelson responded, “I’m willing to grant that in that part of education, they are doing a good job, but for $18,000 [per-student cost], I’d like both the academic and social/emotional learning.”

Trustee Irene Patalan said the test scores as well as the money do concern her, noting that the per-student cost at Clemente is closer to $19,000 than $18,000. She said she feels an urgency to help the students at Clemente be successful as soon as possible, and that she would like a recommendation from the AAPS administration about which option to take.

Patalan also mentioned that her children had been in alternative programs within AAPS, and that she was very much an alternative school supporter. She shared some of the history of the district’s “Middle Years Alternative” program that was housed within Forsythe but had almost complete autonomy. Patalan said she is not afraid of “putting programs together and sharing spaces.”

Baskett said that she was tired and would refrain from commenting. But Mexicotte asked her to please share her thinking now. Baskett obliged, saying that if the district moves to change the status of Clemente now, it will not be done right. “The driver will be money, and not the quality of education for all our children,” she said, “I think, Irene, you are wrong on this one.”

Thanking the administration for the presentation, Baskett suggested that an evaluation of Clemente should include a qualitative element, saying, “When you talk about measuring climate, we need to capture that as well.”

Mexicotte began by clarifying that the comments ascribed to her during public commentary were things that she had reported having heard over the years about Clemente, not comments that she had made personally.

She continued by saying that while she appreciates that Clemente students have positive feelings about their school, the achievement data have troubled her for many years. “Are we going to say that these data points are not going to be what we are judging our achievement gap on across the district?” she asked. Mexicotte said that if the district wanted to decide not to judge “growth to proficiency” with test score data, then it would need to decide what else to use as metrics.

Mexicotte suggested the district needs to set expectations about test scores, and what kind of cost per student figures it would like to see. She suggested that the district study Clemente over a two-year time frame to determine if it should be marketed, moved, or adjusted in some other way, and noted, “If the program is really something we want for our students, we shouldn’t be gatekeeping as hard as we are.” Mexicotte also suggested that art and music should be brought back to Clemente in its current location.

Outcome: The board agreed to leave the Clemente program intact for at least one year while assessing its educational effectiveness. Stead suggested that in terms of the targeted savings in alternative high school programming, AAPS administration should have a conversation with A2 Tech one more time to see if any savings can be found in that program.

Clemente: Summer School

Green explained that the impetus behind moving Clemente’s summer school is to have all the secondary summer school programs located at one site – Pioneer High School.

Baskett noted that part of the transition to Clemente is the summer school program, which is not just academic. Allen said that not all Clemente students attend summer school, and that $20,000 out of the $100,000 Clemente summer school program can be preserved to add services to the traditional summer school program, which focuses on credit recovery. Flye reported that Clemente principal Ben Edmondson has said that Clemente summer school students are also working primarily on credit recovery, and that summer school helps to provide a consistent routine for them.

Thomas said moving the Clemente summer school to Pioneer is an opportunity to achieve some efficiency. Flye noted that moving the program would also give students more opportunities in terms of course selection. Green added that the board should decide as soon as possible what the location will be – because Clemente needs to start preparing its summer program.

Trustees asked for clarification on the costs related to summer school. Landefeld explained that there are only fees for courses that are taken for extra enrichment, as opposed to courses taken for credit recovery, and that scholarships are available. Baskett asked if there is busing for summer school. Allen said there is no busing for summer school in general, but that Clemente students would be transported, and that it would likely cost less to bus them to Pioneer than to the Clemente building.

Outcome: The board agreed to move the Clemente summer school program into Pioneer High School to achieve an $80,000 budget reduction.

Teaching Staff Reductions

The administrative budget proposal includes the elimination of 32 FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) in teaching staff in Plan A, 48 FTEs in Plan B, and 64 FTEs in Plan C. Trustees were in agreement that they are not interested in cutting any teaching positions.

Nelson suggested retaining the number of teachers, but hiring new teachers to replace those who are retiring. He asked for confirmation on comparative salaries, and Allen confirmed that there is roughly a $30,000 spread between retiring teachers (whose salaries and benefits cost nearly $100,000 each) and new teachers (whose total cost to the district is roughly $70,000).  Nelson suggested that 32 FTEs at $70,000 would be $2.24 million, which means that if the number of positions were preserved, but less expensive teachers were hired, the district could save $960,000.

Stead, Thomas, Patalan and Mexicotte all agreed about the importance of retaining teachers. Stead said this is one area where the primary mission of the district is clear, and that she could not justify cutting one more teacher. Thomas said he is willing to compromise on everything else, but that cutting teaching positions would be unacceptable, even if it means dipping into fund equity.

Transportation

Trustees considered a variety of cost-saving measures in transportation services. There was disagreement among trustees about how much transportation they were interested in cutting this coming year – from none to all of it. Two people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of transportation.

Transportation: Public Commentary on Busing to Ann Arbor Open

Ann Arbor Open Coordinating Council (AAOCC) co-chair Sascha Matish passed out a set of handouts to the board outlining the impact of eliminating busing to Ann Arbor Open on subgroups of the school’s population. She noted that busing is used by 95% of the school’s 22 African-American students, and 68% of the school’s 57 economically disadvantaged students (who receive free or reduced-price lunch). Matish also passed out an aerial map of the Ann Arbor Open area, and requested that the board view a video created by the AAOCC of morning traffic near the school to give trustees a sense of the traffic back-ups already facing families on a daily basis. Again, Matish suggested that cutting busing would severely compromise student safety.

The other co-chair of the Ann Arbor Open Coordinating Council (AAOCC), Jill Zimmerman, also addressed the board. Referring to a set of bar graphs distributed to trustees, she noted that Ann Arbor Open’s MEAP scores are higher than the district averages in math and reading. She also pointed out that districtwide, the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in 8th grade is lower than the percentage of students scoring “proficient” or “advanced proficient” in 3rd grade. However, the gap between 3rd-grade achievement and 8th-grade achievement is smaller among Ann Arbor Open students than it is across the district. “When we are talking about equity and closing the achievement gap, what Ann Arbor Open does matters,” Zimmerman asserted. “Our kids are doing better, and we think it’s because of what we are doing.”

Zimmerman also briefly reviewed an alternate busing proposal created by the AAOCC, which was sent to board members and AAPS administration before the meeting. The alternative proposal relies on common stops at middle schools and would more than halve the cost of busing to Ann Arbor Open.

Transportation: 4 p.m. Middle School Bus

Nelson said that he has consistently heard from middle school parents about the value of the after-school middle school program. Thomas suggested that the middle school principals could use some of their discretionary funds to keep the 4 p.m. bus if they wished.

Stead reiterated her theme that she does “not see transportation as being more important than education.” She noted that transportation is not required, not funded, and is not more valuable than a teacher. She argued that the community could come together and provide transportation, but could not come together and provide teaching. Baskett argued that there are many people in the community who would not be able to come together to provide transportation, saying, “You can call a carpool on your iPhone. Other families do not have phones.”

Mexicotte said she was inclined to leave the 4 p.m. middle school bus in place for another year, because a few years ago the district completely restructured middle school and lost a lot of extras and opportunities.

Transportation: Mid-day Shuttles to/from Community High School

Mexicotte noted that students get themselves to Community High School, and Baskett asked how many students this affected. Stead asked if AATA could be approached to provide shuttles, and Margolis answered that AATA buses don’t run often enough to make it work. Stead asked if Community students could Skype into classes at the comprehensive high schools. Allen allowed that yes, that would be possible.

Thomas said he was in favor of this reduction, and noted that Community shuttles are a “big-ticket item.”

Transportation: Busing to Choice Programs – Ann Arbor Open, Skyline Magnets, Roberto Clemente

Green presented a proposal crafted in the previous week by her staff that offered a cost-neutral alternative to continuing Ann Arbor Open busing – by consolidating routes at middle school common stops. Lightfoot expressed frustration that a new proposal was drafted for the Ann Arbor Open portion of the transportation cuts only, and said that she wants to be sure the district is doing the same for everyone, not just “the squeaky wheel.” Baskett commented that the administration’s proposal was very similar to one crafted by Ann Arbor Open parents and presented by them to the district.

Several trustees expressed discomfort about eliminating busing at Ann Arbor Open – because of the inequity of that would arise from offering busing to all other students of the same grade levels (K-8). Nelson disagreed, saying that he was fine with cutting Ann Arbor Open busing to reach the cost savings goals.

Regarding transportation to Clemente, Thomas said he believes AAPS will have to maintain transportation to the building if it stays open – because there is no other way to get there.

Baskett said that providing busing to the magnet programs that are part of Skyline High School was a promise that the district made to the community, and was meant to ensure better diversity in the magnet programs. Baskett asked how many students in the magnet programs rely on transportation provided by AAPS. Landefeld explained that about 30% of Skyline students are bused, roughly 100 per grade level on average. Thomas said he’d consider eliminating magnet transportation before eliminating all high school busing. Mexicotte pointed out that not everybody who takes a bus to Skyline is in a magnet program, and suggested that the district should keep transportation for the magnet programs for now, but consider phasing it out.

Lightfoot said the she feels like she’s “operating in the dark” when it comes to transportation choices, like she has to “choose now and see the fallout later.”

Transportation: Skyline Starting/Ending Times

Lightfoot said she did not like moving Skyline’s start time up by 15 minutes, because she has a concern about the earliness of high school days in general. Baskett said that as the district makes use of its newly forming, community-wide committee on transportation, the decision about Skyline’s starting and ending times could be revisited and reversed. A change to Skyline’s starting and ending times would require a memorandum of understanding with the teachers’ union, as noted earlier by Allen.

Transportation: High School Busing/All Busing

Almost all the trustees expressed general concern that there was not enough advance time this year to eliminate high school busing or all busing in a responsible way. Stead disagreed, and continued to push for the elimination of all busing as a way to leave more money in the district’s fund balance.

Stead said she would be more inclined to work on creating an entirely new program for transportation, and to begin concerted conversations with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to work on that as soon as possible. She added that she wanted to remind the board the district had a “horrible experience” with transportation this year. The district had to adjust transportation spending by $800,000 mid-year, while maintaining a “fragmented” system with “little bits of transportation here and there,” she said.

Outcome: Trustees agreed to maintain busing to Clemente and to the Skyline magnet programs. Busing to Ann Arbor Open will likely continue under a modified plan, which will save the district $98,000. The board plans to cut the 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284) and mid-day shuttles to and from Community high ($230,184), as well as achieve $266,400 in savings by moving the Skyline starting and ending times up by 15 minutes.

Other District-Wide Cuts

The board also agreed to cuts to police liaisons, site-based budgets, and district-wide discretionary budgets.

Other District-Wide Cuts: Police Liaisons

Stead suggested that removing the police liaisons would cause increase safety issues. She cited five bomb threats at Forsythe Middle School and two bomb threats at Skyline High School as evidence. Baskett pointed out that the bomb threats were unsubstantiated. But Stead argued that students are staying home from school and getting physically sick with worry because of them.

Thomas said that it is not clear to him that having police liaisons is having any effect on the bomb threats in any way whatsoever. Stead countered that when she has talked to principals, they believe that the sheer presence of the officers helps to reduce disciplinary issues. Nelson stated that he believes five teachers will have a greater impact than three police liaisons for the same cost.

Stead argued that the city will not hire these police officers if AAPS releases them, and that the robberies in her area have gone up as police numbers across Ann Arbor would be decreasing.

Baskett pointed out that overall, crime in Ann Arbor has actually decreased, and that these three police liaisons have seniority in the Ann Arbor police department and would be reassigned within the community. She said that a police officer could arrive any building in the district in less than 10 minutes, and that she would rather have teachers than police officers. Patalan said she agreed with Baskett, Nelson, and Thomas.

Discussion: District-wide Discretionary Budgets

Mexicotte reviewed the administration’s proposal on discretionary budgets. She said that a 5% cut to these budgets – which cover building-level costs such as professional development, paper, and supplies – would save $250,000. A 10% cut would save $500,000. Thomas suggested “bumping that up” to possibly as much as a 15% cut. However, Allen and Flye suggested that would have a dramatic effect on the ability of a building to function effectively.

This was one area in which the board included a reduction from Plan B of the suggested reductions – Plan A of the budget proposal had suggested cutting discretionary budgets by 5%, and Plan B took the reductions to 10%.

Discussion: Site-Based Budgets

Site-based budgets in AAPS fund have been available to school improvement teams (SITs) to use as they see fit. Patalan said that while it was a small amount of money, she appreciated that each SIT was able to decide how to best use it to serve that school locally. Still, she said, she understands the need to cut it.

Outcome: The board agreed to eliminate police liaisons ($350,000) and site-based budgets ($250,750). They agreed to cut district-wide discretionary budgets by 10%, saving $500,000.

FY 2012-13 Budget – Next Steps

After the board worked through the list of possible reductions for the third time, Mexicotte tallied up the cuts tentatively agreed to by the board. The cuts totaled $4,805,678, leaving a $7 million of deficit [$17.8 million deficit, minus $4.8 million in cuts, minus $6 million in revenue enhancements]. She asked the board if they would be willing to use $7 million of fund equity to balance the budget. Their responses were mixed.

Part of the board’s decision about how much fund equity to use will be based on projections of school funding – this year and into the future. One person addressed the board at public commentary on the topic of school funding.

Next Steps: Public Commentary on School Funding

Steve Norton reported that the state of Michigan is currently projecting funding for the School Aid Fund (SAF) to increase, but cautioned that the board should not assume this unexpected revenue will accrue to benefit local districts. Norton pointed out that the state may choose to save the extra SAF funding to reduce the pressure on the state’s general fund, which is forecasted to be lower than expected this year and next.

Norton also suggested that the community begin a conversation about private giving to support schools. He noted that the East Grand Rapids public schools educational foundation has raised $350,000 in one year to offset the budget cuts facing their district. Norton said it’s hard to get people to dig deep, but that “we are at a point that if we can’t get the rest of our citizens to move forward with a countywide enhancement, and can’t convince legislators [to provide adequate school funding], maybe we should move forward to do something ourselves.” Norton suggested as an example that the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation could launch a campaign to cover the cost of transportation.

Next Steps: Fund Equity

Mexicotte said that Norton had made a very good point during public commentary, and that there is no guarantee based on past history that the SAF would see any increase. At this point, she said, if the board does not give different direction to AAPS administration, a balanced budget would be achieved by taking $7 million coming out of the fund balance.

Thomas said he would be willing to use $7 million of fund equity, but Stead was adamant she would not be. When pressed, Stead said she might find it acceptable to use up to $5 million, and added that it was “poor planning to sit here for six, seven, eight hours.”

At 1:15 a.m., as the board appeared unable to make further progress, Mexicotte responded, “If this is as far as we can get now, it’s as far as we can get.” She explained that the administration would take the board’s input from the meeting, and present a final budget on May 23. After that, she said, the board can have additional discussion and move forward.

Nelson said that starting from a $17.8 million deficit and getting to within $2 million of addressing it is not bad for one evening. He thanked Mexicotte for her facilitation, and said that he was open to staying longer to continue discussion, but also fine with waiting to continue discussion on May 23. “Then the administration can come back and give us … an option with $7 million use of fund equity, and then those of us who want to can argue for $5 million.”

Nelson also noted that Senate Bill 1040 – a retirement reform bill which as of May 17 was passed by Michigan state senators and is moving on to consideration by the state House of Representatives –could be helpful in resolving the budget. “There is a chance that more than $2 million could come out of it, and with luck, we could be done,” Nelson said.

Stead disagreed, saying that part of what’s driving up the mandated employer contribution rate to the state retirement system is that many districts are laying off staff. She said she is very concerned about how things will look a year from now, because current layoffs are not part of the figures being considered.

Lightfoot said that while she would prefer not to use $7 million of fund equity, she could support it if the district committed to make the next year be strictly focused on planning to be more prepared to make cuts in the future.

Next Steps: Advertising

Just before the meeting wrapped up, AAPS superintendent Patricia Green said she had one quick question for trustees, and asked if they would give her and her staff direction on the revenue enhancement ideas that administration had previously presented.

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis reviewed the suggested advertising possibilities – digital billboards, scoreboard advertising, and website banners. She said she felt the trustees had given clear direction against pursuing the creation of billboards on the properties of Wines, Pioneer, and Huron, but reiterated the suggestion for allowing banner ads across the top of the AAPS website.

Margolis said that the company AAPS would work with has worked with Plymouth-Canton Community Schools (PCCS), and when Margolis had talked to the Plymouth-Canton director of community relations, they spoke positively of the partnership. The first-year revenue from allowing banner advertising would be at least $22,500, said Margolis, and would be projected to increase to $250,000 by the third year. She noted that Plymouth-Canton’s revenue has increased by 30% every month, and that the terms of the agreement will be shifting from a 60/40 revenue share with the advertising company [in favor of AAPS] to a 50/50 split if the district does not commit soon.

Maintaining a commitment to local advertisers had been a concern expressed by trustees at their March 21 meeting, when the advertising proposal had been presented to the board.  Margolis said that it would cost about $500 a month for a rotating ad, which would price it equal to what it costs to run ads locally in other venues. This would give local advertisers another daily advertising spot, she said, and the ad company would also bring in regional and national ads to the AAPS website. Finally, Margolis noted that many community members have suggested the district engage in website advertising, and added that AAPS would have full discretion to have any objectionable ads removed immediately.

Margolis also sought approval to begin the process of re-equipping the high schools with new scoreboards, which would be paid for by an advertising company and would show ads during sporting events. She said the high schools would be eager to receive the new scoreboards. In a follow-up discussion after the meeting, Margolis explained to The Chronicle that the scoreboard equipment, valued at $270,000, would come at no cost to the district. After enough ad revenue is earned to pay back the cost of the equipment, future ad revenue will be split 50/50 between the district and the advertising company, she said.

Outcome: The trustees agreed to pursue website banner ads and the scoreboard advertising.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, Mich. 48104. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public School Board. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Small group work made up a portion of the May 14 budget forum. (Photo by the writer.)

Attendance at the second community budget forum held Monday at Huron high school was lighter than at the first one, held a week earlier. Still, almost 40 community members and about a dozen staff members participated.

The two main themes that came out of the second forum were: (1) a desire to keep the cuts away from the classrooms (i.e. not cutting teaching staff or increasing class sizes); and (2) a concern that the cuts as proposed would disproportionately affect the most educationally vulnerable segments of the district’s population. Many participants also expressed concern that the timing of the proposed budget reductions would not allow for transition planning this late in the year, and that the district was not being sufficiently forthcoming with detailed budget information.

Trustees Glenn Nelson, Irene Patalan, and Christine Stead attended the May 14 budget forum. The board will hold a discussion on the budget during their next committee of the whole meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 16 beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Balas administration building’s main conference room.

Budget Presentation

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green welcomed everyone to the forum, and reviewed the reasons behind the structural deficit that has caused AAPS to need to make over $55 million in cuts in the past five years. Green said that her administration does not want to be suggesting any of these cuts to the board, and that the cumulative effect of these reductions will be painful no matter which decisions the board makes. She then invited AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen to present the proposed budget.

The proposed budget was made in terms of three alternatives – Plans A, B and C – each with progressively bigger cuts. Even Plan A, with the smallest number of cuts and the greatest use of the district’s financial reserves, calls for a reduction in staff by 32 full-time positions, the elimination of some busing services, and the closure or merging of one of the district’s alternative high schools. Plans B and C have progressively greater cuts and less use of reserves.

Allen gave a presentation of the full budget proposal almost identical to the one presented to school board members last month, and then asked participants to break out into small groups to discuss their concerns with the potential budget reductions and brainstorm additional revenue enhancement ideas. An AAPS administrator sat with each of the small groups to serve as the facilitator and recorder.

