Ruth Kraut

When I was a student newspaper writer and editor, the newspaper was part of our extra-curricular choices. Now, most high school newspapers are published as part of a class. As these programs move into the classroom, they come even more under the control of school administration.

In this article, I explore the complex issue of censorship, including local examples of school news controversies, past and present. I highlight some student work that has been published – topics that are important to students, even if they might make adults uncomfortable.

I started writing this column in mid-May, impressed by the Michigan Interscholastic Press Association (MIPA) awards won in April by Community High School and Dexter High School – and to a lesser extent, Pioneer High School and Saline High School. I was interested in the struggles that high school newspapers have to create a (somewhat) free press.

More recently, two local students – Madeline Halpert and Eva Rosenfeld – wrote a column published by the New York Times on May 21. Titled “Depressed but Not Ashamed,” the column explains how Halpert and Rosenfeld discovered at a journalism conference that they were both taking medication for depression. They then decided to interview other students with depression for their school newspaper. In the column, they describe how, ultimately, they were not allowed by the school administration to publish an edition focused on students with depression.

Even though I’d been working on an article about the student press, I hadn’t heard about their situation. That fact highlights two truths about the student press – and the media in general. First, we generally know only about the controversies that are ignited when something is reported on – and not when it is suppressed. That may, in fact, be the best argument for a free press.

Second, the areas of most concern to students are also the areas most likely to be censored by administrators. I think they fall into two general categories: school politics and environment, or the body politic; and issues that are more personal to students – the body politic.

My Own School Newspaper

To give you some context about my own experience, I worked on my high school newspaper – the Garnet & Black. And as a side note, I attended high school with Adam Silver, the new National Basketball Association commissioner who recently banned Donald Sterling from the NBA. At one point, I was the girls’ sports editor and Adam was the boys’ sports editor.

Staff list from a 1979 issue of the Garnet & Black student newspaper for Rye High School. The Rye, N.Y. school was built by workers who were being paid by the Works Progress Administration. The “mascot” of the Garnets is named after the garnet stones found while excavating the school.

Last fall, when I was home, my father had dug up yet another old box of my memorabilia, and in there were some copies of the high school newspaper. Back then, the newspaper was an after-school club, and the newspaper came out monthly during the school year.

Although I was surprised to see a short notice in one of the issues about Planned Parenthood’s services (including the words “birth control”), in general we felt we were fairly limited as to what we could write. All ideas and copy had to be approved by the school principal as well as our newspaper’s adviser, and the principal was perceived as a fairly heavy-handed censor.

That’s not unusual. Because student newspapers are produced in the context of school, they operate under the rules set by the faculty and administration.

The Washtenaw Voice

Yet within those constraints, student newspapers can – and do – break news and shine a light on problems. Sometimes, though, the consequences of doing that can be severe.

Over the past few months, the Washtenaw Voice, the student newspaper for Washtenaw Community College, has highlighted faculty dissatisfaction with the current WCC president, Rose Bellanca. On May 5, 2014, Voice editors felt compelled to post an editorial, “The Voice Will Not Be Silenced.” In part, they write:

We don’t usually print rumors, but a recent widespread rumor hits so close to home that we can’t help but address it: Someone at Washtenaw Community College is intent on shutting down The Voice. Several concerned sources came to us with this information last week. We asked administrators up our chain of command – Vice President of Student and Academic Services Linda Blakey and Director of Student Activities Pete Leshkevich. Both told us that they’ve heard nothing of the sort.

But if this rumor were true it would be done by simply putting a red line through our budget, and we wouldn’t know it had been done until after the trustees approve the budget. So, we would never have a chance to defend ourselves.

By highlighting this rumor, the students were trying to forestall action that the administration might be tempted to take.

School Newspapers and Freedom of the Press

Eliminating the budget for a student publication would be an extreme measure, but school administrators can exercise control in other ways.

According to a survey taken at a recent national high school journalism convention, one-third of respondents reported that they’d had articles censored by administrators. One-third also said they had self-censored because they thought administrators would censor them. This is complicated even more by the fact that often, the means of production – money, classroom space, computers – are controlled by the administration.

So what rights do school newspapers have? The Student Press Law Center provides a clear explanation:

Q: Do high school students have First Amendment rights?

A: Yes. As the United States Supreme Court said in 1969, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.” But the First Amendment prohibits only government officials from suppressing speech; it does not prevent school censorship at private schools. A state constitution, statute or school policy could provide private school students with free speech protections.

Q: What about the Hazelwood decision?

A: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision, gave public high school officials greater authority to censor some school-sponsored student publications if they choose to do so. But the ruling doesn’t apply to publications that have been opened as “public forums for student expression.” It also requires school officials to demonstrate some reasonable educational justification before they can censor anything.

A student publication is a public forum for student expression when school officials have given student editors the authority to make their own content decisions.

Local High School Publications: Our Bodies, Ourselves

Issues of censorship often arise when students attempt to cover topics that administrators deem inappropriate or controversial. But those are exactly the subjects that are of intense interest to the students – whether they’re working on a publication, or reading it.

Screenshot from the Dexter Squall’s website.

It’s worth looking at how this plays out locally. In a brief survey of six local high schools, I found publications at two high schools – Saline and Huron – that appear to be defunct. The Saline High School lost its school newspaper, the Golden Sting, due to a combination of budget cuts and a lack of interest in the class a few years ago – it needed 25 students to run, and only 21 students enrolled. Before it was cut, it had won a Michigan Interscholastic Press Association Spartan Award for seven years in a row.

The Skyline newspaper  – The Skybox – looks like it’s just getting off the ground. But three high schools have active, well-established student publications: The Pioneer Optimist, Dexter Squall, and Community High’s Communicator.

The Squall and Communicator appear to be the most robust student publications locally, with print and online editions. The newspapers solicit advertising and sell subscriptions. The Communicator is also running an indiegogo campaign to raise funds.

These publications are fertile soil for future journalists. Along the way, students learn writing, photography, and web design.

At Community High School, the current print edition looks and feels more like a magazine, and the web publication is meant more for breaking news. At Dexter High School, the print edition is a 16-page, color publication with a print run of 1,700. Old issues are available online.

Screenshot of the student publication for Ann Arbor’s Community High School: The Communicator.

Both papers cover a wide range of topics, including school policies, theater and sports, local news. For instance, the Communicator recently covered the same-sex marriage court decision, including interviewing a CHS student. The Squall covered the Dexter district’s decision to combine the Advanced Placement English and the International Baccalaureate English classes. Dexter students reported on a bill in the Michigan House of Representatives to revise the way teachers are evaluated, while CHS students wrote about the year-end CHS jazz concert.

Students also report on issues of a more personal nature. In February, Lauren Kimmel of the Dexter Squall used humor to tackle a serious topic in her column “Boys, Take the Hint: Relationships Aren’t Like Movies, You Know.” In it, she compares the real world to scenes from romantic movies – and concludes with an anti-stalking message:

Before you even consider scouring the entire kingdom for her,

take the hint.

If you had to scale a Ferris wheel to convince her to go out with you in the first place. If she and her family moved away 364 days ago. If you’ve been writing her a letter a day ever since without so much as a “k” or “:)” response,

take the hint.

Boys, no means no. Girls, you’re welcome. Now hopefully you won’t have 10 unread messages and 16 pending Snapchats when you check your phone. Hopefully you will be able to walk down the street without constantly checking over your shoulder and hopefully there will be no more pebbles hitting your window in the dead of night. 

Over at the Communicator, Hannah Hesseltine recently penned “Skintight Sexism,” about the Ann Arbor Public Schools’ dress code policy.

Community High School student Ada Banks and Pioneer High School student Julia Hale devised a petition on May 8 to the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS), demanding that they review their longstanding, district-wide dress code policy. Banks petition addresses the public shaming AAPS has instated into their protocol; girls at Slauson Middle School are required to wear “ugly t-shirts” when their dress is deemed “inappropriate” by their teachers, a direct shaming tactic and a “blatant attempt at humiliating students for their dress”. While the conflict throughout AAPS is centralized around the length of a girls’ pair of shorts, the cut of her shirt, or the thickness of her tank tops’ straps, the central reasoning behind the dress code policy here and in Evanston remains the same: these garments are “too distracting to boys”.

It is this logic that has the potential to severely damage a girl’s self-image. While a need for appropriate attire in a school environment is understandable, blaming weakened male academic performance on women’s clothing choices—and their changing bodies—is not. 

If you want to read the petition, and/or sign on, you can do that at the Change.org website.

Administrators: To Censor, or Not to Censor?

Obviously, these are articles and columns that the administration allowed to be published. In fact, the Dexter Squall has a history of taking on controversial issues, like dance clubs where students “grind,” and teen pregnancy. In 2010, a group of parents did not like what they saw, and created an anonymous blog to try to stop students from focusing on some of these issues. The Dexter High School principal, William “Kit” Moran, stood with the students, and for that he won the MIPA Administrator of the Year award, as well as the Courage In Student Journalism Award from the Student Press Law Center.

Here’s an excerpt from the SPLC press release (emphasis added):

Principal Moran received the administrator award for refusing to censor The Squall despite fierce attacks from community members who claimed the paper was printing content inappropriate for its school-age audience. Unrest over the content resulted in the creation of anonymous blog distorting the content of The Squall as “tabloid journalism,” and calls for the school district to strip the students of autonomy over editorial judgments.

The controversy prompted the Dexter school board to review the publication policies for The Squall, which limit the school’s authority to censor student speech. The board declined to remove the “public forum” designation protecting student publications, a balanced approach that allows students to make editorial content decisions as long as what they publish is not unlawful or substantially disruptive of school.

“I believe that journalism in America is crucial to our democracy,” said Moran, a longtime English teacher and coach who has been principal at Dexter since 2006. “A free society needs a free press. This isn’t new, but allowing this concept to be played out in high school may seem a bit radical. However, if we teach our students sound journalistic methods and ethics and allow them to act as journalists, we provide a rich and robust environment for their education.”

However, there’s a recent example that shows the opposite approach.

Last year, Madeline Halpert and Eva Rosenfeld were interested in highlighting the struggles that students have with depression. As they write in their New York Times column – “Depressed but Not Ashamed” – untreated depression is a major contributor to suicide. Here’s an excerpt (emphasis added):

As editors at our high school newspaper, we decided to fight against the stigma and proposed devoting a whole edition to personal stories from our peers who were suffering from mental illness. We wanted honesty with no anonymity.

We knew that discussing mental health in this way would be edgy, even for our progressive community in Michigan. But we were shocked when the school administration would not allow us to publish the articles.

The students interviewed for this series had signed consent forms, as had their parents. Yet administration was concerned that the students – who would be fully named in the article – would be vulnerable to bullying, or to re-traumatization from reading the articles.

The editors did not want to use pseudonyms, because part of the focus was on de-stigmatizing depression. By saying that this topic needs pseudonyms, they’d be reinforcing the very thing they hoped to dispel – that depression causes so much stigma that one must hide behind a fake name.

The AAPS administration supported the CHS dean’s decision.

