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!

The board is expected to vote on the FY 2012-13 budget at its June 13 meeting.

In addition to the budget discussion, trustees moved quickly through a number of other items of business at the May 23 meeting: (1) directing administration to create a transportation committee; (2) approving the sale of tech bonds; (3) supporting the Washtenaw Intermediate School District budget with some suggested reporting improvements; (4) the approval of two property easements with the city of Ann Arbor; and (5) the approval of a number of policies, including an anti-bullying policy as newly mandated by state law.

Trustees also heard from 20 people, most of them speaking during general public commentary in support of the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, which had originally been proposed to be closed or restructured as part of the budget. Many thanked the board for taking Clemente “off the chopping block” for this coming year, but expressed concerns about the board’s process, the district-wide achievement gap faced by African-American students, and the board’s “lack of respect” for Clemente students.  

2012-13 Budget

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green introduced the first formal briefing on the AAPS proposed 2012-13 budget by asserting, “The district is hemorrhaging… The pain is real.” She reiterated the position shared at earlier meetings, saying that her administration does not want to make any of these cuts at all, and that what has been in the budget is valued and has made the district great.

The budget elements of the May 23 meeting are reported below. First, there was a presentation by AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen on the background and assumptions informing the proposed budget; a review by Allen of the suggested budget reductions; board discussion on the proposed budget; and a public hearing on the proposed budget. Public commentary, as well as this meeting’s student report, are described following these items, as they were each primarily related to the proposed budget reductions.

2012-13 Budget: Background and Assumptions

Robert Allen said that his PowerPoint presentation was “pretty much the same” as the board had already seen multiple times. He reviewed it again briefly, stressing how rising pension costs are not under the control of local districts.

Trustee Christine Stead asked what the foundation allowance would be if adjusted for inflation, and Allen said he did not know, but as far as he had heard, there was no plan to increase the $9,020 per pupil allowance. Board president Deb Mexicotte said that the figure she had seen before, if the foundation allowance had risen only by the rate of inflation, was near $11,000, and Allen said that sounded right.

Allen said the projected deficit for 2012-13 was $17.8 million, which includes the shift to providing all-day kindergarten. He also said that he feels fairly confident that the projected deficit can be lowered $1 million due to health care cost savings, but that he has not yet incorporated that into the plan.

Allen described the health care cost savings in more detail, explaining that the benefits of offering a self-funded health care plan to employees is starting to pay off, but that he is still being conservative in estimating the savings to the district. As more employees move to the self-funded plan, those savings continue to increase, Allen said. He noted that a health care consultant paid for by the health care corporations had advised him regarding making a $1.7 million budget adjustment to the base expenditures. Trustee Glenn Nelson, who had asked about the shift in base expenditure numbers at the last meeting, said he appreciated the way Allen keeps the board well-informed.

Allen then put up a slide with three-year projections, which shows that if the district does nothing to reduce expenditures, the fund balance will be depleted within two years. Stead expressed concern that with the special education reimbursement rate decreasing, the mandated retirement contribution rate increasing, and less guarantee of state offsets and incentives, the cuts that AAPS will need to make for 2013-14 will be even higher than this year.

Trustee Andy Thomas disagreed, saying that the state offsets are likely to continue, and that the board isn’t going to “sit on our hands and do nothing.” He noted that the $4 million in reductions the board is planning to pass will be put into the base expenditures for 2013-14 and for subsequent years. He suggested that the future projections are not representative of what is likely to occur.

2012-13 Budget: Proposed Budget Reduction Plan

At the May 23 meeting, Allen reviewed the proposed budget reductions by category. See The Chronicle’s coverage of the board’s May 16 committee of the whole meeting for more discussion of the proposed reductions.

2012-13 Budget: Proposed Budget Reduction Plan – Instructional Services

Allen reviewed that the consolidation of the Clemente summer school into the district-wide Pioneer High program would save $80,000, but Green said Clemente has asked the board to reconsider this piece. She said that much of what Clemente is doing is more like orientation than credit recovery, and that they feel the structure is important to their entire program.

Stead said she could argue against every single one of these cuts, and asked where the $80,000 would come from if the Clemente summer school program were to stay intact. Green said her administration is still looking into it, and that for now, the reduction is still on the list.

Allen also noted that the site-based budgets, which fund individual building’s school improvement plans, will be eliminated for $250,750, and that a reduction of four FTEs (full-time equivalents) in counseling positions will save $400,000.

2012-13 Budget: Proposed Budget Reduction Plan – Operations

Allen reiterated the list of transportation cuts included in the plan, and commented on them:

• Changing the Skyline High start time by 15 minutes, which would entail a memorandum of agreement with the teachers’ union ($266,400);
• Eliminating midday shuttles at Community High ($230,184);
• Reducing costs for transportation to Ann Arbor Open by using middle school common stops ($98,800);
• Eliminating the 4 p.m. middle school bus, which significantly impacts after-school programs ($85,284);
• Combining the bus routes of Bryant-Pattengill elementary schools($16,560).

Regarding the 4 p.m. middle school bus, Allen said the district is looking at other ways to be able to fund that.

Regarding the combining of bus routes to Bryant and Pattengill, Allen noted that it could impact start times at those schools, which would lead to another memorandum of agreement with the teachers’ union. He said the idea of combining these routes has been discussed for a couple of years, and that Pattengill’s start time might have to shift by 15 minutes because there will be fewer stops. Allen said the consolidation could allow for the elimination of up to two of the nine busses that are dedicated to those schools’ routes. The worst case scenario, he said, would be the addition of 10 minutes to the length of some students’ bus rides.

Andy Thomas clarified that a student going to Bryant would not experience any additional time in the morning, but would in the afternoon because the driving time from Bryant to Pattengill in the morning or from Pattengill to Bryant in the afternoon would add 10 minutes. Allen said yes, 10 minutes would be the maximum addition.

Allen listed three additional reductions in operations: ITD (information technology department) restructuring ($200,000); the elimination of the early notification incentive ($40,000); and energy savings ($500,000 in 2012-13, and $700,000 in the future).

2012-13 Budget: Proposed Budget Reduction Plan – District-wide Reductions

Allen reviewed the following district-wide reductions that are proposed:

• Moving the Rec & Ed director and support staff positions to the Rec & Ed budget ($205,000);
• Reducing districtwide departmental budgets by 10% ($500,000);
• Reducing healthcare costs ($100,000);
• Eliminating police liaisons ($350,000);
• Outsourcing noon-hour supervisors ($75,000);
• Eliminating the district contribution to music camps ($60,000);
• Reducing the budget for substitute teachers by placing the management of substitute budgets in the schools ($200,000);
• Reducing middle school athletics ($37,500);
• Eliminating funding for athletic entry fees ($58,000);
• Moving lacrosse to a club sport ($93,000);
• Replacing 32 FTEs of instructional staff (retirements) with less expensive staff ($900,000).

Regarding the police liaisons, Allen said he had talked with the Ann Arbor Police Department and confirmed that reducing the liaisons would not mean a loss of employment for any of the officers. The biggest thing AAPS will lose, Allen said, is the relationships it has with these particular officers. Christine Stead asked how they could be absorbed by the city if there was no budget for them, and Allen said there are retirements that would allow the shifts to occur. Allen also noted that AAPS will still contract with the AAPD for extra-curricular events such as football games.

Andy Thomas asked for clarification on what the $60,000 of music camp funding represents. Allen explained that it is entirely supplemental teacher pay, including fringes. The district will adjust its supplemental pay amount by $60,000, and that is a hard number, Allen said, even though the exact amount spent on this pay may be higher or lower in a given year. He also noted that there is an option to fundraise the $60,000 outside of the district budget, and that the band directors are working with the central office on this issue.

The Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA) – the teachers’ union –has asked for two weeks to look at the entire middle school budget, Allen said, to see if there is a way to keep the middle school athletic directors but still reduce the overall middle school athletics budget by $37,500. He said there have been conversations about how Rec & Ed provides the same functions, and that perhaps middle school athletics could be done more efficiently.

Stead asked how confident Allen was about the savings anticipated by hiring less expensive teachers, and asked him to walk through the logic one more time. Allen said the district is currently expecting 24 retirements, and that retiring teachers are more than likely at the top of the pay scale. If you bring in new teachers to replace the retiring ones, he said, there is about a $25,000 to $30,000 differential in pay. Allen pointed out that there is a risk the savings will be lower if the district does not have additional retirements. Thomas said that if there are only 24 retirements, the savings will be $720,000 instead of $900,000.

2012-13 Budget: Proposed Budget Reduction Plan – Revenue Enhancement

Allen reviewed the four sources of revenue enhancement that are part of this budget: (1) School of Choice students ($1 million); (2) Medicaid reimbursement ($500,000); (3) best practices funding ($2.6 million); and (4) MPSERS offset ($1.8 million). MPSERS is the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System.

Allen noted that there are currently state Senate and House bills being entertained on MPSERS reform, and that it is not known at this time how the outcome of those discussions will affect the MPSERS offset in the future. Stead asked if the projected 31.2% employer contribution rate would increase if there were substantial layoffs across the state for FY 2012-13. Allen said he did not think AAPS would be adversely affected by the MPSERS reform bills.

2012-13 Budget: Proposed Budget Reduction Plan – Fund Equity

Allen then summarized that AAPS needs $10.7 million of reductions after the revenue enhancements are applied, but that at this point, the district will need to use $ 7 million of fund equity to reach that target. He added that the $7 million figure does not include the additional $1 million adjustment in health care savings he reported that night, so it’s really more like using $6 million of fund equity.

Stead asked if Allen anticipated an additional deficit in the fourth quarter, and Allen said very conservatively, he would estimate an additional deficit of $500,000, depending on what happens with additional retirements. Nelson said he usually thinks of increased retirements as saving money, and asked, “Why would something that accelerates retirements hurt the budget?” Allen answered that some retirees qualify for a payout bonus based on their number of years of service. AAPS, he explained, keeps those payouts held in the balance sheet, and the expense of distributing them has to be recognized in the year during which they are actually paid out.

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion

Board discussion on the proposed budget is grouped here into the following categories: administrative process, Roberto Clemente, busing, police liaisons, other cuts, fund equity, and revenue enhancement. The budget was brought to the May 23 meeting as a first briefing item. The final 2012-13 budget will be approved at the next regular board meeting on June 13.

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion – Administrative Process

Trustee Glenn Nelson complimented the administration and board president Deb Mexicotte for guiding the board through the budget process over the last few months, saying he “appreciated the spirit” with which the board whittled down an $18 million deficit to what he called “a budget which I can live with – it’s painful, but it’s a rational kind of thing.”

Trustee Simone Lightfoot said she liked that the middle school administration was weighing in on how to best cut middle school athletics, and asked “How much of that do we do?” Robert Allen replied that there are always ways to improve the process, and that input from all stakeholders is a good thing. “We do present these proposed reductions to our administration, and each year we ask for suggestions when we start the process,” he said, pointing out that some of the district-wide cuts proposed this year came from building administrators’ suggestions.

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion – Roberto Clemente

Lightfoot asked how many students attend Roberto Clemente’s summer school program, and noted that she has received many e-mails about the hardships those students will face if the summer school program is merged with the district-wide summer school held at Pioneer. Allen said the Clemente summer school program could be as many as 80 or 90 students, and Thomas pointed out that absorbing the Clemente students into the main summer school program will increase summer school class sizes.

Trustee Irene Patalan asked how many students who begin the school year at Clemente are still there at the end of the year. Jane Landefeld, AAPS director of student accounting, answered that 15 students left between October and February this school year. Nelson asked if the 15 who left Clemente returned to other AAPS schools. Landefeld said some left AAPS to attend other schools out of the district, some transferred to other AAPS schools, and some dropped out of school entirely.

Thomas asked where exactly the projected $80,000 in savings from consolidating Clemente’s summer school program would come from. Mostly from staffing costs, Allen replied. Trustee Susan Baskett suggested breaking out the cost of the transition/orientation part of the Clemente summer school program from the classes part.

Mexicotte said she wants the academic focus to be the driver of summer school programming, and that summer school has always been about closing gaps and academic recovery. She argued that the orientation pieces need to be accomplished during the regular school year – individually or in cohorts.

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion – Busing

Lightfoot asked if there was any concern about the mixing of ages of students on the Bryant and Pattengill buses, if they are consolidated. No, Allen said – all of the other elementary school buses mixed children from grades K-5.