Community Response

Community members attending the forum were asked to answer the following three questions:

1. Given the budget realities facing the Ann Arbor Public Schools, what is your main concern with the proposed budget for 2012/2013?
2. Based on revenue options, do you have any suggestions on how the district could raise revenue, such as private giving or increased marketing?
3. What other questions to you have that were not answered this evening?

They were then asked to report out to the whole group. Meeting handouts also stated that AAPS would post additional information on the district’s website after the community budget forums to answer questions from participants, and also invited forum attendees to submit their concerns or questions in writing.

Community Response: Concerns

The concern mentioned most often at the May 14 budget forum was that the proposed cuts could negatively affect student learning – due to higher class sizes. Participants expressed the belief that the core curriculum will be what closes the achievement gap, and suggested that keeping class sizes as low as possible should be prioritized above everything else, including all extracurricular activities. “Don’t cut anything related to instruction,” “Cut anything but the basics,” and “Students first – preserve class sizes” were all suggestions made at the forum.

One community member noted that higher class sizes is what caused a lack of success for some students at their comprehensive high schools. And that had created the need for alternative programs such as the one in place at the Roberto Clement Student Development Center.

Another main set of concerns had to do with a perceived lack of equity in the proposed cuts. Participants argued that marginalized students who need the most support will be the most affected by transportation cuts; that “at-risk families are being hit hard across the board with cuts;” and that the cuts are being made “from the bottom up.” Another contention was that students of color would have more trouble getting to school, but the budget cuts will not reduce the academic achievement of whites, thereby widening the racial achievement gap.

Regarding the possible restructuring of Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, a few tables compared the timeline for transition for that alternative high school to a timeline for transition of an athletic program. Participants noted that lacrosse, previously a varsity sport, had been given a year to transition to a club sport, but Clemente could be closed with seven weeks notice – not enough time for the community time to re-group. According to a Clemente student who attended the forum, “Clemente students are starting to freak out.”

Participants also questioned if there was enough time left in the year to enact the budget reductions as proposed, and said that “people should have been given more time to react.” One table requested that the community be given detailed information earlier next year, because it’s projected to be another bad budget cycle.

Finally, it was argued that the district need to be more transparent, and that data should not need to be requested via Freedom of Information Act requests. A participant suggested that the district should also provide more background on the institutional history that had gone into the budget recommendations. Forum attendees also asked to be kept involved in the budget process between the May 14 budget forum and the final budget vote.

Community Response: Revenue Enhancement Suggestions

Community members suggested the following strategies for bringing in additional revenue – which are grouped thematically:

• Redouble efforts to pass a countywide enhancement millage
• Support the AAPS educational foundation
• Help the AAPS educational foundation raise substantial amounts of money
• Cut middle school athletics
• Cut all sports
• Convert more sports teams to club sports [as was done with lacrosse]
• Cut all extracurricular activities
• Institute a “pay to ride” plan to cover busing costs, waiving the fee for those who can’t afford it
• Have the PTOs subsidize busing
• Use smaller buses for smaller routes
• Outsource busing
• Eliminate two of the buses serving Ann Arbor Open
• Eliminate swimming at Ann Arbor Open [at Mack pool]
• Allow advertising in district spaces
• Apply for more grant funding
• Open more alternative programs in the district to bring in more School of Choice students
• Fill Clemente to capacity by allowing additional School of Choice students to enroll there
• Add Arabic language as an elective to attract kids who are attending local charter school
• Join the Early College Alliance
• Make sure the district is getting all of its Medicaid reimbursements
• Redistricting so all students can attend the elementary school closest to their homes
• Combine elementary schools and sell off unused properties
• Merge low-enrollment elementary schools
• Eliminate employees’ dental and vision benefits
• Outsource the payroll department
• Take back central administrators’ salary raises
• Cut administrator’s salaries
• Prohibit all administrators’ vacations until the budget is resolved

Community Response: Questions

Table groups asked a number of questions that were not answered formally for the whole forum group, though administrators did walk around and answer specific questions individually during the small group discussion and after the forum. The district has said it would post on its website answers to questions asked by forum attendees. Questions asked included:

• How would cuts to the three dedicated police officers impact the schools?
• What percentage of the budget needs to be kept in the fund balance?
• What process was used in coming up with these suggested reductions?
• Why aren’t there details being offered in the plan to restructure Clemente?
• What is an estimate of the value of the Clemente building and property?
• Is there a plan for the alternative schools that could be shared to explain what could be happening and reduce fears?
• Why aren’t all of the alternative schools on the chopping block?
• What savings would be realized by eliminating the NWEA assessment?
• Why were there increases in central administration salaries?
• Can the district release more details on the proposed cuts?
• When a proposed cut in listed, are “offset expenses” reflected in that cut?
• What is the timeline – when will these budget decisions be made?
• How can people who aren’t present at the budget forum give input?

Green closed the forum by thanking everyone for their input, and saying that everything discussed at the forum would be shared with the board and posted on the district’s website as the budget conversations continue over the next several weeks.

Next board meeting: Committee of the whole, May 16, 2012, 5:30 p.m., at the Balas administration building main conference room, 2555 S. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Supporters of the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center filled the board room for the May 9 meeting. (Photos by Monet Tiedemann.)

Sentiments expressed during a heated public commentary section were later echoed during agenda planning, as two of the board trustees questioned administrative work being done behind the scenes to prepare for possible budget reductions. The budget does not need to be approved by the board until June 30. A second public forum on the budget will be held on May 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Huron High School cafeteria.

Several speakers at the May 9 meeting thanked the community for passage of the technology bond millage two days earlier.

Also at the May 9 meeting, trustees considered approving two new easements with the city of Ann Arbor, and awarded a set of bids for physical properties work. They also took a first look at the district’s new anti-bullying policy, as well as a set of other policy updates presented by AAPS administration.

Finally the board reviewed the proposed 2012-13 budget of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), and shared its concerns about it. Local school boards are required by law to review the WISD’s budget, but have no vote in its actual approval.

2012-13 Budget

The proposed 2012-13 budget was first presented by AAPS administration in April. The Chronicle has pulled out of the May 9 meeting all budget-related threads and presented them as follows: public input; public commentary on Roberto Clemente; public commentary on music camp; public commentary on busing to Ann Arbor Open; clarification on public commentary; agenda planning; items from the board; and the Ann Arbor Education Association report.

2012-13 Budget: Public Input

Since the budget proposal was presented, the board has invited public comment on the proposal during its regular meetings as well as at two community budget forums – one already held on May 7, 2012, and one on May 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Huron High School cafeteria.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte.

At the May 9 meeting, the board also set an official public hearing on the budget as part of the May 23 regular board meeting. Board president Deb Mexicotte explained that the budget hearing will function as an additional public commentary session devoted exclusively to public input on budgetary concerns. She also explained that, unlike regular public commentary for which citizens are required to sign up before the meeting, the budget hearing “can only be signed up for at the moment … Anyone who is here during that time can comment.”

Thomas asked if the length of the budget hearing is the same as the length of regular public commentary (45 min), and Mexicotte confirmed that budget hearings have typically also been 45 minutes long, which means that in total, the public input offered at the May 23 meeting could extend to an hour and a half. She clarified, that typically there is very little commentary during the public comment section, but people had sometimes talked during both opportunities.

As noted during Mexicotte’s president’s report at the May 9 meeting, the board will next meet as a committee of the whole [on May 16 in the Tappan middle school media center at 5:30 p.m.]. Update: Around noon on Monday, May 14, AAPS announced the committee meeting would be changed from Tappan to the Balas administration building at 2555 S. State St. The reason for the change was to allow for the possibility that the meeting could go past 10:30 p.m.

At that committee meeting, the board will hold a budget discussion, among other items. Committee meetings are open to the public, and typically offer an opportunity for public commentary as well. Other items on the committee meeting agenda are the district’s gifted and talented programming and the superintendent evaluation process.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Roberto Clemente

Twenty people spoke to the board about the proposed restructuring or closure of Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, which is projected to save $400,000.

Clemente’s founder, Joe Dulin, started off the public commentary on the school. He said that sharing a building with another school would be tantamount to closing Clemente completely. He compared board members who don’t know Clemente to Mitt Romney, who he said “doesn’t know poor people.” Dulin said that discussing the closure of Clemente pits Clemente’s families and staff “against the system,” and that “shifting to another school means we’ve lost rights.”

Many of Dulin’s points were reiterated by other speakers, with the energy in their statements rising as public commentary went on. Gregg Pratt, a social worker and community organizer, led the crowd of supporters in a chant: “Our school, our choice, our students, our future,” and closed with “We demand you keep [Clemente] open and we’re not going to stop.”

Sherry Weatherspoon, a longtime member of the Clemente community said she was angry at the decision-making of this board and this administration. She suggested that A2 Tech and Community High Schools be merged together, but that “there is a good reason for Roberto Clemente to be alone.” Weatherspoon added, “I will fight this board and future boards ‘til my dying day – by any means necessary.” Saying the salaries of the administration need to be cut just like everybody else, she called superintendent Patricia Green’s salary “outrageous,” and asserted that deputy superintendent Robert Allen appears to be doing Green’s job anyway. After she had spoken more than 30 seconds past her allotted time, and after a few requests to bring her comments to a conclusion, Mexicotte asked her to please step away from the podium.

Cassandra Parks, whose brother and nephew attended Clemente also drew attention to administrators’ salaries, saying, “The Balas [AAPS administration] building is not on the same financial diet that the rest of America is on.” Clemente alumnus and staff member David Malcolm suggested that Joe Dulin deserved accolades for saving many lives. “One [accolade] could be leaving our building alone … Leave us alone. Go find some money from somewhere else.” He also pointed out, “All of these kids that you are voting out today will be the voters tomorrow.”

Other speakers, too, stressed the familial aspect of Clemente. “Clemente is nothing but support – every teacher is looking to make sure you succeed,” said student Quentin Havlik. Parent Tara Cole noted that parents are given phone numbers for all staff members, which might not work for all schools, but is part of Clemente’s “open communication” policy. Jacob Mercer credited the school with “saving [his] family,” as the size of the school made it possible for a teacher to learn that his family was about to become homeless and helped them find a house to rent. Steven Ward, a University of Michigan professor and volunteer at Clemente, pointed out that it’s not common to hear repeatedly about how a school “saves lives” and that “to hear it over and over again is really meaningful.” Marcus Buggs, who witnessed his father’s shooting death as a child, said simply, “My family is being gunned down right now.”

Multiple students expressed disappointment that only one of the board members, trustee Christine Stead, took them up on their offer at the last board meeting to visit Clemente, and said that only four of the seven trustees had ever visited the school. They asked questions including: “What will control the final decision?” “How can it be possible to make an informed decision?” and “How can a final decision be made based on preconceived knowledge?” Student Tevin Cole said members of the board are showing apathy about a decision that would change students’ futures for good. Student Cierra Reese and other students asked the board to vote in front of them, if board members truly respected their voice and their time.

Another theme that ran through the comments was the question of why the board would choose to change a program that was so successful the way it is. Lexanna Marie Lyons, a Clemente teacher and counselor, pointed out that the philosophies of Clemente and A2 Tech are very different. Clemente parent Tara Cole added that combining the two programs will destroy them both, and that Clemente students would be subjected to bullying if they were re-integrated into the schools that “rejected them in the first place.” Cassandra Parks argued that the concept of Clemente works and called Pioneer and Huron “drop-out factories.”

Many speakers noted that Clemente’s location “away from other schools, distractions, and bus lines” was critical and argued that attendance would decrease if the program was moved. They argued that the program cannot be replicated, and that it would not be able to recreate the “culture of achievement” that motivates Clemente students in a new location. Parent Wilber Miller commended the board for creating Clemente, giving it a magnificent building, great teachers, a great principal, and supporting it so it could become a thriving community. “Let there be more testimonies, more tomorrows, more good news to come. Keep Roberto Clemente as it is,” he urged.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Music Camps

Four people addressed the board about the elimination of a $60,000 subsidy supporting summer music camps.

Parent Theresa Angelini said the Interlochen experience is one that students never forget, and that the “investment is more than matched by families.” She said that the model of cost-sharing, in which the district pays 18% and the parents pay 82%, “seems to be a model for education.” Her son Brandon Angelini also spoke, saying that band camp allows students to be friends with people they would otherwise never meet, creates smaller communities within the comprehensive high schools, and creates unity among high schools across the district.

Parent Amy Higgins noted that the band staff believe that the camps will end if this subsidy is cut. She urged the board to consider the return on investment for each of the things “on the chopping block” and said the $60,000 helps to “close the gap.” Higgins pointed out that AAPS has Grammy-winning schools and that the music program is an “engine for success” that brings people to the district.

Student Ales Chmiel said the Interlochen camp provides students with an amazing opportunity to play in front of thousands of people and enables all students to prosper.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Busing to Ann Arbor Open

Seven Ann Arbor Open parents addressed the board about the proposed cuts in “transportation of choice” totaling $266,400, which includes all general education busing to Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Roberto Clemente.

Jeff Hayner asserted that busing offered opportunities for socializing beyond the classroom that were beneficial to kids, and urged the board to reconsider. “Well-run public schools are a bargain, but poorly-managed public schools are a burden to society,” Hayner said. He argued that the board was violating the public’s trust, and asked why there were no administrative salary cuts in the proposed budget.

Multiple parents pointed out that the most vulnerable students would be those most affected by the loss of busing. “You are basically telling me that we have to switch schools. It’s targeting families much poorer than mine and it’s just not fair,” argued Tracy Jensen. Carol Sickman-Garner noted that Ann Arbor Open is a public school, should be accessible to all children in the community, and that Ann Arbor Open students should receive the same services as their K-8 peers. Sharon Simonton added that many working parents do not have the job flexibility to pick up children at 2:30 p.m. every day, and that elementary children are too young to ride the city buses home by themselves.

Saftey concerns were noted multiple times. Jill Zimmerman argued, “there is not enough time to ensure our children’s safety with this plan” if the board does not approve the final budget until next month. She questioned the district’s plan for addressing the doubling or tripling of auto traffic, and whether there would be time to talk to the city about traffic build-ups and access to Mack pool. She also questioned whether there would be eonough time, between now and next year, for parents to organize the carpools alluded to at the last board meeting.

Parents also stressed the desire for Ann Arbor Open to be given alternatives to cutting busing that meet the same savings targets. “We understand the budget crisis is real, and cuts have to be made and will continue,” Zimmerman said. She noted that Ann Arbor Open parents have repeatedly asked how much busing costs the district for Ann Arbor Open specifically. “If we had this information and more time,” she asserted, “We could suggest alternative cuts.” She added that the district’s attempts to reduce transportation costs in the past have not always yielded the projected savings.

Julie Roth suggested that the district get rid of the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) test implemented this year – because an online version of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) could replace it soon. She said the funds supporting NWEA could be better used to save Clemente, busing, and other services that affect the most vulnerable students. She pointed out that former AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts was more visible in the schools than Green has been. Roth said Roberts had encouraged schools to be part of the solution by suggesting their own plan to reduce costs at the building level.

Parent Ruth Ann Church agreed with Roth, accusing the district of “forcing one and only one solution on the problem of needing more money” instead of allowing the principals a chance to suggest alternatives. “We need a board that will ask for the solutions and listen.”

2012-13 Budget: Clarification on Public Commentary

Trustee Andy Thomas addressed a claim made during public commentary that the loss of the $60,000 summer music camp subsidy would mean the end of the camps. Thomas indicated that it was his understanding some of this concern revolved around a question of liability insurance. He asked Green to clarify that from a practical and legal point of view, there is no reason the music camps could not continue if an extra $70 per student could be found. Green responded that the administration has looked into the question of liability, and is confident that “if this is an activity that is an offshoot of our program, our insurance would cover [accompanying teachers].”

Thomas also asked for clarification on whether the new MEAP test will be similar to the NWEA. Green said that by 2014-15, the state would like to have a test that allows the kind of benchmarking already being done in AAPS. She also pointed out that the NWEA test being used in the district allows AAPS to create personalized learning plans to be able to accelerate and remediate as needed. Green argued that eliminating it would do a disservice to students.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked for clarification on how parents get the data they need. Green suggested that parents should use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. Lightfoot said that seemed cumbersome to her, and Green responded that without requiring FOIA requests, the district would be inundated with all kinds of requests for data and the district has to be sure it’s equitable. Trustee Susan Baskett pointed out that the cost of making a FOIA request could be a burden to some, making it an inequitable process, and suggested the district could come up with something better than FOIA in the future.

2012-13 Budget: Agenda Planning

During the agenda planning section at the end of the May 9 board meeting, Baskett and Lightfoot each questioned some of the work being done by AAPS administration to prepare the district for possible budget reductions the board could decide to make.

Regarding the possible closure or restructuring of Roberto Clemente, trustee Susan Baskett asked, “What is our plan with the transition?… It would help the community to know how it would work. Can we assure the public that it will be thought out?” Mexicotte said that discussing a transition plan would be “premature,” but that “there have been ongoing conversations with the administrators of the schools affected.”

Baskett and trustee Simone Lightfoot also asked about the status of talks between AAPS and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) about busing. Lightfoot asked, “Are we not going to have conversations about transportation and possible alternatives prior to approving the budget?” Mexicotte said the board would discuss transportation as part of the overall budget discussion to be held as part of the committee of the whole meeting on May 16. She added that at that time, the board could choose to put together a subcommittee or schedule a single meeting to discuss a single topic if necessary.

Lightfoot asserted that the board is not giving transportation the attention and time it’s going to require – because so much might need to be done before September. She asked how the meetings between AATA and the district were “evolving” and when the board would be updated on them. Green answered that there was a lot of conversation taking place, that the district had a meeting coming up with AATA’s CEO, and that she could summarize something for “the capsule,” a regular e-mail update from the superintendent to the board.

Lightfoot responded, “That’s unacceptable. We and the public should be getting more information on those meetings.” At the end of the meeting, during items from the board, Lightfoot invited the public to participate in a discussion being held by the AATA to get public input into their new transportation plans on Monday, May 14 at 7 p.m. at Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor district library.

2012-13 Budget: Items from the Board

At the close of the May 9 meeting, Patalan reminded the community of the upcoming budget forum on May 14, at Huron High School, and said she would love for people to attend and give feedback. Saying she understood the anger she heard at public commentary, and supported everyone advocating for what is dear to them, Patalan urged the public to remember that “we [trustees] are human beings.” She added, “I am a little troubled by what seems like a lack of sticking to the rules of public commentary, a lack of respect for public commentary … and what is perceived by me as threats to the board, administration, or superintendent. We are truly working for the good of all of our students and it is hard when, once again, we have to make reductions.”

AAPS trustees Christine Stead (left) and Irene Patalan (right) listen to public commentary during the May 9 meeting.

Stead thanked the principals and students at Roberto Clemente and A2Tech for “spending so much time with [her] in the past couple of weeks.” She singled out her four student hosts at Clemente as being “fabulous students, very informative” and for asking some really great questions of her during her visit. Stead encouraged the community to engage in a constructive way to change the law regarding local tax levy authority. “It’s insane that in this country we cannot exercise our own priorities,” she said. “… [A]s we hand out what Lansing has handed to us – the time has come to change the law and get back our own democratic rights.”

Nelson said that in the very short term, at the state level, the House bill on the School Aid Fund is considerably better than the Senate bill. He urged everyone who is listening who wanted to take constructive action in the short term to support the House bill.

2012-13 Budget: AAEA Report

Ann Arbor Education Association president Brit Satchwell used the bulk of his report to encourage taking action to change state funding for education, and pointed out that no matter what cuts the board decides to make, their effects will ripple throughout the system. “I want everybody who has come to advocate for programs to realize that it’s not the domino next to you causing the cuts … Coming here and advocating is not enough.”