One thing that jumps out at me was the idea that a whole edition would be devoted to this topic. Halpert and Rosenfeld write, “By interviewing these teenagers for our newspaper, we tried – and failed – to start small in the fight against stigma.” But I think that assessment is too modest. Devoting a whole edition to a topic is not starting small. Interviewing lots of students is not starting small.

What’s more, the reaction of Halpert and Rosenfeld to the censorship – writing an op-ed piece for the New York Times – is also not starting small. [Note, though, that neither the town nor the high school is mentioned by name in the column.] Further, getting as far as they got – interviewing students, getting consent from parents regarding publication students’ names, utilizing the advice of the Student Press Law Center – could not have happened without the support of their teacher advisor.

What gets published, gets noticed. If the New York Times column had not been published, most people would never have known about this controversy. This isn’t limited to the classroom, either. In suppressing writing – an act that happens every day in newsrooms across the country – we suppress information. Changes in the news industry have the capacity to suppress many, many topics.

On the other hand, the opportunity to publish in other venues – to self-publish on blogs, Twitter or other online publications – means that the ability to censor students has changed.

Back in February of 2008, Jeff Piku – Dexter Squall’s image editor – vented in an editorial:

Apparently this paper has become somewhat controversial.

It seems like every time we come out with a new issue, there is someone waiting to knock us and “constructively criticize” us.

Well, frankly, I’m getting fed up with this.

The world isn’t perfect. There are such things as drugs, alcohol, sex and strippers that exist out there.

The fact is, most teenagers have had at least minor experiences with these topics and want to read about them. And, given that the Squall’s primary audience is teenagers, we’re going to continue to write about things that might be viewed by parents as controversial.

Students desire to construct meaning through their student newspapers. To me, it’s important to let them.

Ruth Kraut is an Ann Arbor resident and parent of three children who have all attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She writes at Ann Arbor Schools Musings (a2schoolsmuse.blogspot.com) about education issues in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Michigan.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our local reporting and columnists. Check out 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!

Ruth Kraut

Good news has come in the form of a new, enthusiastic, positive-energy, forward-looking superintendent in Dr. Jeanice Kerr Swift. Her “Listen and Learn” tour was thorough and well-received by the community, followed by some quickly-implemented changes based on feedback from parents, teachers and staff.

Swift also brought forward some longer-term initiatives that required approval from the AAPS board. Those include plans to address underutilized buildings, a new K-8 STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) program, more language programming, and opening up AAPS to students outside the district through the Schools of Choice program. Those ideas are all positive.

The bad news is process-related, tied to actions by the AAPS board. Mistakes of past years are being made again, as the school board fails to follow its own policies when implementing major changes to the schools. Specifically, the board continues to make important decisions after midnight, with scant information about costs or implementation. Some final votes are rushed through at the same meeting when the items are introduced, not allowing time for sufficient public input.

In this column, I’ll look at both the positive actions by the administration as well as the board’s flawed process. And I’ll ask you to weigh in – letting the board and superintendent know what you think on all of these issues.

Good Intentions, Good Execution

Dr. Swift, who was hired in August of 2013, spent her first semester in the schools on a Listen and Learn tour. I will admit that when I first heard about this idea, I was unconvinced of the benefits. Yet after watching the Listen and Learn tour in action, and realizing what kind of commitment it takes to visit every school in the district – and at each school meet with parents and community members at one meeting, and teachers at another meeting – I changed my mind.

At the meeting I attended, another parent raised her hand and said, “This is the first time in years that I have felt like someone was listening.”

In her Listen and Learn tour, Swift did several things right. At each meeting, she set a tone of welcome and attention. She had copious notes recorded by volunteer recorders, and she engaged University of Michigan School of Education graduate students to do qualitative review and analysis.

Even before the analysis was fully completed, she had identified some key areas that she wanted to address immediately.

In December she tackled cleanliness, in a project she dubbed “Project Sparkle.” (My friend, on hearing this name, commented, “Well, you can tell that she was an elementary school teacher once!”) Swift had apparently heard from enough people who felt that the district had let cleanliness go, and decided to address that immediately.

Project Sparkle was essentially a decision to have the custodians spend more time in the buildings, focusing in particular on “corners and bathrooms.” I haven’t spent much time in any school buildings since winter break, when Project Sparkle began, so I don’t know if people can see a difference – but I’m curious.

Another thing she decided to address immediately was assessment. Assessment, broadly speaking, involves how one evaluates the work of students, teachers, and principals. Many people (including myself) have strong feelings about what kinds of assessment should be used, and for whom. In addition, state law around assessments has been changing and will also have an impact on what the district can do.

Swift and her staff have recruited applicants – parents, teachers, and community members – for an assessment task force. This is very welcome news to me, because over the past two years, a group of parents has repeatedly asked for an open discussion of testing – and the former superintendent, Patricia Green, refused.

In other welcome news, the assessment task force was opened to applicants in a public process. For years, I’ve wanted the district to have more ad hoc or long-term committees that community members could join. Dr. Swift has also created a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel made up of invited members. Full disclosure: I’m on the Blue Ribbon panel. [Here's a .pdf of the full list of members.]

Jeanice Swift, superintendent of the Ann Arbor Public Schools. (Photo courtesy of AAPS.)

During the first two weeks in February, Swift conducted a series of meetings that shared what the district learned from the Listen and Learn Tour. If you weren’t able to attend one of those meetings, you can watch a video here, or read the summary report. [Here's a link to the written report and summary.]

As if that’s not enough, it turns out that Swift has a whole list of new initiatives waiting in the wings.

She heard parents and teachers complain about underutilized buildings, problem principals, the wish for another K-8 program, and the need for new magnet programs. And she responded with the idea of a K-8 STEAM program (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) located at Northside Elementary School, which has been losing students.

She heard parents and teachers ask for more language programming, and responded with the idea of having multiple languages taught in elementary schools.

She recognized that Ann Arbor Tech and the Roberto Clemente Center are two distinct – but expensive – programs, and recommended keeping them separate but placing them in the same building.

She heard parents and teachers say that they were tired of cutting, cutting, and cutting from the budget, and that we should be generating income. She responded by proposing that the Ann Arbor schools become Schools of Choice to other students in Washtenaw County. In so doing, Swift implicitly acknowledges that the marginal cost of adding students from outside the district – who bring to the district per-pupil funding that’s less than the per-pupil funding for Ann Arbor resident students – is still worth it to the district.

That’s the good news.

I do think it’s good news.

I’m happy to see the superintendent respond to feedback from the community with plans that will likely add value to the district. I like to see new ideas. I am thrilled to see options for new revenue rather than simply proposals for cuts. I have even proposed some of these ideas in the past.

I’m happy to see the school board excited about new ideas, too. But I’m not happy to see the school board giddy about new ideas. Here’s where things get dicey.

Bad Process, Unclear Execution

I don’t, as it happens, have a major objection to any of these ideas. [1] I do have an issue with the process, though.

On Jan. 29, 2014, the Ann Arbor Public Schools board unanimously approved a massive array of programmatic changes, including opening a K-8 STEAM magnet program at Northside Elementary; developing new pre-K programs; and ensuring that Roberto Clemente and Ann Arbor Tech high schools are co-located at the Stone School building, where Ann Arbor Tech is currently located.

These approvals came despite the fact that little detail about implementation or costs was available. What was available was an assurance that more information would be forthcoming as staff developed more detailed proposals.

Most disturbing about these actions, however, was the timing. The board held a retreat on Jan. 22, 2014, and the agenda was distributed that morning. According to Amy Biolchini’s report of the retreat in the Ann Arbor News, the board was enthusiastic about these ideas. According to her report: “The board will hear a first briefing on the item at its meeting Jan. 29 and may vote on it in a special meeting Feb. 5.”

Based on that report, and based on board policy, I expected a vote on these items would take place in February. Instead, the vote took place a mere week after the retreat, on Jan. 29.  And as has too often been the case in the past, the discussion and vote took place after midnight.

These decisions came fast on the heels of another rushed decision. At the Jan. 15, 2014 board meeting, the board opened the district to many more “School of Choice” (out of district) students. Again, the school board made a hasty decision – which will have sweeping ramifications for the schools – taking a vote on this on the same night that it was presented. The school board voted, despite the fact that it wasn’t entirely clear how the administration developed the proposed numbers for School of Choice students.

That same night, the school board also changed the timelines for in-district transfers and created a situation where those in-district transfer requests are out of sync with kindergarten roundups – a significant outreach point for incoming kindergarten families.

At both board meetings, the votes were unanimous.

Pattern and Practice

I might have overlooked these issues with the process, if it happened once – especially when a new superintendent is involved. But when it happens twice in the space of a month, I start to think about patterns and practice.

Although the superintendent is new, the school board is not. The school board is the exact same board that voted, after midnight on Dec. 14, 2011, to give two administrators raises. Again, at that time, they combined the first and second briefings – initial consideration, then a final vote – into the same meeting.

At the time, the decision to award the raises did not sit well with many members of the public. But what didn’t sit well with me was not the idea of the raises, but rather the idea that the school board would ram through that decision.

In fact, the board itself has recognized this problem. On April 10, 2013, after a series of very long evening meetings, the school board adopted Board Policy 1200, which states, in part [.pdf of full Board Policy 1200]:

Regular Meetings
…
Items(s) of particular public interest shall be briefed at least once at a meeting held prior to the meeting at which a vote on the item(s) is to be taken.
…
Time Limitations
No Regular Meeting, Organizational Meeting, Study Session, or Special Meeting will be longer than 5 hours from the official start time. Standing Committee Meetings will strive to be no longer than 2 hours from the official start time. These time limitations are imposed regardless of the posted start time or the actual start time.

All meeting agendas will be arranged to place critical Board decisions and actions at or near the beginning of the agenda to ensure the smooth and timely operation of the District. Any agenda items incomplete at the time limit will be added to a subsequent meeting agenda at the discretion of the President, in consultation with the Superintendent.

Time limits are also addressed in a separate policy – Board Policy 1220. It states, in part [.pdf of full Board Policy 1220]:

Time Limits

When establishing the agenda for Regular Meetings and Study Sessions, the Board President and the Superintendent (the Executive Committee with the Superintendent) will place reasonable time limits on each agenda item to ensure the overall meeting time limit, as indicated in Policy 1200, can be maintained. Agenda items will be assigned a presentation length and a discussion length, and the time limits will be carefully enforced by the meeting chair.

Presentations exceeding the time limit may be granted an additional 5 minutes at the discretion of the Board President.

If Board discussion needs to continue past the set time limit, extension of that time limit may be voted on by the Board through normal voting procedure.

Because board meetings start at 7 p.m., any decisions made after midnight, generally speaking, violate the policy. Voting on items important to the public after midnight, and on the same day as they were proposed, violates the policy. [It's also worth noting that although the AAPS board meetings are broadcast live by Community Television Network on cable TV and rebroadcast periodically, these recordings are not available online – unlike the meetings of most public bodies. So unless you have stamina and a flexible schedule, it's difficult to view the proceedings. That's a major accessibility problem.]