Trustee Irene Patalan noted that there are a group of students who primarily attend classes at the comprehensive high schools but who come to Community High for part of the day – for those students, eliminating the mid-day shuttles will hurt. These students do not have organized advocacy, she said, but they do believe that coming to Community each day keeps their day intact as they are given support, self-esteem, or other help there.

Nelson said he would like reassurance at the second briefing that funding for the 4 p.m. middle school bus will be replaced, as it adds enough to the educational experience for enough students to be worth it. If at the second briefing on the budget on June 13, the board cannot be assured the money will be coming from elsewhere, Nelson said, he would like to explore not cutting the 4 p.m. middle school bus.

Stead requested data on high school bus ridership, particularly if there were changes to ridership this year.

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion – Other Cuts

Lightfoot asked if, in light of the cuts to police liaisons, there was a way to have some sort of arrangement with the city so that the city could be sensitive to the idea of sending AAPS officers who are already familiar with the district. Allen said he could have that discussion with the acting chief [John Seto], who has been very responsive. Lightfoot also asked what the cost is for AAPD coverage at individual, separate events, and Allen said that in the past it has been treated as overtime pay for the three dedicated officers. If those positions are no longer funded by AAPS, the AAPD would be paid an hourly rate for event coverage, said Allen. Baskett said, “AAPD are a good police force, but they are not cheap.” She asked Allen to look for other ways of providing security at events, or work to negotiate a lower rate with AAPD.

Mexicotte noted that cutting 4 FTEs from counseling staff concerns her because of the effect it could have on the district’s work closing the achievement and discipline gaps. “While it is an attractive cut because it’s large, and because it’s based on attrition, this is an area of particular distress for me,” she said. Mexicotte also noted that she had been sitting next to AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Alesia Flye at the May 16 committee meeting, and that she wanted to acknowledge Flye’s distress at the reduction in departmental budgets. “[Flye] said, very professionally under her breath,” Mexicotte reported, ” ‘Ouch – that’s really going to hurt our professional development.’”

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion – Fund Equity

Nelson said he was concerned about losing teachers in 2013-14 if the district digs too deep into fund equity this year to cover projected expenditures. He suggested bringing the idea of moving Clemente this year back to the table for discussion. “As we talk about the expenses related to [Clemente], and the performance as we know it, … I am not completely sure that investment is worth it,” Nelson argued.

Nelson said that for every teacher cut, roughly 300 students are affected by larger class sizes. By this logic, he explained, the $200,000 that would be saved by moving Clemente this year would save three teachers in 2013-14, affecting 900 students directly. “I am hoping we look really hard at this program because I think we need to,” Nelson said.

Stead responded that shifting academic programs warrants more planning time, and that she sees looking at effective program supports and results as the work of next year. “This is not about a move – this is about a thorough review from a program perspective,” she argued. She also pointed out that the achievement gap and discipline gap are not just Clemente problems, but district-wide issues, and that the program review needs to be comprehensive.

Stead explained her fear that without deeper cuts this year, AAPS could face the situation of not having enough fund equity to make payroll next summer, when the state aid payments are suspended. She noted that her concerns are based on the fact that the district ended up using $2.3 million out of fund equity this year to cover unanticipated spending, and that the MPSERS offset and best practices funding are not guaranteed to continue.

Stead said she is very concerned that using $8 million of fund equity this year does not position the district for financial sustainability next year, and suggested again that the board consider cutting all transportation out of the 2012-13 budget for a savings of $3.5 million. She argued that cutting transportation will require a “concerted effort from the entire community, city, carpools, everything you can think of,” but that so far, efforts at working on transportation have been “piecemeal.”

Thomas disagreed, pointing out that for the last three years, AAPS has been spending down fund equity at the rate of only $1.7 million a year, and that using $7 million this year is a reasonable and conservative way to address the current deficit. He said he had been present at the last AAPS Educational Foundation (AAPSEF) meeting, and that there was some discussion there of how the AAPSEF could offset some of the cuts. He also noted that the PTO thrift shop might be willing to make some kind of contribution, and that University Bank has come forward with $5,000 to help with the music camps. “What this illustrates,” Thomas said, “is that there is some willingness in the community to use private funding to help offset some of these cuts.”

Thomas said he would like to be able to sit down in October (2012), not April (2013) and hear the administration’s plan to eliminate another $14 to $18 million in 2013-14. He said he’d like to hear the plan in detail, similar to what was presented at this first formal budget briefing. It’s important to start the conversation in October [of 2012, for planning the 2013-14 budget], he said, because “we don’t have very many bullets left in our gun. What we are left with for next year is transportation as a whole, our contracts with bargaining units, reducing teachers by a truly drastic number, closing schools, and redistricting. And, closing schools has a ripple effect on transportation. These will all require a great deal of thought.”

Mexicotte asked Allen how much the district needed to keep in fund equity to be able to make payroll over the summer, and Allen said $9 million. “Then that’s the magical number – $9 million,” Mexicotte said. “It is the number after which we give money to the state to lend us money they should be giving us in the first place.” She argued that the difference between leaving $9 million, $10 million, or $11 million in fund equity “hardly makes a difference” because the district is facing $14 million more in cuts next year.

Mexicotte said that one of the visions she has kept in her mind all these years as a trustee is to keep AAPS above the line of solvency, and that she is comfortable spending $6-$7 million from fund equity this year.

Lightfoot agreed that she is comfortable with spending $6 million from fund equity if “we do nothing next year but plan, plan, plan.”

Patalan said that over the past six years, AAPS has made approximately $70 million in reductions – that’s just huge. “Of course, we’re all feeling fairly depressed,” she said. She added it also frightens her to allow fund equity to get so low, and that doing so was “truly a gamble. … You almost feel naked without something [to protect] against the future, and what the future could be.” The district’s ending fund equity balance for the current fiscal year is projected to be $18.73 million.

2012-13 Budget: Board Discussion – Revenue Enhancement

Nelson said the community does have other options – one is to keep pushing for legislative change at the state level, and another is to try again to pass a countywide schools enhancement millage. Passing such a millage, Nelson said, will require a very strong effort by citizens who care about education, “but one doesn’t get it done without starting. I urge the citizens out there who feel that education of the children in Washtenaw County is being threatened to not be as excellent as they deserve and need for the world they are going to live in, that we start talking about the enhancement millage.” [A countywide enhancement millage was on the November 2009 ballot and defeated, with 57.4% of voters voting against it, though it was supported by a majority of Ann Arbor voters.]

Stead said passing a revenue enhancement millage at the county level would be difficult, and that while she would support such efforts, AAPS also needs to keep working for a statewide solution. “There is a real structural issue,” she said. “Education should not be so subject to partisan politics that we compromise our entire future as a result… I would hope people would work with us… to focus on revoking Proposal A.” [Passed in 1994, Proposal A was a ballot initiative that aimed to create more equitable funding across all districts and to keep property taxes from escalating dramatically. Proposal A took away, to a significant degree, local control over school funding, though districts can still request voter approval to levy local millages for building construction, repairs, and maintenance.]

This was the first briefing on the 2012-13 budget. The budget will come before the board again for a second briefing and vote at the next regular board meeting on June 13.

2012-13 Budget: Public Hearing

Deb Mexicotte noted that the proposed budget has been posted on the district’s website, and invited anyone in the room to speak on the budget.

A parent in the Georgetown neighborhood spoke about the suggested consolidation of bus runs to Bryant and Pattengill schools. She pointed out that while adding 10 minutes to a bus route does not seem that long, it makes the run 40 minutes long at the end of the day for a 6-year-old. She also noted that the buses currently serving the students in her neighborhood are really full, and that it might not be realistic to think about eliminating a bus when you factor in fifth grade instruments needing space too.

A Clemente parent offered some perspective on the Clemente summer school program. She said that when Clemente first started in 1974, it was a 12-month program, and that the Clemente philosophy addresses the belief that students lose a lot over the summer. Students do take academic classes, and Clemente does offer Read 180 and credit recovery, she said, but it also orients students to the way classes will be conducted in the fall. Incoming 9th graders are offered an “intro to biology” class to prepare them to take biology in the fall and be successful. Also, students are given help with basic math, she said, to prepare them for the concepts they will be learning in the regular school year.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary

Eighteen people addressed the board during the regular public commentary period at the beginning of the meeting. Sixteen discussed Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, which had originally been proposed to be closed or restructured as part of the budget. Two other speakers discussed transportation services, which are slated for further reduction under the proposed budget as well.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Roberto Clemente

Members of the Clemente community thanked the board for taking Clemente “off the chopping block” for this coming year, but expressed concerns about board process, the district-wide achievement gap faced by African-American students, and the board’s “lack of respect” for Clemente students. Many students gave testimonials about how Clemente had changed their lives, and how it was stressful to live with the fear that their school would be taken away in the future.

Kathleen Ardon said she has not felt the board was listening during public commentary. She cited sidebar conversations, superintendent Patricia Green getting up to talk to another administrator, and the limited speaking time allowed. She suggested to trustees that they “try limiting your comments to 90 seconds each, as we have been made to do.” Lexanna Marie Lyons echoed Ardon, noting that at the May 9 board meeting, “a young white girl got to speak about her experiences at A2 Tech and read a letter.” Lyons noted that while that girl got to speak as long as she wanted, Clemente students were limited to a minute and a half each, and “they did not receive the praise this white girl received.”

Lyons said that as an African-American female, she has experienced many forms of racism and that she feels racism right now. Student Corey McDonald added, “Why set a time limit for speech when you stay here for…I don’t know how [long], but… a very long time.”

Student Mackenzie Caddell said she was “terribly embarrassed” and “mortified” when she saw the Clemente achievement data shared at the May 16 board committee meeting. However, Caddell continued, after reviewing data on African-American achievement district-wide, she “concluded that AAPS is only exceptional for students that are not of color…It isn’t black students’ failure – it’s a shared failure.” She noted that the positive impact that Clemente has had on students’ attitudes and behavior “cannot be seen on paper.”

Clemente teacher Mike Smith also addressed the achievement data discussed on May 16, and presented comparable data for African-American students at the three comprehensive high schools. Saying that he agreed that Clemente’s test scores were “abominable” and “damnable,” he noted that the achievement data for African-Americans students are very concerning across the district. Smith noted that only 53% of African-American 11th graders at the comprehensive high schools scored proficient in reading on the Michigan Merit Exam (MME), compared to 88% of their Caucasian counterparts. In math, the MME proficiency numbers are similar – Caucasian 86%, African-American 43%, Smith said.

Cierra Reese asserted that the achievement gap starts in elementary school, and Charlae Davis added that closing the achievement gap requires looking at “the big picture,” including the study of qualitative data, such as the information presented by students and their families.

Regarding a perceived lack of respect, parent Tara Cole referenced how a board member said she had felt threatened at the last meeting and that there had been a lack of respect shown for the board. Cole said the Clemente community feels the same way. Cassandra Parks said she is not convinced the board is concerned about these students, and reminded the students gathered, “You have to exercise our right and make sure the people in power really care about us.” After finishing her own comments, Parks also interrupted public commentary later in the meeting to call out teachers’ union president Brit Satchwell for distracting the board by typing loudly while people were speaking. Mexicotte asked Parks to be seated. Satchwell apologized for the perceived disrespect and closed his laptop.

Student Tyler Sheldon said students “feel that we have been kicked aside as lower-income minorities, so unfortunately, it makes us wonder, if we came from upper middle class two-parent households, would this have been considered?”

Public commentary on Clemente at the May 23 meeting also offered many examples of the qualitative data noted by Davis. Tia Jones and Alexandra Botello argued that the cost of educating Clemente students should not be relevant. Jones said she is finally getting the education she deserves and has been wanting her whole life, and Botello noted that the bullying and assault she faced in other AAPS schools was not present at Clemente.

Harmony Redding, Jermia Castion, and Caleb LeHuray noted the positive effect that Clemente has on students who have struggled elsewhere. “Roberto Clemente has been a gateway to education for many students,” LeHuray asserted. “You need to leave it alone as it is so the future students can see the value of their education and be successful later on.”

David Bullard and Corey McDonald warned that closing or consolidating Clemente will cause many students to drop out or return to their old bad habits. McDonald also pointed out that Clemente students will be looked at as “lower class” by students at other schools if the program is consolidated.

2012-13 Budget: Public Commentary – Busing

Jill Zimmerman thanked the board for allowing modified busing to continue to Ann Arbor Open, and said it will “make a huge difference in the lives of many families.” She also noted that it seems like eliminating busing district-wide is a “very real possibility” in the coming year. She encouraged the board to continue discussion with the community as this is considered. Zimmerman said the budget process in general should start sooner in order to realize the most savings with the least negative impact on families.