Satchwell called the board’s upcoming decisions “impossible” in an environment of inadequate resources, and suggested trustees focus on meeting needs where they are the greatest, “like how when the body goes into shock, the blood rushes to the center of the body to keep the heart and lungs working even at the expense of the fingers and toes.”

Tech Bond

Mexicotte devoted her president’s report at the May 9 meeting primarily to expressing gratitude for the passage of the technology bond millage. She thanked trustee Glenn Nelson explicitly for his pivotal role in getting it passed, and offered Nelson a chance to thank each of the major players in the tech bond campaign.

Nelson first recognized AAEA president Brit Satchwell, superintendent Patricia Green, fellow trustees Christine Stead and Andy Thomas, AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis, and AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent.

Nelson then thanked a number of “citizen volunteers” whose services he said would have been worth $1,000 a day in the consulting world, but who received no compensation: James Corey, who Nelson said was absolutely instrumental in facilitating local companies’ involvement with the bond; Parent-Teacher-Organizationp-Council leaders Donna Lasinksi and Amy Pachera; Patrick Leonard, who took charge of flyer distribution, and was able to get out double the number of flyers that were originally printed; Lorrie Barnett, who drafted the materials on the flyers and postcards; and Steve Norton, who oversaw communication, yard sign design and distribution, was the treasurer of the citizen’s millage committee, “and did 10-12 other things.” Nelson asserted that the district is “very fortunate to have all of these wonderful people.”

Mexicotte noted that if someone was not on Nelson’s list, it was because she did not warn him that she would be asking him to enumerate the campaign workers at this meeting. She then asked a Huron High School student to the podium, who reported that Nelson had participated in Challenge Day at his school and that Nelson is “a tremendous and wonderful person.” Nelson said that he would take great pleasure in watching the young man in the future.

Thomas asserted that the “spiritual and energetic and emotional leader” of the millage campaign was Nelson himself, and said that he “did it in a way that made everyone else feel like the decisions were communal … It was impressive – to be led without realizing you are being led.”

Green’s superintendent’s report also contained a list of thank-yous regarding the millage’s passing: to voters in the community for their support; to her executive staff for attending many community events; and to the bargaining units. “It does take a village,” she said, “and the village really responded … I hope we do very well implementing the next phase of this. [AAPS executive director of properties] Randy Trent – you have a lot of work ahead of you, and I know you are up for the job.”

During the agenda planning portion of the May 9 meeting, Baskett said that now that the tech bond had passed, she would like the board to have a discussion regarding its priorities in terms of hiring contractors. Mexicotte told Baskett that any trustee can bring forward a proposed policy for the board to consider. But Baskett said she would prefer to have trustees first have a discussion to see if they were all “on the same page” regarding hiring local workers, paying a living wage, encouraging bids from historically-underutilized businesses, and other such values before hiring contractors to carry out the work related to the tech bond.

During items from the board, Nelson and Patalan also thanked the community for passing the tech bond millage. Patalan said she was glad the board took the time to celebrate the people who helped to make it happen and the citizens who “are not giving up on the future.”

AAEA president Brit Satchwell also offered thanks for the tech bond’s passage on behalf of all educators, saying the community has given teachers the ability to do what they’re here to do – to prepare students for success in life in the outside world.

Easements for Northside and Pioneer

The board considered granting two easements to the city of Ann Arbor– one on the property of Northside Elementary School and another on the property of Pioneer High School, both for work related to water mains. AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent explained to the board these are two different easements, one for work that the district has already done. Lightfoot asked how the easement could be granted for work after it was finished. Trent explained that the exact locations of water mains are not known until they are installed, and the sequence of installation followed by the easement is typical. When there is a water main and the city has easements, the city has responsibility for them. It works both ways very well, Trent said.

Outcome: The easements come back for approval at the next general meeting.

Physical Properties Bid Awards Approved

Trent was also on hand to answer board questions during a second briefing on six physical properties bid award recommendations. The bids are for: asbestos abatement; environmental consultation; integrated pesticide management; University of Michigan parking services; 2012 asphalt paving, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements.

Nelson asked Trent to explain how integrated pest management is approached in the district. Trent explained that the district always take the least toxic approach to managing pests as needed. Usually, he explained, pests can be managed with proactive monitoring, such as applying caulk if pests are entering through cracks, taking down hornet and wasp nests from the playground equipment before school starts in the fall, and hand-pulling poison ivy from school property. Lightfoot asked which pests the district is most burdened by, and Trent answered ants and bees.

Patalan noted that the ADA bid was for “Phase IV” of ADA improvements, and asked how many phases there will be. Trent answered that they will be ongoing as long as access can be improved, though there will be fewer in the future as the district has done a lot in recent years.

Mexicotte noted that the details on each bid were in the board packets, and Trent added that in all cases, the lowest qualified bidder is being recommended.

Outcome: The board awarded the bids unanimously approval as part of the consent agenda.

Anti-Bullying Policy

Mexicotte noted that the state has required all districts to create an anti-bullying policy that contains certain elements. Trustees asked AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel Dave Comsa to list the nine required elements and point out where they were in the draft policy, which he did. Comsa also noted that the policy must be adopted by June 6, and that detail regarding the regulations will be created once the policy is approved.

Trustees made the following suggestions: amend language to make it clear that the policy includes behavior at school-related activities, not only behavior in school; develop a tool to track whether bullying is linked to racial, ethnic, or sexual orientation intimidation; add a timeline for resolution of bullying investigations; add something about how this policy appears in multiple media – because it will be part of the Rights and Responsibilities handbook as well; link the annual review of bullying incidences to the expulsion and suspension report; and be sure staff is trained to counsel students through the process.

AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said that some of the board’s suggestions would be addressed by the regulations as they are developed. She noted that students will be involved in creating some of the specific pieces of the district’s anti-bullying program, and that she is looking to develop a framework that is consistent throughout the district.

Mexicotte said the board has great interest in seeing the regulations as they are developed to understand how they reflect the spirit of the policy.

Outcome: The anti-bullying policy was reviewed as a first briefing item and will be returned to the board for additional review and comment before being voted on at the next regular meeting.

Policy Updates

The board reviewed seven expiring policies at this meeting – Student Reclassification-Retention (Policy 5160); Elementary Reclassification-Acceleration (Policy 5170); Field Trips (Policy 5300); Pilot Projects/Innovation (Policy 6120); Donations-Gifts and Bequests (Policy 7400); Parental Involvement (Policy 7800); and Parental Involvement Title 1 (Policy 7810).

No significant changes were suggested to policies 5160, 5170, 7400, 7800, or 7810.

Discussion of the field trip policy (5300) included the question of whether field trips could be required if they did not cost any money. Trustees suggested wording that stresses that missing a field trip would not adversely affect a student’s grades – either because a student does not go on the trip, or because a student is unable to participate in follow-up activities related to the trip.

Baskett suggested adding that “denial of field trips would not be used as a disciplinary action.” Thomas disagreed, saying that it is appropriate to deny participation in a field trip to an individual with a history of disciplinary programs who would be at risk to himself or others in a field-trip environment. Baskett noted that there is a sense of weeding out students early in the year from end of the year field trip opportunities. Mexicotte said the district might need to work to change the behavior of schools regarding this, and Green said that she is working to build in incentives with cooperative discipline that will help schools intervene early enough to change behaviors.

Lightfoot requested that Allen look into how athletic directors are choosing to transport students to sporting events, because some schools use buses and others use private vehicles.

Regarding the pilot projects policy (6120), Mexicotte said she had been part of crafting this policy in an attempt to bring oversight of significant academic programs to the board level, but that it “somehow just cannot work within our environment.”

Nelson pointed out that this policy just restates what is already law in terms of the board’s responsibility. “We just need to assert periodically through the agenda-setting process that we would like certain reports,” he said.

Mexicotte pointed out that without a policy like this at all, there were major programs going on at schools that the board did not know about, but that in the current fiscal climate, that appears to not be happening anymore, so perhaps the policy is no longer necessary.

Lightfoot, Thomas, and Baskett expressed interest in maintaining the oversight provided by this policy, and Mexioctte suggested perhaps the policy’s name is getting in the way of its being used.

Green said she likes consistency, and that “pilot project” has not been consistently defined. She also noted that the policy could be seen as constraining creativity.

Outcome: These policies will return to the board for more discussion and a vote at the next regular board meeting.

WISD Budget

Stead gave a presentation on the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s 2012-13 budget, which had been furnished by the WISD to member districts. She noted that AAPS and other member districts are mandated by law to review the WISD’s general fund, and that AAPS would review the special education budget as well.

The presentation was in the board packet, and Stead read through it, highlighting the role of the WISD, the services it offers AAPS, and the various teaching and learning initiatives in which WISD is involved. Trustees expressed interest in getting brief descriptions for each of the roughly 50 teaching and learning initiatives – as a part of their information packets for their next meeting.

Stead then reviewed expenditure categories, sources of revenue (primarily property tax revenue), projected reimbursement rates, and the projected decrease in the WISD’s fund balances. She noted that AAPS is interested in the reimbursement rate for special education services, which has decreased since 2010, and is projected to continue to decrease as property values continue to decline.

Mexicotte pointed out that the recent special education millage renewal was a renewal of the rate, not the amount. The reimbursement rate is lower in part because the millage did not replenish the same amount of funds, she said. Nelson said that one of the things the board has a responsibility for is to think about things on the revenue side. Stead also pointed out that earmarked federal grant money, such as the IDEA grant, could also decrease.

Thomas asked what was included in “central services” in the WISD budget – because the WISD’s central services budget is almost three times as high as the corresponding item for AAPS. He also said he would like to see how much it costs to operate High Pointe.

Nelson said that he was in favor of approving the WISD budget, but would like to make two suggestions – that the transportation services provided to cooperating districts be broken out by district, and that the WISD work to establish closer relationships between itself and its member districts. Lightfoot also expressed interest in seeing the breakdown in transportation costs, as well as projections about their possible role with Head Start.

Mexicotte said she was really struck by the precipitous drop in the WISD’s fund balance, and asked what WISD will do when it is depleted. She suggested that the WISD should provide a line-by-line breakdown of its budget and offer explanations of each item. Also, she said she would like to see the amounts for the specific things AAPS should be paying attention to, such as the consolidated substitute teacher program, and programs for which AAPS gets specific support.

Association and Student Reports

Five associations are invited to make regular reports to the school board: the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). The Youth Senate is also invited to speak once a month, as are representatives from each of the high schools.

At this meeting, the board heard from a student representative from Ann Arbor Technological High School (A2 Tech), the AAPAC, and the AAEA. Comments from AAEA were included above, in sections of the meeting report about the budget and the tech bond.

Association and Student Reports: A2 Tech

A2 Tech student Hannah King offered the board her story of how she became a student at A2 Tech. She described how she had been at Community High School and done well initially, but as classes became harder, she began to not do as well. Finally, after the first semester of her junior year, Community dean Jennifer Hein suggested that she transfer to Skyline permanently or attend A2Tech to recover some credits, and then be able to return to Community for her senior year. Her time at A2 Tech has been successful, King said, and the smaller class sizes have allowed her to learn how to become a better student. She is now planning to continue her journey to art school in the future.

King also read the statement of DeAndre Booker, another A2 Tech student who was called into work and was therefore unable to attend the meeting. She noted that Booker’s boss had said he would be fired if he did not come to work, so he had no choice but to go.

Booker’s story begins when he was 16 years old, living with his sister. He had dropped out of school to take care of his mother, who had a worsening mental disability, and his sister told him he would need to be in school or move out. At 17, he left home and went into independent living through a program called Fostering Futures in Ypsilanti. He began to attend school at Huron, but struggled due to the large class sizes, the lack of time to build relationships with teachers, and his perception that they weren’t concerned about him. After transferring to A2 Tech, he felt cared for, and has been able to thrive due to extra help received during and after school. Booker has received scholarship offers, has applied for college, and credits A2Tech with making him into the “peaceful, strong, and determined” young man he is today.

Nelson said he appreciated King’s excellent report and Baskett thanked her for reading both her story and her peer’s story. Nelson then asked for more detail describing the decision process that led to transfering to A2Tech. King reviewed her conversation with Hein, how she wanted to make the choice that would allow her to return to Community because of her interest in its art program, and how her parents had been part of the decision, too.

Nelson said King was the kind of student the district is proud of. Patalan agreed “You know what you want for your future, and you are doing what you need to do to get what you need fore your future – that is something to be commended. The board is proud of that.”

Baskett also commended A2Tech principal Sheila Brown for attending the meeting to support her students.

Association and Student Reports: AAPAC

Kelly Van Singel gave the report for the AAPAC. She thanked the SISS staff for providing a district update at the AAPAC’s recent meeting and expressed happiness that the tech bond had passed. Van Singel said she “appreciates the cabinet member’s efforts to work within the budget reality we are all facing.”

Van Singel noted that the AAPAC is conducting surveys on the special education experience within AAPS. She said that special education busing has had a lot of late arrivals and early departures and cautioned that these issues could result in compliance issues regarding students’ individualized education plans, such as loss of instructional time. Van Singel said the AAPAC requests that the board keep working on addressing transportation concerns.

Awards and Accolades

This meeting included a number of awards and accolades.

Tappan Band Ensemble

An ensemble of students from the Tappan middle school band performed for the board at the start of the May 9 meeting. Their director, Fred Smith, thanked everyone for their support of these and other music students, especially parents. After the two selections played by students, Mexicotte thanked them on behalf of the board, and said the performances were wonderful. Patalan added that she was very impressed, and that it was a nice way to start a meeting.

E3 Award

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis introduced representatives from the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti regional chamber, who announced that AAPS was being awarded an E3 award for the health sciences technology program at Pioneer and Huron. The E3 awards, they explained, are granted to “exemplary educational endeavors,” and the health sciences technology program is just that. In its 33rd year, the program includes class time studying anatomy and physiology, as well as internships in the community that allow students to explore health careers. Teachers Lynn Boland (Huron) and Cathy Malette (Pioneer), who co-administer the program, were on hand to accept the award.

Proclamations

The board read and unanimously supported two proclamations – one celebrating school nurses in honor of National School Nurse Day, and one celebrating teachers in honor of National Teacher Appreciation Week and National Teacher Day. Green also thanked teachers and nurses as part of her superintendent’s report.

Superintendent’s Report

In addition to the accolades given to teachers and nurse, Green commended the following: elementary students who succeeded in the Knowledge Master Open; student poetry winners; students who won an innovative design challenge to convert a gas-powered car to an electric car; a student curating a cartography exhibit; entrants into the Michigan youth arts festival; short story entrants in the Ann Arbor District Library short story contest; students participating in a documentary competition; a Michigan high school football all-star; district choirs and sports teams; contributors in a large food drive; and a teacher who won an award for the best short fiction collection of 2011.

Agenda Planning

Baskett requested an update on the Rising Scholars program, as well as an update on the district’s equity and cultural competency work.

Lightfoot requested updates on the International Baccalaureate program, and Mexicotte said it has been placed on the agenda of one of the summer board meetings, along with updates on the Early College Alliance (ECA), and Widening Advancement for Youth (WAY) programs.

Lightfoot also asked when the board would have an opportunity to discuss its relationship with the Pacific Education Group, and Mexicotte said that would be included in the discussion on equity and cultural competency.

Items from the Board

Thomas reported on his attendance at music programs in the district. He highlighted the middle school orchestra and choir concerts and said it was rewarding to see the progression of development through the three years (6-8 grades). Thomas also brought to the board’s attention a new recreation facility – the Argo Cascades, on which he had the privilege of being the first official traveler. He said it was a wonderful experience and said he would be glad to host any of his fellow trustees and AAPS administrators who would like to try it.

Baskett thanked the Bryant-Pattengill community for their recent event celebrating parent volunteers.

Nelson praised Thurston elementary’s recent International Night event, and said that international nights are “one of the really great things we do here in AAPS.” He also invited everyone to a district-wide art exhibit opening to be held in the Slusser Gallery on the University of Michigan’s north campus at 7 p.m. on Monday, May 14.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

The AAPS budget forum was held at Pioneer High School. (Photos by the writer.)

Community members who attended the presentation heard a presentation of the full budget proposal almost identical to the one presented to school board members last month.

Highlights of that presentation included a core budget proposal that calls for a reduction in staff by 32 full-time positions, the elimination of some busing services, and the closure or merging of one of the district’s alternative high schools. Roberto Clemente Student Development Center is one of the district’s alternative high schools.

Community members at Monday’s forum were asked to break out into small groups to discuss their concerns with the potential budget reductions and brainstorm additional revenue enhancement ideas.

In addition to concerns about Clemente’s possible closure, community members also expressed concern about the rise in class sizes that would be associated with the elimination of 32-64 teaching positions, the elimination of funding for music camps, and the proposed cuts to transportation services.

The district will host a second budget forum Monday, May 14, starting at 6:30 p.m. at Huron High School. The board is not required to approve the budget until June 30.

Budget Presentation

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green welcomed just over 40 community members, and roughly 17 administrators to the forum, and later singled out board trustees Glenn Nelson and Christine Stead, also in attendance. She introduced the budget by saying that the district doesn’t want to make any of the cuts.  But she said that until state funding changes, AAPS will continue to face drastic reductions. Green described the budget proposal as split into three parts – A, B, and C, which progressively increase the degree of cuts and decrease the amount of fund equity used to address the $17.8 million budget deficit.

AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen then reprised the budget presentation he had given at the April 25, 2012 board meeting, with a slight revision of one slide. He reviewed the funds held by the districts and their restrictions, expenditure categories as a percentage of the total budget, how AAPS is funded, and assumptions underpinning both revenue and expenditure projections.

Allen’s presentation highlighted the effect of rising retirement costs on the structural deficit facing all school districts throughout Michigan. That highlight had been a suggestion from trustee Andy Thomas at the board’s most recent meeting. Finally, Allen reviewed the proposed $6 million in revenue enhancements and $13-$19 million in reductions that had been presented to the board at its April 18, 2012 meeting.

Community Response

Community members attending the forum were asked to work in small groups to answer the following three questions:

1. Given the budget realities facing the Ann Arbor Public Schools, what is your main concern with the proposed budget for 2012/2013?
2. Based on revenue options, do you have any suggestions on how the district could raise revenue, such as private giving or increased marketing?
3. What other questions to you have that were not answered this evening?

They were then asked to report out to the whole group. Meeting handouts also stated that AAPS would post further information on the district’s website after the community budget forums to answer questions from participants, and also invited forum attendees to submit their concerns or questions in writing.

Community Response: Concerns

All of the groups reported significant concerns about closing Clemente. Participants said that board members do not understand the Clemente program. They questioned how the board could be considering closing a program so central to the district’s mission of closing the achievement gap. They also expressed worry that Pioneer and Huron high school teachers would not be accepting of Clemente students, if they were returned to the comprehensive schools.

They also contended that this possible closure was coming too late in the year for Clemente families and staff to respond effectively to the dramatic changes. Participants noted that if Clemente is closed, programs that work to prevent learning gaps in earlier grades would become even more essential, and that the district has an obligation to protect its most vulnerable students.

Another theme that ran through the community’s responses to the proposed budget was that it “cut from the bottom instead of the top.” A few references were made to excessive administrator pay, including extra pay for completing regular duties, and the “cavalier nature” of the raises given to top administrators.

Regarding the proposed transportation cuts, it was noted that eliminating high school busing would have a negative impact on who could participate in the lottery to get into Skyline High School. Another community member suggested that transportation cuts should be looked at holistically – in the context of community health. That person suggested that transportation cuts would encourage people to walk, which would fight obesity. It was also noted that cutting busing would likely increase Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) ridership and that that was a good thing. However, shifting the cost of transportation from the district to the students was also stated as a concern.