Even worse? The board knew that they were violating their own policies. This was not an oversight.

At the Jan. 29, 2014 meeting, according to the Ann Arbor News report, trustee Glenn Thomas (who then voted for the changes) “advised his fellow board members that by voting on the issue that night, they would be violating their own policy.  … As Nelson pointed out, the board follows this policy for routine business items – like purchase agreements and contracts – but not for some of the more major programming changes that affect students. ‘In the School of Choice expansion which was one of the biggest things I’ve voted on in my time as a board, we didn’t follow the policy,’ Nelson said. ‘In this wonderful package, another one of the most major things that I’ve been a part of on this board – we’re not following our policy. … It is somewhat sobering to me that on the most important things we do, we don’t follow it.’”

As I said earlier, I do support most – if not all – of these changes. But that is not really the point. These were not emergencies. The board had the option to schedule a special meeting, or to wait two weeks for the next meeting.

There are people who think that the end justifies the means. Most of the time, I’m not one of them. I don’t really understand the point of undertaking a thoughtful, deliberative process to hear people’s ideas and concerns  – like Swift’s Listen and Learn tour – and then implementing major changes without public process. These are perhaps the most major changes I’ve seen since I’ve been writing about the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Yet the changes were enacted without notification to people who might have strong opinions about the changes, and were voted on before the Listen and Learn tour results were shared with the community.

I appreciate that the school board is enthusiastic about a superintendent who is coming in with new ideas, but I’d like to see the board ask for more detail before they give wholesale support to these proposals. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust, but verify.”

I also believe better decisions are made through a deliberative process that involves the community.

The likelihood is that the school board will continue to make rushed decisions. What might deter that behavior? If the community gives the school board – and the new superintendent – feedback that there is a better way to conduct the school district’s business.

As Dr. Seuss says in The Lorax, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Send your feedback directly to the school board (including the superintendent) at boe@aaps.k12.mi.us.

-

Notes

[1] I do have some questions. For instance, while I’m delighted with the idea of increasing second language education in the district, I am not clear on why might we teach multiple languages in various elementary schools without a clear path to how we will teach them in high school.

Ruth Kraut is an Ann Arbor resident and parent of three children who have all attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She writes at Ann Arbor Schools Musings (a2schoolsmuse.blogspot.com) about education issues in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Michigan.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our local reporting and columnists. Check out 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!

That’s because Ann Arbor Public Schools has informed the city that the district won’t be partnering with the city on the construction of a 100-150 foot tall, 60kW wind turbine on school property.

In a letter dated Jan. 30, 2014 from AAPS superintendent Jeanice Kerr Swift to city administrator Steve Powers, Swift concluded: “I believe that it is not in the best interest of the District to consent to this project.” However, Swift’s letter leaves open the possibility of future collaboration: “I … sincerely hope that we may explore and partner on other City of Ann Arbor – Ann Arbor Public Schools endeavors in the future.” [.pdf of Jan. 30, 2014 letter from Swift]

While the concluding nod to collaboration is common administrative boilerplate, the wind energy project could still result in the kind of partnership it describes. Brian Steglitz is the city of Ann Arbor engineer who is managing the wind energy project and spoke with The Chronicle by phone on Feb. 10. Steglitz explained that the U.S. Department of Energy, which had awarded the $951,500 grant, has asked the city to regroup and consider how to proceed with the educational component of the project, even with no viable location to construct a demonstration wind turbine.  The USDOE has indicated that it would be receptive to using some of the grant money on a proposal that is simply an educational project, not involving construction of a wind turbine.

According to Steglitz, about $70,000 of the $951,500 grant has been spent so far. The educational project would cost significantly less than the amount of the grant. If the USDOE were to accept the city’s modified proposal, it would eventually need city council approval – to expend the grant funds in that manner.

At its June 17, 2013 meeting, the city council wrangled over expending some of that initial $70,000, when it deliberated on a $49,883 contract with CDM Smith to perform an environmental analysis (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – for constructing a wind turbine at a Pioneer High School location.

The council vote on that contract was not unanimous, with three councilmembers dissenting: Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Objections included the fact that the Pioneer High School site does not enjoy wind patterns that are well-suited to electric power generation. So some councilmembers were skeptical that the amount of power that AAPS could obtain from the project would be worth the investment.

According to Steglitz, CDM Smith completed the scope of work in the contract, and a report was filed with the USDOE. Steglitz indicated that based on that report, the project seemed like it could be on a path to be granted a categorical exclusion for additional environmental review. That became a moot point, when AAPS indicated that it was not willing to partner with the city on wind turbine construction. From Swift’s letter to Powers:

1. The Pioneer area is not considered a high quality location for this purpose due to low average wind speeds. It is doubtful that the operation of a wind turbine at this site would generate savings.

2. The maintenance support for the unit does not seem fully developed. Presently, only two repair technicians work for the wind turbine company in North America performing maintenance and repairs. I hesitate to be the owner’s representative for a high profile unit when it may not be repairable in a timely fashion. The unit also needs regular cleaning for appearance sake creating another potential scheduling obstacle.

3. The “ice throw” is an additional concern. In the winter the thaw and freeze process allows ice to form on idle blades. When the unit is set in motion by the wind it releases the ice in a random manner. The blade tips travel at up to 300 mph and ice thrown from the blades could create a potential problem.

The USDOE grant was accepted by the city council at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting. The grant included a requirement that the city provide $484,390 in matching funds on the $951,500 grant – which the city expected to achieve through partnership with a third-party developer: Wind Products Inc., out of Brooklyn, N.Y.

The plan had been to locate the wind turbines on AAPS property, and that Wind Products Inc. would construct the turbines. Wind Products Inc. would have then provided AAPS with a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA), which would have given the AAPS some guaranteed minimum of power at less than the current market rate. The city of Ann Arbor would have been the recipient of any renewable energy credits (RECs) from the installation.

Ruth Kraut

And then, come November and December, I realize that once again, I failed to spread out my giving – and I had better pull out my checkbook. Writing the bulk of these checks at the end of the year has a benefit, in that it allows me to look at all of my donations at once. But it also means that I’m in a rush and I don’t always take the time to reflect. So this is my opportunity.

Like many of you, we make donations to local, national, and international groups that focus on a wide range of issues. For us, those organizations do work related to health, the environment, politics, women’s issues, Jewish groups, social action, human services, and more.

Although I do give to some groups that, loosely speaking, fit the category of “education,” those entities do not make up a significant proportion of our donations. I confess to a certain ambivalence to giving to such groups – because, in many ways, I’m already a big contributor to public education. And it’s likely that you are, too.

In this column, I discuss the concept of donations – both voluntary (to charitable causes) and involuntary (through taxes). I talk about ways that most of us are already contributing, and provide some information that will help you give even more, if you’re so inclined.

When I sent an early draft of this piece to Steven Norton, an Ann Arbor resident and executive director of Michigan Parents for Schools, he shared this thought: “I’m not sure I agree that we are ‘donating’ to the schools, in the sense that this means an optional charitable contribution. I don’t feel like I’m donating when I help pay for police or fire services, or road maintenance.” He then referred to a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes: “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.”

His comments sent me straight to the dictionary – several dictionaries, in fact – looking for the distinction between donate and contribute. It wasn’t an easy search to find exactly what I was looking for.

For instance, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines donate as a verb that means “to give (money, food, clothes, etc.) in order to help a person or organization,” and “to make a gift of, especially: to contribute to a public or charitable cause.” That certainly implies a voluntary aspect. Yet a synonym for donate is contribute, “to give or supply in common with others.” In other words, contribute may or may not have a voluntary aspect.

Certainly, taxes are not voluntary, but they are contributions to a common cause. So in this column, when I use the term donor, donate or donation, I mean it in the sense of contributing to an important common good – public education.

The Property Tax Conundrum: I’m A Big Donor

I already give thousands of dollars to the vast educational enterprise that is Michigan’s public education system – as do many of you. Most of the sales tax I pay, a portion of my income tax, and the majority of my property taxes go to education. If you live in Ann Arbor, your tax bill includes line items for the State Education Tax, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, the Washtenaw Intermediate School District, and Washtenaw Community College.

More than 20 years ago – when I first became a homeowner – the taxes I paid for public schools actually went directly to the Ann Arbor Public Schools. In 1994, though, all of that changed with the passage of Proposal A.

The goal of that 1994 statewide ballot initiative was to create more equitable funding across all districts and to keep property taxes from escalating dramatically. But Proposal A took away most local control over school funding, though districts can still request voter approval to levy local millages for building construction, repairs, and maintenance – not, however, for operating expenses.

The state collects taxes directly from residential and non-residential property owners – 6 mills each, annually – and pools that money into the state’s School Aid Fund (SAF), which also includes revenues from sales and income taxes, state lottery revenue and other sources. Out of this fund, the state pays local school districts a per-pupil allotment – a variable amount set by the state legislature that can increase or decrease each year. In addition, state law controls the amount of taxes that school districts can levy directly – those that are not pooled into the SAF. Beyond the 6 mills that go into the SAF, for example, there’s an additional tax on non-residential property owners, but the state caps that tax at 18 mills.

Both the funding from non-SAF local property taxes and from the total School Aid Fund are factored into an amount called the per-pupil “foundation allowance.” This amount varies by district. Ann Arbor’s per-pupil funding for the current fiscal year, which began July 1, is $9,050 for each student. It accounts for most of the district’s revenues, with other revenues including the district’s share of a countywide special education millage and from federal grants. The per-pupil funding has been stagnant or falling for the last decade.

State per-pupil funding chart. (Source: Michigan Parents for Schools)

Because of Michigan’s complex system of funding public schools and the fact that Ann Arbor is a relatively affluent community, today Ann Arbor is – as AAPS board member Christine Stead is rightly fond of explaining – a “donor district.” That is, Ann Arbor taxpayers are paying more into the statewide system than the district receives back in state aid. Steve Norton of Michigan Parents for Schools told me that AAPS gets back from the state less than half – about 47% – of what local taxpayers actually pay to the state for education.

I find the “per-pupil” approach to funding to be particularly frustrating. It’s often an unfair way to allocate funding, because although incremental costs change with the addition or subtraction of kids to a school, many of the base costs don’t change. For instance, when Pfizer closed its large research operation in Ann Arbor several years ago, many families moved out of this community. The children in those families left AAPS schools – along with the per-pupil funding for those students. Although funding dropped because of those departures, the fixed costs for educating the thousands of remaining students didn’t decrease proportionately.

When it comes to per-pupil funding, my family has been an exceptionally big contributor. For the past 15-plus years, I’ve had 1, 2, or 3 kids enrolled in the public schools, and each of my kids has brought their per-pupil “foundation” allowance. So my family is a “donor” to public schools in two ways – as part of the larger property-taxed community, and as a family that has chosen to stay in the public school system.

In some ways, I don’t mind being a “donor” to the state’s public school system, which includes supporting districts that are much poorer than AAPS. For example, my taxes are supporting the Kalkaska schools [1] – and really, I don’t mind (too much) paying for that.