Patty Kracht urged the board to keep building administrators involved in the budget planning as it affects individual schools. She noted that when she heard about the consolidation of Bryant and Pattengill busing routes, she called the principal of her child’s school to ask if start times would be staggered. The principal did not know the answer and had not been included in the re-routing planning. “Please,” Kracht said, “if you’re not going to involve parents, at least involve administration.”

2012-13 Budget: Clarification on Public Commentary

Trustee Christine Stead spoke about the board process and structure surrounding public input. She noted that 45 minutes of public commentary is allotted at every meeting, and that the time is divided among all those who sign up to speak. [Each speaker is allotted 4 minutes. In the event that more than 11 people sign up to speak, the 45 minutes is divided equally among all speakers.] Stead also noted that student reports, given on a rotational basis by representatives from each of the high schools, are intended to be more in-depth reports, and that Clemente was on the schedule for the May 23 meeting. “Tonight, that person can take as much time as they would like,” she said, stressing that the trustees “absolutely want to hear students’ voices.”

Board president Deb Mexicotte offered clarification on the building of Skyline High School. She said the $92 million that paid for Skyline was part of a $240 million bond allocated by taxpayers to provide improvements to every building in the district, as well as to build the new school. Mexicotte explained that bond funds cannot be used for operating expenses. She said the district would love to be able to raise operating dollars from its taxpayers, but is legally prohibited from doing so.

Regarding disproportionality in discipline referrals, superintendent Patricia Green said she agrees there are disparities that parallel national trends, but said that it is being addressed. She noted that AAPS has instituted a multi-year plan to eliminate both the achievement and discipline gaps across the district.

2012-13 Budget: Roberto Clemente Student Report

Tia Jones volunteered to give the student report for Clemente, and started by simply saying, “We have said all we have had to say,” and reminding trustees that they are all invited to come see the school. Deb Mexicotte noted the concern expressed during public commentary that Clemente students have not had unlimited time to address the board, and explained that the student report is untimed. Jones asked if other students would also be given a turn to speak, and was told no.

Jones then shared some of her own story, saying that before Clemente, she had attended Dicken for all of elementary, then Slauson, Scarlett, and Eastern Washtenaw Multicultural Academy (a local charter school) for middle school, and finally Huron for 9th grade. “I remember teachers telling me never to try, that I would never be anyone,” Jones said. She said that in 6th grade, she did not know the Pledge of Allegiance, and that she felt out of place during her 8th grade year at EWMA, since the majority of students were of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, Jones recounted, “At Huron, I felt really bad due to an issue outside of school. Counselors did not know what to do with me.”

When she got to Clemente, Jones said, “Dr. E [Clemente principal Ben Edmondson] did not allow [me] to fail.” She told trustees that when the cuts to Clemente were proposed, it got to her because she knows what the school has offered her and her peers. “It shelters us, nurtures us. We spend most of our time at school.”

Board President’s Report

Deb Mexicotte reported on the board’s May 16 committee of the whole. In addition to going through a facilitated discussion to direct administration about board priorities during this trying time, she said, other topics discussed at the meeting were: how personalized learning is approached in AAPS; the possible creation of a transportation working group; and the superintendent evaluation timeline.

For full coverage of the non-budget May 16 committee of the whole agenda items, see Chronicle coverage: ”AAPS Begins Superintendent Evaluation.”

Transportation Study Committee

At the May 16 committee of the whole meeting, trustee Simone Lightfoot had suggested that the board convene a working group to study transportation sustainability in the district. After some discussion, trustees agreed to direct administration to convene such a group, and Deb Mexicotte said she would write up a request to do so, since the board does not take official action during committee meetings.

Transportation Study Committee: Formal Request to Administration

During the information section of the May 23 meeting, Mexicotte read a draft of the administrative request that she had written based on her notes from the May 16 committee meeting. Trustees subsequently approved the creation of an administrative working group “for the purpose of studying and reporting on the sustainability of school bus transportation for AAPS students.”

Mexicotte read the entire formal request into the record of the meeting. In summary, it outlined the board’s reasons for wanting to charge administration with convening such a group, saying it seems “prudent” to study the “short-term and long-term funding, support, partnerships, and solutions for school transportation” in order to understand AAPS’ role in the system, now and in the future.

In the request, the board charged the committee with examining three questions:

(1) Can we create a district-wide plan which includes short-term and long-term strategies, and that maintains district-funded transportation for students in AAPS? If so, under what circumstances (time, partnerships, delivery models, targeted student populations, funding strategies)?

(2) If not, what are the alternatives that might be considered or implemented (partial or complete elimination, privatization, partnerships, needs-based grants or services)? and

(3) What are the general and specific impacts on changing, reducing, or eliminating district-funded transportation as it relates to our strategic and educational outcomes and goals?

The request also asked the superintendent to be sure to include a diverse group of stakeholders on the committee, including administrators, representatives of other public and governmental entities, parents, students, and board members. It also said specifically that the working group could be made up entirely of members from an already existing committee, such as the Transportation Safety Committee or the City/Schools committee, or could be a newly created group, at the superintendent’s discretion.

Finally, it was requested that the board hear progress updates from the group on a regular basis, and that the process of completing the study and offering recommendations come back to the board by January 2013, in time to inform the FY 2013-14 AAPS budget.

Transportation Study Committee: Board Discussion

All of the trustees except for Christine Stead were immediately supportive of the creation of such a committee as outlined by Mexicotte. Stead suggested instead that perhaps a long-term financial planning group be assembled, and said that regarding transportation, she would rather have the district leverage the structure already in place rather than make a new committee. She also questioned the utility of having the committee vet the sustainability of school bus transportation without complete funding information, and asked, “Where does this tie into our strategic plan?”

Andy Thomas said there are specific issues regarding transportation that the board and the district need to address, which would make such a committee useful. He named the following as examples: “What is the impact of any reduction or the complete elimination of transportation to the district – which population will be affected? What is the impact on neighborhoods where schools are located? Will there be a huge increase in auto traffic? What are the environmental safety ramifications of this? What are the ramifications on specific programs; for example, what good does it do to keep Clemente open if there is not transportation to get to that location?”

Irene Patalan said the timeline piece was important to her, so that the committee can offer the board recommendations for the next budget cycle. Simone Lightfoot said it was important to her that the committee includes more than the “same people as usual,” and Susan Baskett added that committee members should feel free to bring their thoughts, comments, and questions without reservation. To Stead, Baskett answered that forming a transportation committee falls under strategic goal number six of the district’s strategic plan, which has to do with earning the public’s trust.

Multiple trustees and superintendent Patricia Green commended Mexicotte for the wording of her request, which noted the flexibility of the committee to define “sustainability” and other metrics. Green said, since she would be leading this effort, that she would “like to go at this not with a road map, but with a compass… All the stakeholders will develop the road map, while the compass sets the direction and keeps [the work] going in that direction.”

Mexicotte wondered whether the questions raised by Thomas would be addressed by the committee within the three study questions she had listed (see above) to define its work. Thomas said he did not think the request needed to be amended, but that it’s important not to lose sight of the interrelationship between transportation and other issues. For example, he said, “If we find that we find it necessary to close one or more buildings, students will be expected to travel longer distances to get to their schools. Are we going to still cut transportation? It’s hard to look at one piece of this without looking at the whole blob.”

Stead said she would like to see this group convene very quickly and meet a couple of times this summer, with the community, city, and police involved. Green said she would also like to move this very quickly, and is planning to dovetail with meetings that AAPS already has on the calendar with the city and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority because “once school ends, the momentum is lost.”

Mexicotte asked the board if it was amenable to placing the creation of this administrative transportation study committee on the consent agenda, and the board agreed. Mexicotte said she appreciated Green’s enthusiasm to move forward quickly, and also that she liked the template she created for making a nice, clear request to administration. “I like how it clarified my thinking when I wrote this up, and if we can do this in the future, that would be great,” she said.

Outcome: The creation of an administrative transportation study committee was approved unanimously by the board as a special briefing item on the May 23 consent agenda.

Sale of Technology Bonds

Superintendent Patricia Green thanked the public again for the passage of the tech bond millage and said the district is now moving on directly to the sale of the bonds.

By way of background, voters approved the millage at a May 8, 2012 election. The technology bond proposal is for AAPS to issue a total of $45,855,000 general obligation bonds to pay for acquiring and installing instructional technology and technology infrastructure. The estimated tax rate that would be required to service the debt on the bonds is 0.48 mill (or $0.48 per $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.) The estimated annual average millage rate required to retire the bonds of this issue is 0.51 mills.

Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent of operations, said that the administration recommends using the same bond counsel, financial advisor, and underwriters as used for the recent 2012 bond refinancing, and noted that the tech bonds need to be sold before July 1. He said the district would like to get started this summer on the work approved by voters with the passage of the bond, and asked the board to consider approving the resolution for the sale of the bonds as a special briefing item.

Trustee Andy Thomas asked what the maturity date was for the first group of bonds. Allen replied that it varied among the $27 million in bonds in the first phase. Thomas also asked if Allen knew what the interest rate would be, and Allen said he did not know, but that market conditions are still good and he expects a favorable rate.

Christine Stead thanked Allen and his team for getting this put together so quickly and having this prepared for the board.

Outcome: The sale of the technology bonds was approved unanimously as a special briefing item as part of the May 23 consent agenda.

Anti-Bullying Policy

Dave Comsa, AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel, responded to questions the board had asked during the May 9 first briefing of the district’s new anti-bullying policy.

Regarding the assurance of confidentiality in the bullying investigation, Comsa pointed to regulation 4.4, which indicates that confidentiality will be maintained to the highest degree possible. He noted also that retaliation against a “whistleblower” is explicitly prohibited by the policy, and is also addressed in regulations 4.2 to 4.22.

Regarding training for staff, Comsa noted that regulation 2.2 states there will be such training. He also said the policy would be published beyond the Rights and Responsibilities handbook, as requested by the board.

Comsa reported that in response to a request for a timeline for investigations, regulation 5.4.1 states that the goal will be to complete all bullying investigations within five school days of receiving a complaint.

He noted that cyber-bullying is covered by this policy too, as the definition of bullying it uses includes the phrase “any electronic communication.” And finally, Comsa said that the policy applies to everyone listed under “organizational units affected,” and that it does include parents.

Andy Thomas said he was not completely satisfied that a question he asked at the last meeting had been sufficiently addressed – how far does the policy go when the bullying is off school property? Comsa said that the key point to consider is whether there is a nexus in the school. He noted that “our control only extends so far,” but if the incident substantially impacts or interferes with the operation of the school, it would be covered by the policy. Deb Mexicotte added that if a fight between students outside of school causes intimidation in school, it would fall under the anti-bullying policy.

Thomas confirmed, “So there does have to be some kind of connection with the school?” And Comsa replied, “Yes, we are not a policing force for the entire community.”

Mexicotte opened up a public hearing on the anti-bullying policy but no one spoke to the board on this issue.

Outcome: Policy 5800, Anti-Bullying was approved unanimously as part of the May 23 consent agenda.

Washtenaw Intermediate School District Budget

Christine Stead reported that she had asked the board’s questions from the first briefing on the Washtenaw Intermediate School District budget, and WISD officials had sent a reply. Items included: a list of what is contained in “central services;” the AAPS portion of the transportation budget, totaling $6.9 million; a line-by-line breakdown of all budgets; a 3-year rolling budget table, noting the shift next year from a 67% to a 56% reimbursement rate for special education services; a list of local school improvement expenses; and a copy of their 2009-10 annual services report, which reviews the services they provide by region.

Deb Mexicotte referred to a binder that had been provided to each trustee, and pointed out that Tab 6 lists the teaching and learning initiatives of the WISD and indicates whether AAPS is involved in each one.

Glenn Nelson said that regarding the future, he would like to see the WISD budget provide more detail, particularly as it affects AAPS, and that the board members would like to be informed constituents of the WISD. In the resolution supporting the WISD budget, Nelson suggested adding an amendment to be sure his suggestions were addressed. He noted that the one-time provision of information since the first briefing on May 9 had mostly addressed his concerns for this time, but that he would like to see such information provided regularly in the future as well.

Nelson’s amendment was included in the final resolution, and Mexicotte asked board secretary Amy Osinski to include the amended language in a color other than black and to make the WISD aware of the amendment.

Simone Lightfoot lauded the WISD for providing a detailed breakdown of transportation costs, and Christine Stead added that getting this amount of data together in a week was appreciated.