A suggestion was made to frame budget decisions by asking the question, “What is the return on investment?” of various expenditures, and to stop emphasizing that this is the “state’s fault.” Several groups expressed concern about higher class sizes resulting from possible cuts to teaching staff. And, regarding the summer music camp expenditure of $60,000, it was noted that the cost is relatively small for the large number of students it supports.

Community Response: Revenue Enhancement Suggestions

Community members suggested the following strategies for bringing in additional revenue:

• Sell Clemente and its property
• Sell Community High School and its property
• Across-the-board pay cuts or step freezes (on the teacher salary schedule)
• Graduated across-the-board pay cuts – 10% for highest paid employees and smallest percentage coming out of teachers’ paychecks
• Use more fund equity
• Use recognition of the district’s “Julliard-type” music program to draw in students from surrounding communities
• Sell advertising space at athletic fields
• Study building utilization to see if other buildings could be closed
• Eliminate supplemental pay for high school department chairs
• Deepen cuts to non-academic extracurricular activities
• Reconsider attempting a countywide enhancement millage
• Make “pay to participate” fees cover the entire cost of participating in an activity, not only provide a subsidy
• Eliminate 7th hour at the high schools
• Increase grant writing and fundraising

Community Response: Questions

Table groups asked a number of questions which were not answered formally for the whole forum group, though administrators did walk around and answer specific questions individually during the small group discussion and after the forum.

Many of the questions asked during the reporting out of small groups related to Roberto Clemente Student Development Center:

• How much will the budget be affected if the tech bond does not pass? [The bond was approved by voters with around 70% support.]
• Do all employees have similar health insurance benefits?
• Why were there no cuts proposed to central administration?
• What happens if SB 1040 [state retirement system reform] passes and how will that affect the district’s budget?
• How much money is being spent on administrators’ extra pay if they achieve their goals?
• How much is the district spending on outside consultants?
• There is an interest in seeing the whole budget – what was cut and what was not cut.  Could the district provide line item detail on consultants and all budget items?
• Exactly how does fund equity function to maintain the district’s cash flow, and how much of the fund could be used without impacting cash flow needs?
• How does the student-teacher ratio change if teachers are cut by 32 FTEs [full-time equivalent positions], 48 FTEs, or 64 FTEs?
• Is there an update on a possible collaboration with AATA?
• Are there any contractual issues that would arise if cuts were made to the summer music program?
• Why give sports [lacrosse] a year to plan [to become a club sport], but not give a school a year to plan to close?
• What will happen to graduation rates and dropout rates if Clemente is closed?
• Would Clemente’s closure cause of loss of revenue from School of Choice students?
• Why was closing or restructuring Clemente in all three plans [Budget reduction plans A, B, and C]?
• What is the impact to the community of having uneducated children if Clemente is closed?
• Why was combining Community High School with other schools not considered?
• What was the rationale for closing Clemente or A2 Tech? Did the district consider all the buildings and real estate when it suggested this reduction?
• How was the decision made to possibly move Clemente students into A2 Tech rather than shifting the A2 Tech students or other AAPS students out of their buildings?

Allen said that AAPS plans to put answers to these questions on their website after the second community budget forum, to be held May 14 at 6:30 p.m. at Huron high school.

Green thanked everyone for their input, and praised Allen for his candid responses and financial expertise. She announced that the second AAPS forum would be held next Monday, and that the detailed summaries of each forum would be forwarded to school board members for their consideration.

Next regular board meeting: May 9, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

At the meeting, 33 parents, students, and staff responded to proposed budget cuts that would affect transportation, Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, and music camps. The total time allotted for public commentary by the AAPS board is 45 minutes. So speakers wanting to address the school board at public commentary at the April 25 AAPS school board meeting were limited to 1 minute and 22 seconds, which was rounded up to a minute and a half.

Brian Marcel and Scott Menzel gave the AAPS board an update on the transportation services provided by WISD to the district as part of a consortium of other districts.

After hearing the budget presentation, board members shared some of their individual thinking on how best to address the projected $17.8 million deficit facing the district next year. AAPS is sponsoring two community budget forums to get additional feedback on the budget proposal. Both start at 6:30 p.m. The first will be held on May 7 at the Pioneer High School Cafeteria Annex and the second one a week later on May 14 at the Huron High School Cafeteria.

Support of the upcoming technology bond millage came up multiple times at the meeting as one way local residents could have an impact on the funding crisis facing local schools. AAPS district voters will decide that issue on May 8.

Also at this meeting, longtime environmental educator Bill Browning was honored by the board for his years of dedication to the district, as well as his recent $30,000 donation to the AAPS Science and Environmental Education Endowment Fund.

Presentation of Proposed 2012-13 Budget

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green led off the formal budget presentation with a set of prepared remarks. She reviewed the effect that Proposal A, passed in 1994, has had on “the defunding of education as a state priority.” She said the resulting budget cuts have caused the district to feel a great sense of loss and tremendous pain. Green noted that AAPS students score higher on the ACT and SAT than state and national averages, and that the district is also recognized nationally for success in arts and athletics, but that “all of this excellence is in danger if the state does not address the structural deficit they have created.” Green urged all AAPS families to contact their legislators to ensure that retirement costs are fairly addressed, and that K-12 schools receive their rightful funding.

AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen then gave the board a formal presentation on the administration’s proposed budget for 2012-13. His presentation reviewed the assumptions underpinning the proposed budget, and reviewed the proposed reductions presented at the board’s April 18, 2012 committee of the whole meeting.

2012-13 Budget – Assumptions

Allen reviewed the funds held by the district, and noted that all funds have restrictions on their use, except for the general fund. He explained how schools are funded, and reviewed how student count is determined. Of the slides he presented, one piqued more interest from trustees than others – a slide that showed the per-pupil allocations AAPS has received from the state over time. The district is currently receiving $9,020 per pupil, which is less than the 2001-02 amount of $9,234.

Trustee Christine Stead pointed out that the actual amount is much lower when you adjust for inflation. And Andy Thomas suggested adding a column to the chart that shows the increase in the mandated employer contribution to the state pension system, MPSERS, alongside the decrease in foundation allowances. “It would give a very realistic portrayal of why we are sitting here after midnight getting ready to talk about some very difficult issues.”

Allen noted that, in 2001-02, the district was paying an amount equal to around 12% of employee wages into MPSERS, but that the rate has skyrocketed in the past decade. The mandated employer contribution rate is currently 27%, Allen said, and is projected to increase to more than 31% for FY 2013-14, and to more 33% for FY 2014-15.

Allen said that while legislation is currently being considered to reform MPSERS, the effect of any changes would be long-term. In response to a question from trustee Glenn Nelson, Allen said that for each percentage point that the MPSERS rate increases, the cost to AAPS is roughly $1.1 million.

Finally, Allen showed a slide of three-year projections and highlighted the impact on the district’s fund equity, if the district did not make any budget reductions. “If we don’t cut anything,” he said, “we could make it one more year.” Nelson suggested checking the accuracy of base budget numbers, given the projected changes to special education reimbursement.

In response to Allen’s review of potential revenue enhancements, Nelson asked if the enrollment projections included the School of Choice students. Allen said that although the district is expecting an increase in SOC students based on the move to all-day kindergarten, the projected increase in enrollment is not reflected in the budget’s enrollment projections. Nelson also contended that the “best practices” incentives offered by the state are not best practices as defined by educators, but function instead like “political ransom.”

Stead noted that Michigan school districts are facing the largest funding reduction in state history, and said it would really change the whole conversation if communities were able to regain local levy authority. Trustee Irene Patalan said that while sales in Michigan are projected to increase, she did not trust that the state will use the sales tax as promised to fund K-12 education.

The Chronicle has organized the bulk of this article according to the budget topics addressed at this meeting – transportation, Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, band and orchestra camps, staffing, the tech bond, and discretionary budgets.

2012-13 Budget – Transportation

The proposed transportation budget reduction options discussed at the April 25 meeting were:

• changing Skyline’s school day starting and ending times by 15 minutes to streamline bus use ($266,400);
• eliminating the 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284);
• eliminating midday shuttles from Community High School to comprehensive high schools ($230,184);
• eliminating all transportation of choice (i.e., Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Clemente) ($266,400);
• eliminating all high school busing ($545,000);
• and eliminating all busing except for special education busing ($3.5 million).

Transportation: WISD Update

Earlier in the evening of the April 25 meeting, the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD)’s superintendent Scott Menzel and assistant superintendent Brian Marcel presented the board with an update of the transportation services provided to AAPS as part of the WISD transportation consortium. Their presentation highlighted the results of a parent satisfaction survey they had conducted, from which they concluded there are an “unacceptable” percentage of parents who are unhappy with the service. [.pdf of WISD transportation update]

A key issue, Marcel explained, is that routing is done with the previous years’ student data – because the district’s student accounting software, PowerSchool, does not “roll up” student data until August. That is, in the district’s software, students aren’t moved to the next grade level until August. Multiple trustees questioned this process, and suggested ways to achieve greater accuracy in routing. Marcel also provided volume data for the phone calls received by the WISD about busing, and discussed plans to be better prepared to respond to calls in the coming year.

Nelson clarified that the district’s participation in the WISD transportation consortium has an effect on the special education reimbursement from the state. In Michigan, 70% of the cost of special education vehicles is eligible for state reimbursement. Marcel explained how the state reimbursements had shifted – as the responsibility for transporting special education students had shifted from AAPS to the WISD.

A few board members expressed disappointment with the WISD’s report, and requested additional information. Trustee Andy Thomas asked if the WISD was aware of any industry standards in terms of cost per student mile that would allow AAPS to benchmark the efficiency of the consortium, and also asked Green to have AAPS staff review the effect of the transportation changes to absenteeism in the district. Lightfoot also questioned the cost of services provided by the consortium. Patalan asked for the WISD’s suggestions on how to save money in transportation.

Board president Deb Mexicotte said the presentation had given the board a lot to think about, and said, “Hopefully we can do better next year.”

Transportation: Ann Arbor Open and Community

Five parents spoke to the board during public commentary regarding the proposed cuts to busing that would affect students attending Ann Arbor Open and Community High School.

Bruce Tasonjy, whose daughter will be attending Community in the fall, said that the cuts to busing will make it hard for single parents to keep their jobs. He also suggested cutting salaries across the board, instead of laying off so many employees.

Sascha Matish, Jill Zimmerman, Carol Sickman-Garner, and Carol Chase discussed the ramifications of cutting busing to Ann Arbor Open. Matish said parents at Ann Arbor Open are sympathetic to the difficulty of the job facing the board, but noted that Ann Arbor Open serves 500 students ages 4 to 14, who deserve the same services as their K-8 peers. She argued that cutting busing would limit Ann Arbor Open to families who live nearby the school and are able to transport their children to and from school each day.

Zimmerman suggested that Ann Arbor Open could make other cuts that would equal the cost of transporting to and from the school. She and Chase said Ann Arbor Open parents would welcome the district’s suggestions for alternative ways to meet the targeted budget reductions, and that parents can also suggest alternatives that would achieve budget reductions while doing less damage to the school’s institutional integrity. Zimmerman also pointed out that students who are interested in pursuing open education might find local charter schools more interesting if AAPS does not offer transportation to Ann Arbor Open.

Finally, Sickman-Garner said that if the board does decide to eliminate bus service to Ann Arbor Open, the school will need help from the district to ensure student safety during drop-off and pick-up. She pointed out that twice every day, 500 students and their families are converging on one building with a small parking lot in the middle of a neighborhood. She asked if there had been any consideration of the impact of eliminating busing on the neighborhood surrounding Ann Arbor Open, as well as the cost of possibly upgrading traffic lights, redoing the school’s parking lot, or hiring additional crossing guards.

Transportation: Board Discussion

Trustee Simone Lightfoot said she would like to see the district form a transportation committee that includes representation from parents and kids who are affected, and said she would be willing work with the committee. During the agenda planning portion of the meeting, Mexicotte said she would place the possible creation of a transportation committee on the board’s next committee of the whole agenda.

Thomas said that it seems to him, in looking over the budget projections, that the question is not whether but when to eliminate transportation. He said, that like taking off a bandaid, “You know it’s going to hurt no matter when you do it. In my view, transportation appears to be a dead duck.” Regarding transportation at Ann Arbor Open, Thomas recounted his memory of living on the Old West Side, seeing Ann Arbor Open parents standing in line with tents, barbeques and camp chairs, to be able to register their children for the school. Citing the extreme dedication and determination of Ann Arbor Open parents, Thomas said he firmly believed that these parents would figure out how to organize carpools to get their kids to school.

Lightfoot asked for clarification on why only Skyline’s and not other high school’s schoolday times would be changed. Allen responded that Skyline’s day ends later than the other high schools, and would not allow for buses to take Skyline students home and then return in time to take middle school students home.

Lightfoot also said the board needs to be sensitive to all parents, even those who don’t show up, who “don’t love their children any less.” She said she felt the board had a tacit agreement to “hold harmless” transportation this year, make it right, and put alternatives in front of parents. Lightfoot expressed frustration that when people talk about keeping budget cuts out of classrooms, they don’t think about the need to get kids to the classrooms. “I would like us to take the elimination of busing off the table, and figure out real, sustainable solutions after we can study it.”

Patalan said she shared Thomas’ vision of the future of transportation, and asked, “Where is AATA with this – they provide something we need.”

Patalan also said taking away transportation from Ann Arbor Open makes her uncomfortable because it serves younger children (K-8), but that if busing is taken away, she would look to Ann Arbor Open to be a model to the rest of the district as to how to work with their coordinating council/PTO to get their kids to school. “I am asking them to lead this community,” she said.

Trustee Susan Baskett said that she appreciates that folks at Ann Arbor Open will work out transportation issues, but argued that some people “don’t always want to be a charity case.” She gave an example of having a beat-up vehicle that is unreliable making a parent unable to be part of a carpool. “If we say we believe in alternative education, our actions are not speaking with out words… If we value it, we have to put money behind it,” she said.

Baskett also pointed out that the elimination of the 4 p.m. middle school bus could have a disproportionate effect on children at-risk. Allen noted that the elimination of the bus would impact both academic and athletic programs at the middle schools. Baskett said the impact of eliminating this bus should be thought out fully, and pointed out, “Some things we are willing to study with a committee and some we are not.” She also requested more information behind the reasoning for eliminating the midday shuttles at Community.

Jill Zimmerman, an Ann Arbor Open parent who stayed at the meeting past 2 a.m., asked to be recognized, and Mexicotte said she could speak to the board very briefly. She said that she appreciates that Thomas thinks Ann Arbor Open parents are super-dedicated, and that Patalan thinks they could set an example for the district, but pointed out that it would a hard burden for Ann Arbor Open parents to lose transportation. “It’s one thing to wait outside for a few days in a tent [to register for the school]; it’s another to have to be at school every day,” Zimmerman said. Lastly, she pointed out that the kids who will leave Ann Arbor Open due to a lack of transportation will be its most vulnerable kids.

2012-13 Budget – Roberto Clemente

The board is considering closing or restructuring Roberto Clemente Student Development Center to achieve targeted cost savings of $400,000. At the April 25 meeting, 23 people addressed the board to express disapproval with a proposed budget reductions which would affect the school – 16 students, 4 parents, 1 teacher, 1 social worker, and Clemente’s principal, Ben Edmondson. Almost all of the speakers reflected on the way that Clemente functions more like a family than a school.

During the April 25 meeting, comments made by individual board members about the Clemente meeting indicated a general willingness to consider relocating the program into the building currently being used by A2 Tech.

Roberto Clemente: Public Commentary from Students

One of the themes that came across in the students’ statements to the board was the importance of second chances. Many students gave examples of their grade point averages before and after moving into Clemente from their traditional programs, and credited the school with their turnarounds. Xavier Lawson defined himself as a former “at-risk kid,” and said that because of Clemente, he and many other students who had previously been “in the [achievement] gap” were not any longer in the gap. Alexzandra Botello agreed, saying, “I became a student at Clemente.”

A handful of students gave very humbling statements about how staff at Clemente had helped them to realize how their previous attitudes or behaviors were only hurting themselves. They talked about how they had taken responsibility for themselves and were preparing to attend college. Students expressed concern that moving Clemente’s location would cause a regression in their positive behavior. Many asked that board members visit Clemente to see firsthand how unique and well-suited the environment is to this population of students.

Multiple students also credited Clemente with being a “lifesaver.” Marcus Buggs said that without Clemente, he “would be dead or in jail.” After witnessing his father’s fatal shooting at age 9, and with his mother currently in jail, Buggs credited Clemente with “making [him] a man – a person who can take of [his] family, and other families – who can go to college and change the world.” Buggs will be attending Western Michigan University on a 6-year scholarship, beginning in the fall of 2012.

Finally, the most prevalent theme was the family atmosphere fostered at Clemente; multiple students called Clemente home, and the school community a family. Cierra Reese said that “each teacher is like a parent to each student. Taking away this program is like taking away a child’s home.” Meghan Lau said that consolidating Clemente would be like “Closing the road to success for people who have finally found their way there.” After she was overcome with emotion, principal Ben Edmondson offered to finish reading Lau’s statement: “It’s like shutting a door to your house and not being allowed back in…” London Renfroe-Lindsey directed her comments specifically to AAPS superintendent Patricia Green, reminding Green that when she visited Clemente, she had promised that Clemente would be safe from budget cuts. Renfroe-Lindsey asked “This program has more to offer than meets the eye…What would drive you to take that away?”

After public commentary had concluded, Thomas asked a clarifying question of Clemente students regarding the medals that some of them were wearing around their necks. Students explained that the medals signified the attainment of certain grade point averages.

Roberto Clemente: Public Commentary from Parents

Parents noted Clemente’s small class sizes, mentorship program, universally high expectations, and exceptionally caring staff as critical to the school’s success and did not want to see any changes to the program or its location. “We want success just like anyone else wants success,” said parent Jeri Jenesta. Andrea Martin noted that without Clemente, many of these students would not get a diploma, and that if they don’t graduate, “we, as taxpayers, will be taking care of them the rest of their lives.” Chris Miller’s comments regarding her son summarized many of the sentiments shared: “He is not a number. He is not a statistic. And, he is not a dollar sign.”

Roberto Clemente: Public Commentary from Staff

Clemente principal Ben Edmondson stood beside each student as they spoke, but said little himself other than that he was proud of his students and thankful for the opportunity to be their principal. Edmondson also read the rest of one student’s statement when she became too overcome with emotion to speak. Charlae Davis, a social worker who identified herself as the co-founder of a mentoring program used by Clemente students, urged the board to “humanize the discussion,” and noted, “In a world of policy, if you find programs that are experiencing success, you ask how you support and replicate them, not eliminate them.”

Longtime Clemente teacher Michael Smith questioned the district’s commitment to closing the achievement gap, noting that some of the students he teaches enter his classes reading significantly below grade level. He noted that Clemente’s current building was purpose-built for students needing the structure, discipline, and family atmosphere it offers, and called it a “rescue mission” for students who had been “lost or forgotten by the district and this community.”

Roberto Clemente: Board Discussion

Lightfoot asked why Community High School had not been considered for closure or restructuring, as the other two alternative high schools had been. “It has this reputation as a sacred cow,” Lightfoot said. Allen answered that Community’s student population is much larger than the populations of Clemente and A2 Tech, and therefore could not be combined with other programs. Also, Allen said, A2 Tech and Clemente have similar goals, while “the program at Community is slightly different in terms of who they cater to.” Lightfoot said it should have been more clear that the district was looking at restructuring “alternative programs with fewer than 250 kids in them” rather than all alternative programs.