But I do mind that Ann Arbor taxpayers can no longer levy additional millages to pay for operating expenses for our own Ann Arbor Public Schools.

And as an aside, I also mind that my taxes are supporting the Education Achievement Authority, an entity that the state uses to take over schools that are designated as failing. For a longer and fairly neutral analysis of the EAA, I’d suggest reading this piece from the Michigan Policy Network. You’ll find a more critical view at the Inside the EAA website – which includes EAA documents obtained through the Michigan Freedom of Information Act by state legislators and others trying to counteract the authority’s secrecy.

The Parent Conundrum: I’m (Still) A Big Donor

But taxes aren’t the only way I contribute to local education. As a parent, I’m constantly being asked to donate to school-related activities. Certain expenses that I pay have directly or indirectly benefited my children. Those costs include paying $500 for my son to play high school basketball ($280 for the district’s registration fee and pay-to-play, plus other team-related costs), field trip expenses, and PTO dues.

I feel like I get milked dry by these costs – and it doesn’t make me want to jump up with donations for other activities. Over the past several years, I have spent thousands of dollars on school-related activities. Luckily, I can afford these expenses – and I understand that many families aren’t so fortunate.

Yes, I know. I signed up for having kids, and my kids are lucky to have these opportunities. So no, I’m not complaining. I’m just explaining why it is that when someone suggests I pay even more, I think: Wait a second – I’m already paying for the essentials, as a taxpayer, and as a parent who sends my kids to these schools. And I’m already paying for the extras – at least, those that involve my children. You want me to pay even more?

Must I Donate Again?

One way that we’re asked to pay even more is through donations to nonprofit foundations. Most of our local school districts, for example, have affiliated nonprofit educational foundations that solicit contributions. Historically, these foundations have been used for enrichment activities – not for core operating expenses.

Locally, that started to change in 2009 when a countywide operating millage – the only kind permitted under Proposal A – was defeated. (It passed in Ann Arbor, but failed in much of the rest of the county.) After that defeat, the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation decided to try to take up the slack with its “A Million Reasons” campaign. The name came from the idea that if everyone who supported the millage just gave the foundation the same amount of money that they would have paid in new taxes, the district would be in good shape. But that didn’t happen – and the campaign fell short of its fundraising goal that was intended to help with the basics of public education.

“Oh no,” my friend Laurie said to me as we discussed this on my annual Thanksgiving trip to my hometown. Laurie is on the board of her local educational foundation. “That doesn’t make any sense. Taxes are meant to fund schools. Local school foundations should focus on the extras.”

Now in fairness to the AAPS Educational Foundation, Laurie lives in a state that funds schools more generously, and in a district that probably gets more than twice as much as Ann Arbor does, per pupil.

But I’ll admit to sharing Laurie’s squeamishness. And the idea of the foundation spending so much social capital to raise only one million dollars – when the Ann Arbor schools budget is around $180 million – was never persuasive to me.

On the other hand, when I shared this perspective with Steve Norton via email, he noted that “personal donations are a last resort when the normal course of public policy has failed completely to meet the needs of our communities.” While he agreed with my friend that education foundations should pay for the “extras,” he also pointed to California, where local education foundations often pay for basics like salaries of whole programs – such as gym, music and art. The cause for California’s situation is similar to Michigan, he noted: a state tax system that was changed to strangulate public services. (In the case of California, their crisis was prompted by Prop 13.) “I hope we never get to that point,” Norton wrote to me, “but we are certainly headed in that direction.”

To me, the idea of asking educational foundations to make up a shortfall in public funding is a tough sell. However, the ideal that schools should be publicly funded is being challenged – and that’s still my ideal, and my values. And charitable giving is all about reflecting your ideals and values.

Multiple Ways to Give Even More

None of this is meant to imply that you shouldn’t donate to public schools, or to the broader educational enterprise. It is possible to donate directly to your local school district, without an educational foundation as an intermediary. The Ann Arbor Public Schools system has a donation policy, and probably most other local school districts do as well.

Many music teachers, for instance, will happily provide a new home for a serviceable instrument. (We donated my husband’s cello, which he stopped playing many, many years ago. His mother had maintained it in meticulous condition, hoping against hope that a grandchild would pick it up. They didn’t.)

The basic rule of thumb is, if you are interested in donating an item to a school, check with the building administrator to make sure it would be useful. And, of course, the schools also will gladly accept direct financial support – last year, for example, the Argus Planetarium at Pioneer High was renovated using a direct donation.

Or if you want to donate to one of the local educational foundations, here are links to several in Washtenaw County: the Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation; the Chelsea Education Foundation; the Educational Foundation of Dexter; the Manchester Community Schools Foundation; the Foundation for Saline Area Schools; the Whitmore Lake Foundation for Educational Excellence; and the Ypsilanti Community Schools Foundation.

Nearly every school – maybe every school – has a parent-teacher organization (PTO), and generally they are also 501(c)3 nonprofits. So if you want to support your local school, you can give directly to the PTO. The PTO directs its funds to the programs or activities that the parents and teachers want to support. Some of the PTOs have very elaborate fundraising activities. The Burns Park Run, for example, raises money to support the Burns Park Elementary PTO programs, and Ann Arbor Open has turned Scrip into a high art form. Even if they don’t have organized fundraising efforts, all PTOs can use your support.

Perhaps you have a special place in your heart for the arts, or for environmental issues. Most of the schools have special funds (or a special nonprofit – yes, many of these are auxiliary groups with nonprofit status) to fund music, theater, athletics, and more. And the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation has an environmental education fund that is meant to support the Ann Arbor schools.

Finally, there are many organizations that support kids and families, in ways both academically-related and in fighting poverty. For instance, groups like Peace Neighborhood Center, Avalon Housing, and Community Action Network support low-income families in particular neighborhoods with after-school tutoring. The Student Advocacy Center fights for kids at risk of, or threatened with, suspension and expulsion. And other organizations, like 826 Michigan, bring after-school tutoring to the masses. (A special shout-out to 826 Michigan for pairing up with the Ypsilanti cafe Beezy’s, which is open for breakfast and lunch, and then provides a space for 826 Michigan’s after-school tutoring.)

I don’t mean to give an exhaustive list, but rather to share some examples. Please do add to these ideas in the comments section.

Giving, Getting, and Governing

I’ve explained how I’m already a big contributor to the schools. But it’s not just that we give a lot. We get a lot, too – and so do residents who don’t have kids. I don’t mean that in a high-level, theoretical “we-want-good-schools” way. I mean that in an economic sense. That’s because perceptions of schools are major drivers of property values, and property values affect much more than schools.

So in the next few days, we will give to some school-related causes, and you might too. But remember – the bulk of school funding comes through the state, and that funding has been slashed over and over again in the past decade.

Perhaps the most effective donation you can make is your donation of time and effort to convince legislators to provide more funding to public schools. That’s how public schools get funding, and where reform will need to occur if we want the current situation to improve.

Keeping our public schools both public and nonprofit, at this point, requires a lot of advocacy. In my opinion, two excellent sources of information are Michigan Parents for Schools and the Tri-County Alliance for Public Education.

I’ve been writing about year-end donations, and when the year ends, a lot of people turn to New Year’s resolutions, too. While you are making your list of resolutions, I hope you’ll make room for one more thing: advocating for public, nonprofit schools. I hope you’ll advocate for schools that are for children, not for corporations or for-profit charter chains. And I hope you’ll advocate for adequate funding.

Whether you’re a donor, an advocate, or both, this I believe: together, we can make a difference.

Notes

[1] I’m not picking on the Kalkaska schools. Kalkaska became the poster child for school funding reform when it closed its doors early in the spring of 1993 after the latest of several attempts at passing an operating millage failed. [For more background, read this March 6, 1993 article in the Ludington Daily News.] Proposal A was the product of efforts to equalize school funding regardless of local tax base, coupled with then-Gov. John Engler’s promise to reduce property taxes.

Ruth Kraut is an Ann Arbor resident and parent of three children who have all attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She writes at Ann Arbor Schools Musings (a2schoolsmuse.blogspot.com) about education issues in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Michigan.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our local reporting and columnists. Check out 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!

Ruth Kraut

One thing that has come up in discussions at some schools is the possibility of school closings. This is a natural outgrowth of the fact that in the AAPS district, the prospect of school closings was raised explicitly by the school board in the spring, and by the fact that the Ann Arbor schools have been under financial pressure for several years. (As has every school district in Michigan. You can visit Michigan Parents for Schools to find out more about why that is.)

In fact, in the spring of 2013 the district issued requests for proposals for consultants to help on redistricting. Eventually, they began discussions with the University of Michigan to help the district decide what schools, if any, should be closed. Since nothing has been fully negotiated, I can’t say whether the University of Michigan’s proposal is a good plan or not. They may have a role to play. But I can say this: parents and community members have “skin in the game” when it comes to discussing redistricting schools, and I believe there is an effective way to make these decisions.

As it happens, shortly before I moved to town in 1985, Ann Arbor went through a redistricting process. It was thoughtful, involved a broad sector of the community, and resulted in significant realignments and school closings – with long-lasting benefits. It’s worth taking a look at what happened then. If redistricting is in Ann Arbor’s future, this process may be worth copying and updating.

The Committee on Excellence of Education

There were 20 members of the Committee on Excellence of Education – including many who are still active in the community today: Mary Austin, Ronald Bishop, Vincent Carillot, Patricia Chapman, Susan Doud, Cheryl Garnett, Leonard Gay, George Goodman, Charles Kieffer, Norma McCuiston, R. Griffith McDonald, Bettye McDonald, Melinda Morris, Merrill Nemiroff, Duane Renken, Ingrid Sheldon, Joann Sims, Estelle Titiev, James Wanty, and Ronald Woods.

This was the their charge [emphasis added]:

The Committee on Excellence of Education in the Ann Arbor Public Schools was created by the Board of Education to address several long and short-term issues facing the system during the 1980′s and beyond. The explicit charge to the Committee from the Board of Education was:

1. Do sufficient futuring to provide guidance to timely decisions concerning: a. a long range plan (August, 1985); b. a five-year financial plan; c. school grade reorganization

2. Recommend what quality education should look like in Ann Arbor in 1990 and beyond.

3. Address the issues associated with and make recommendations regarding: a. boundary changes; b. declining enrollment (numbers and implications); c. grade reorganizations; d. building usage; e. school closings; f. definition of what an ideal elementary, intermediate and high school should look like in terms of physical space, number of students, and curriculum; g. desegregation; h. minority/majority performance gap; i. special programs and services; j. school hours; and k. current goals and policies

4. Develop a process to fulfill the charge to the committee, such process to include formal solicitation of input from every employee group, PTO and other interested parties. Twenty-one citizens were appointed by the Trustees of the Board of Education to serve on the Committee. Three alternates were also selected in the event that vacancies should occur.

Just like today, at the time the Ann Arbor school district was trying to solve multiple problems: financial problems and declining enrollment; racial issues (segregation and achievement gap); balancing the needs of special programs; and creating consistent school hours, goals and policies. Part of the committee’s charge involved “formal solicitation of input” from all interested parties.