Outcome: The WISD budget was supported by a resolution included on the May 23 consent agenda.

Consent Agenda

In addition to the items noted above as being contained in the consent agenda (transportation committee formation, sale of tech bonds, anti-bullying policy, and WISD budget), the consent agenda also contained a set of policies, and requests from the city of Ann Arbor for two property easements for the replacement, maintenance, and repair of water mains.

There was virtually no discussion on the easements, or on policies 5160 (Student Classification and Retention), 5170 (Elementary Reclassification and Acceleration), 6120/6100 (Pilot Projects/Curriculum Development), 7800/5200 (Parental Involvement/Progress Reporting), 7810 (Parental Involvement Title I), 5300 (field trips), and 7400 (donations).

Deb Mexicotte thanked superintendent Patricia Green and her administration for looking hard at the policies and said she appreciated in particular the “reinvention” of the Pilot Projects policy in the manner presented. Simone Lightfoot said she had raised concerns about student transportation in the field trip policy, and deputy superintendent Robert Allen said that was addressed in the policy’s regulations.

Outcome: The May 23 consent agenda, including the above-noted items, along with minutes approval, passed unanimously.

First Briefing: Millage Resolution and 3rd Quarter Financial Report

AAPS director of finance Nancy Hoover presented the millage resolution that will allow the district to levy taxes on the AAPS district area property owners. She noted that for the third year in a row, there was no Headlee rollback, so the millage rates will be as follows: homestead – 4.7084 mills; non-homestead – 18 mills; debt service – 2.45 mills; and sinking fund – 1 mill.

Andy Thomas asked how the refinancing of the district’s debt instruments affected the debt service millage. Hoover answered that the district’s debt service millage was $15.8 million before the refinancing, decreased to $15.3 million after refinancing, and then increased to $18.2 million after the recent passage of the tech bond. She stressed that the tech bond affects only the debt service millage, not the other three millages.

Hoover then continued, presenting the board with the third quarter financial report, which showed an overall decrease in expected revenues of $280,000 due primarily to changes in special education reimbursement. Allen added that the staffing and expenditure summaries were similar to last year at this time, and said the revenue adjustment would be made through the use of fund equity. Therefore, the district’s ending fund equity balance for the current fiscal year is projected to be $18.45 million.

Outcome: These items were brought to the board at first briefing, and will be voted on during the next regular meeting on June 13.

Association and Student Reports

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

At this meeting, the board heard from a student representative from Roberto Clemente Student Development Center (see budget section above), as well as the AAPAC, PTOC, and AAAA.

Association and Student Reports: AAPAC

Scott White reported for the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education (AAPAC). As the district looks into staffing for next year, he asked that it considers hiring additional Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) to provide support for students with autism and other behavioral issues. He argued that behavioral expertise is integral to implementing Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) for students with autism. White also noted that with the passage of autism insurance coverage in Michigan, AAPS might be able to seek reimbursement for the BCBA services.

Association and Student Reports: PTOC

Amy Pachera reported that the Parent Teacher Organization Council held its last meeting of the year, and had a great celebration. She noted that a larger number of schools have attended PTOC meetings this year, and said the new slate of executive board members reflects a wider representation as well. Pachera also gave “kudos” to all citizens who voted yes on the recent tech bond millage.

Association and Student Reports: AAAA

Haisley Elementary School principal Kathy Scarnecchia reported for the Ann Arbor Administrators Association. She said that as a unit, AAAA members rely significantly on the police liaisons, who support the administrators in many different roles. The liaisons visit homes; talk with younger students about behavior and safety; help at athletic events; and watch over parking lots, among other things, Scarnecchia said. To make up the budget difference of retaining the police liaison positions, Scarnecchia suggested considering refiguring the truant officer, homeless liaison or other community service positions.

Superintendent’s Report

Patricia Green’s report highlighted a documentary she had recently seen: ”Black and Blue: The Story of Gerald Ford, Willis Ward, and the 1934 Michigan-Georgia Tech Football Game.” She said it was “timely and poignant” and that she would like each AAPS high school to show it to students before the end of the year. Green said the film depicts the story of a football game between Georgia Tech and the University of Michigan in 1934 when star UM player Willis Ward was benched, and his best friend and then-future president Gerald Ford took a stand against that decision. Green said the movie was a very powerful demonstration of what character is, and of the longstanding impact people can have on society.

For the remainder of Green’s report, she offered numerous commendations of students, staff, and schools across the district, noting that “our students really distinguish themselves.” She noted the dedication of the Pioneer track to two longtime staff members – Don Sleeman and Bryan Westfield – and thanked the supporters who came to honor these educators, noting that “people came from generations.”

Agenda Planning

Andy Thomas suggested that the budget reduction plan for the 2013-14 school year should be brought forward to the board in October of 2012, with as much detail as is possible at that time. Christine Stead also suggested shifting to a longer-term approach to budgeting, and Deb Mexicotte said perhaps the board should discuss it at a committee of the whole. The board’s next committee of the whole meeting is scheduled for July 18.

Susan Baskett said she would like to hear about how possibly redistricting would impact transportation. She also reported hearing concerns about the new graduation requirements disproportionately impacting certain subsets of the AAPS population, especially special education students, and asked how that is being addressed. Mexicotte noted that the possibility of crafting a personal curriculum exists, but Baskett said her concern was that children are not coming out with a diploma at all.

Items from the Board

Simone Lightfoot said she was late to the meeting due to attending her daughter’s spring concert at Skyline High, and she thanked the orchestra director there for a job well done. She also thanked Scarlett Middle School principal Gerald Vasquez for inviting her to participate in Portfolio Day at Scarlett, saying it was nice to interview young people and to “have the opportunity to work with them on firm handshakes and lowering their hemlines.” She also noted that Scarlett had done a good job of calling on retired staff to participate in Portfolio Day, and she urged the district to look into “ways to tap into our retirees.”

Glenn Nelson said he also attended and very much enjoyed Scarlett’s portfolio day. He also noted the AAPS student art exhibit at the University of Michigan Slusser art gallery, and the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce’s honoring of two AAPS teachers. Finally, Nelson lauded the homebuilding program, which just purchased 12 new lots for the next 12 houses to be built. He noted that the program’s 2012 house has already sold, and thanked the staff and advisory board who support this program.

Susan Baskett said she can’t believe it’s graduation time – she congratulated all the graduates, especially those at Skyline High, who will graduate its first class this year. “Have fun, but be safe,” Baskett said.

Andy Thomas called attention to the upcoming Ann Arbor Marathon on June 17, as well as to Mainstreet Ventures’ “marathon meal” offer: For $26 from now through race day, you can purchase a marathon meal at Real Seafood, Gratzi, Palio, and a number of other restaurants and $5 of the price of that meal is contributed to the AAPS Educational Foundation.

Deb Mexicotte said graduation season was a “thrilling and joyous” time and that she was looking forward to seeing her fellow trustees at the five graduation ceremonies this year. She also said she had the pleasure of accepting an award on behalf of Baskett from the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), certifying Baskett as “a master board member in the state of Michigan for continuing to educate herself around boardsmanship.”

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Christine Stead, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Susan Baskett, Simone Lightfoot (arrived at 8 p.m.), and Glenn Nelson.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, June 13, 2012, at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of trustees. 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!

Brought forward by superintendent Patricia Green, the amendments raised the salary of deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen by 7%, and that of assistant superintendent of human resource and legal services Dave Comsa by 12%. The board also reclassified Comsa’s position, bringing him up to the executive level of the superintendent’s cabinet, and changing his title to “deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel.”

From left: Ann Arbor Public Schools administrators Dawn Linden, Liz Margolis, Alesia Flye, Dave Comsa, and Robert Allen. At its Dec. 14 meeting, the AAPS board voted on contracts for all of these administrators, with the exception of Margolis. (Photo by the writer.)

The board initially voted to consider the contracts as a first briefing, which meant the item would return to the board’s next meeting for a final vote, allowing more time for public input. But later in the meeting – about 1:30 a.m. – board president Deb Mexicotte moved to reconsider that initial vote, which it did, and the item was then classified as a special briefing, allowing the board to take a final vote that night. Trustee Simone Lightfoot called the move a “bait and switch.”

Mexicotte defended her decision, saying that she is elected to make decisions like these on behalf of the district. Other trustees backed that view. Irene Patalan said she often explains her vote to constituents after the fact, and this time would be no different.

In the end, concerns over transparency and equity for other employees were outweighed by the belief that salary adjustments were needed to retain Comsa and Allen, and to reflect their value to the district.

Also at the Dec. 14 meeting, on a 6-1 vote, the board ratified contracts for two new administrators hired by Green to complete her cabinet: deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

The set of contract ratifications reflect Green’s desire to reorganize her executive cabinet to contain three deputy superintendents – Allen, Comsa, and Flye – at an equivalent salary of $140,000.

This report will cover in detail the discussions and procedure regarding the administrative contract ratifications. Additional coverage of the remainder of the Dec. 14 board of education meeting will be forthcoming in a separate report.

Agenda Approval

Near the beginning of the Dec. 14 meeting, the board engaged in a review of the meeting’s agenda, which it typically does with a simple assent. What made the Dec. 14 meeting agenda review atypical was an extended repertoire of parliamentary procedures: a motion, a friendly amendment, a calling of the question, and two roll call votes.

Part of the agenda included an item on ratifications for four administrator contracts: deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen; assistant superintendent of human resource and legal services Dave Comsa; deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden.

The item was included on the original agenda as a “special briefing.” Such items are briefed only once and voted on at the same meeting, usually because they are of a time-sensitive nature. A somewhat more common process is for the board to give an item an initial review as a “first briefing” and then, at a subsequent meeting, vote on it as a “second briefing” item.

Agenda Approval: Motion to Reclassify to First Briefing

Trustee Simone Lightfoot argued that the public should have a chance to give feedback on the ratification of administrative contracts before they are approved. So she made a motion to change the administrative contract ratification agenda item from a special briefing to a first briefing item. That meant it would be discussed at the Dec. 14 meeting, but would then return to the board for a second briefing and vote at its next regular meeting.

Trustee Andy Thomas asked superintendent Patricia Green if there was anything time-sensitive about the contracts that would make it problematic to postpone a vote on them. Green responded that she was concerned about waiting any longer to ratify the contracts for Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent of instruction, and Dawn Linden, assistant superintendent of elementary education, who were hired on Sept. 1 and Oct. 18, respectively.

Agenda Approval: Board Policy on Contract Ratification

Green explained her impetus for bringing the four contracts to the board for review. She reported that when she was in the process of extending offers to Flye and Linden, who were hired to fill vacancies due to retirements, she thought she had the authority to offer contracts to administrators without board approval. As such, Green explained, contracts for Flye and Linden were signed by Green and board president Deb Mexicotte without coming before the board.

Green stated that it wasn’t until she started to do research on contracts for Comsa and Allen, in order to bring them forward for possible amendment, that she found “deeply embedded” in board policy 2120 – Superintendent Contracting Authority – that cabinet-level employment contracts require board approval. Though it had not been established practice to do so, Green consulted Comsa, who counseled that indeed Green should present the contracts to the board for ratification.

Agenda Approval: Discussion on Board Policy 2120

Lightfoot asked what sort of predicament the board would be in if trustees voted down contracts for Flye and Linden, even though they had already been signed. Green responded that, though the contracts should have been brought to the board first, they were signed in good faith and the district should honor them.

Lightfoot expressed frustration that the board was being asked to ratify contracts “after the fact.” Mexicotte and trustee Susan Baskett each stated that they remembered administrative contracts coming before the board in years past, but that this practice had become out of compliance with board policy in recent years.

Green pointed out that she was trying to change past practice to comply with board policy and asserted, “The buck does stop with me.”

Lightfoot thanked Green for highlighting where the district needs to improve. Thomas also thanked Green for rectifying the policy variance and increasing the district’s transparency on this issue.

Trustee Glenn Nelson commented that the governance group of the seven trustees and the superintendent need to help each other out if any of them notices inconsistent application of board policies, and he acknowledged “sharing the responsibility for this procedural snafu.”

Agenda Approval: Motion to Reclassify to First Briefing – Discussion

Based on Green’s explanation, Thomas requested that Lightfoot (and Baskett, who had seconded her motion) consider a friendly amendment to split the administrative contract ratification agenda item into two parts – retaining the discussion and approval of contracts for Flye and Linden as a special briefing, but moving discussion of contracts for Comsa and Allen to first briefing.