Thomas said he was “sick” about letting a financial decision drive a programmatic decision, such as moving Clemente onto the A2 Tech campus. He expressed concern about being able to effectively merge the two programs when they are operationally very different. “There is a huge climate gap with the way they do things at A2 Tech versus how they do things at Clemente. Will it be that they share teachers and classrooms, or will it be A2 Tech on one side of the building and Clemente on the other side, as though they are still five miles apart? I am willing to keep an open mind, but I am really concerned.”

Lightfoot said she would like to see the Clemente program continue without being “morphed.” She was less wedded to it continuing in the very same building. “The thing that makes the program work is the individuals implementing it,” she said.

Patalan said she “absolutely supports Clemente,” and that it is “saving kids’ lives and helping them become the wonderful citizens we all want them to be.” She pointed out that AAPS has had programs share buildings before, that she believes that having Clemente share space with A2 Tech is doable. She said she trusts the principals to work it out.

Baskett questioned, “What is our commitment to alternative education? We know it is important to us, and we know it costs more. So, if we are going to do it then we have to play the price for it, and I think our children are worth it.” She said that this proposal is “bigger than putting two groups of kids in a building” and that “for some of them, to take their building away is traumatic enough.” Finally, Baskett said that after the “transportation debacle” of last year, she did not trust administration to get the Clemente/A2 Tech restructuring worked out by the fall.

2012-13 Budget – Band and Orchestra Camps

The board is considering cutting $60,000 of funding to support band and orchestra camps. The district’s funds offset the costs of travel and staffing at the camps, and are complemented by funds raised by music students and their families to cover the camp costs.

Band and Orchestra Camps: Public Commentary

Five people spoke to the board regarding the proposed cuts to the district’s band and orchestra camps. David Baum, co-president of the Pioneer Band Association, asked the board not to cut funding for the band camps. He noted that more than 850 students attend the camps, and said that they are the springboard into the academic music program each year. Baum argued that cutting the camps would lower the quality of the band and orchestra programs, and will eventually lead music students to choose to leave the district.

Patton Doyle, an AAPS alum, credited the AAPS music program with teaching him problem-solving, and noted that the true power of the AAPS music program is not the success of one school, but the program as a whole. Doyle is currently studying physics at the University of Michigan.

Maggie Fulton, president of the Pioneer Orchestra Parents Society (POPS) asserted that many students don’t have the family resources for lessons, and that they would be disproportionately hurt by the elimination of this experience. She said music staff members have told her the program will not be able to happen without the district’s subsidy, and argued that the subsidy “provides a demonstrable return on the investment.”

Two current AAPS students spoke on behalf of the band and orchestra camps. Charlie Geronimous said band camp inspired him to work harder and be a better musician, and brought kids together in ways not seen anywhere else. Judy Pao added that orchestra camp helped her to transition to high school a lot easier, and that she felt like she was in a family on the first day of school.

Band and Orchestra Camps: Youth Senate Report

The Youth Senate is invited to give a report to the board each month. This month, the report focused entirely on the possible elimination of district funding for band and orchestra camps.

Youth Senator Enze Zing urged the board not to overlook the impact of smaller budget cuts in the face of needing to reduce the overall budget by $17.8 million for the coming school year. Zing, who is also the co-president of the Pioneer Symphony Band, reminded the board of Pioneer’s standing as the only two-time Grammy award-winning high school in the U.S. Zing argued that the rigorous music camps, which take place in August, encourage students to keep up with practicing over the summer, and that the music programs would “crumble” without them. She also suggested that the camps offer freshmen student an immediate social entree on the first day of high school, as well as giving upperclassmen a way to transition back into school after “a languid summer.”

Zing asserted that not having the music camps to adjust to school would cause students to experience higher stress levels, leading to lower grades. The falling grades, she continued, would lower the school’s overall success and cause some parents to pull their kids out of AAPS. The associated loss of funding from these departures will cause a vicious cycle of additional budget deficits and more cuts to programming, Zing said. She suggested asking students for alternative ideas before eliminating the music camps.

Band and Orchestra Camps: Board Discussion

Allen suggested that additional fundraising could be done to cover the cost of the camps. Thomas pointed out that there is no reason to think that the camps would need to be eliminated, and said that booster clubs may be able to help fundraise the $60,000, saying that works about to about $70 per student. “We can do this,” Thomas asserted, noting that scholarships exist for families for whom an additional $70 would be a financial hardship. Allen noted that students do already do some fundraising to pay for the cost of camp attendance, and that the $60,000 paid by the district has been used to fund the support staff, teachers, and administration who participate.

2012-13 Budget – Staffing

The proposed staffing budget reduction options discussed at this meeting were: reducing teaching staff by 32 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions ($3.2 million); and eliminating four counseling positions ($400,000).

Thomas said it is absolutely unacceptable for the district to cut 32 teaching positions after having cut 65 last year and more the year before that. “I don’t want to reduce by one teacher,” he said emphatically. Thomas suggested using more fund equity to be able to save the 32 teaching FTEs. Patalan said she shared Thomas’ feelings about losing teachers, and said that while making those cuts this year could be done, it would not be acceptable to cut more teachers every year.

Allen noted that the counselors are currently being staffed at 250 to 1, but could be staffed at 300 to 1. In response to board questions, he said the reductions would be for two middle school counselors and two high school counselors. Baskett asked how the new counseling and guidance program rolled out this February will be affected by the proposed reductions, and what other impacts the counseling reductions will have. “They do more than write college entrance letters,” she said.

2012-13 Budget – Tech Bond

On May 8, AAPS district voters will decide whether or not to pass a millage to fund a $45.8 million technology bond. The AAPS administration’s reasoning behind asking for the bond can be found in previous Chronicle coverage: “AAPS Pitches Case for Tech Improvement” A detailed description of what the bond would buy and how the millage would work to fund it can be found in “AAPS to Float February Tech Millage” [The board subsequently decided to put the bond on May's ballot instead of February's.]

During her report from the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), Amy Pachera thanked Allen for coming to a recent PTOC meeting and explaining the details of the proposed budget. She noted that schools across the state have their hands tied, and that “low-hanging fruit was cut years ago.” Pachera asked the community to vote on the upcoming tech bond as a way to have a real impact on the budget. She noted that 100% of the money raised by the bond will go to AAPS, unlike local tax dollars, of which only 30% are returned to the district.

Nelson and Stead each remarked on how the budget will be affected if the tech bond does not pass, noting that certain infrastructure within the district will need to be upgraded with or without the dedicated funding, due to changes in state law on data management and reporting requirements.

During items from the board, Mexicotte made a similar plea. She reported that she and Green had attended part of a recent state summit on education, and had found it disappointing. “It continues to be quite illustrative,” she said, “to go to Lansing and hear our leaders speak without ever acknowledging or connecting the dots between the desperate situation we districts find ourselves in and their lack of leadership in bringing us to this place.” Mexicotte pointed out that passing the tech bond is one way that AAPS can help itself, and closed the meeting by speaking directly to voters: “I want to urge you to take back that bit of control that we have over funding and our experience with our students… It’s a modest bond, but it’s one that will make a real difference… Vote yes – it’s local, it’s helpful, and it’s for our students.”

2012-13 Budget – Discretionary Budgets

The proposed budget would cut 5-10% from discretionary funds, for a savings of $250,000-$500,000. Allen explained that “discretionary” might not be the best term to describe these budgets, which are really building-level departmental budgets. Trustees asked for clarification about what was included in these budgets.

Green listed items included in these budgets as: dues and fees; paper; mail and postage; materials; office supplies; field trips; some textbook costs; hourly teacher rates; and printing. “There is discretion in there,” she said. “The discretion is in ‘Do I need all of these supplies, or this amount for postage?’” Allen added, “It’s really all those things you use when you run a building… The discretion is in how to balance them – all categories are needed things.”

Thomas argued that reducing discretionary budgets by 15% instead of 5% or 10% would net another $500,000, which he proposed could be used to keep Clemente going another year, and keep the middle school late bus, which all the middle school principals feel strongly about.

Lightfoot asked where programs such as Read 180, a reading support program, fall in the budget, and if they were at risk of being cut by lowering the discretionary budgets. Allen said software such as Read 180 is paid for out by the instructional department. Green added that there is absolutely no consideration being given to cutting Read 180 funding.

Patalan asked where the funds for School Improvement Teams are located in the budget, and Allen said those funds come out of the central budget. Deputy superintendent Alesia Flye added that most buildings use their money to pay for substitute teachers so building SIT team members can be brought together to meet.

Association and Student Reports

Five associations are invited to make regular reports to the school board: the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). The Youth Senate is also invited to speak once a month, as are representatives from each of the high schools.

At this meeting, the board heard from the BPSSG, the AAPAC, the PTOC, the AAAA, the youth Senate and representatives from Skyline High School. Brit Satchwell, outgoing AAEA president, was present but passed in lieu of giving a report. The Youth Senate’s report was entirely related to the possible elimination of district funding for band and orchestra camps, and was presented above.

Student Report: Skyline

Skyline juniors Sam Keller and Hannah Lee reported on the activities of the Skyline’s Student Action Senate (SAS), and described how SAS delegates are chosen from the smaller learning communities within Skyline, and how the SAS is organized internally to work on issues of student concern or interest.

Patalan commented that it was great to have students have a voice and work in leadership positions. Nelson and Stead asked clarifying questions of the students regarding the delegate selection process and the key accomplishments and issues faced by the SAS.

Keller responded that the course fair held to introduce lower classmen to upper level electives had been very successful, but that getting the school to allow an open campus for lunch had not worked. Lee noted that a memorial to Skyline students who have died was an important achievement, but that attempts to change the dress code had failed.

Green commended the students on their presentation and asked if they would be interested in taking a leadership role in developing a leadership program called “Peaceable and Respectful Schools” to the elementary level. She also invited them to participate in the process of expanding student councils to a district-wide “house of delegates.” Keller and Lee said they were interested in being a part of the district’s new endeavors surrounding student voice.

Association Report: BPSSG

The BPSSG’s representative, Deborah Mitchell, noted a number of community collaborations between the BPSSG and other local organizations. In particular, Mitchell singled out the local teen center Neutral Zone as a group with which the BPSSG plans to increase engagement in the upcoming year.

Mitchell asserted that the 2012-13 budget, if passed as proposed, will disproportionally impact minority and low-income families, and noted the irony that this would occur as the district is focusing on reducing academic disparities related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Referencing the 2011-12 budget cuts, Mitchell said that the coming year’s cuts are “like deja-vu.” She encouraged the district to make special efforts to engage minority and low-income families other than “boilerplate forums.”

Association Report: AAPAC

Maria Huffman reported for the AAPAC, beginning with an announcement that Medicaid will soon begin to cover autism services in Michigan. She pointed out that this may cause a rise in consumer protection issues as new behavioral analysts begin to offer services, and urged everyone to keep the focus on the wellbeing of children.

She noted that the passage of the tech bond would increase the participation of students with disabilities, as well as provide better support of Excent Tera, software that is used in case management of students with special needs.

Finally, Huffman asserted that data collection to be used in assessing whether or not students qualify for Extended School Year (ESY) services is the responsibility of the district. She noted that state law requires that regression and recoupment, critical stages of learning, and the nature of the student’s disability all must be factored into the decision on whether a student qualifies for ESY.

Association Report: PTOC

Amy Pachera reported for the PTOC. In addition to the tech bond endorsement discussed above, she announced that the PTOC would like to see the 18 water stations of the first Ann Arbor Marathon, be worked by AAPS. Pachera also noted that $6 of every entry fee to the race, which also includes 5K and 10K components, will be donated to the AAPS educational foundation, and that other education non-profits can also use the race as a fundraiser.

Association Report: AAAA

Michael Madison reported for AAAA, saying that he was originally going to talk about budget cuts, but decided to share something more “upbeat.” He then proceeded to thank a number of AAPS staff and board members for jobs well done. He singled out director of community education and recreation Sara Aeschbach and assistant superintendent for secondary education Joyce Hunter, who are both retiring this spring, and led the board in a round of applause for each of them.

Board President’s Report

Mexicotte reported on the board’s April 18 committee of the whole meeting. She noted that the board had a preliminary discussion on the budget. She noted that the idea of moving to a balanced calendar was tabled for now in lieu of considering a variety of strategies to use instructional time more effectively that would fit into the district’s strategic plan and other plans. Stead added that AAPS needs to find a way to spend more time with students to be globally competitive.

High School Start Times

Assistant superintendent of secondary education Joyce Hunter gave a brief presentation to the board that reviewed the pros and cons of moving high school start times, based on academic literature studying districts that have implemented later high school start times. She noted that moving start times later aligns the school day with teens’ natural waking hours, and has been shown to decrease depression while increasing academic achievement, with the greatest benefits being seen in “at risk” students. On the flip side, Hunter pointed out that transportation logistics and the effect on extracurricular activities were complex issues that would need to be addressed to be able to start the high school days later. She also noted that in some districts, a shift to later high school start times has been initially contentious among stakeholders in the community.

Hunter proposed that AAPS establish a steering committee to study later high school start times, with representation from human resources, the teachers’ union, and transportation. She also suggested administering a Zoomerang survey to parents and students, and consulting with experts such as University of Michigan professors who have studied this issue.

Mexicotte said that she saw high school start times as “bound up” with issues of scheduling, transportation, and support for extracurricular activities. She suggested that perhaps AAPS could move “7th hour,” during which many elective classes take place, to 8-9:00 a.m., and then students could elect to attend that hour or not. She noted that Dearborn public schools have a similar two-tiered system. Basket also expressed interest in a “split schedule” and urged the district to “make transportation work for us, not the other way around.”

Trustees asked about the timeline, and Hunter said the committee would be charged with making a recommendation one way or the other in time to implement a change in start times for the 2013-14 school year if that was the decision made. Baskett warned against “analysis paralysis” and said the committee should be sure to adhere to its timeline for decision-making on this issue.

Stead expressed concern about the impact on extracurricular activities, and Green noted that she would like students to be involved in the study committee for that reason, as well as for the fact that many students also hold part-time jobs after school. Nelson suggested looking at the reasoning behind the decision of some districts to move back to an early start after having had a late start for high schools, such as those in Minneapolis.

Patalan said the board’s recent discussion on contradictory research regarding moving to a balanced calendar made her question the research. “What I want,” she said, “is to look at the research that says not to do this… I do want more information… I am grateful for a committee to study this further, more in depth.”

Mexicotte repeated that she is interested in looking at high school start times as one piece of possibly broader adjustments to the high school schedule, which might include other shifts as well. As an example, she said that if AAPS moved from 180 to 220 school days, high school days could start later, but end at the same time they do now.

This was a point of information for the board, and no action was taken on high school start times.

Bid Awards

The board briefly reviewed a series of bid award recommendations with little discussion. The bid awards under consideration include work on asbestos abatement, indoor air quality testing, integrated pest management, parking, asphalt paving, and ADA (accessibility) improvements.

The bid award recommendations will return to the board for a second briefing and vote at the next regular meeting.

Consent Agenda and Reimbursements

The consent agenda, which contained only gift offers, was passed by a voice vote. A set of trustee conference reimbursements was passed unanimously by roll call vote.

Awards and Accolades

Numerous students, staff, and schools were singled out for accolades at the April 25 meeting.

Awards and Accolades: Bill Browning Recognition

On the 50th anniversary of the AAPS environmental education program, the board honored longtime environmental educator Bill Browning, who coordinated the program for 28 years. Current AAPS environmental education consultant Dave Szczygiel and parent Nancy Stone noted that thousands of students and parents have benefitted from his work. The AAPS environmental education program provides enrichment for every AAPS student grades K-6 through field trips, many led by volunteer naturalists.

Stone announced that in addition to the years of passionate teaching and commitment to the district, Browning has recently made a $30,000 donation to the AAPS Science and Environmental Education Endowment Fund, managed by The Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Szczygiel and Stone presented Browning with a “local geologic treasure,” called a puddingstone, on which was affixed a plaque recognizing his contributions.

Browning accepted his honor with humility, saying that it was not him that deserved credit, but those that came before him who worked to get environmental education included in the curriculum. Browning thanked the district, saying, “I had a wonderful, wonderful career here in Ann Arbor – I’m grateful.”

Multiple trustees spoke fondly of their personal connections with Browning, and thanked him for his dedication and vision. Baskett, who is now a master gardener, said warmly, “I was one of those kids on the big, yellow bus… You showed me my first wildflower – a trillium.”

Mexicotte said the district was lucky to have had Browning on staff for so long, and said that the legacy he had created would be passed on for generations.

Awards and Accolades: Superintendent’s Report

Green recognized students who had scored highly on the ACT, sports champions, poetry contest winner, homebuilding program students, and robotics team members for their accomplishments, among many others. She noted that schools are engaging students in a number of service projects, such as kindergarten students at Eberwhite Elementary School who counted coins as a fundraiser for the Dexter tornado relief work. Green also noted the success of the local Washtenaw Elementary Science Olympiad, and a variety of staff accomplishments. Finally, she commended the district’s administrative professionals, who she said are “always there” for the school community.

Agenda Planning

Thomas requested a discussion of the partnership between Mitchell, Scarlett, and the University of Michigan.

Stead would like an update on the possibility of charging tuition to some SOC students.

Mexicotte suggested that the board should get as much non-budget-related work done at the next regular meeting as possible, and then have the “full, facilitated budget discussion” at the May 16 committee of the whole meeting, after the two community budget forums have taken place. (Which are now scheduled for May 7 and May 14.) She also suggested that the board should keep May 30 open as a date to add an extra board meeting if needed.

Items from the Board

The fact that it was after 2:30 a.m. did not dissuade trustees from reporting the following items at the close of the April 25 meeting, in addition to those comments noted above.

Thomas said that there are a few challenge grants on the table in the current One Million Reasons campaign of the AAPS educational foundation. He also noted that he recently attended the equity team meeting at Logan Elementary School and was impressed with their focused student approach. Finally, he invited everyone to the May 3 Life Sciences Orchestra concert in which he plays.

Nelson said he had stopped by the very successful college and career fair at Pioneer High School, and the University Musical Society partnership celebration. He also mentioned attending a couple of Neutral Zone events, and said they were a good reminder of the importance of the board’s community partnerships.

Patalan said that three people have told her there were delighted to have AAPS superintendent Patricia Green visit their school, and that they were grateful for the opportunity to get to know their superintendent.

Stead said that Green did a great job passing our awards to the 4th and 5th grade winners at the Washtenaw Elementary Science Olympiad, the largest elementary science Olympiad in the U.S. She noted that the event was more about participation than awards, and that all AAPS elementary schools will be participating next year. Stead also pointed out that it took 750 adult volunteers to make the event happen.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead.

Next meeting: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent for operations (Photos by Monet Tiedemann)

Trustees discussed possible staffing cuts, reductions to transportation services and discretionary budgets, the restructuring of alternative high school programs, and the elimination of some extracurricular funding. AAPS administration is currently relying on $6 million worth of projected revenue enhancements to cover a chunk of the deficit. The remaining deficit is proposed to be covered through a combination of cuts and use of fund balance – summarized in three different plans: A, B and C.

Plan A has the least amount of cuts and the most use of fund balance, but still calls for a reduction in staff by 32 full-time positions, the elimination of some busing services, and the closure or merging of one of the district’s alternative high schools. Plans B and C have progressively greater cuts and less use of fund balance.

A formal presentation will be made on proposed budget reductions at the next regular board meeting, this Wednesday, April 25, with community forums and public hearings to follow in May. Board president Deb Mexicotte said at the meeting that the board will pass a finalized FY 2012-13 budget in June.

After the jump, the specifics of Plans A, B and C are laid out it detail.