Let’s look at what the school district did right in 1985.

The school board appointed a group of citizens, plus alternates, and that tells you they really expected people to be committed to the committee. And the citizens were! The committee had subcommittees that sifted through data and met with the community. The district also funded a consultant to provide technical support in developing three redistricting plans based on data and guidelines that the committee provided. The public expressed concern about the input they were having (or weren’t having) as the decision was being made, and ultimately the committee put forward its own plan, not the consultant’s. That plan was then vetted by the public, and several changes to it were made.

I moved to town shortly after all of the work was done, but the decisions were still being discussed and implemented. That is not surprising, because desegregation/equity issues and school closings were a very large part of the discussion.

The redistricting decisions were essentially based on two primary issues: (1) improving racial balance; and (2) reducing the “underutilization” of schools. Although some of the school buildings were sold, the financial implications of that decision were not primary. Today, though, that might be an important consideration.

Updated Issues

If we were to modernize/adapt these almost-30-year-old guidelines, what issues would surface?

Updated Issues: Desegregation

In 1984-1985, the district was 17% African American, and that population was distributed unevenly throughout the district, with 19 out of 26 elementary schools having a building population that was either less than 12% or more than 27% African American. The Asian population was highly concentrated near the University of Michigan’s north campus. White students were a much greater percentage of the school population than today.

The committee wanted to address the problem of segregation. Past attempts had ended in failure. For instance, in 1979 the school board agreed on a desegregation plan, and shortly after found themselves ousted in an election. The committee decided that all schools should have an African American population of between 12% to 27%, and they tried to distribute the Asian population among several schools so as not to create a “third world ghetto.”

Today, the district is less segregated, but there is still wide variation. During the 2011-2012 school year, the district was 14.3% African American, 14.8% Asian, 9% multi-racial, 6.5% Hispanic/Latino, and 55.4% white. So now, there are more Asian students than African American students, many more students who identify as multi-racial, and many fewer white students compared to 1984.

Today, we are looking at different definitions of diversity. Yet just as was true then, racial/ethnic populations in the district are not evenly distributed. [.xls file with detailed AAPS student demographics for 2012-13 school year.]

Here’s a general look at some of the current racial/ethnic distributions, compared to the district average:

• Schools with approximately double or more the Asian population include: Angell, King, Logan, Thurston, Lawton, and Clague. Schools with proportionately half as many Asian students (or fewer!) include Abbot, Community, Eberwhite, and Ann Arbor Open.
• Schools with approximately double or more the Hispanic/Latino population include: Bryant, Lakewood, Mitchell, Pittsfield, and Scarlett. Schools with a very small Hispanic/Latino population include King, Lawton, and Clague.
• Schools with approximately double or more the African American population include: Bryant, Northside, and Scarlett, as well as Ann Arbor Tech and Roberto Clemente. Schools where less than 10% of the student body is African American include Bach, Eberwhite, Lakewood, King, Wines, Ann Arbor Open, and Community.
• Schools where over two-thirds of the school population is white include: Bach, Burns Park, Eberwhite, Wines, Ann Arbor Open, and Community. Schools where fewer than 40% of the students are white include: Mitchell, Northside, Scarlett, Ann Arbor Tech, and Roberto Clemente.

In addition, a much higher proportion of the African American population is low-income, compared to other racial and ethnic groups, and so schools that are more than 20% African American generally match the Title 1 schools. (Title 1 schools are schools that get additional federal funding because they have a high proportion of low-income students.) Schools that are more than 20% Asian are heavily concentrated on the north side of town.

Other schools have a higher-than-average percentage of students with special education designations. Most notable are Ann Arbor Tech and Roberto Clemente, at 29% and 42% of the student body, respectively. And while nearly a quarter of Mitchell’s students qualify as English Language Learners, there are several schools where almost no one does.

District-wide, 25% of the students qualify for the free and reduced price lunch program. Yet at Mitchell, Pittsfield, Scarlett, Ann Arbor Tech, and Roberto Clemente, over half of the students qualify for free and reduced price lunch. At King and Wines, less than 10% of the students qualify.

Updated Issues: Underutilization of Schools

In 1984, there were 13,772 students in Ann Arbor public schools; today there are over 16,500. There were 26 elementary schools in 1984, and some of them were small. The committee decided that a goal of “two classrooms per grade” was reasonable. For a K-5 school, two classrooms per grade would mean a school building with a little more than 300 students in it. (The committee also recommended reconfiguring the grade levels – at the time, the elementary schools were K-6.) If a grade 6-8 school were to have eight classrooms per grade, the school would have between 600 and 650 students in it.

If we had the same goals today, we would be looking at the following elementary schools with significantly fewer than 300 students: Mitchell, Northside and Pittsfield. (Angell has consistently been just under 300.) It’s also worth noting that Mitchell, Northside, and Pittsfield have been losing students since at least the late 1990s. Northside’s population count is now down to 189, and the school has lost more than two classrooms’ worth of students since 2010! (I’m not going to speculate on why, but obviously that is worth investigating.)

Similarly, Scarlett Middle School’s population has declined by over 100 students in the last 15 years, and is now under 500 students – while every other middle school in the district has seen increases. Ann Arbor Tech and Roberto Clemente have both seen shrinkage, while Ann Arbor Open and Community High have both seen increases.

In 1985, the elementary schools averaged 260 students; a year later, after the redistricting took place, they averaged 380 students. Since 2005, the elementary schools have had average head counts in the 330s. If we were to aim for elementary schools with an average of 370 students, we’d probably close three elementary schools, and perhaps close a middle school or turn it into a K-8 school.

Map showing the location of current AAPS schools: elementary (red), middle (green) and high schools (blue). The orange icons are administrative buildings. (Image links to interactive Google map – click on a school icon for more information about that location.)

Updated Issues: Magnet and Specialty Programs

In 1985, the committee recommended combining the various open classrooms around the district into an Open School, then housed at Bach. So too, a new look at redistricting could imagine some other types of magnets. Ideas that I’ve heard mentioned include another K-8 school on the east side of the school district; another Open-type school; a K-5 or K-8 language immersion program (Spanish, Mandarin, and/or Arabic); a STEM (science and technology) K-5 or K-8 program; a Montessori school; and a school, or two, with an arts/theater/music focus.

I’m sure I’m missing a few of the ideas that are out there! Obviously, redistricting offers opportunities to create other magnet or specialty programs.

Updated Issues: School Closings

In the 1980s, the district closed six schools, selling or leasing several of the buildings. One school building – Lakewood Elementary, on the city’s far west side – was reserved by the district and eventually reopened. But Clinton School’s building was sold to the Jewish Community Center, which also houses the Hebrew Day School; the former Bader School building now houses a preschool/early elementary center; Freeman School’s building was leased to Go Like the Wind Christian Montessori School; and the building for Newport School now belongs to the Rudolph Steiner School.

And those private schools have grown, at least in part because they were able to move into nice buildings.

As I wrote in the blog post, “Unintended Consequences” [1]:

So, for instance, the Rudolph Steiner School started in 1980 with a handful of students, and grew slowly until 1986, when it was able to occupy Newport School. By 1999, the Steiner School had 298 students – the vast majority in their K-8 lower school (313 students K-12, 2009).

In 1985, the Hebrew Day School was in very inadequate space, and had under 50 students. By 1999, the Hebrew Day School had over 100 students (87 students K-5, 2009).

Go Like the Wind Christian Montessori school, which only opened in 1987, had over 100 students by 1999 (101 students K-8, 2009).

And Ann Arbor Hills Child Development Center goes through age 8, with a K-2 primary school program that in 1999 had 35 students (33 students K-2, 2009).

As we look to the future, I would hope that we consider how to reduce the competition that AAPS faces from private or charter schools. From that point of view, ideal school buildings to consider for sale are buildings that will have resale value to organizations that are not private or charter schools. In that sense, a neighborhood school building like Pittsfield or Mitchell – under-enrolled though they may be – is much less attractive to sell than a building like Angell, Bach, or Community, all of which are downtown or near downtown. Also more desirable to sell would be the building for A2 Tech (formerly Stone School), which is near Packard, a major thoroughfare. Not only would the district probably get less money for a Pittsfield over a Bach, but a Pittsfield would be much more likely to be turned into another – and competing – school.

Other things that are worth putting on the metaphorical table:

• Geographic distribution. In the 1985 plan, the committee recommended closing Forsythe Middle School as they felt it was too close to Slauson. That didn’t happen because the public didn’t like it. Today, Scarlett is the most underenrolled middle school, but closing Scarlett would leave no middle school in the southeast quadrant of the district.
• Transportation and walkability. Burns Park, Mitchell and Tappan are examples of schools that draw a lot of walkers, and that’s a good thing – although it may sometimes conflict with concerns about racial balance. Transportation and walkability are huge issues for parents, at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

Two other issues are the expected growth and movement of student populations, and of course the next moves of the state legislature.

The Doover: Looking Ahead, Looking Behind

As you can see, there’s a lot to think about. Change can be hard. Even mini-reorganizations – such as the restructurings that occurred when Lakewood Elementary reopened, when Skyline High opened, and when Ann Arbor Open moved to Mack and the Mack school catchment area students moved to Bach – were vociferously debated. But as a parent whose children experienced two of those changes, I feel comfortable saying that it didn’t end up being all that big of a deal.

Some homework with the “Doover” stamp. (Photo by Ko Shih.)

As I look back at the process the school district used in 1985, I’m proud of it. I think it’s an excellent model, and it’s one reason that the reorganization was successful for as long as it was.

Yet the committee didn’t do all of this alone. Not only did the administration provide key support, the feedback loop from the broader community was quite strong. In fact, quite a few of the initial committee recommendations never came to pass, because of community feedback. (Also, the committee made a lot of recommendations that were not related directly to redistricting, but rather were related to the other committee goals.)

At Ann Arbor Open, in fifth and sixth grade, my younger two children had teachers Rick Hall and Ko Shih. Rick and Ko don’t generally tolerate messy or sub-par work. Turning that in earns students the special “Doover” stamp. (Get it? Do Over.)

In this case, I want to turn the Doover on its head. I want us to Doover the redistricting process using the same method that was used in 1985. I want a Doover, not because the work was so bad, but because the work was so good.

Notes

[1] “Unintended Consequences” was the last in a series of posts that I wrote on the 1985 reorganization. The others, in sequence, are: “But Was It Worth It?“; “A Little History“; “Desegregation Outcomes“; and “Privatization History.”

Ruth Kraut is an Ann Arbor resident and parent of three children who have all attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She writes at Ann Arbor Schools Musings (a2schoolsmuse.blogspot.com) about education issues in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Michigan.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our local reporting and columnists. Check out 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!

Ruth Kraut

The lawsuit argues that the Michigan Constitution requires a free public education for all Michigan students, and that charging for a seventh hour is unconstitutional. Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan executive director, outlined the position in an ACLU press release: “Allowing this model to continue will open the floodgates for any district in the state to charge for every conceivable part of their students’ education creating a two-tiered system in which students who have money get ahead, while those who do not fall behind.”