After some additional clarification, Lightfoot and Baskett agreed to the friendly amendment suggested by Thomas.

Baskett asked when the second briefing and vote would take place, because the next board meeting – on Jan. 18, 2012 – is its annual organizational meeting, when board officers and committee appointments are set, and the board reviews its processes and procedures. Mexicotte answered that the organizational meeting is not usually for doing work, but noted that because it now occurs in the middle of the school year [it was previously held over the summer, when board elections were held in May], perhaps the board will need to take up some of its regular work at that meeting as well.

Baskett then echoed Lightfoot’s concern that putting the contract ratifications on the board agenda as a special briefing was “not fair to the community,” especially in light of how the district “[has] been preaching to the community that we are resource-constrained.”

Thomas called the question on Lightfoot’s motion to a vote, and Christine Stead seconded. The parliamentary move of calling the question is intended to end debate and force a vote on the item.

Outcome on calling the question: The roll call vote on whether to close discussion on Lightfoot’s motion passed 5-2, with Mexicotte and Patalan dissenting.

Outcome on main item: The roll call vote on Lightfoot’s motion, as amended, to shift the ratification of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen from special briefing to first briefing passed 4-3, with Baskett, Lightfoot, Mexicotte, and Thomas voting yes, and Nelson, Patalan and Stead dissenting.

First Briefing: Current Administrators

Green opened the discussion of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen by reminding the board that after taking the job as superintendent, she had wanted to spend some time assessing AAPS operations and organization before making any changes, and she had said she “did not want to make change just for change’s sake.” Saying she would not be bringing forward the contract amendments without reason, Green then outlined her rationale for the proposed changes.

First Briefing: Current Administrators – Green’s Rationale

Green began by explaining her thoughts behind suggesting the reclassification of Comsa’s position from assistant superintendent of human resources and legal services to deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel, saying that the title shift would allow AAPS to use Comsa to attract revenue in the future. Green suggested, “The WISD [Washtenaw Intermediate School District] might want to use Mr. Comsa … There are [also] some smaller districts that do not have the kind of resources we have here.”

Green also said she has been very impressed with the legal services Comsa provides to the district. “There are very few folks of his stature in the entire state,” she asserted. “He is very marketable and could very easily be marketed right out of AAPS.” Green argued that, in her review of Comsa’s work, she could see that he has saved the district at least $500,000 a year in legal fees, and gave two examples.

Just this week, Green said, Comsa saved the district $55,000 “by reviewing some billings and saying ‘we don’t think this is appropriate.’” She also noted that AAPS recently fielded an Office of Civil Rights complaint [regarding the effect of athletics budget reductions on Title IX requirements], and that Comsa was able to get it dismissed by providing excellent leadership during the review process. “If it had not been dismissed, the legal fees could have continued to multiply,” she asserted. “The risk management function is something very significant. This is something we should not take lightly.”

In terms of her proposed raise for Comsa, which would take him from $124,542 to $140,000, Green argued that there was precedence in the district for having the head of human resources be a deputy-level position, and for all three deputies having the same compensation package. Finally, she offered some comparable salary ranges for the board to consider: Wayne-Westland is paying over $160,000; Warren and Utica are each paying over $140,000; and Troy is paying $151,900. Green noted that if Comsa chose to leave the district, the district would not be able to attract a good replacement without significantly raising the compensation level.

Regarding Allen’s proposed contract amendment, which took his salary from $130,556 to $140,000, Green said he has worked closely with her to make the Medicaid reimbursement happen. [This will be discussed further in Part 2 of this meeting report. In brief, Green’s comment refers to $1.4 million in AAPS special education reimbursements currently being held by the WISD that Green is working to get returned to AAPS.] Green also noted that Allen worked diligently to be certain AAPS qualified for best practices incentives offered by the state of Michigan. Finally, she reiterated that the three deputy superintendent positions should be at the same compensation level.

First Briefing: Current Administrators – Board Discussion

Thomas said he was torn about this issue. On one hand, he noted, his previous professional experience as a chief administrative officer of a large medical practice makes him sensitive to the fact that salaries should keep pace with market conditions. He argued that Allen had done an admirable job taking the lead on high-profile, high-controversy issues, and that Comsa has also been an exceptional leader behind-the-scenes. In this vein, Thomas said, “Frankly, I think both of them without question deserve a salary increase.”

However, Thomas said, the district has a lot of good people – including principals, teachers, paraprofessionals and others – who have not received pay raises. “I am very concerned about the message we are sending to our rank and file that we recognize inequities among cabinet and will rectify them, but not the rank-and-file salaries.” Thomas said he recognizes that the money in this situation is “a drop in the bucket,” but argued that it does “move the needle in the wrong direction” while the district grapples with another $14 million in budget reductions.

Finally, Thomas said he feels a little better about approving a salary increase in Comsa’s position because it would be based in part on a reclassification of his position. He asked Green if her rationale for raising Allen’s salary was primarily to equalize salaries among administrators of the same rank. Green answered that it’s possible that Allen could be used to consult with other districts in the future too, but that is not part of what she is proposing currently.

Stead asserted that the salary increases being proposed for Allen and Comsa are small relative to the savings they have brought, and will continue to bring the district. She reminded her colleagues that in the past five years alone, AAPS has had to cut $50 million out of its budget, and that Allen and Comsa have done that work. She also pointed out that former superintendent Todd Roberts left AAPS to manage a much smaller group of students for significantly more pay. She argued that the district especially needs good leaders during these times when the state is not valuing education.

Patalan said she is willing to support an excellent team, and noted that Green is using her experience to bring new ideas to the district and look at things differently.

Nelson said Comsa and Allen have performed admirably under very stressful conditions. Like Patalan, Nelson pointed out that Green’s fresh perspective confirms that these are really excellent, important people to the district. Saying he supports Green’s recommended contract amendments in part because of the stresses the district is under, Nelson noted that Allen and Comsa will be with the district longer than any short-term pushback from the community.

Lightfoot asked whether Green was aiming to give all cabinet members parity in compensation, and Green answered, no, just the deputies. Lightfoot then argued that AAPS cannot be compared to other places because it has other amenities. She also suggested tying Comsa’s salary to a percentage of whatever he brings to the district in terms of additional revenue, instead of giving him a raise preemptively. Green countered that Comsa has already saved the district $500,000 in legal fees.

Baskett said that AAPS cannot compete on price, but offers employees a great quality of life. She said she has a concern about bringing all the deputies up to the $140,000 level at which Flye was hired. Baskett asserted that new employees coming in will always “negotiate high,” and argued that the district should not continually ask to realign top salaries every time someone leaves and a new person comes in. Finally, Baskett noted that the district has communicated to the community the need to sacrifice everywhere, and that the board needs to be cautious about proceeding with these proposed raises.

Mexicotte simply noted, “At this time I am in support of these amended administrative contracts as presented by [Green].”

Outcome: Votes are not taken on first briefing items. So as a first briefing item, these proposed contract amendments would usually have been brought back for a second briefing and vote at the next regular meeting. However, later in the Dec. 14 meeting, the items were eventually returned to special briefing status and approved.

Special Briefing: New Administrators

After holding the first briefing on proposed amendments to contracts for Comsa and Allen, board members returned to the discussion they had begun during the agenda approval, and discussed the ratification of the two new administrative contracts the district recently signed.

Deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye was extended an annual contract for $140,000 on Sept. 1, 2011, and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden was extended an annual contract for $117,900 on Oct. 18, 2011. Both contracts were signed by Green and Mexicotte, but not brought before the board as required in board policy 2120.

Special Briefing: New Administrators – What Is a Raise?

Lightfoot contended that giving $140,000 to Flye when that is more than the salary of her predecessor was essentially giving Flye a raise before she had even started working for the district. [Former interim deputy superintendent of instruction Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley’s salary was set at $132,000.]

Green countered that it’s not considered a raise for an individual who hasn’t been here. She argued that the market is such that if AAPS paid less than that, they would not be able to get a “top quality” person, and pointed out that the range for Flye’s position goes up to $169,000 in comparable districts.

Lightfoot asserted that there is no shortage of people wanting to work for AAPS. In response, Mexicotte and Green pointed out that the Flye did not accept the first offer made by AAPS, but negotiated a higher salary before accepting the position.

Nelson thanked Flye and Linden for bringing their “considerable talents” to the district.

Special Briefing: New Administrators – Incentive Compensation

Baskett asked for clarification about the “incentive compensation” section of the contracts being considered. [.pdf of contracts. See section 9 of Appendix 1 – Fringe Benefits within each contract.] Incentive pay is offered to top administrators based on the percentage of their performance objectives they reach each year. On top of their regular salaries, they are paid an additional $4,500 for reaching 100% of their performance objectives; $4,000 for reaching more than 90% but less than 100% of their performance objectives; and $3,500 for reaching more than 80% but less than 90% of their performance objectives.

“Is this consistent with other contracts?” Baskett asked Green. “How did you come up with these numbers?”

Green answered that the incentive compensation section is a standard part of AAPS contracts. Comsa clarified that incentive compensation was only offered to employees in Class 1, which consists of Green, the deputy superintendents, the assistant superintendents, and the executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent.

Baskett clarified that the district had budgeted for the high end of the salary range for each individual, so that in case the highest level of incentive pay is reached, it will not cause a deficit. Allen confirmed this is the case.

Lightfoot said she was “challenged by the standard practice” of offering incentive pay to staff who are already highly paid, while the district continues to cut services and raise class sizes. “This type of contract is not sensitive to current realities,” she argued, but clarified, “This is not a slight against the individuals in these positions.”

Nelson asserted that excellent people make an enormous difference in an organization, and that AAPS needs that kind of excellent leadership. He noted that salaries for comparable positions at the University of Michigan are higher, and said that if he had any doubt, it was whether AAPS was offering high enough salaries to the kind of excellent people it has in these positions.

Thomas noted that it would not be fair or appropriate to eliminate the incentive pay section of the contracts without raising the base salaries of the people currently in those positions, since they took their jobs with the expectation of being able to earn that additional money.

Baskett questioned how much AAPS has paid out in incentive pay over the last year, and Mexicotte suggested that could be answered outside the context of the contract question.

Outcome: The ratification of AAPS administrative contracts with deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye and assistant superintendent of elementary education Dawn Linden were removed from the consent agenda, and approved by a 6-1 vote, with trustee Lightfoot dissenting.

Current Administrators: Reconsideration

After the approval of the consent agenda, but before the board action items, Mexicotte made a motion to reconsider the decision the board had already made to treat the ratification of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen as a first briefing item instead of a special briefing item. Her intent was to then bring the contracts to a vote that night, which is possible for special briefing items.

Current Administrators: Reconsideration – First or Special Briefing?

Mexicotte noted that she had voted in favor of Lightfoot’s original motion to change this item from a special briefing to a first briefing item, so she was entitled to make a motion to reconsider the board’s decision on this issue – she had voted with the prevailing side. [Only someone who votes with the prevailing side is allowed to move for reconsideration.]

Nelson seconded Mexicotte’s motion, and the board engaged in a heated discussion about the issue.

Lightfoot argued that this “comes across as a ‘bait and switch’ to me,” and told Mexicotte she was “disappointed that you have opted to maneuver in this manner.”

Thomas noted the time [1:38 a.m.], said he was “a little on the frazzled side” himself, and said he did not believe that moving forward on this proposal at this time would be in anyone’s best interest.

Nelson disagreed, saying he did not sense that there would be any movement around the table on this issue, and that the board might as well vote now “because we’ve got two excellent people who shall receive the word on how this is going to be resolved.”

Patalan added that she often explains her vote to constituents after the fact and that this time it would be no different.

Baskett argued, “I don’t think this is the best move. Perception says a lot. People will question why we waited until almost 2 a.m. to do this. I don’t get a sense of the timeliness of this. I don’t think these two employees are going to leave us any time soon.”

Lightfoot said she wanted to make a last-ditch effort to her colleagues to “walk the talk … We tell people we want them involved and that we care and then pull this at almost 2 in the morning. This is about knowing we are not doing the right thing or we wouldn’t be doing it at 1:45 in the morning.”

Mexicotte noted that this item came late to the Dec 14 agenda, and that many of the other agenda items also required a great deal of time to discuss as well. She then responded to a number of her colleagues comments.

Saying she was a trustee of the district, Mexicotte noted that she values input, but has also been elected to make judgments on any number of things – including contracts. “People expect that I’m going to try to do the right thing,” she said, “I feel pretty strongly about this being the right thing.” She argued that she was acting in the best interest of the district by supporting Green’s recommendation and that her belief was due in part to what she knows of Comsa’s and Allen’s work in the district, how much money they have found and saved for AAPS, and about the stability and excellence required in the district.