Possible 2012-13 Budget Reductions, Revenue Enhancements

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green noted that the proposed 2012-13 budget follows years of massive budget reductions, and said “There are very few places to go where it’s not going to hurt very deeply.” She noted that AAPS has reduced its budget by roughly $55 million over the past five years, saying, “We are beyond the tipping point … We are hemorrhaging in some ways, because we do not have the kind of funding streams to keep us at the level we would choose.”

District deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen presented a tiered set of three alternative budget reduction plans (Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C) to address a projected $17.8 million deficit for the coming year.

Each plan assumes an identical set of four revenue enhancements totaling $6 million: Schools of Choice enrollment ($1.1 million); Medicaid reimbursement ($500,000); state retirement system offset ($1.8 million); and best practices incentive ($2.6 million). Allen pointed out that the Medicaid reimbursement estimate is conservative, and will likely be higher. But he cautioned that though the state retirement offset and best practice incentives are part of Governor Snyder’s budget recommendation, they have not yet been officially approved by the legislature.

AAPS trustee Andy Thomas

So the revenue enhancements assumed by all three plans would reduce the $17.8 million deficit to roughly $11.8 million. Each of the three plans cover that remaining $11.8 million deficit in different ways.

At the April 18 meeting, the board expressed the most interest in the core plan (Plan A) presented by Allen, which would reduce expenditures by $7.3 million and use $4.4 million of fund equity. Multiple trustees expressed appreciation for work of Allen and his staff in putting Plan A together. “I can tell from looking though this that some very sharp pencils were used in coming up with these figures,” said trustee Andy Thomas.

Plans B calls for deeper cuts than Plan A. And Plan C calls for even deeper cuts.  Plan B would reduce expenditures by $9.7 million and require the use of $2 million in fund equity. Plan C would reduce expenditures by $13.5 million, and actually add $1.6 million to the district’s fund equity. The additional cuts in Plans B and C, compared to Plan A would come in three areas – teaching staff, transportation, and district-wide discretionary budgets.

To summarize board discussion in this report, The Chronicle has grouped the suggested budget reductions into the following categories: staffing; transportation; secondary school programs; extracurricular activities; and other district-wide cuts. In each section, the list of recommended reductions is followed by administration’s descriptions and board discussion on each item. The final section on the proposed budget reductions covers board discussion and questions not related directly to any of the administration’s recommendations.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Staffing

Proposed Plan A staffing reductions are:

• Reduce teaching staff by 32 FTEs, an average of one per building ($3.2 million);
• Eliminate four counseling positions ($400,000);
• Reduce police liaison contract for three school officers ($350,000);
• Outsource noon-hour supervision ($75,000);
• Reduce budget for substitute teachers ($200,000)
• Eliminate or consolidate middle school athletic directors ($37,500); and
• Require the Rec and Ed director and office professional positions to be funded by Rec and Ed, not the general fund, now that Rec and Ed can support them ($205,000).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan B, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Reduce teaching staff by 48 FTEs, an average of 1.5 per building ($4.8 million).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan C, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Reduce teaching staff by 64 FTEs, an average of 2 per building ($6.4 million).

Trustees requested clarification on how the reduction of 32 teaching FTEs would be achieved.  Allen explained that if the positions could be not eliminated through retirements and attrition, layoffs would have to be considered. He stressed that the plan for 2012-13 is not to “carry any surplus [teachers]“. This is unlike the situation this year, he noted, when AAPS planned to eliminate 64 positions, but was only able to eliminate 50, and the board “carried” the remaining 14 teachers rather than lay them off. These teachers have been used primarily as long and short-term substitutes throughout the district this year, and the cost of their positions has been added back into the budget with the second quarter budget amendment, Allen explained.

Trustee Andy Thomas asked about the current number of anticipated retirements. AAPS director of finance Nancy Hoover said that at this time, 31 teachers have announced their retirements, but reminded the board that their positions might not line up with the district’s needs – as state law requires each teacher to be “highly qualified” for the subject area and grade level they teaching.

Thomas said the proposed reductions to teaching staff was the one part of Plan A that would cause him “not to sleep at night,” and said he would feel comfortable being more aggressive in the use of fund equity to reduce or eliminate the need to reduce staff, because fund equity would have shrunk only $800,000 since 2010. He noted that the district ended FY 2009-10 with fund equity of $16.9 million, ended FY 2010-11 with fund equity of $20.5 million, and would end FY 2011-12 with fund equity of $16.1 million if the board passed budget reduction Plan A.

Trustee Glenn Nelson requested that Allen provide a three-year projection, saying he believed it would be helpful for deciding the degree to which fund equity should be used. Allen said that such projections would be part of the formal budget presentation on April 25.

AAPS Trustee Glenn Nelson

Trustee Irene Patalan said she would be open to a compromise that would use more fund equity to preserve teaching staff. But she was not sure how much of the fund equity she would feel comfortable using: “Everyone wants to give kids everything they can…What really is the right amount? What makes our security blanket not secure?”

Trustee Christine Stead noted that education funding from the state is projected to decrease again in FY 2013-14. “This is not our rainiest day,” she argued, pointing out that the MPSERS rate will rise from 27% to 31.2%, and that the MPSERS offset and best practices funding will likely be reduced, while the foundation allowance stays stagnant.

Stead asked Green if 32 FTEs can really be taken out of our education program and not have a negative impact on students. Green allowed that yes, there would be an impact, and said it would be dishonest of her to say otherwise. Stead said it did not seem realistic to reduce teaching FTEs, and that she did not think that would support the mission and core purpose of the district. Thomas agreed, saying, “I am concerned about taking a big hit on teacher FTEs this year after [doing so] last year.”

Allen noted that the rationale for reducing counseling staff is that counselors are not “staffed to ratio.” The teachers’ union contract, which also covers guidance counselors, allows each counselor to be responsible for 350 students. But Allen said counselors currently have fewer than 350 students. Mexicotte expressed concern about the impact of cutting counselors on building climate. She compared the proposed reductions in counseling staff to the proposed reductions in police liaison positions. “When I look at the cost, I want to have an impact on safety and climate, and I’d rather have better resources to build climate in the buildings.”

Stead said the issue is one of student safety, and noted the recent bomb threats at Skyline and Forsythe. “I am a little concerned that removing [the police liaisons] will cause students to feel less safe,” she said.  Mexicotte responded that having police liaisons is not the norm for schools in the district. “I agree that climate and safety are real issues, but I’d rather have actual safety and good climate than perceived safety and good climate.” Trustee Susan Baskett added that the police liaisons were added in the 1970′s because of racial fights at the high school level. When she looked at the suspension and discipline issues, she said, she wondered if the liaisons have made things better or worse.

Allen also said he did not think most of the individuals working as noon-hour supervisors were doing so for the retirement benefits. He suggested that hourly wages for the positions might be able to increase if the board outsourced those jobs through a management company instead of maintaining them as AAPS positions, because AAPS would not have to pay into the state retirement system for those employees. Public school districts in Michigan currently pay an amount equal to 27% of employees’ wages and salaries to the state to support the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System (MPSERS).

Allen argued that substitute teacher costs could be reduced if the individual building administrators managed their own costs instead of doing that centrally. “It’s a way to help control costs where they are actually occurring,” he said. Mexicotte agreed that giving building administrators control over these costs could give them a sense of empowerment, but cautioned that there needs to be “the right balance of accountability.” She offered the example of a building running out of money for substitute teachers in March, and questioned what central administration would do in that case.

A few trustees asked about the role of middle school athletic directors. Allen explained that athletics at the middle school level is essentially “district-wide intramural.” The middle school ADs, he said, schedule all events between schools, as well as hire and monitor coaches. Allen explained that the ADs at this level are already full-time district employees, who then receive supplemental pay for their AD duties. Rather than have five middle school ADs, he said, those tasks could be consolidated into one or two positions.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Transportation

Proposed Plan A transportation reductions are:

• Combine bus runs for Bryant and Pattengill ($16,560);
• Change Skyline’s schoolday starting and ending times by 15 minutes to streamline bus use ($266,400);
• Eliminate 4 p.m. middle school bus ($85,284);
• Eliminate midday shuttles from Community High School to comprehensive high schools ($230,184); and
• Eliminate all transportation of choice (i.e., Ann Arbor Open, Skyline, and Clemente) ($266,400).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan B, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Eliminate all high school busing ($545,000).

If the board chose to move forward with Plan C, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Eliminate all busing, except for special education busing ($3.5 million).

Allen said he anticipated that combining bus runs to Bryant and Pattengill would be well-received by the community, as many parents have already asked for such changes. He also pointed out that changing Skyline’s schoolday start and end times would not impact the length of its day or periods – but the earlier end time would allow the second tier buses to be used more effectively. (AAPS uses a three-tiered busing system, with staggered starting and ending times for elementary, middle, and high schools.) Allen also noted that changing Skyline’s starting and ending times would require an adjustment in a memorandum of understanding in the teachers’ contract.

AAPS trustee Susan Baskett

Baskett argued that eliminating the midday shuttles from Community High School would prevent Community students from taking classes at the comprehensive high schools. Patalan disagreed, saying that Community did not always have mid-day shuttles, and that while Community students would certainly play sports at other schools, they did not often take classes at the comprehensive high schools. Baskett countered that the shuttles have “enhanced the quality of education” at Community.

Thomas asked if Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) services could be used to transport Community students to other schools, and Allen said it would not be as easy as using the current shuttles, which run every 20 minutes throughout the school day.

Baskett also expressed concern about the elimination of transportation of choice. “The way we sold Skyline – that bond,” she said, “was that we would support the students who opted in or won the lottery. We are not supporting them now…We sold that to the community, and now we are backing off on our promise.” Baskett said she would love to hear from parents with children at Ann Arbor Open or Skyline about how removing transportation of choice would alter their experience at those schools. She also asked how the district’s discussions with AATA were proceeding.

By way of additional background on AATA,  CEO Michael Ford’s written report to his board for April 2012 includes an optimistic update on collaboration with AAPS:

Discussions [between AATA and AAPS] have yielded a preliminary agreement to replace three high school bus routes with the use of existing AATA service, with minor modifications; one route each for Huron, Pioneer and Skyline High Schools.  This would permit AAPS/WISD to completely eliminate three buses and reduce costs.  AATA would provide passes which AAPS would distribute to eligible students.  Each time a student boards a bus AATA would charge AAPS.  It is hoped that agreement can be reached in April for implementation in the fall of 2012.

Thomas reiterated a suggestion he had first introduced during last year’s budget discussions. “As an alternative to eliminating high school busing, why not pay for busing services in the morning, and then leave it to [students] to figure out how to get home.” He noted that during after-school hours, it’s light outside, temperatures are higher, and public buses are running. Thomas requested that Allen provide an estimate of the cost of providing half-day bus service at the middle and high school levels. Nelson supported Thomas’ suggestion.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot suggested that the district talk to students directly about the potential elimination of all transportation services, saying, “I want to make sure that we have a sense of who these children are that we are impacting… I want us to be extra vigilant as a board that these cuts fall in line with our strategic plan and our rhetoric about kids standing in the [achievement] gap.” She argued that it is a slippery slope to go down the list of non-mandated service when considering cuts.

Lightfoot also noted that the board has not yet heard an update from the Washtenaw Intermediate School District regarding the transportation services AAPS has been receiving. [A transportation services review from the WISD is on the agenda for the April 25 board meeting.] She argued that transportation should be looked at holistically. “I’d to see us have the right conversation and the right plan. We are almost operating on feeling or thought rather than data regarding transportation.”

Mexicotte said she has been struck by the different perceptions people have had of the fairness of bus services offered this year. “I thought some busing was better than no busing, and that might be true,” she said. “But, I have had some conversations with people about how eliminating busing [would have been] psychologically less difficult than changing busing.” She noted how now there are “busing winners” and “busing losers.”

Another perspective on transportation that Mexicotte said she has been mulling is the balance between social justice and parental responsibility. “Of course those with the least resources are the most impacted – can they still get to school?” she asked. On the other hand, Mexicotte pointed out, the expectation from the state is that it’s the parents’ responsibility to get their children to school.

“Both have been on my mind – the fairness doctrine and the question of social justice versus parental responsibility,” Mexicotte said. “Whatever we do with busing to preserve our educational mission, I’m going to be thinking about transportation from that fairness standpoint, and also thinking about the mandate that parents have to get their kids to school.”

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Secondary School Programs

Proposed Plan A reductions to secondary school programs are:

• Restructure or close A2 Tech or Roberto Clemente ($400,000); and
• Reduce secondary summer school costs by consolidating program locations ($80,000).

Regarding the restructuring or closure of A2 Tech and Roberto Clemente, Allen said there were a number of options that could be undertaken to achieve the targeted savings. One would be to move Roberto Clemente into the A2 Tech building.

Trustee Christine Stead directs a question to Robert Allen.

That’s an option because capacity at the A2 Tech building is over 400 students and the combined student population of the two programs is under 250 students, he said. Another option Allen suggested would be to move both programs into the comprehensive high schools.

Stead asked what was included in the cost savings estimate. Allen told her it reflected the closure of one building, including administrative salaries and building operating costs.

A few trustees asked what would happen to the building itself, and Allen replied the building could be considered for revenue enhancement opportunities.

Thomas said he really liked the alternative programs offered at A2 Tech and Roberto Clemente, and requested more detail about how $400,000 would be eliminated. Baskett encouraged trustees to visit each of the programs and talk to administrators there. “We need to see what we are looking at impacting or changing.”

Baskett cautioned against moving alternative programs into the comprehensive high schools, saying “There is a reason why some students do not go to comprehensive schools.”

Baskett also expressed concern about folding Roberto Clemente’s summer school program into the broader secondary school summer program, and suggested having a discussion with students and staff about the potential impact of doing that.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Extracurricular Activities

Proposed Plan A reductions to athletic and music budgets are:

• Eliminate district funds to support band/music summer camps ($60,000);
• Reduce athletic entry fees, such as for invitational/optional meets ($58,000); and
• Change lacrosse to a club sport ($93,000).

Baskett asked what costs the district covered related to the summer music camps. Allen explained that it was mostly the cost of staffing and travel. Baskett asked if this reduction would impact student scholarships available for these camps, and Mexicotte noted that some of the scholarship money came from booster organizations. Allen added that AAPS will have time to find another way to fund these camps.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Other District-Wide Cuts

Other proposed district-wide Plan A reductions were:

• Restructure Information and Technology Division (ITD) services ($200,000);
• Eliminate the early notification retirement incentive ($40,000);
• Eliminate site-based budgets ($250,750);
• Reduce discretionary budgets by 5% ($250,000);
• Reduce health care costs ($100,000); and
• Proceed with Phase V of the energy savings capital improvement performance series ($500,000). [This item was approved by the board during the regular meeting portion of the April 18 agenda.]

If the board chooses to move forward with Plan B, the above reductions would be amended as follows:

• Reduce discretionary budgets by 10% ($500,000).

Allen noted that the ITD efficiencies noted above would be met by the technology bond if it is approved by district voters on May 8. Green emphasized that this budget assumes passage of the tech bond. Allen added that if the bond millage does not pass, the district will need to spend an additional $3 million to $4 million on technology out of the general fund within the next year or two. Nelson and Patalan each stressed to the community how passing the tech bond will preserve the general fund to pay for teachers and other operating expenses. Green also singled out Steve Norton, treasurer of the Ann Arbor Citizen’s Millage Committee, who was at the meeting, thanking him and all the other volunteers for their public service in advocating for this bond.

AAPS trustee Irene Patalan

Regarding the early notification incentive, Allen explained that staff members are given a monetary incentive to announce their retirements early, and that there are three dates at which incentives are offered. Nelson said that hiring later causes the district to lose good candidates, and argued that the incentives ensure more quality candidates are available during the hiring process. Allen suggested more analysis could be done.

Allen pointed out that site-based budgets are used to support the activities of buildings’ school improvement teams (SITs), and that the building school improvement plans should be reviewed to see how that money is being used. Baskett said that reducing SIT funding doesn’t seem fair to schools who are using the money well, and argued that the same percentage should not be taken from all schools. Mexicotte expressed concern about how SIT budgets are being used across the district.

Allen noted that the discretionary budgets being recommended for reduction do not include utilities. Mexicotte asked what is included in these budgets.  Allen explained that they include travel, conferences, supplies, and hourly personnel. In response to a question from Thomas, Allen said these funds are also the source for district-hired consultants, such as Pacific Education Group.

Mexicotte pointed out that if 5% of these budgets is $250,000, then they total $5 million: “That’s a big chunk of discretionary money.” She suggested that perhaps $3.2 million could be taken out of this line item to pay for the suggested 32 FTE reductions in teaching staff.

Allen noted that one of the assumptions made last year was that health care costs would increase by a greater rate than they actually did, which is what accounts for the health care cost savings.

Washtenaw Alliance for Education (WAE) is considering pooling health care costs among Washtenaw county districts. So Nelson asked if the district’s involvement in WAE would have any impact on the district’s health care costs in the next year.  Allen said it would not have any impact. Allen explained that while AAPS is open to the idea, it’s not likely that AAPS would be able to garner much savings from pooling with other districts. Responding to a question from Stead, Allen indicated that AAPS is planning to study its own health care utilization pattern so that the district is able to make an informed decision if the WAE does invite AAPS into a health care consortium. Allen reiterated that AAPS is “not in the same ball park” in terms of health care costs – due to the size of AAPS and the fact that its union contracts cap costs.

Proposed 2012-13 Budget Reductions: Other Board Discussion and Questions

Nelson asked what the proposed budget assumes about the county’s reimbursement rate for special education services. Allen responded by saying the budget assumed a 66% reimbursement rate for 2012-13, but that AAPS has just received notification that that special education services will be reimbursed at 67%, which translates to a difference of roughly $250,000.

2012-13 Budget Timeline

Now that the board had expressed some of its concerns and noted areas about which it would like more detailed information, Mexicottte explained that the administration will prepare for a more formal presentation on the proposed 2012-13 budget. That presentation will come at the board’s next regular, televised meeting. Following that, she said, there will be two public hearings in May, and the final budget will be passed in June.

Lightfoot asked if the district would be taking this plan to the community, and Allen said there would be community forums held after the first formal briefing to the board.

Stead asked if it would be possible to approve the final budget before June, so the district would have more time to work with parents to address changes [such as those affecting busing for next fall] before school gets out for the summer.

Green noted that the final state budget needs to be set before the district can set its budget. She said that Gov. Rick Snyder has said the state budget would be set by June 1. Nelson noted that that possible reforms to the state retirement system could also have a large budgetary impact, and that reforms might not follow the budget timeline.

Thomas agreed with Stead that AAPS should not put itself in the same position as last year, when the district spent all summer trying to communicate changes to the busing plan after school was out.

Mexicotte acknowledged her colleagues’ concerns, and said the board would move as quickly as possible through the remaining steps in the budget process. She said by mid-May, everyone should be clear which reductions the budget will likely include.

Balanced Calendar

Green and AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye addressed the board about moving to a balanced calendar. Green summarized some of the history. She said that the idea of moving from a traditional academic calendar to a balanced calendar came about as part of the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership. After community concerns rose with the initial presentation of the idea, it was tabled, and AAPS administration underwent significant turnover. This winter, Green and her new team revisited the issue, and discovered that the research supporting a move to a balanced calendar is much less clear than had been initially presented to the board last year.

Balanced Calendar: Review of Data

Flye walked the board through a detailed presentation on the research she had reviewed, which revealed a lack of consensus among educators about the effectiveness of a balanced calendar in most settings. Flye noted that the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership is going strong, and that it is working to focus all of its efforts within the school improvement goals already set by the buildings.

Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent for instructional services, addresses the topic of the balanced calendar while Amy Osinski, executive secretary to the board of education, looks on.

Flye characterized a balanced calendar as spreading the 180 days of a typical school year across more weeks of the year, shortening vacation periods, and interspersing “intersessions” between sections of the school year.