In early June, I wrote my first column for The Chronicle, about three aspects of the AAPS budget proposal. ["Column: Disparate Impact of AAPS Cuts?"] One of the areas I wrote about was seventh hour, a term that refers to the option of taking a seventh class during a semester, rather than the more standard six classes.

I was concerned about issues of equity – about Skyline students being able to acquire 7.5 credits in a year without paying, while Pioneer and Huron students could only earn 6 credits in a year for free. I was concerned about students losing access to the arts. I was concerned about disparate impacts.

I assumed that – as with many other proposals – this idea was poorly conceived, but legal.

A couple of days after my column was published in The Chronicle, I talked with the ACLU’s Kary Moss. (Full disclosure: Kary is a friend of mine, and we frequently discuss education issues. And that first Ann Arbor Chronicle column ended up as “Exhibit 4” in the ACLU complaint.)

Kary suggested to me that she was concerned about seventh hour, too – because she believed the move to charge tuition was unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional?! That thought had not even occurred to me.

Background of Constitutional Challenges

In 1966, school desegregation was a major issue in Ann Arbor. So, too, was a decision by the Ann Arbor school board to charge students fees for registration, textbooks and other classroom necessities.

At the heart of the issue was a discussion about what it means to provide a public education. The first public school in the nation (before we were a nation) was Boston Latin, founded in 1635. And in 1827, Massachusetts passed a law making schools free to all children.

In Michigan, the idea that a commonly-funded public education should be free to students began in the 1800s. In 1850 our state Constitution stated [emphasis added]:

Sec. 4. The legislature shall, within five years from the adoption of this constitution, provide for and establish a system of primary schools, whereby a school shall be kept without charge for tuition, at least three months in each year, in every school district in the state; and all instruction in said school shall be conducted in the English language.

Different language was enshrined in the 1908 state constitution, Article 11, § 9:

The legislature shall continue a system of primary schools, whereby every school district in the state shall provide for the education of its pupils without charge for tuition; …

By 1963, the Constitution – and the language in it – had changed slightly, and included secondary schools, but the sentiment was the same. Article 8, § 2 states:

The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.

We are still governed by the 1963 Michigan Constitution.

Despite the clear words of the Constitution, the fact is that over the years, public schools have often found themselves “pinched” in tight budget times. That was true in the mid-1960s, when the Ann Arbor school board found itself hard-pressed and decided to charge students for books and school supplies. Parents were unhappy, and they challenged this decision in circuit court on Sept. 6, 1966.

By 1970, the case had made its way to the Michigan Supreme Court, and in Bond v. Ann Arbor School District, the Supreme Court ruled that “it is clear that books and school supplies are an essential part of a system of free public elementary and secondary schools.”

In other words, the Ann Arbor school district could not charge students for items that are necessary for school – and neither could any other Michigan school district.

Over the years, other questions have come up. Did school districts need to provide sneakers or clothing for a required gym class? What about fees for field trips or after school athletics? In many cases, the answer is that yes, fees can be charged. I’ve paid for my children’s “pay-to-play” athletics. I’ve paid after-school theater fees. I have enough money to pay for them, but at times, with three children in the schools? Those fees really added up to a lot of money.

In a 2011 memo, State Superintendent Michael Flanagan reminded school districts that: “In March of 1972, the State Board of Education developed a position statement regarding Free Textbooks, Materials, and the Charging of Fees. For your information, this position statement is available on the Department’s website.” [.pdf of Flanagan memo] [.pdf position statement regarding free textbooks, materials and the charging of fees]

Perhaps Flanagan was responding to an incident in the Birmingham Public Schools district. Recently, Birmingham Public Schools settled a class action lawsuit, brought – again – by parents, around the issue of – again – being charged for school supplies, registration, and locks. As a result of the recent settlement, parents will be able to get back the fees they were charged over the last three years. [.pdf of Birmingham Public Schools settlement]

In that 2011 memo, Flanagan also summarized the State Board of Education’s position on charging fees for courses, writing: “In short, the position clearly indicates that: School districts may not make charges for any required or elective course, such as for general or registration fees, course fees, and/or textbook and school supplies.”

ACLU Case Against AAPS

Shortly after I talked with Kary Moss in early June, the ACLU sent the Ann Arbor school board a letter, writing that seventh hour “provides students with an opportunity to obtain credits toward graduation” and “cannot be differentiated from any other period of the traditional school day.”

Further, the letter stated: “These classes are not like extracurricular activities, which an intermediate appellate court allowed, in Attorney General v. East Jackson Public School, to be subject to special fees. The activities discussed in that case were not ‘necessary elements of a high school career’ and students did not receive credit for participation” [.pdf of ACLU letter to AAPS].

[Slight digression: If you're interested, the ACLU also has a fascinating “Right to Read” case wending its way through the Michigan courts. You can find more information about that here.]

Despite the ACLU letter, I heard individual AAPS board members say that they hoped to try out the fee system this year at $100/seventh hour, and then charge more – a lot more, like $400/class – the following year. Realize that $400/class would likely be unaffordable for many people who could afford $100/class.

This is a scan of a summer 2013 Ann Arbor tax bill. While the state Constitution promises schools that are free to students, the schools in fact are commonly funded, by us – the public. I think it’s worth every penny.

School board members seemed unfazed by the idea that they could potentially be sued. They seemed unconcerned that the charges would only affect the students with semester-long classes (at Pioneer and Huron) and not the students with trimesters (at Skyline). They also seemed unmoved by a letter in late June from Huron and Pioneer school counselors, asking the board to reconsider its decision because of the inequity between schools and because it will be hard to help students who need to meet graduation requirements. [This letter is attached as Exhibit 13 in the ACLU complaint.]

In the ACLU’s complaint – submitted on Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 in the 22nd Circuit Court of Washtenaw County – there are affidavits from the plaintiffs, Paloma Paez-Coombe and Elliot Polot. (They are both minors, so their parents file as “next friends.”) I found their statements very moving. [.pdf of ACLU complaint]

Elliot, who will be a senior this year, wrote: “My first choice of college is University of Michigan. They offer you a specific program where they can certify you to be a K-12 band director while still allowing you to study your instrument. . . To make myself competitive for this college program, I needed to take four years of band. Without seven hours of classes, I never would have had the opportunity to take advantage of the band program the way that I did. . . Some families can afford to pay for seven hours and some cannot. It’s not fair for families who can’t afford to pay the fee and I think they deserve the same opportunities as everyone else.”

Paloma will be a junior and is planning on taking seven classes each semester next year, including multiple AP classes. She wrote: “Last year, the only classes I took that did not count as requirements toward graduation were Orchestra and Spanish. I still had to take one semester of seven hours to get in all of my requirements.” She also wrote that the arts are very important to her at school, saying: “Orchestra is a nice way to do something physical and out of feeling instead of regular academics. . . It’s a good way to let out stress.”

In addition to taking seven hours each semester, Paloma has also paid to take an entire year of English online, and has been charged $250 for each of those classes. I wonder: If charging for seventh hour is not legal, would charging for English online be legal? Under what circumstances?

I personally found it hard to understand why the Ann Arbor school board would ignore the ACLU’s mid-June letter. I found it hard to understand why the school board would ignore the State Board of Education, which had written that “School districts may not make charges for any required or elective course.” I found it hard to understand how the school board could ignore the inequity in number of credits that students would be able to earn in a year at Skyline versus Huron and Pioneer.

I found it even harder to understand why the school board would risk spending money on a lawsuit, when charging a fee would only bring in an estimated $100,000 – out of an almost $184 million budget. I found it hardest to understand why they would want to make it more difficult for students to take critical classes.

In case you’re wondering, I’m rooting for the ACLU to win. And I’m rooting for students to be able to take the classes they want to take, whether that means–for a given student–six hours or seven hours per semester. But even if the ACLU case is not successful, the idea of charging for seventh hour is still a terrible one. As the 1908 Michigan Constitution stated: “Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

To make that a reality, they need to be free.

Ruth Kraut is an Ann Arbor resident and parent of three children who have all attended the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She writes at Ann Arbor Schools Musings (a2schoolsmuse.blogspot.com) about education issues in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and Michigan.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our local reporting and columnists. Check out 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!

Donald Shelton, right, talks with former Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent Scott Westerman, who attended an Aug. 1, 2013 hearing of the Washtenaw County election commission. Shelton, chief judge of the county trial court, chairs the commission, which held a clarity/factual review hearing for recall ballot language against six current AAPS trustees. For 18 years Westerman was a member of the men’s choral group Measure for Measure. Shelton is still a member. (Photos by the writer.)

Jody Huhn had submitted forms on July 17, 2013 to recall trustees Simone Lightfoot, Susan Baskett, Irene Patalan, Glenn Nelson, Andy Thomas, and Christine Stead. Patalan and Nelson did not attend the hearing. Three of the four trustees who did attend – Baskett, Thomas and Stead – addressed the commissioners, arguing that the recall language was not clear and not factual.

Huhn had cited four identical reasons in all six recall petitions: (1) failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities; (2) failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making; (3) failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting; (4) failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term. [.pdf of recall petition language]

Board president Deb Mexicotte was not included because state election law prohibits the filing of a recall petition against elected officials who are in the first year of their term, if that term is longer than two years. Nor can such officials be recalled in the final year of their term, for terms longer than two years. Mexicotte was re-elected to a four-year term in November 2012, for the only AAPS trustee position on that ballot – so she is still serving the first year of her current term. This particular recall constraint was part of broader changes in state election law through Public Act 417 of 2012. [.pdf of Public Act 417 of 2012]

Related to item (4) in the proposed ballot language, the most recent AAPS superintendent, Patricia Green, turned in her resignation in early April after a little less than two years on the job. Her resignation took effect in mid-July.

Huhn had supported Ben Edmondson for the superintendent’s position. Edmonson, principal at district’s Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, had been one of six semi-finalists selected by the AAPS board in its current superintendent search, but was not picked as one of the two finalists. Those two finalists – Brian Osborne and Jeanice Kerr Swift – were not internal candidates. Last month the board offered the job to Osborne, but he ultimately rejected the offer. Earlier this week, the board made an offer to Swift, who has agreed to enter into contract negotiations. She currently is an assistant superintendent at a school system in Colorado Springs.

Huhn attended the recall language hearing, but declined to address the board.

The election commissioners are Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court; Larry Kestenbaum, county clerk/register of deeds; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer. After hearing from three AAPS trustees, election commissioners decided to address the issue of clarity first, and if the language were deemed to be clear, they would then move on to discuss the issue of factuality. Initial steps of a recall require that ballot language be deemed clear and factual by the board of election commissioners in the jurisdiction of the elected officials who are the target of the recall.

The requirement that the language be factual was part of Public Act 417, enacted in late 2012. Early in the morning of Aug. 1, Kestenbaum sent an email to the other two election commissioners stating that he does not believe the factual-standard requirement is constitutional. [.pdf of Kestenbaum's Aug. 1, 2013 email] This is the first recall effort launched in Washtenaw County since the factual requirement became law.