She countered Thomas’ earlier assertion that raising salaries for Comsa and Allen “moves the needle in the wrong direction,” saying that even though these are difficult economic times, the district still needs to figure out how to cut $14 million while doing right by their employees. She said she does not support cutting other employee salaries.

Finally, Mexicotte took issue with the suggestion that this action should not be taken because of what it might mean to the community symbolically. “We have a lot of hard decisions to make, and we have to galvanize the community about what’s important, not just what seems symbolically important – our funding model, the retirement rate, that students and teachers are starting to feel the squeeze – what we get so caught up in are these proxy fights.”

Saying she “bristle[d] at the suggestion” that this was any sort of maneuvering on her part, Mexicotte said simply that she had voted earlier, and then reconsidered as she thought about it throughout the meeting.

Outcome: The motion to reconsider the board’s earlier vote passed 4-3, with Nelson, Stead, Patalan, and Mexicotte voting yes, and Baskett, Thomas, and Lightfoot dissenting. When the board reconsidered its earlier decision, the outcome mirrored the vote on reconsideration – the board voted 4-3 (with Baskett, Thomas, and Lightfoot dissenting) to take up the contracts for the two current administrators, Comsa and Allen, as a special briefing action item.

Contract Administrators: Reconsideration – Board Action

After addressing one other piece of business, the board returned for a final time to its discussion on contract amendments for Comsa and Allen – this time as an action item.

Thomas repeated that he felt more comfortable raising Comsa’s salary because his job responsibilities will be increasing. Thomas felt it was less compelling to give Allen a raise to achieve compensation parity among the deputy superintendents.

Lightfoot asserted that she was “quite convinced” that this is not in the best interest of the district. “I think holy heck is going to be raised about the way this has been done, and this will get in the way of the tech bond … We’ve pulled the ‘okie doke’ on this one. It’s bigger than the politics … This is not acceptable to me.”

Nelson said he wanted to encourage his colleagues to use “I statements,” and then argued that he was supporting Green’s recommendations because it’s the best thing for the children and young people of Ann Arbor. He added, “I hope people listen to my ‘I statements’ rather than other statements about me.”

Patalan said she absolutely thought this was the best thing to do for the school district, and that she believed in Green’s vision and experience.

Stead said she also thought it’s the best thing to do for AAPS. She argued that the risk of losing the leadership of Comsa and Allen as the district tries to cut 8% of its budget is a bigger risk than any other cut that needs to be made in terms of balance.

Mexicotte said she voted the way she did early in the meeting so she could think about it, and then she did think about it, and brought a different motion. She said she looked forward to a very robust discussion about board process at the organizational meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

Outcome: The approval of contract amendments for Comsa and Allen passed 4-3 with Stead, Patalan, Mexicotte, and Nelson voting yes, and Lightfoot, Thomas, and Baskett dissenting. The contract amendments reclassify Comsa as a deputy superintendent, and bring salaries for both Comsa and Allen in line with Flye’s at $140,000.

[This was Part 1 of the Dec. 14, 2011 meeting report. Part 2 of the meeting report is forthcoming.]

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

Next regular meeting/annual organizational meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

A handful of residents addressed the board during a public hearing on the proposed 2011-12 AAPS budget. The board will hold an additional study session on the budget on Fri., June 3 at 3:30 p.m. in the main conference room of the Balas administration building, and the public is invited.

The session will focus on prioritizing objectives, in case the finalization of the state budget leads to greater revenue for the district than initially expected. If revenue projections increase, the board may choose to restore high school busing, decrease class sizes, or make other amendments to the currently proposed budget. A final vote on the budget is scheduled for June 8.

Public commentary on the Haisley Elementary School parking lot continued. Although many of the speakers requested additional changes to the design, the board approved the proposal as it had been presented at the board’s first briefing, along with a host of other facilities improvement projects. Trustees also approved the purchase of a new standardized assessment tool, the Northwest Evaluation Association Assessment (NWEA), primarily for use in grades K-5.

Late in the meeting, which lasted over seven hours, the board engaged in a frank discussion regarding the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s (WISD’s) budget as it relates to state reimbursement of special education services as well as local tax levies. Though trustees eventually passed a proposal in support of the budget, some board members registered strong concerns.

Finally, the board heard first briefings on a number of other items, including the 2011 millage resolution that will accompany the final budget vote, and updates on both the AAPS strategic plan and a set of board policies.

2011-12 District Budget

The school board is required to approve the 2011-12 district budget by the end of June. At last Wednesday’s meeting, interim superintendent Robert Allen provided an overview of the proposed general fund budget, noting that the district also maintains a number of more restrictive funds such as the grant fund, debt service, bond service, and the sinking fund.

Budget: Projected Revenue and Expenditures

Allen reviewed the basics of the foundation allowance – the amount AAPS receives per pupil. The allowance is currently $9,490. Of that total, $3,432 comes from business taxes, $1,234 from homeowner taxes, and $4,824 from the state. He also noted the state portion of the foundation allowance is projected to decrease by $470 next year. This will make the 2011-12 foundation allowance less than the 2001-02 allowance of $9,034, even though expenditures have increased substantially in real dollars since that time.

Interim superintendent Robert Allen, at the podium, updates the Ann Arbor Public Schools board on the budget.

In addition, Allen explained that the state retirement contribution rate will increase. This is the amount AAPS must contribute to the Michigan Public Schools Employees Retirement System (MPSERS), and is determined by the state. It will increase from its current rate of 20.66% of total wages paid to 24.46% when the state fiscal year begins in October. Allen noted that the retirement rate is currently projected to increase to over 28% by fiscal year 2013-14.

Allen noted that after the board voted to remove principal-sharing as a budget reduction option at its last meeting, AAPS administration went back to find other places in the budget to cut. Allen reported that staff believes substitute teacher costs can be reduced by $600,000, but that still leaves a deficit of $1.73 million, which he recommends taking from fund equity, leaving a beginning fund balance for next year of $17.87 million.

Budget: No Teacher Layoffs

Allen highlighted the fact that the proposed budget does not include any teacher layoffs, because all but seven of the 70 full-time teaching positions will be reduced due to attrition. Allen explained that because of the contract requirements related to seniority, the district would need to lay off 195 teachers to then call back all but seven of them. He suggested this would be unnecessary since there was a high probability that these seven positions would be absorbed with additional retirements and separations occurring between now and the start of the next school year. Historically, Allen said, from 10-15 positions are lost through attrition over the summer months.

Budget: Study Session on Possible State Funding Increases

Gov. Rick Snyder has promised a signed state budget by the end of May, Allen said. Depending on how the state budget is finalized, Allen noted that a possibility exists for up to an additional $4 million of funding for AAPS. That $4 million total consists of a possible $2.4 million addition to the foundation allowance, and a possible $1.6 million in one-time-only incentive funding for the implementation of “best practices.” Allen noted that the district needs to get more clarification from the state to determine whether AAPS meets the “best practices” standards required for that funding.

Given this uncertainty, and the board’s goal of approving a budget at its next meeting, Allen recommended that the board hold a study session to determine its specific budget priorities once the state budget is finalized. Noting that the community has expressed concerns regarding class sizes and transportation, among other issues, Allen suggested that the study session could provide direction to administration on how to proceed in preparing the appropriate budget amendments for the second briefing scheduled for June 8.

The board agreed later in the meeting to hold a study session on Friday, June 3.

Budget: Board Questions and Responses

Trustee Andy Thomas confirmed with Allen that the projected $1.73 million deficit came from the combination of third quarter budget adjustments, additional savings in substitute teaching costs, and adding back in the effect of not sharing principals.

Trustee Glenn Nelson asked whether the district had reached its goal of bringing 170 new students to AAPS via schools of choice (SOC), since the SOC application window has closed. The proposed budget as it now stands is dependent on this 170-student increase, which would raise the total number of students to 16,739. Allen answered that he is not sure that goal will be reached, but that he would know by the time the study session takes place.

Nelson also expressed concern regarding a conference report from the state legislature that funding for half-day kindergarten students may be reduced to half the regular foundation allowance in 2012-13, making the per-pupil funding for kindergarten students proportional to the number of hours they are in school. Nelson requested that the board give some thought to what AAPS should do if that occurs – either continue to offer half-day kindergarten while receiving less money, or implement full-day kindergarten across the board and receive the full foundation allowance for each student while incurring added expenses for teaching staff.

Regarding teacher layoffs, both Nelson and Mexicotte expressed comfort with the administration’s recommendation to take no action. “When we have carried staff before to wait out an attrition cycle, we have used them for other things,” Mexicotte said. Allen agreed that these employees would be used as substitutes or in central administration depending on their skill sets.

Nelson expressed concern that building-level decisions might not be in the best interest of the district as a whole. “As we allow decentralized systems to make some of the decisions,” he argued, “we have the duty to keep to the principles of the strategic plan.” He requested that information on the degree to which decision-making is delegated to the buildings be brought to the budget study session.

Thomas questioned whether the district could consider busing students to school but not home, suggesting, “Students are going to be a lot more motivated to figure out how to get home than they will be to get to school.”

Allen responded, “I will have to check on the legality of that, but I understand that logic. We can calculate what that impact would be if we can legally do that.”

Trustee Susan Baskett cautioned, “I think it’s kind of crazy. I think we have an obligation to get them back to their homes.” But Nelson said he had followed a similar system with his own children when they were young. “As a parent,” he said, “I took my children to school and they had to walk home.”

Mexicotte asked how substitute teaching costs were reduced, and Allen explained that the solution was to assign some responsibility to administrators of individual school buildings. He suggested principals could better coordinate professional development to require fewer substitutes during instructional time, or offer it after school.

Trustee Irene Patalan closed the budget discussion with what she termed a “public service announcement,” urging community members to contact the state regarding the projected increase in retirement costs. “This is a large amount of money we have to pay that we have no say in,” she said.

Budget: Public Hearing

Four members of the public addressed the board during the public hearing on the proposed 2011-12 budget. All of the speakers were parents of current AAPS students.

Tina Richmond expressed concern about the proposed increases in class size. She reported that she does market research for a living, and that she had conducted a one-question survey to assess parents’ opinions on how to reduce expenses. The results of her survey, Richmond said, show that the majority of district parents think the money could be found in administration costs rather than teachers’ compensation.

Larry Murphy noted that the four-to-one ratio of 806 teachers to 205 support employees seems high. Regarding reductions in full-time positions, Murphy noted the proposed budget contains a reduction of 77 teaching positions but only 4 support staff positions, which is hugely disproportionate to the four-to-one ratio. He urged the board to prioritize keeping as many teachers in the classroom as possible.

Paula Brown and Scott Sproat offered comments on transportation. Brown said that the savings gained by eliminating high school busing would be equivalent to the foundation allowance of 89 students, and suggested, “I think you need to think about that.” To save on fuel costs, Sproat suggested equipping smaller, half-sized buses to serve the needs of special education students rather than full-sized buses.

Baskett encouraged additional public comment, reminding the public that the entire budget is on the district website, and available in hard copy at the Balas administration building. Mexicotte again invited the public to the study session on June 3.

2011 Summer Projects

The 2011 summer projects were fully briefed by AAPS executive director of physical properties, Randy Trent, at the board’s May 11 meeting. Of the summer projects on the extensive list, the most contentious has been the renovation of the parking lot at Haisley Elementary School. Five people spoke on that issue during time set aside for public commentary – four opposed to the redesign, and one in favor.

The only change suggested by Trent at the second briefing was to amend a typographical error on one of the bid spreadsheets, which would lead to the low bidder being Best instead of Cadillac Asphalt. Trent noted that Best will have two crews – one for the Haisley parking lot, and one for the other paving projects.

Summer Projects: Public Commentary – Haisley Parking Lot

Scott Sproat reiterated that the number one goal of the project is safety, and asked the board to consider the elimination of two islands from the design. Sproat expressed concern that the islands would “tempt” students to take shortcuts through the parking lot that would not be as safe.

Tam Perry, Kathy Greening, and Matthew Hull concurred with Sproat, arguing that removing the islands would be cheaper, safer, and would preserve more green space.

David Haig then spoke in support of the proposal. “Many people have come with opinions about safety,” he said, “but I feel like the professionals that designed this might have been competent.” Haig also expressed frustration with the concerns brought about preserving green space. “This is grass,” he said. “Not a forest. Not a wetland. The safety of the kids is more important than grass.”