She noted that proponents of a balanced calendar say it increases student achievement, but that the research is inconclusive and contradictory. Flye added that most research does show consistent academic gains for at-risk students when schools have switched to a balanced calendar.

Flye said that a balanced calendar would not save the district money, but would in fact add costs to the budget. She also noted many potential challenges – including a lack of support from the community, teachers, and local businesses, which depend on students for summer labor.

Flye suggested that AAPS form a committee, including union leadership representation, to continue to discuss the impact that a balanced calendar would have on AAPS specifically, and to develop a draft calendar for discussion. She listed some aspects of the committee’s work, which would include: site visits to districts with a balanced calendar; parent meetings; parent surveys; and the invitation of guest speakers to address the community. She requested that the board provide the committee with parameters for a balanced calendar, such as whether opting-out would be allowed. Other parameters would be whether the balanced calendar would apply to the whole district, clusters of schools, or only specific buildings.

Balanced Calendar: Board Response

The board expressed mixed responses to Flye’s presentation.

Given that the data are inconclusive and the costs or retrofitting air-conditioning at all buildings could be prohibitive, Thomas suggested that AAPS should focus on expanding summer school in some buildings rather than moving to a balanced calendar across the district. He also suggested that the district could create meaningful opportunities for learning during instructional breaks, such as the “intersessions” described as part of the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership. Patalan also liked the idea of expanding intersessions across the district.

Stead noted that Flye’s research did not distinguish between balanced calendar programs that added actual instructional time and those that merely spread out the 180 days that are already part of the traditional calendar. “Somehow we need more time with our students,” she asserted, and noted that countries with more instructional time score higher on international tests of student achievement.

Lightfoot and Baskett each expressed frustration at the additional study being undertaken by the current AAPS administration. Lightfoot said, “I’m not so sure that the back and forth of studies should inform us. We can do it right.” Baskett agreed, saying that Flye’s presentation seemed like a total dismissal of the work of previous administrators. She said she would like to see AAPS implement a balanced calendar as part of the UM/Mitchell/Scarlett partnership, and allow families to opt-out if they did not want to participate. Baskett also said AAPS could be a place where researchers could study how a balanced calendar could be effective.

Nelson said he had been swayed by the presentation, having been ready to fully support a balanced calendar if it make sense educationally – but was now feeling unsure how to proceed. He expressed concern that the board was asking the administration to study too many specific big initiatives at one time, and suggested the board have one discussion, perhaps as part of a retreat, that would prioritize the district’s focus on different initiatives. Those initiatives needing prioritization include: a balanced calendar; high school start times; moving to more K-8 schools; changing attendance boundaries; closing a building; and other possible strategies toward raising student achievement. Nelson said it was hard to work through these issues in a linear fashion, at sequential meetings. “I don’t want to say ‘yes’ to everything, but I don’t want to say ‘no’ either. I want [the administration's] feedback.”

Green responded saying that the administration is spread thin with the number of initiatives the board has asked it to pursue at once. She urged the board to allow the administration to focus on what it can do and do well, which is focusing on instructional delivery and maximizing learning time. Green also emphasized that the district’s strategic plan, achievement gap elimination plan, and discipline gap elimination plan are “very comprehensive and structured to bring about results.”

Mexicotte suggested to her colleagues that the right approach might be to direct administration to continue to work on whatever they think will improve instructional time. She pointed out that a balanced calendar is just one strategy that could be used to do that. “This is not a hill we should die on,” Mexicotte said. “We can’t do everything.” Maybe the board should not be so directive in suggesting agenda items, but focus on the plans mentioned by Green and allow strategies to support those plans to come forward from administration more “organically,” she said.

Baskett said the board owed the community “closure” on the balanced calendar issue. She said there may be other issues that require similar focus. Lightfoot said that any changes to the upcoming board agenda should be made transparently, and Mexicotte agreed.

Spring Grant Awards and Energy Savings Plan

The “regular meeting” portion of the April 18 agenda was extremely brief. Without any discussion, the board approved two items on a consent agenda – the 2011/12 spring grant awards, and Phase V of the energy savings capital improvement performance series.

Both issues were briefed at the previous regular board meeting on March 21, 2012.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan (until 9:30 p.m.), and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead.

Next meeting: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 South Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

AAPS school board member Glenn Nelson and superintendent Patricia Green. The campaign signs were provided by the Citizens Millage Committee, not AAPS. (Photos by the writer.)

The forum was held at Pioneer High School.

District superintendent Patricia Green noted that AAPS administration has been giving its presentation to various school and community groups, and expressed cautious optimism that voters would support the bond, based on the initial response from these groups.

At Monday’s forum, community members questioned the scope and length of the proposed bond issue.  They also asked about contingency plans if the millage fails, the district’s loyalty to Apple as a technology vendor, what will happen to the district’s computers and other technology products as they become outdated, and exactly how technology is used in teaching and learning.

After moving the ballot question from the February election to May – to avoid the confusion of holding the tech bond vote in conjunction with a closed Republican primary – the district is funding a special election on Tuesday, May 8 to decide the issue.

Why AAPS Says the Technology Bond is Needed

At the forum, Green described passage of the bond as critical to allowing AAPS to support what she called “21st century learning,” and deliver a “world class curriculum.”  She then highlighted aspects of the district’s strategic plan that are dependent on updated technology.

Green began by noting that the AAPS strategic plan emphasizes personalized learning, but that the district’s aging technology infrastructure is starting to shortchange students.  Passage of the tech bond, she explained, would streamline the implementation of the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test, which was recently rolled out in the district.  Green said the MAP is being used to give teachers instant feedback on their students’ skill sets three times per year so that teachers can group students more flexibly to maximize learning success.  She acknowledged that there were problems with the MAP implementation throughout the district this year – due to a lack of robust infrastructure, aging computers, and limited computer lab availability, she said.

Next, Green pointed out that many students could benefit from additional online or distance learning opportunities.  Those benefiting from those opportunities include struggling students – who want to make use of software for credit recovery or remedial skill-building, such as Read 180 and e2020 – as well as students who want to take a greater number of classes than can be scheduled in a standard school day.  “We could have young people who want to take vocal music and orchestra take additional classes online,” Green suggested. “[Online learning] is not just for strugglers, but those who want to move forward as well.”

She noted the strategic plan’s goal of increasing effective staff training. She said enhanced technology could make a “phenomenal” difference in advancing professional development opportunities, as well as allowing for use of multimedia in classroom learning.  Finally, Green pointed out that the district’s website and communication strategies with parents are being updated and depend on a robust tech infrastructure.

In her closing remarks, Green credited educator Ian Jukes, one of the editors of the book “Teaching the Digital Generation,” with the idea that schools need to prepare students for the world of tomorrow.  She said that she is concerned about the “digital divide,” and noted that some AAPS students rely entirely on their schools for computer access.  The 10-year bond that voters are being asked to approve, Green said, will allow AAPS to refresh and renew technology such that students remain on the cutting edge of technology.

What the Tech Bond Would Buy and How

AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen reviewed what the $45,855,000 bond would be used to purchase over the course of 10 years. He also reviewed how the bond would be funded by a new millage paid by property owners, that would average 0.5 mills annually over the life of the bonds. One mill is equal to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value. The board’s decision to float the tech bond millage was made at its Aug. 10, 2011 meeting.  At that time, the board intended to place the measure on the February 2012 ballot. Later, at its Nov. 16, 2011 meeting, the board decided instead to place the measure on the May 8 ballot.

The AAPS website also provides a list of FAQs that summarizes the information presented at the forum, such as the major costs and features of each of the three series of bonds that will be issued if the millage is approved.

In broad strokes, the timing and amounts of the bond series are as follows: Series 1 beginning in 2012 ($27,275,000); Series 2 beginning in 2015 ($10,570,000); Series 3 beginning in 2018 ($8,010,000). To illustrate the range of items the tech bond will fund, the money in just the first bond series would be spent as follows [in millions of dollars]:

 7.85   student laptops, desktops & additional handheld devices
 2.126  teacher & administrative computers
 1.966  district switch replacement & 10 gig backbone
 0.5    district server replacement
 0.15   Career and Technology Education (CTE)
 0.175  student intervention and support services (SISS)
 0.5    admin software (replacing 1998 DOS-based accounting and HR software)
 3.886  classroom technologies soundfields, printers, mounted projectors,
 0.3    mediacast (distribution of video districtwide)
 3.423  wireless redesign
 3.47   server rooms clean
 0.85   10-gig backbone
 0.85   contingency and bond cost
 1.68   project management
-------
27.726

-

At the forum, Allen said that the district’s technology committee has identified improvements that will expand the district’s infrastructure, and  refresh roughly 8,000 units of equipment in three-year cycles (currently laptops and desktops, but possibly other technology in the future) at the cost of approximately $1,000 per unit.  He noted the district’s partnerships with local businesses – such as Google as well as smaller companies. He also stressed that the bond would allow for flexibility in the specific equipment purchased, but would not be able to be used to cover any operating expenses.

Allen said the average age of computers being used in the district is six years and argued, “Six years should not be acceptable for our kids… Industry average is two to three years.”

The tech bond millage up for a vote on May 8 would cost voters $26 per year per $100,000 in property value.  For most residents, Allen said, that additional annual cost to taxpayers will be less than one tank of gas for their vehicle.

Forum Q & A

The few community members who attended the forum were primarily district parents who expressed serious concerns about the tech bond in its current form.  They questioned the scope and length of the proposed bond issue.  They also asked about contingency plans if the millage fails, the district’s loyalty to Apple as a technology vendor, and what will happen to technology products owned by the district as they become outdated.

Forum Q & A: Scope and Length of the Proposed Bond

One parent questioned the length of the bond, which will total 13 years over the three series of bonds. He suggested that instead of attempting to fund a set of bonds that would refresh primary equipment three times (every three years) over ten years, the district should only be requesting funding for one refresh at a time.  This parent pointed out that the current interest rates on 3-year bonds were much lower, and that using shorter-term bonds would significantly save on capitalization costs.

A second parent suggested that the district had not “done its homework” on the costs outlined in the bond proposal and said it was too far-reaching.

Allen responded that AAPS was trying to prevent the need to go back to the voters in three more years.  He acknowledged the first parent’s suggestion on how to structure the bond as a valid option, and thanked him for his opinion. But Allen said the district tech committee simply decided to go a different way. Allen also invited the parents present to participate in the tech committee in the future.

Forum Q & A: Bandwidth

A few parents responded to the district’s description of the network as so overloaded that it needed to close off wireless access to the public during the school day. Those parents argued that AAPS does not have the responsibility to provide Internet access to parents’, teachers’, and students’ cell phones in the building. There was some concern that district resources are being used to support the use of Facebook and YouTube during the school day. But AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel Dave Comsa clarified that Facebook and YouTube are blocked by the district’s filter. Parents noted that kids are often able to circumvent the filter.

Forum Q & A: Unit Costs and Vendors

One parent commented that $1,000 per unit seems like a high replacement cost, and asked if AAPS had considered leasing technology equipment.  Allen answered that bond funds cannot be used to lease equipment, but only to purchase it.  He said that the $1,000 replacement cost per unit included warranties, and noted that AAPS is a “Mac district.”

Another parent argued that using Apple as an exclusive technology vendor was “extravagant” and asserted that excellent laptops could be purchased for only $500-$600 each.

A third parent questioned whether a $500-$600 laptop from a non-Apple vendor would hold up under typical classroom use, and noted that Apple is the leading company in education throughout the country.

Allen said the tech committee had made the decision to be an Apple district, but that different vendors could be chosen in the future. He noted that the $1,000 included warranties and maintenance.  Multiple parents commented on the high quality of Apple warranty service, and the parent who had expressed concern about the cost of Apple products allowed that the $1,000 unit price was “far more acceptable” if it included warranties.

Forum Q & A: Contingency Plans

Parents asked what will happen if the bond does not pass.  One asked, “Can you still effectively teach our children without this bond?”  Allen responded that if the bond fails, the plan for how to educate AAPS student will have to change.  He noted that the impact to the district’s operating budget would be at least $4 million, and that the district is already preparing to reduce its budget by roughly $16 million.

Board of education trustee Glenn Nelson added that the board will set the final budget in June after thinking through it very carefully.  Executive director of Michigan Parents for Schools and local parent Steve Norton also added that there is yet another bill being fast-tracked in the Michigan legislature that would eliminate the industrial personal property tax – which could have an impact on the district’s ability to pay off obligations such as the tech bond.  Comsa said he would look into that legislation, but Allen said from his perspective, bond issuance was still a “very attractive option” for financing.  Allen did note that if taxes are eliminated and not replaced, that would have a negative impact on per-pupil funding from the state.

Forum Q & A: Old Equipment

A parent asked what will happen to old technology equipment in the district as it gets refreshed. Allen explained that state guidelines offer direction on that.  He said AAPS plans to form a bank of old equipment that could be lent to families who need it to bridge the “digital divide.”

Forum Q & A: Technology Use in Teaching and Learning

Parents expressed concern about technology being misused or stolen, particularly mobile devices.  They also questioned the wisdom of replacing books and “quiet learning” with constant technological inputs. One parent quoted a variety of psychology reports, and argued that excessive use of media can negatively impact academic success.

Allen responded that technology is incorporated into the learning process, and that it can motivate students.  Norton added that with the unprecedented budget cuts to education currently facing districts throughout the state, many districts are using technology to do what they can no longer do with people.  He named software such as Read 180, MY Access!, and e2020 as ways to individualize instruction for kids – without having to pay for one-on-one or one-on-two tutoring. “Is using technology like this perfect?”  Norton asked. “No,” he said.  “Is it better than nothing?  Yes.”

Parents asked if the bond could cover the purchase of such software as mentioned by Norton, and Allen said it could not.  He noted that some software could come pre-packaged on machines the district purchased, but that otherwise, the only software that could be purchase with bond funds was that which was related to administrative functions, not educational ones.

Green thanked everyone for attending and for sharing their opinions.

Next regular meeting of the AAPS school board:  Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at Clague Middle School, 2616 Nixon Road, 5:30 pm.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

After being walked through it, trustees applauded the plan – literally, and most of their comments characterized the AGEP with words like “integrated,” “robust,” “powerful,” and “inspiring.”

From left, AAPS trustees Susan Baskett, Irene Patalan, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead at their March 14 committee-of-the-whole meeting, held at Mitchell Elementary School. (Photos by the writer).

Still, the board registered some concerns.  Among many elements, the AGEP emphasizes the use of data to inform instruction, and the professional development of teachers. These features of the plan led to a somewhat cool reception from trustee Simone Lightfoot, who wanted to see more emphasis on “common sense” over data, and more emphasis on children than on adults. Trustee Susan Baskett expressed some skepticism based on her experience with the follow-through she’s seen from past AAPS administrations. And, multiple trustees questioned how a wholehearted commitment to the AGEP would affect the district’s allocation of resources.

At its committee meeting, the board did not take any action related to the AGEP. More details of the plan, along with the board’s discussion, are presented below, after the jump.

Also at the committee meeting, the board heard from parents concerned about rising class sizes at the preschool, and heard a review of the student intervention and support services (SISS) department.

A discussion on revenue enhancement ideas was postponed.

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan

Superintendent Patricia Green began the administration’s presentation to the board by saying that this issue – disproportionate achievement among students of different groups – has been an issue for the district for decades. It’s one of the reasons she wanted to come to AAPS, she said.

Early on, Green said, she met with executive cabinet members in their role as the district’s equity leadership team (DELT). While they wanted to make a plan quickly, she wanted to make the right plan. “To do the richness of what we intend to do, this will take a broad-based team,” Green said. She noted the plan is research-based, and integrates many elements of social and emotional learning.

AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye said she was very excited to be bringing this plan to the board, and said the DELT and DELT-A (the executive cabinet, plus seven additional administrators) have been working hard since last fall to create a plan that would involve all stakeholders, and produce useful tools that building leaders could use immediately. Flye acknowledged the ten members of the superintendent’s cabinet and also the seven members of DELT-A: Pattengill principal Che’ Carter, Slauson principal Chris Curtis, AAPS literacy and social studies coordinator Chuck Hatt, Community High School dean Jen Hein, Tappan principal Jazz Parks, Haisley Elementary School principal Kathy Scarnecchia, and Logan Elementary School principal Terra Webster.

Flye said that historically, AAPS has structured its equity work as a separate and distinct initiative. However, the achievement gap elimination plan (AGEP) uses the district’s strategic plan as its critical framework, she said. Flye noted that many best practices in closing the gap are already occurring throughout AAPS, but only in isolation. She also said that previous efforts to address the gap have not had the accountability, the consistency, and the strong focus on social and emotional learning that this plan has.

Flye then led the board through an executive summary of the plan, touching on nine areas of focus: clear district content standards; equity; accountability; professional development; parent and community engagement; student engagement; quality early childhood programs; addressing barriers to learning and allocation of resources, and Student Intervention and Support Services (SISS).

AGEP: Executive Summary

About content standards, Flye noted that a set of documents is being developed that can be used by students and families to chart their paths through AAPS academically while meeting all pre-requisite requirements. The district will also provide an assessment summary, and use the Achievement Team Process to ensure early identification of students who are falling behind. Flye highlighted that policies and procedures will focus on keeping students in school, and all students performing below grade level will develop a Personal Learning Plan (PLP) to get on track.

Noting that the AGEP puts a large emphasis on professional development (PD), Flye listed equity, cooperative discipline, social and emotional learning, and positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS) as four PD modules that would be developed. She highlighted a number of ways the district will use data better to ensure accountability in meeting the AGEP’s goal of eliminating achievement gaps – including developing multi-year school profiles that will incorporate student achievement, discipline, and attendance data. She also briefly touched on the development of an Equity Plan Rubric, a tool to be used by building leaders to bring greater systemic consistency to equity work, which will be discussed in more detail below.

Engagement of parents and families will be done by conducting evening or Saturday meetings at local community centers, and engagement of students will be done through the administration of the annual climate survey and the formalization of a district-wide student leadership program, Flye said.

Regarding preschool programming, Flye noted that elementary PTOs would be encouraged to connect with preschool families as they transition to elementary schools. Preschool enrollment would be examined, she said.

Flye said that the AGEP would allocate resources to high-need students and buildings, and examine personnel policies to ensure that the best teachers are placed in the highest need areas. Also, AAPS will continue to work with the AAEA minority caucus to ensure teacher retention and potentially improve the hiring process. [AAEA is the Ann Arbor Education Association, the teachers' union.]

The district will work to decrease suspensions and expulsions, and to address students’ social and emotional needs. She noted that funds have been dedicated to purchase materials to support PBIS in all schools.

Finally, Flye said a district-wide work plan was being developed with benchmarks and responsible persons for each plan element.

AGEP: History and Data

AAPS literacy and social studies coordinator Chuck Hatt reviewed the history of race and equity work in Ann Arbor and AAPS. He said that the achievement gap can be attributed to inconsistent expectations, grading practices, and inconsistent use or knowledge of culturally relevant teaching strategies. To fix this, he said, AAPS will better use data to drive instruction, maintain a high-level curriculum with supporting interventions, and offer professional development in differentiation of instruction and culturally responsive teaching strategies.

Director of student accounting Jane Landefeld reviewed recent achievement and discipline data to highlight the gaps being addressed. “We made progress toward earlier targets, but now we have a much more rigorous target,” said Landefeld. She also connected the AGEP to the discipline gap elimination plan presented by Green in December, 2011, citing several common themes: monthly data review, social and emotional learning, cooperative discipline, and community and student engagement.