After brief deliberations, the three commissioners voted unanimously that the recall language in all six petitions – which contained identical wording – lacked sufficient clarity.

McClary made a motion to address the issue of factuality, stating that the recall language did not appear to be factual. She felt it was important for commissioners to weigh in on that issue. Her motion died for lack of a second. Shelton and Kestenbaum indicated that there was no need to deliberate on that issue, since the question of clarity had already been determined and the law requires that the language must be both clear and factual.

Clarity/Factual Review Hearing: Public Commentary

Donald Shelton, who chairs the commission in his capacity as chief judge of the Washtenaw County trial court, began the hearing by asking Jody Huhn if she wanted to address the commission. “I’m good,” she replied, by way of declining his offer.

From left: Ann Arbor Public Schools trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, and Christine Stead before the Aug. 1 clarity/factual review hearing, which was held at the county administration building in downtown Ann Arbor.

Three trustees spoke to commissioners, starting with Susan Baskett. She described her self as a life-long resident of Ann Arbor and a 10-year member of the AAPS board of education. She was “hurt and dismayed” by the recall effort. “I felt I’d served honorably, on behalf of all the Ann Arbor Public Schools students and their families.” That includes listening to and learning from “anyone who’s been willing to teach me,” she said. Although she felt the recall was unwarranted, as a “true Democrat” she supported the right to mount a recall effort.

Baskett contested the recall language, saying it doesn’t meet the requirements of P.A. 417 of 2012, and she asked the commissioners to void this recall effort. She said she wasn’t a lawyer, but she had read the law – and “I do watch a lot of ‘Law & Order,’” she joked. Shelton replied, saying that given his regular job, “hearing from someone who’s not an attorney will be a welcome relief.”

Baskett stressed that the six trustees who were the target of the recall had not consulted with each other, nor had they hired an attorney to represent all of them. [Only Stead arrived with an attorney – Alan Harris, of the Bodman law firm. He did not formally address the commission.] Baskett said that while her arguments could apply to other trustees, she did not have their permission to speak on their behalf.

Each reason for the recall must be factual and of sufficient clarity, she noted, and if each reason doesn’t meet those standards, then the entire petition must be rejected. Baskett asserted that none of the reasons submitted for the AAPS recall were totally factual or had sufficient clarity.

The first reason – “failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities” – is very unclear, Baskett said. She challenged the definition of “thoughtful consideration,” and wondered how it could be proven. She said she could submit the names of people she has conferred with before and after nearly every vote. Baskett also wondered who the constituents are in this case. There’s a very diverse constituency for AAPS, and often those constituencies are conflicted, she said. Sometimes those constituencies are very vocal, and many times they are very quiet, she said. Baskett indicated that she has met with every group that has asked her to meet with them.

The second reason for the recall is “failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making.” What is meant by transparency? Baskett asked. She said she makes an effort at the board table to clearly state her reasons for voting a particular way, and if reasons aren’t transparent, then the media will ask for clarification.

Baskett also contested the third reason for the recall: “failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting.” This is the most confusing, she said. If she is expected to consider constituent priorities thoughtfully, then given that the AAPS constituencies are diverse and often conflicted, “split votes should be expected.” Even so, the superintendent follows the direction of the prevailing vote, she noted.

Jody Huhn, an AAPS parent who filed ballot language to recall six trustees.

Finally, Baskett addressed the fourth reason: “failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.” This was also unclear and factually inaccurate, she contended. Although she voted against hiring the previous superintendent, Baskett said, she can provide a list of ways she offered guidance and support to Patricia Green. Baskett said she coordinated meetings with Green and key community leaders, including Yolanda Whiten of the Ann Arbor Community Center, Joan Doughty of the Community Action Network, and Bonnie Billups of Peace Neighborhood Center. As another example, Baskett said she called Green when the “transportation debacle of 2011 first bubbled up,” and had explained the importance of Green showing up to neighborhoods like Arrowwood and Foxfire, where students were most affected.

Regarding the issue of turnover, the 2.25 years per term needs to be clarified, Baskett said. The average includes two interim superintendents who were intended to be short-term.

Baskett concluded by saying that the recall language should be rejected because it’s not factual and it lacks sufficient clarity.

Andy Thomas also addressed the commission, challenging each of the four recall reasons on the basis of clarity and factuality.

He began by noting that this hearing groups together six individual trustees, with identical reasons given for the recall of each trustee. However, the circumstances for each trustee are different. He pointed out that the time frames for actions covered in these recall petitions are different, depending on the term of each trustee. Under Michigan law, an elected official is subject to recall only for actions that occur during his or her current term, Thomas explained. The current terms of two trustees [Nelson and Patalan] began in July of 2009, with terms for two other trustees [Stead and Baskett] beginning in January of 2011. Two additional trustees [Thomas and Lightfoot] began their current turns in January 2012.

It appeared that the petitioner wanted to recall the entire board, Thomas said, but the reasons for a recall must apply to each individual trustee – “and that trustee alone,” he said.

Thomas then gave point-by-point objections to each recall reason. He objected to the first statement – “failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities” – for reasons of clarity, saying that the language is vague and unspecific. There’s no standard for “thoughtful consideration,” nor is there any objective way to measure thoughtfulness, he said. The petition also doesn’t address which constituents didn’t receive thoughtful consideration, or how priorities of multiple constituents might be weighed against each other, or how those priorities were articulated.

Thomas also contended that the first reason isn’t factually correct, saying he has listened to and given thoughtful consideration to concerns of many individuals. He said he’s the only trustee who schedules regular coffee hours with constituents. As chair of the board’s performance committee, he said he recently convened a meeting at the Roberto Clemente Development Center to address concerns of the Friends of Roberto Clemente group. As secretary of the board, he said he responds to all correspondence addressed to the board and has personally answered over 400 emails during the first six months of this year alone. He said he responds to specific concerns, and doesn’t just send out a form letter. Many constituents thank him for his thoughtful responses, Thomas said. “It is simply not true that I have not demonstrated thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities,” he said.

Regarding the second reason – “failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making” – Thomas objected based on clarity and factual accuracy. The language doesn’t establish any threshold for transparency, or give any specifics about how to demonstrate transparency. It doesn’t even offer a working definition of transparency, he noted. Also, all board meetings are subject to the state’s Open Meetings Act, Thomas said, and are open to the public. Most meetings are televised, and board decisions are made by a vote in public. Items are typically presented at two separate meetings prior to a vote, he reported, “giving the public ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the issues and offer their comments or concerns.”

He noted that regular board meetings and committee meetings are posted on the AAPS website and are open to the public. For two straight years, the district has received the highest rating given by the Sunshine Review, a transparency in government watchdog group, Thomas said. The district has held numerous meetings on issues like the budget and the superintendent’s search, he noted. The charge in the ballot language regarding transparency is untrue, he said.

AAPS trustee Andy Thomas signs in at the Aug. 1 clarity/factual review hearing.

Thomas also objected to the third reason: “failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting.” There are so many problems with this statement that it’s hard to know where to start, he said. Because the language is directed at him as a single trustee, it’s difficult to see how he’s failed to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction. “A single trustee cannot be cohesive – this is an attribute of the board as a whole,” he contended. Nor does a single trustee have the power over the entire board to create a singular direction.

The language on split voting is particularly troublesome, he said. It implies that an individual trustee is responsible for the votes of the other trustees. If he votes with the majority of trustees and another trustee is in the minority, it only happens after lengthy debate, Thomas said. Is it the expectation that he is responsible for convincing the other six trustees that he’s right? And if he’s not successful, is this sufficient reason for a recall? Or if he’s in the minority on an issue, should he vote against his conscience for the sole purpose of creating a unified vote? It’s the nature of a democracy that there will be legitimate differences of opinion, he said, and split votes simply underline this fact. A board that votes 7-0 on all issues “would be an oligarchy, not a democracy,” he said.

In addition, the third reason for the recall is factually incorrect, Thomas argued. The board has articulated a cohesive and singular direction by adopting the district’s strategic plan and mission statement. Also, split votes “are the exception, not the norm for this board.” The vast majority of votes are 7-0, he said, and split votes occur only on a small number of contentious issues.

Lastly, Thomas addressed the fourth recall reason: “failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.” He noted that public officials can only be recalled for actions during their current term. So the historical rate of superintendent turnover is not relevant. The proposed ballot language doesn’t specify a time period during which this turnover occurred. However, it appears to cover a much longer period than his current term of a year and seven months.

He also objected on grounds that the fourth was factually incorrect. The 2.25-year turnover average “appears to have been pulled out of thin air. As my ninth grade algebra teacher used to tell me, ‘Show your work.’” The only way to come close to this number is to include interim superintendents as part of the turnover, he noted, and an interim is not intended to be permanent.

In conclusion, Thomas stated that the language is problematic on multiple levels. The language is vague, subject to multiple interpretations, and doesn’t confine itself to his current term in office, as is required by law. It asserts as truth things that are factually incorrect or that can’t be substantiated in an objective way. “It is simply a hot mess.” He urged the commission to disallow the ballot language.

The final speaker was Christine Stead, the AAPS board’s vice president, who noted that the spirit of her concerns about the language had already been expressed well by her board colleagues. She said she had read the email sent out earlier that day by Larry Kestenbaum, one of the election commissioners, regarding whether the commission would address the issue of factuality. There are some difficulties in establishing facts asserted in the proposed language, she noted. Specifically, Stead cited the turnover rate of 2.25 years, given that the trustees have different terms. It’s also possible to dispute whether interim superintendents should be included in that rate.

Stead said she’s concurred that much of the language is mostly stated as opinion. That’s true with the first three reasons given in the proposed language, she noted, pointing to problems with factuality as well as clarity. Regarding the issue of split votes, she reported that she reviewed her own voting record and that 95.58% of votes cast were passed unanimously. That would challenge the notion of consistent split voting, she said. Similarly, the number for superintendent turnover rate would be different for her term, compared to other trustees.

Recall Language: Commission Deliberations

Catherine McClary began deliberations by clarifying that if any one item is found to be unclear or not factual, it would invalidate the entire petition. Donald Shelton and Larry Kestenbaum indicated that her understanding was correct. McClary then noted that previously, the commission only had to deal with clarity issues. Under the new law, did each item need to be clear and factual?

Shelton replied that each item must be clear and factual. In response to another query from McClary, Shelton explained that if it’s not clear whether the stated reasons apply to a trustee’s current term in office, then the language is improper on a clarity basis.

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary, who is also a member of the county election commission.

Shelton also noted that he had read the email from Kestenbaum and that he was familiar with the issue that Kestenbaum had raised. [Kestenbaum also had brought copies of his statement to be distributed at the meeting.]

In his email, Kestenbaum argued that the factual-standard requirement is unconstitutional by citing the following passage of the Michigan constitution, and calling out the final sentence for emphasis: “Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question. ”

Kestenbaum’s email concluded that: “The sufficiency of reasons for recall is a political question. It is specifically not a judicial question. If the election commission and the courts can determine the truth or falsity of reasons for recall, then the power to judge these questions has been removed from the people.”