Summer Projects: Board Discussion – Haisley Parking Lot

Thomas asked if there was still time in the schedule to consider the suggestions raised during public commentary.

Trent responded that the projects are currently on schedule. In response to the idea of eliminating islands in the Haisley parking lot design, Trent reported, “Our traffic engineer is adamant that removing islands would make it much less safe.”

Thomas and Mexicotte each confirmed that the traffic engineer had re-reviewed the design regarding the possible elimination of the islands, and concluded it would be better to leave them in the design. Baskett added, “The islands are there for safety. I feel safer as an able-bodied person to have islands. I can’t imagine not having them.”

Thomas noted that the board had heard from many people regarding the Haisley parking lot issue, and that while he acknowledged a difference of opinions among members of the Haisley community, he would vote according to the recommendations of the professionals.

Baskett thanked the parents who spoke up, and stated, “Just because I will vote in favor [of this proposal], does not mean I didn’t hear you … As one parent said, this is grass versus safety.”

Summer Projects: Board Discussion – Prevailing Wages

Baskett then expressed concern regarding the lack of prevailing wages in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements bid. She argued that not using prevailing wages allows a company to bring in workers who undercut the local workers’ pay and potential jobs. Outside workers don’t support the local community, she said, but “take their paychecks home and spend them there.” She concluded that not using market wages disrespects local workers, and asserted, “We are stepping backward by not doing prevailing wage.”

Mexicotte suggested that if trustees feel strongly about restricting bids from allowing the use of non-prevailing wages, the issue should be revisited through policy revisions in the future. She suggested that one or both of the board committees could examine this issue overall from a financial standpoint, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot noted that she supports both Baskett and Mexicotte, and would like the board to take the issue of prevailing wages up in committee, so that there is consistency.

Thomas offered that his understanding of the primary role of board is to provide the best possible public school system given limited resources, and argued that the fiscal responsibility of trustees trumps any social missions they might have.

The summer projects, with the exception of the ADA improvements (SF10-010), were approved as part of the consent agenda. Baskett requested that the ADA improvements be removed from the consent agenda. They were then approved 4-2 in a separate vote, with Lightfoot and Baskett dissenting.

WISD Budget Review

Nelson reviewed the proposed 2011-12 budget of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD), and explained that the WISD is required to ask for input from its member districts, and member districts are required to respond. WISD is not required to act on any of the member districts’ recommendations.

He briefly reviewed the functions of the WISD, and noted that AAPS uses their facilities at no cost.

Nelson then noted that the WISD itself enrolls very few students (233, compared to 16,569 students in AAPS). Of the $87.9 million WISD budget, Nelson said, $66 million of it is transferred to its constituent districts, and approximately $22 million is spent on WISD programs.

Nelson then pointed out the use of $12 million in reserves in the proposed WISD budget. He explained that special education revenue is decreasing due to changes in federal funding, and that this is causing the rate of reimbursement by WISD to its member districts for special education services to decrease.

The current reimbursement rate for special education services is 77%, and the projected rate in 2011-12 is 73%. However, Nelson pointed out that the reimbursement rate is expected to drop dramatically in 2012-13 to 56% because the WISD’s fund equity will be nearly depleted.

Allen confirmed that the decision by the WISD to use $12 million of its reserves to maintain a higher reimbursement rate was made in order to try to “cushion the blow” to member districts as they deal with the state funding deficit. He added that as the reimbursement rate falls in coming years, districts’ obligations and expenditures related to special education will not decline. At end of the day, Allen warned, the impact will be on general fund.

Thomas asserted that there has been a “systematic de-funding of special education at the state and federal level.” He pointed out that the net reduction of funds to the WISD in 2011-12 will be $16 million, or 17% of its budget. Noting that AAPS has been frustrated with its 5% reduction in state funds, he reiterated that the reduction in the WISD’s funding “is more than 3 times what [AAPS is] suffering.”

Nelson pointed out that this is the lowest special education reimbursement rate since he’s been on the board, and suggested, “We do have tools at the local level … We have not exhausted opportunities to levy… to get this reimbursement rate up to a level consistent with history.”

Nelson summarized the WISD budget resolution as saying, “We support the budget, but we want the WISD to continue to streamline it. We also support lowering costs through sharing and cooperation, and we’d like to talk to you WISD board members, and get to know you better.”

Mexicotte pulled the WISD budget from the consent agenda for further discussion, and requested that Nelson read the entire resolution, which he did. She then expressed that she felt uncomfortable supporting WISD spending down its reserve when they chose to attempt (and succeeded at securing) a millage renewal of .985 mills instead of asking voters to support a new millage at a higher rate.

“I struggle with how they took one step, but not the best step,” Mexicotte said. “This was a missed opportunity … Many people say I’m incorrect, that we would have not gotten support if we went out for 1.5 mills, which would have been the same money, but not the same millage [rate]. We should have made the case that it was dollar for dollar, not mill for mill [As housing values have declined, assessing property owners at the same millage rate yields less in real dollars.] …I am filled with regret that we now have to fill a gap of millions of dollars in funding because we somehow couldn’t have the conversation with our community that made sense for this millage. I would like to think that in the future, that conversation could be a little more open and a little braver.”

Nelson empathized with the WISD, saying that it was “terribly hard to feel confident given the outcome of the [failed 2009] enhancement millage … A lot of us were really seared by that campaign … We got slaughtered.”

Thomas added that though he is concerned about the special education budget shortfall, he does not believe that the decision to attempt a special education millage renewal (as opposed to a new millage with a higher rate) was wrong. “There are times when half a loaf is better than none,” he asserted, especially given the “devastating consequences” that would have resulted if the millage had not passed.

Patalan added that she was glad this was being discussed, and that she was sure AAPS and its voters will do the best for its kids, as was demonstrated by strong support by AAPS district voters in both the 2009 enhancement millage and the 2011 special education millage renewal.

Nelson asserted, “Indeed, we need to be courageous and say there are tax options for revenue enhancement, and we should be open with the community at the district level. In 2004, we funded technology with the bond. Should we have a technology bond back on the ballot? Should we be going back to the community to talk about another special education millage? We should talk about it as if it’s a real, live option, rather than an eggshells option.”

The WISD budget resolution was removed from the consent agenda, and approved 5-1 in a separate vote, with Mexicotte dissenting.

Northwest Evaluation Association Assessment

AAPS interim deputy superintendent of instruction, Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, was on hand to answer questions during the second briefing on the proposed purchase of the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) assessment by AAPS.

Thomas began the discussion by asking a number of clarifying questions to address public concerns regarding the assessment, and Dickinson-Kelley answered them. He asked how long it would take for students in grades K-2 to complete (20-30 min); whether the test is age-appropriate (Yes); and, whether it replaces the MEAP (No). He also questioned how results will be used, and whether or not they will be useful for assessing teachers.

Dickinson-Kelley added that testing with the NWEA tool would take place three times a year – in the fall, early winter, and late spring. She also explained that, since the test is not state-mandated, districts have some latitude to input answers for students who are not tech-savvy.

Regarding its uses, Dickinson-Kelley said the NWEA test would be used to assess students, not teachers. She reported that guidance would be offered to teacher-leaders and principals about how to adjust instructional practice to test results.

Nelson confirmed with Dickinson-Kelley that it would take a major investment of new technology to fully implement the NWEA tool at the secondary level. He reminded everyone that the technology AAPS was able to buy with 2004 bond is now becoming inadequate and argued that the district needs to think about how to remedy that.

Lightfoot asked if there was room for rewording test items. Dickinson-Kelley noted that the test adjusts up or down in difficulty as necessary, or pulls in a different bank of questions to get at the same objective. It would not allow a teacher or test administrator to substitute a word, but the test would adjust and customize itself if a student was having difficulty.

Baskett said she was very excited about this new assessment tool, but that she wanted to be sure that in assisting students during test administration, the results are not invalidated. Dickinson-Kelley agreed. She also confirmed that the NWEA test is more timely, with teachers getting results within 24 hours.

Baskett then asked about the connection between the NWEA assessment and the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). Dickinson-Kelley said that the district’s use of the NWEA tool will prepare AAPS for the replacement of the MEAP with a national assessment by 2013 or 2014, since NWEA uses national instead of state standards.

Outcome: The purchase of the NWEA assessment tool for use with all students in grades K-5, and Scarlett students in grades 6-8 was approved as part of the consent agenda. The approved consent agenda also contained an approval of minutes and gift offers.

WISD Elections

The board is required to designate a representative to vote on Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) board members, and to provide its representative with voting directives.

This year, the WISD board has two seats opening up, and only two incumbents running to fill them – Gregory A. Peoples, and Dayle K. Wright. The election is scheduled to be held at 7 p.m. on June 6, which conflicts directly with the Stone school graduation.

Mexicotte asked for the board’s thoughts on this, and the board entertained some discussion on the matter. It was eventually moved that Patalan be appointed as the AAPS representative if she determines that her presence will be necessary for the WISD to achieve quorum on the vote. Patalan also noted that she may request that the WISD change the time of the vote to 6 p.m. so that she can be on time to the Stone school graduation.

The board then directed Patalan to vote for the incumbents.

The board chose Patalan as its representative in the WISD elections, and directed her to vote for the incumbents, Peoples and Wright.

AAAA Contract Approval

Mexicotte began by saying that the board had been briefed on the tentative agreement reached in executive session with the Ann Arbor Administrators Association, the union that primarily represents AAPS principals and vice-principals. Baskett requested that Allen summarize the main points of the contract for public record.

Allen reviewed that that AAAA contract as proposed would freeze administrators’ base pay through 2013, while allowing them to move up on the salary step schedule. It would also include greater contributions to their health care costs.

Baskett noted that the district’s negotiation with the AAAA has been lengthy, and that while she supports the district negotiation team’s effort at reaching a tentative agreement, she does not believe this bargaining unit is taking an equal share of the burden. “We have heard from the community that everyone should share the pain – everyone else is sacrificing …[I] wish they had supported a reduction in their base pay.”

Thomas shared Baskett’s concern, but noted that he would support the contract, given the lengthy negotiations process.

The AAAA contract for 2009-10 through 2012-13 was approved by the board.

Third Quarter Financial Report and Millage Resolution

AAPS director of finance, Nancy Hoover, gave the board an update on the district’s third quarter financials.

Hoover also requested that the board approve the following 2011 tax millages: Homestead, 4.6912 mills; Non-Homestead, 18 mills; Debt Service, 2.1497mills; and Sinking Fund, 1 mill.

The board had no questions for Hoover regarding these proposals.

Nelson thanked Hoover for handling extra responsibilities well when Allen moved into the interim superintendent position for this year from his regular job as deputy superintendent of operations.

Outcome: This was a first briefing on these two items, both of which will return to the board for a vote at the next regular meeting.

Achievement Gap among ESL Students

During public commentary, two parents spoke, and a handful more stood in support, regarding the decreasing MEAP scores at Mitchell Elementary School as the issue relates to the school’s ESL (English as a Second Language) population. Richard Smith, a Mitchell parent, began by offering appreciation for the Mitchell staff members, who he said have a passion for excellence. But he requested that the board direct changes in the ways Title 1 funds are used to support Mitchell students. Given the increasing number of ESL students at Mitchell, which he said are now nearly 1/3 of the student population, Smith suggested offering an ESL program. He also noted that though the district provides interpreter services, the interpreter currently comes in for only two hours twice a week, which is not enough time. Finally, Smith requested the Title 1 funds be used to provide additional teacher assistants and tutors.

Jesus Martinez, also a Mitchell parent, addressed the board in Spanish, and another parent translated his remarks. Martinez noted that ESL learners at Mitchell have consistently lower test scores on the MEAP, and argued that it was the district’s responsibility to provide ESL instruction and bi-lingual help to these students. He also expressed frustration at the district’s lack of inclusion of parents who don’t speak English, saying they feel unwelcome and that their input is not valued. To illustrate this, Martinez pointed out that the parent survey concerning the lab school was administered only in English, and that translators are not present at curriculum night or parent-teacher conferences. He closed, like Smith, by requesting that some of Mitchell’s Title 1 funds be put put towards offering additional aid to ESL students and their families.

Later in the meeting, Baskett thanked the Mitchell families for coming, and said she wanted to acknowledge the effort it took for some of them to get there. Most of their concerns, she said, could be addressed during a June 15 study session that the board has scheduled specifically to address achievement issues.