AGEP: “Beyond Diversity” Training

Logan Elementary School principal Terra Webster reviewed the Beyond Diversity training she had attended, a two-day training session, which she described as a place to learn how to have courageous conversations about race, as well as to learn about the degree to which racism leads to educational failure. All staff members truly share equal responsibility in educating students, Webster told the board.

AGEP: Equity Plan Rubric

Webster, along with Parks, Carter, and Scarnecchia, then introduced the four standards of the newly-developed equity plan rubric, a tool that clarifies the expectations of equity teams at the building level, and allows for the monitoring of their progress in a consistent way.

The rubric divides the work of the building equity teams into specific practices, and allows for the work of the teams to be classified as follows: not effective, minimally effective, effective, or highly effective. Its four standards are: developing the building equity team; defining the disaggregated data that is being used to document results for students; determining how teams are using data to inform and produce results; and documenting effectiveness of the building equity teams.

Scarnecchia summed up the goals of the building equity teams – to ensure that there is no predictable pattern of achievement connected to race, socio-economic status, or special needs identification.

AGEP: Accountability

Flye said the district will be instituting a “holistic accountability system,” and that professional development with the Leadership and Learning Center will train the instructional council and leadership teams from each school in the data team process. The process encourages the use data in decision-making at the classroom level, and is a proven set of processes that has led to award-winning systems of accountability.

Green added that this process has been used by the most improved schools in the nation. She pointed out that the AGEP relies on systemic consistency, accountability, and specificity.

AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen argued that while AAPS will have to be aggressive, there are proven strategies that it can employ to close the achievement gap – high expectations, using data to track student progress and needs, purposeful professional development, and a rich curriculum with strong, focused instruction. “In Ann Arbor,” he said, “We have the resources, the will, and the community commitment to eliminate the achievement gap.”

AGEP: Board Response and Discussion

Board chair Deb Mexicotte led trustees in a round of applause and thanked the many administrators who participated in the presentation for attending the meeting, saying their presence showed the power of this plan. She invited the trustees to offer comments and questions in a round-robin style.

Trustee Andy Thomas appreciated the integrated approach of this plan. He asked what resources the administration needed in order to implement the items as presented, especially preschool programs, which is not funded with a state foundation allowance. He also asked what resources will be needed to make the best use of data, saying it sounded to him like the data needs of the district will be increasing exponentially.

Flye said the data infrastructure needs to be more reliable, and pointed to times when data cannot be accessed because the system is overloaded. Green pointed out that the success of the tech bond initiative is crucial to replenish, refresh, and expand technology resources in the district. She said in a perfect world, AAPS would have a second preschool site to serve even more students, because research shows it pays off to front-load resources in early grades.

Allen noted that the budget he recommends will prioritize essential items related to the AGEP, and noted that professional development can use in-house resources to save money. Green added that exporting professional development created for the AGEP could be a revenue enhancer.

Lightfoot began by thanking all who participated in crafting the AGEP and said it had been her “pet project” to get the district to create one document to address this issue. However, she expressed concern that the AGEP did not focus exclusively on a subgroup of students, that is, students whose achievement is lower. “This isn’t the time to involve everyone and keep everyone happy,” she argued.

Lightfoot listed the following concerns: flowery language; lack of specific academic supports such as support for 8th grade algebra; too much emphasis on how adults can grow and learn and not enough focus on students; and a lack of timelines. Lightfoot also questioned the inclusion of the Pacific Education Group (PEG) as a consultant in the AGEP, and said she is not necessarily interested in renewing their contract.

Flye addressed some of Lightfoot’s specific questions about the academic jargon used in the AGEP, and noted that student engagement is a part of the plan. About the timeline, Green said it will be in the next year, and that administration is currently assembling the implementation plan.

Baskett was reserved in her praise of the AGEP, saying that she was glad the administrators were all there, but that she has “been in this district a long time… and the follow-through is lacking.”

Baskett asked about the cooperative discipline element, which Flye defined as a research-based tool that educators can use to diffuse power struggles. Baskett noted that she would like to see several things: more action steps of the discipline gap plan; an update on the successes in the district regarding equity; and an update on the roll-out of PBIS to the whole district. She questioned the parent involvement piece as outlined in the plan, saying that it “sounds more like a push out of information rather than getting feedback from parents.” She also questioned the frequency of the parent meetings and student climate surveys, saying they should take place more than once a year. Finally, like Lightfoot, Baskett said she had been hoping to see more instructional strategies embedded in the AGEP.

Baskett suggested that the board “examine its political will” to make this happen, and suggested that the board itself take part in a “Beyond Diversity” training session.

Patalan said she was absolutely inspired, and suggested that the board read a paper written by Scott Westerman, AAPS superintendent during the University of Michigan’s black action strike. Mexicotte said she would forward the paper to the board if Patalan sent it to her. Patalan also said she was exicted to use the in-district talent of Parks and Webster to lead professional development, and liked the way the tech bond fit into the picture. She expressed support for allocating additional resources at the preschool level, and questioned whether the district’s current preschool was helping the “children who really need us the most.”

Patalan also asked for some clarification on culturally relevant teaching as it relates to math. Flye responded by saying it is important to build upon the life experiences that children bring to class.

Nelson contrasted different parts of the AGEP in terms of how they define the target population. He noted that the equity team rubric used by principals mentions a goal of having all students in every subgroup meeting achievement goals, whereas other sections of the AGEP focus on proportionality. “The goal of universal excellence is important,” Nelson said, “but it’s a different goal than [eliminating] the gap.”

Administrators defended their decision to word the rubric that way, and acknowledged that they had had much discussion on that issue. Green added, “If you don’t shoot for the moon, you won’t land on the moon.” Nelson stressed that teaching character traits such as perseverance and honesty were at least as important and emphasizing math and reading. Green agreed, saying that making connections with students to get them involved in their schools was critical.

Nelson said that the AGEP gives AAPS a chance to continue its tradition of leadership on the topic of equity.

Stead complimented the “robust framework” of the plan, and suggested adding to the timeline already on the district’s website. She did express worry that closing the gap could bring down the achievement of top students, but Green moved quickly to reassure her otherwise.

Stead also said the plan will require the allocation of additional resources, such as additional staff in AAPS research services department, and more preschool teachers. She noted that peer mentoring is important, saying, “We need to make being smart cool,” and agreed with Lightfoot that PEG’s continued work in the district should be questioned.

Baskett reiterated her support for additional academic supports, saying that she has heard that “math is kicking booty all over this district.” Thomas argued that the board should stand behind the administration and wholeheartedly support the AGEP. Saying that looking at the gap in achievement data “hurts [her] heart,” Lightfoot argued that the plan needs to be better fleshed out, and that she was “not as patient and tolerant as the other trustees.”

Mexicotte encouraged the trustees to think about what they could do in terms of policy regarding the implementation of the AGEP. She suggested that the board could set a policy mandating peer mentoring in all schools, or that IEPs can only happen when parents could attend.

Mexicotte also asked everyone in attendance to explain the importance of the upcoming tech bond without directly suggesting to people how to vote, and said the budget needs to follow the board’s priorities.

Regarding the use of the term “100%” in the equity plan rubric, Mexicotte said it’s fine with her if it works “aspirationally.”

Finally, Mexicotte led the board in a brief discussion about whether to include the AGEP on the agenda of the next regular meeting so trustees could officially offer a vote of support on it. She suggested the board could also affirm the AGEP at the committee-of-the-whole meeting that night instead.

Lightfoot and Baskett suggested they might not feel comfortable affirming the AGEP without seeing how the board’s suggestions were incorporated, or at least “footnoted.” Nelson said the community needs a consensus of the board if at all possible. “If I’m hearing that it’s going to be a divided vote,” he said, “than I’d rather not vote.”

Outcome: The board took no action on the Achievement Gap Elimination Plan at this meeting in terms of affirming it or deciding to move it to the agenda of a regular meeting.

Public Comment: Class Size – Preschool, Special Ed

During public commentary, two people addressed the board on the topic of class size.

Parent Tammie Nahra read a letter that had been sent to the board signed by 45 families with children at the Ann Arbor Preschool and Family Center. The letter expressed appreciation for the quality of the staff, but concern about the significant increase (63%) in class size experienced by two of the classes for autistic students. Noting that these children are particularly sensitive to their environment, the letter suggested that the preschool will be unable to help these students reach their IEP (Individualized Education Plan) goals without an adequate increase in staffing and space.

The letter closed by pointing out that it is fiscally prudent to provide high-quality early intervention services to these children, and that AAPS is setting itself up to require additional services later, the district does not provide these critical services now. Parents who signed the letter requested a meeting with the board regarding this matter.

Parent Heather Eckner began by acknowledging that SISS Assistant Superintendent Elaine Brown did reach out to her that day to schedule a meeting. She pointed out that the class size increases have affected student-teacher ratio to the point where “push-in” services listed in students’ IEPs are likely being affected due to logistical difficulties. Eckner noted that the “level 3″ class, for higher-functioning students on the autistic spectrum, is supposed to contain a 50-50 split of general education and special education students, but that ratio is shifting toward a higher and higher percentage of autistic students.

Finally, Eckner noted that for autistic children, “you cannot put a value on” stability, structure, and routine. She said the class size increases have left classrooms “bordering on chaos” and that a large number of families feel affected by this issue.

During clarification on public commentary, Brown noted that the letter sent by preschool families was timely because staffing for the K-12 special education classes was currently underway. She said she intended to hear everyone’s voices as she leads the program review. Deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye thanked the parents for coming forward, and said she was anxious to meet with them. “You will be part of the collaboration,” she said. “Everyone will be engaged.”

Green pointed out that the single teacher who was added was only an interim step to be able to get some relief as the situation was assessed fully.

Student Intervention and Support Services Review

AAPS assistant superintendent of Student Intervention and Support Services (SISS) Elaine Brown and her staff led the board through a review of the main programs and services offered to AAPS special education students. Six SISS administrators introduced themselves and explained their functions.

AAPS assistant superintendent of Student Intervention and Support Services (SISS) Elaine Brown.

Lon Smith supervises the middle school programs, along with Ann Arbor Open, and Pittsfield, Dicken, and King elementary schools. He also supervises the school social workers, nurses, and the services that AAPS is legally obligated to provide to local non-public schools. Eric Thompson supervises most of the remaining elementary school programs, along with school psychologists, occupational therapists, and physical therapists. Cassandra Benion supervises Lakewood, Bryant,and Pattengill elementary schools, all the high schools, and the hearing-impaired and speech and language programs. Jeff Flynn manages the assistive technology for the entire district. Yolanda Bell supervises secondary transition compliance, the Practical Assessment Exploration System (PAES), and the young adult program. And finally, Patricia Rushing is the autism coordinator and runs the peer-to-peer mentoring program.

Brown and her team then led the board through a departmental review, linking each section of their report to an objective of the district’s strategic plan.

SISS Review: Goals and Accomplishments

Brown explained that her department is in the process of a review of its programs and service delivery, and reviewed a set of goals as well as accomplishments. She noted that a committee has been created for the review that includes parents, psychologists, and special education administration. Benion added that site visits and surveys will be conducted as part of the review, and that findings will be shared with Green and the board.

The law requires that special education students are taught in the least restrictive environment possible (LRE), allowing many students to participate in some classes alongside their general education peers. “Self-contained” classrooms contain special education students who are not able to spend any time in general education rooms. Brown expressed concern that self-contained classrooms may not be using state curricula. Benion added that in many cases, the goals of a student’s IEP (individualized education plan) were not being aligned with the state curriculum, but that the district is changing that.

Benion said that one of her goals is to offer professional development to all special education staff who teach in self-contained classrooms on the eGLCEs (extended grade level content expectations), and to “be sure teachers are using these.” The GLCEs are the state-mandated curricula used in general education classrooms. The extended versions, or eGLCEs, modify the curriculum for special-needs students.

Brown also said that AAPS had in the past been cited as disproportionately labeling African-American students as cognitively impaired. She also said the district had been cited for disproportionately suspending special education students. She reported that this has been corrected, and that the special education department has implemented a new process to be sure the district is correctly and appropriately identifying youngsters who need special education services. Ensuring ongoing compliance on these issues, Brown said, is another one of her goals.

Other goals noted were to build more options for students transitioning out of school, developing a parent handbook, and expanding the peer-to-peer mentoring program. As accomplishments, Brown also said the district had implemented a new monitoring system to increase Medicaid reimbursement and had purchased a number of new technology products to help teachers facilitate student learning.

SISS Review: Compliance

Lon Smith described how AAPS had moved into compliance regarding disproportionality on all fronts. He pointed out the laminated sheets that had been provided to each trustee and explained how these sheets were given to principals as part of the effort to ensure that patterns of discipline are standardized. Smith also noted that professional development (PD) was provided to all staff regarding student discipline, including removal from class. The PD explains how special education law relates to suspensions and expulsions, and gave principals a chance to ask questions of an attorney.

“In special education,” Smith said, “unique situations happen all the time.” He noted that the manifestation determination review process is used to determine if a students’ misbehavior can be attributed to his or her disability, and noted that after ten days of suspension, special needs students still need to be provided a FAPE, or “free and appropriate public education.”

Finally, Smith noted that new state laws  on the process of crafting IEPs were passed in October of last year, and that PD had also been offered to all special education staff on the revised process. He said staff were given checklists, and will receive monthly reminders about the IEP process.

SISS Review: Medicaid

Thompson simply noted that the district’s SISS department is now monitoring Medicaid billing monthly, and has worked with the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) to ensure that the Medicaid reimbursements are handled appropriately. Nelson asked how much money this extra effort has brought the district, and Green answered that it has netted $1.4 million over two years.

SISS Review: Peer-to-Peer Mentoring

Rushing introduced the peer-to-peer mentoring program, which she said was developed primarily to provide a greater opportunity for special education students to access the curriculum by working with their peers. She noted that the program has been instituted in five elementaries and one high school, and is expanding.

Rushing explained that the student mentors are first trained  to understand the disabilities faced by their peers, and then general ed and special ed students are paired according to their interests. Technology is used to facilitate interactions between students, Rushing said, noting that the iPad has “loads of applications to get that conversation started.” She also noted that one school had used a grant to purchase a Wii for the same purpose.

The mentoring program has reflected changes in peer-to-peer interactions that Rushing said have been captured on video by teachers. There are also reflection activities that mentors and mentees complete at the end of the program.

SISS Review: Assistive Technology

Flynn reported that SISS provides many aides to special education students, both low-tech and high-tech, but pointed out that the district’s resources “wouldn’t be worth anything” without accompanying professional development. He pointed out that many PD opportunities were offered to teachers and parents over the summer regarding the use of various technologies. Then, Flynn said, student and teacher outcomes are identified and data on the effective use of technology is tracked.

Some low-tech solutions highlighted by Flynn included: colored reading frames, colored overlay, and colored raised-line paper. Mid-level technology being used includes the talking dictionary and talking calculator, which offers auditory output to reinforce number concepts. High-tech aides at use in the district are the Smart Board, and the Tap-It, which is especially effective for students on the autistic spectrum, or students with physical or cognitive impairments. Finally, Flynn described a tablet used by a non-verbal AAPS student as a communication device – the student collects pictures and organizes them, and the machine communicates for him.

SISS Review: Transition Services

Bell explained that transition services for special education students are a coordinated set of activities. The state monitors compliance by selecting IEPs at random to be sure they are in compliance with mandated transition services. AAPS, Bell pointed out, has maintained compliance every year regarding the provision of transition services. She noted that AAPS has a set of assessments that are used to help students transition out of secondary school, and briefly described a few of them.

The PAES, or Practical Assessment Exploration System, is used to measure students’ work behaviors and competitiveness; the EDP, or Educational Development Plan, is used to identify career pathways of interest to students, and the TPI, or Transition Planning Inventory, is used to clarify students’ needs.

SISS Review: Board Discussion

Andy Thomas argued that it was negative to list as an accomplishment the fact that the state is no longer sanctioning AAPS for disproportionality in placement and discipline of special education students. Brown countered that achieving the removal of the funding sanction – which amounted to 15% of the district’s federal IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) grant, or $480,000 – was indeed a significant accomplishment.

Thomas responded that meeting funding requirements and being sure that each student in properly assessed might be different goals.

Several trustees suggested that SISS engage better with parents.

Thomas suggested that parents be included on the program review team. Brown responded by saying that the department had planned to survey parents, but that she would consider including them on the team itself.

Christine Stead was more direct, saying, “I get the most complaints about SISS … Please re-focus your energy around a customer-service approach.” She acknowledged that SISS deals with one of the most challenging sets of students and families in the district, but stressed that the department needs to be families’ “best friend in our system.” Giving the examples of an IEP meeting being held at a time whe parents cannot attend, and lack of timeliness in responding to families, Stead said the district needs to deliver a more comprehensive, streamlined service.

Lightfoot added that she shares the stated concerns about customer service, and would extend that concern to the district’s administration as a whole.

Baskett asked who parents should contact if they have a concern with the education of their children. Brown suggested starting with the case manager, that is, whoever facilitated their IEPs. Then, Brown continued, parents could go through the chain of command – the principal, the appropriate assistant director of SISS, and then up to Brown. Green added that after Brown, if an issue was still not resolved, a parent could come to her.

Baskett responded that she knows of cases where the families of special education students are not feeling respected by their principal, and that special education students are not always recognized in a positive way. She also said she is sensing a schism between SISS and building administrators.

On the positive side, Nelson and Patalan said they did learn a lot from the presentation. Baskett complimented the peer mentoring program, and Lightfoot said she was happy to hear of the accomplishments. Patalan applauded the development of the parent handbook, the better compliance in terms of disproportionality, and Medicaid reimbursement increases.

Nelson requested that SISS integrate student performance measures into its self-assessment to determine if SISS is making a difference educationally. Thomas thanked Nelson for expressing what he had been trying to say earlier, quipping, “This may be the first time I’ve ever complemented you on being succinct.” Thomas said there seems to be an awful lot of emphasis on process instead of outcomes, and requested that whatever measures SISS institutes speak to student accomplishment.

Board and Superintendent Evaluations

The board will be evaluating the performance of superintendant  Patricia Green. Mexicotte asked that board members familiarize themselves with a document she would be sending to them that outlines guidelines related to student achievement measures to be used in the superintendent evaluation.

Regarding the board’s self-evaluation, Mexicotte asked trustees if they would be interested in retaking the survey administered by Ray and Associates, the superintendent search firm, again this year. The board took the self-assessment survey last year as part of the package of services provided by Ray and Associates. during the superintendent search.

Mexicotte suggested that if the board retook the survey, results from the last year and this year could be compared side by side, which the board might find useful. Also, she noted that trustees had expressed a possible interest in participating in diversity training as part of the effort to combat the achievement gap, which is something they could note in the survey.

The board agreed to retake the survey.

Agenda Planning – Balanced Calendar

The district is considering moving to a balanced calendar, which could take many forms.  One form is an extended school year with longer breaks throughout the year, such as was proposed as part of the Mitchell-Scarlett-UM teaching and learning collaborative.  The board has directed AAPS administration to look into moving to a balanced calendar district-wide, and to bring a recommendation to the board one way or the other.

Lightfoot questioned whether waiting to discuss the balanced calendar until the April 18 committee of the whole meeting would leave the district enough time to implement a balanced calendar for 2012-13 if the board voted to do so.

Mexicotte said the April 18 was the date set aside to receive the recommendation from administration regarding a balanced calendar.

Lightfoot again questioned if an April decision on a balanced calendar would leave enough time to roll out such a program before September. Green responded by saying her administration would work with the direction of the board either way.

Nelson added that there are positive and negative consequences to moving to a balanced calendar – consequences that the administration’s report will probably lay out.

Mexicotte said she was not sure what the administration’s recommendation would be for a balanced calendar, but that if the board wants it to happen in the fall, it will happen.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday March 21, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.