In his email, Kestenbaum stated that during the review of the proposed ballot language for the AAPS trustees, he would apply the standard of clarity. That’s the other part of the standard, which was also part of the law before Act 417 of 2012 was passed.

During the Aug. 1 hearing, Shelton laid out these points, saying that there’s a significant constitutional issue about whether any election commission can make factual determinations. He suggested that the commission consider the petitions first with regard to clarity. Then, if they determined that the language is clear, they could move to the factual question. If the language was unclear, they wouldn’t need to address the issue of factuality, he said. McClary and Kestenbaum concurred with that approach.

Speaking to the question of clarity, Kestenbaum said there have been numerous court decisions on what constitutes clear language for a recall. It’s not clear to simply put on a recall petition that someone isn’t doing a good job, he said – it’s a “nebulous assertion that doesn’t point to any specific thing.” The six petitions before the commission, which are all identical, are simply “a more long-winded way of saying ‘These people are not doing a good job.’” The more deeply you look at the language, he added, “the more nebulous it gets.”

Kestenbaum noted that if this recall moved forward, petitioners would need to carry around six separate petitions and get separate signatures for each petition. However, he suggested that the commission could address all six petitions in one motion, since the petitions are identical. He then made the following motion:

Resolved: That the reasons stated in the recall petitions submitted by Jody Huhn against Ann Arbor Public Schools trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, Irene Patalan, Christine Stead and Andy Thomas are not of sufficient clarity to enable the officer of this recall that is sought and the electorate to identify a course of conduct which is the basis of the recall.

McClary supported the motion, but wanted to make two amendments. She wanted the record to reflect separate resolutions for each petition, even though the commission would be acting on them with one vote. That’s because the petitions are against individual trustees, not the group, she explained.

From left: Election commissioners Donald Shelton and Larry Kestenbaum.

She also wanted the resolution to state that it does not appear the reasons given for the recall occurred within the terms of office for the AAPS trustees. Kestenbaum argued that the commission didn’t need to speak to that issue in its motion. McClary replied that as long as the point was encompassed as part of the lack of sufficient clarity, she was fine with the resolution.

Shelton took McClary’s first amendment as a friendly one, meaning that no separate vote was required on that amendment.

Shelton explained his view on the clarity issue, saying it was the way that the law requires the commission to look at it. He asks himself two questions. Would an ordinary voter – when confronted with a petition on their porch or grocery store parking lot or voting booth – clearly understand the allegations that are being made against the office holder? Secondly, are the allegations clearly stated so that the targeted elected officials could reasonably defend themselves? “To me, those are the reasons why this commission is here,” he said – to protect voters from signing a petition that might mean different things to different people, and to give elected officials a reasonable opportunity to state their response.

If these petitions were approved and got enough signatures to appear on the ballot, the ballot would also contain a statement of defense by each targeted elected official. Shelton said that when he read the petition and looked at each of the four allegations separately and as a whole, “frankly, my answer was no as to both of those questions.”

Addressing the individual allegations, Shelton said that demonstrating thoughtful consideration “is in the eye of the beholder.” Transparency is a word that’s used a lot, he noted, but he didn’t understand what was intended by transparency in decision-making. He also said he wouldn’t know what “cohesive direction” or “split voting” means, if he were reading the language on his porch. Regarding the “failure to provide sufficient backing and support” for the superintendent, Shelton said “I guess that depends on whether you agree with the proposition to be supportive or opposed.” In his view, the language wouldn’t be clear to the voter or targeted official.

Outcome: The three election commissioners unanimously voted that the petition language lacked sufficient clarity.

McClary then offered six motions stating that the reasons in the recall language “appear not to be factual.” Noting that she respected Kestenbaum’s position, McClary said “I think that we would be remiss if we don’t deal with the factuality under the new law.”

She thought that “failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities” could be true. Failure to demonstrate transparency seems not to be true, she said, given evidence presented to the commission about the Sunshine Review’s assessment of AAPS. The commission got data on split voting and superintendent turnover, McClary noted, so she didn’t think those allegations were true either. “I think it would behoove this election commission to be on record in each of the six instances that we don’t believe that the petitions appear to be factual.”

Kestenbaum pointed out that under the law, the petitions are required to be both factual and clear. “So finding it to be unclear is sufficient,” he said, and it’s not necessary to proceed with the question of factuality.

“I’ll use the lawyer word,” Shelton said. “I think it’s moot, given our finding on clarity.”

Shelton then declared that McClary’s motions had died for lack of support, and the meeting was adjourned.

Recall Process

It’s possible to appeal a decision by the county election commission. An appeal must be made within 10 days to the county circuit court. In Washtenaw County, that’s the 22nd circuit court. Donald Shelton is chief judge of both the circuit and probate courts, which are collectively known as the Washtenaw County trial court.

The process is laid out in Public Act 116 of 1954, section 168.952(6):

The determination by the board of county election commissioners may be appealed by the officer whose recall is sought or by the sponsors of the recall petition drive to the circuit court in the county. The appeal shall be filed not more than 10 days after the determination of the board of county election commissioners. If a determination of the board of county election commissioners is appealed to the circuit court in the county, the recall petition is not valid for circulation and shall not be circulated until a determination of whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity is made by the circuit court or until 40 days after the date of the appeal, whichever is sooner. [.pdf of recall process and timeline]

This hearing is also likely the final one to be presided over by Shelton. State law stipulates the composition of the election commission as the county treasurer, county clerk and chief probate judge. Although Shelton is chief judge of the probate court, he was not elected as a probate judge – but rather as a judge to the 22nd circuit court. He has designated the senior probate judge, Nancy (Francis) Wheeler, to take the spot on the election commission.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County election commission. 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!

The election commissioners are Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court; Larry Kestenbaum, county clerk/register of deeds; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer. They cited a lack of sufficient clarity in the language as the reason for their decision.

On July 17, 2013 Jody Huhn – a parent with children in the AAPS system – submitted language to recall six trustees: Simone Lightfoot, Susan Baskett, Irene Patalan, Glenn Nelson, Andy Thomas, and Christine Stead. Patalan and Nelson did not attend the hearing. Three of the four trustees who did attend – Baskett, Thomas and Stead – addressed the commissioners, arguing that the recall language was not clear and not factual.

In documents submitted to the Washtenaw County director of elections, Huhn cited four reasons for this recall [.pdf of recall petition language]:

(1) failure to demonstrate thoughtful consideration of constituent priorities; (2) failure to demonstrate transparency in decision-making; (3) failure to demonstrate cohesive and singular direction as evidenced by consistent split voting; (4) failure to provide sufficient backing and support for district superintendent position as evidenced by high turnover rate averaging 2.25 years per term.

Board president Deb Mexicotte was not included because state election law prohibits the filing of a recall petition against elected officials who are in the first year of their term, if that term is longer than two years. Nor can such officials be recalled in the final year of their term, for terms longer than two years. Mexicotte was re-elected to a four-year term in November 2012, for the only AAPS trustee position on that ballot – so she is still serving the first year of her current term. This particular recall constraint was part of broader amendments in state election law Act 417 of 2012. [.pdf of Act 417 of 2012]

Related to item (4) in the proposed ballot language, the most recent AAPS superintendent, Patricia Green, turned in her resignation in early April after a little less than two years on the job. Her resignation took effect in mid-July.

Huhn had supported Ben Edmondson for the superintendent’s position. Edmonson, principal at district’s Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, had been one of six semi-finalists selected by the AAPS board in its current superintendent search, but was not picked as one of the two finalists. Those two finalists – Brian Osborne and Jeanice Kerr Swift – were not internal candidates. Last month the board offered the job to Osborne, but he ultimately rejected the offer. Earlier this week, the board made an offer to Swift, who has agreed to enter into contract negotiations.

Huhn attended the recall language hearing, but declined to address the board.

Initial steps of a recall require that ballot language be deemed clear and factual by the board of election commissioners in the jurisdiction of the elected officials who are the target of the recall. Clarity is defined in terms of the ability of the officer whose recall is being sought and for electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.

The requirement that the language be factual was added to the legislation as an amendment to Act 417 of 2012. Early in the morning of Aug. 1, Kestenbaum sent an email to the other two election commissioners – Shelton and McClary – stating that he does not believe the factual-standard requirement is constitutional. [.pdf of Kestenbaum's Aug. 1, 2013 email]

In his email, Kestenbaum argued that the factual-standard requirement is unconstitutional by citing the following passage of the Michigan constitution, and calling out the final sentence for emphasis:

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Kestenbaum concluded that: “The sufficiency of reasons for recall is a political question. It is specifically not a judicial question. If the election commission and the courts can determine the truth or falsity of reasons for recall, then the power to judge these questions has been removed from the people.”

In his email, Kestenbaum stated that during the review of the proposed ballot language for the AAPS trustees, he would apply the standard of clarity. That’s the other part of the standard, which was also part of the law before Act 417 of 2012 was passed.

At the Aug. 1 hearing, commissioners decided to address the issue of clarity first, and if the language were deemed to be clear, they would then move on to discuss the issue of factuality. After brief deliberations, the three commissioners voted unanimously that the recall language in all six petitions – which contained identical wording – lacked sufficient clarity.

McClary made a motion to address the issue of factuality, stating that the recall language did not appear to be factual. Her motion died for lack of a second. Shelton and Kestenbaum indicated that there was no need to deliberate on that issue, since the question of clarity had already been determined and the law requires that the language must be both clear and factual.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Kestenbaum, who is one member of the three-member board of election commissioners for Washtenaw County, made the announcement in an email sent early on Aug. 1, 2013 to the other two members of the board: Donald E. Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County Trial Court; and Catherine McClary, county treasurer. [.pdf of Kestenbaum's Aug. 1, 2013 email]

Kestenbaum’s email comes in the context of a scheduled hearing today, Aug. 1, to review the proposed ballot language for a proposed recall for six Ann Arbor Public Schools trustees. That hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. today at the county boardroom, 220 N. Main Street in Ann Arbor. If the board of election commissioners deems the language to fall short of the legal standard, then petitions asking for a recall can’t be circulated.

In his email, Kestenbaum argues that the factual-standard requirement is unconstitutional by citing the following passage of the Michigan constitution, and calling out the final sentence for emphasis:

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Kestenbaum concludes that: “The sufficiency of reasons for recall is a political question. It is specifically not a judicial question. If the election commission and the courts can determine the truth or falsity of reasons for recall, then the power to judge these questions has been removed from the people.”

In his email, Kestenbaum states that during the review of the proposed ballot language for the AAPS trustees today, he will apply the standard of clarity. That’s the other part of the standard, which was also part of the law before Act 417 of 2012 was passed.

About the new standard, however, Kestenbaum states: “I respectfully decline to review any recall language for ‘factuality.’”

Kestenbaum’s email also states that he would oppose any attempt during the board of election commissioners meeting to weigh the question of whether the AAPS trustees recall language is “factual.”