Strategic Plan Updates

AAPS is the in the process of updating its strategic plan. At this meeting, the district’s director of communications, Liz Margolis, led a review of the suggested changes drafted by the strategic planning team over the past few months. Overall, she said, the team is proposing changes to three of the plan’s eight main strategies, as well as to its mission statement, objectives, beliefs, and parameters.

Changes to the mission statement focused on making it more concise and memorizable. Allen noted that he hoped these changes would help all employees to know what the mission statement is. The current statement contains a list of bullet points, but the revised version, if approved by the board, will be: “The mission of the Ann Arbor Public Schools is to ensure each student realizes his or her aspirations while advancing the common good, by creating a world-class system of innovative teaching and learning.”

In her review of proposed changes to the objectives, Margolis admitted that expecting “100% of Ann Arbor Public School students[to] exceed international standards in achievement” was “not realistic,” and said that the team suggested changing that objective to reflect that aggregate performance by AAPS students would exceed international achievement standards. She also pointed out the removal of a reference to students being “accomplished in their lifelong pursuits,” since the district does not have any mechanism in place to follow-up on students’ success once they leave the district.

Regarding the district’s beliefs, Margolis noted that most of them were left unchanged, but highlighted some clarifying language. For example, the belief currently listed as “Racism is destructive.” will become “Racism is destructive to everyone.” Finally, she pointed out the addition of new parameters to reflect the district’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, as well as the intention to align school improvement plans with the overall district strategic plan.

Margolis then introduced the leaders of the groups who had met to update three of eight main strategies of the plan – Strategies 1, 5, and 6.

Two AAPS elementary school principals, Joan Fitzgibbon and Michael Madison, introduced proposed changes to Strategy 1, which focuses on personalized learning. Fitzgibbon said, after conducting extensive research, their group was unable to define “international standards,” and suggested removal of that reference in the wording of the strategy.

Regarding implementation of strategy 1, Fitzgibbon and Madison outlined four key recommendations woven throughout their suggested action steps: (1) Ensure the high quality of teachers by refining the hiring process and incorporating parent feedback into evaluations during a teacher’s first three years in the profession; (2) Continue investigating how the International Baccalaureate could be delivered to more students; (3) Amend the structure and delivery of the curriculum to offer more options and make better use of available technology; and (4) Allow dual enrollment in AAPS and college, vocational, or distance learning programs.

Board members questioned which means of comparison the group had used to assess international standards, and Fitzgibbon assured trustees that their review had been extensive. Trustees also suggested clarifying the use of the terms “preK-14″ and “preK-12″ as referenced in the strategy in order to standardize the language used throughout the strategic plan. The term “preK-14″ alludes to the district’s responsibility to students outside of the traditional ages served by AAPS.

Next, Chuck Hatt, AAPS coordinator for literacy and social studies instruction, addressed the board regarding proposed updates to Strategy 5, which primarily deals with professional development (PD).

Hatt reviewed his group’s suggestions, including extensive revision of the wording of the strategy to clarify its meaning. He then introduced two themes that tied together most of the recommended changes in Strategy 5′s action steps: (1) PD should be functional and well-coordinated; and (2) An explicit link should be made between teacher performance and student performance.

Hatt highlighted some of the proposed recommendations, such as enhancing teacher-to-teacher mentoring, and offering opportunities for PD based on teacher suggestions. He also recommended that the district should formally evaluate its PD system.

In response to board feedback, Hatt described multiple outside resources that AAPS should consider using, such as those created by Adaptive Schools , and Critical Friends. He also suggested that AAPS should put together a graphic such as the award-winning one created by Chapel Hill-Carborro City schools which links PD activities to district goals. Baskett requested a copy of the graphic, which Hatt said he would provide to the board.

Finally, the board heard from Sara Aeschbach, AAPS director of community education and recreation, who reviewed a multitude of changes and additions to Strategy 6, which primarily addresses communication between groups within AAPS and engagement with the wider community.

Aeschbach reviewed the many accomplishments of the district under this strategy since implementation of the strategic plan in 2007, including establishment of the Village Fund, UMS and Google AdWords community partnerships, and the implementation of PowerSchool and SchoolMessenger software to enhance communication with parents. However, she said, her group found many ways that communication and community engagement could be improved more. The overall goal of the group’s revisions to Strategy 6, Aeschbach said, was the support two-way communication as much as possible.

Aeschbach suggested that the district enable additional features of PowerSchool, and be consistent in how it communicates important messages. She also recommended ZingTrain customer service training, and more effective involvement of parent groups and volunteers throughout the district.

Margolis then wrapped up the overall presentation on strategic plan updates and opened up the floor for board feedback. Patalan remarked on how exciting it is that the plan has truly been used to guide the district, but in addition to her praise Baskett expressed concern about accountability. “Thank you for the good work,” she said, but added that she’d like to see action steps in the plan assigned to specific staff members for completion. “To the public,” Baskett said, “without the assignment, it’s just talk.”

Margolis responded that after the board approves the proposed updates to the plan, it will fall to incoming superintendent Patricia Green to assign each line of the plan to an administrator.

Mexicotte expressed pleasure at both the accomplishments of the plan to date, as well at the prospective nature of the remaining and newly-proposed objectives. In response to Baskett’s concerns about accountability, she suggested the creation of an executive summary of accomplishments to complement the line item assignments.

Nelson noted that he was gratified that top level administrators were able to complete such a comprehensive and useful review of the strategic plan this year under the direction of Allen as an interim superintendent.

Lightfoot suggested that the strategic planning process could be a model for how to create a detailed achievement plan that could be as “proudly touted” as the strategic plan, saying “I look forward to actually putting the document in place to match the words we continue to profess.”

Outcome: These updates to the strategic plan were brought the board as a first briefing item, and will be voted on at the next regular meeting on June 8.

Policy Updates

The board reviewed suggested updates from the performance committee to five of its policies – 6000 (Core curriculum), 6140 (Homework), 6190 (Controversial issues), 6500 (Non-K12 Education), and 7350 (Volunteers).

Core Curriculum Policy

A minor revision to the curriculum policy (6000) was suggested to ensure that all teachers – not only new teachers – are monitored regarding implementation of the curriculum.

Homework Policy

The homework policy (6140) was amended to suggest that “homework can be made more relevant when connected to students real life experiences.” Baskett noted that the policy refers to research from the year 2000, and asked whether the recommendations of this research are still relevant or outdated.

Dickinson-Kelley acknowledged that some current research calls into question whether homework is a value-added experience for students, but that in general, research on homework validates this policy as it’s currently written.

Mexicotte added that a new literature review might change the policy, and Baskett suggested that such a review might be useful. She noted that the district is often out of compliance with this policy, in that many students are given homework in excess of the time guidelines spelled out in the policy (i.e., a total of 10 minutes times a student’s grade level per weeknight is suggested as an appropriate amount for middle school students).  Dickinson-Kelley stressed that the policy only suggests guidelines, not minimum or maximum quotas.

Baskett then suggested adding an element to the policy that ensures parents are given tools, such as training currently offered in Everyday Math, to assist their children in completing homework. Mexicotte countered that it is not appropriate to include such elements in the policy, as the board “is not the boss of parents.”

Controversial Issues Policy

Thomas reported that after discussing this policy at length, the performance committee decided it is good as it currently stands. The committee’s discussion focused on parent suggestions that they be allowed to opt their children out of certain classes if they particularly object to a topic being taught, such as sexual education. Thomas reported that AAPS administration had advised the committee that opt-out options would be very problematic, and so the committee decided against including such provisions.

Baskett questioned the utility of including a section on definitions (section 3) if no definitions are included under the header. Thomas said the committee had tried to define “controversial issues” but could not. “Our thinking was that it is too difficult to define this in such a way that the definition would really have any meaning,” he said. Baskett then recommended striking the “Definitions” section heading.

Non-K12 Education Policy

Recommendations to the board policy on Non-K12 education included language changes to bring it up to date with current federal regulations, and clarification that oversight of the policy falls under the district-level deputy superintendent of instructional services.

Baskett suggested striking “by the office of PD and growth” in section 7.1 since that office no longer exists in AAPS.

Volunteer Policy

The board wordsmithed the volunteer policy to bring it into line with current practice regarding who is required to obtain background checks before working with students. Thomas explained that the policy distinguishes between regular contact and incidental contact, and currently requires anyone having even incidental contact with students to have a background check performed. The performance committee recommended a revision to the policy which would change “at any time” to “as part of the activity” in order to clarify the type of incidental contact which would require a background check.

The board also clarified that only those volunteers having direct contact with students – not all volunteers – need to be placed under direct supervision of a teacher or administrator.

Outcome: These policy updates will be voted on after a second briefing at the next regular meeting.

Board Committee Reports

The school board has two standing committees. The planning committee consists of: Christine Stead (chair), Susan Baskett, and Irene Patalan; the performance committee consists of: Glenn Nelson (chair), Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas. Board president Deb Mexicotte sits on neither committee.

There was no report from the planning committee at this meeting, as they have not met since the last board meeting. Nelson offered a brief report from the performance committee, saying that they had spent their last meeting on the policy review described above. He also mentioned that a student had attended the last performance committee meeting, and that that they had enjoyed the student’s input into the discussion.

Association Reports

At each meeting, the board invites reports from six associations: the Youth Senate, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). At the May 25 meeting, the board heard reports from the Youth Senate, the AAPAC, the AAAA, and the PTOC.

Association Reports: Youth Senate

Aoxue Tang, a junior from Pioneer gave the Youth Senate report. Regarding proposed budget cuts, she argued that students should be invited into more discussions surrounding the budget. She also announced that the Youth Senate would match parent donations to AAPS if such donations totaled $1,000 or more.

Tang then announced “Dodging Poverty,” a Dodge Ball tournament to be held in June to help homeless and impoverished youth in Washtenaw county. Lastly, she noted that Community Volunteer Teams would be enacted again this summer to place students at non-profits over the summer.

Association Reports: AAPAC

Barb Byers addressed the board on behalf of the AAPAC. She thanked deputy superintendent of student intervention and support services Elaine Brown for coordinating an assistive technology (AT) open house, noting that AT plays a crucial role in bringing the general education curriculum to differently-abled students. She also thanked AAPS administration for listening to concerns about using a personalized curriculum to meet graduation requirements, and requested that information on creating a personalized curriculum be given to all parents.

Byers then expressed support for Randy Trent and the Haisley principal regarding the creation of the new parking lot plan, which she said addresses the extra safety considerations of special needs students.

As school year draws to a close, Byers noted, thoughtfully planned transitions play a crucial role in getting special education students set up for success the next year. Transition planning allows parents to know how to support children from the first day of school, and includes meeting new teachers, and trying out new technology.

Finally, Byers congratulated special education staffer Sandy Bromley on her retirement, and thanked her for her many years of service. She also thanked special education staffer Bill Harris for his service as he moves on to his new position as principal of Eberwhite Elementary School, and wished all new principals well at their new positions.

Association Reports: AAAA

Michael Madison spoke for the administrators’ union. “Our focus remains improved student achievement for all students,” he said. He then said that AAPS is lucky to have such a dedicated board, and encouraged board members to attend the many end-of-the-year community events, graduations, and ice cream socials: “Check in so that we can publicly acknowledge your presence.”

Association Reports: PTOC

Martine Perreault reported the PTOC’s election results, highlighting that Donna Lasinski will be the group’s chairperson. She noted that May 2-6 is teacher appreciation week, and recognized the efforts of AAPS PTOs who thanked their teachers and staff.

Perreault reported that 89% of AAPS school PTOs participated in the PTOC this year, and welcomed them all back next. She also thanked the board for contributing so much to the district during trying times.

Finally, Perreault invited the public to follow state of Michigan actions on a daily basis via Twitter @PTOCouncil and @PTOChair, and Mexicotte encouraged the public to communicate with the Michigan department of education as well as their legislative representatives on the issues of state funding of education.

Awards and Accolades

The May 25 meeting included a number of special presentations honoring staff and students.

Celebration of Excellence Awards

Mike Derhammer, a fifth/sixth-grade teacher at Ann Arbor Open, and Christy Garrett, a business teacher at Huron each received a Celebration of Excellence award at this meeting. Derhammer was honored for his impact on kids’ “learning, self-confidence, their understanding of their place in the world, and their responsibility to give back.” Many of his students surrounded him as he accepted his award, holding a hand-drawn banner reading “Congratulations!!! Mike Rocks.”

Mike Derhammer's students congratulated him on his Celebration of Excellence award.

Garrett was commended for her excellence in teaching as well as for her “zest in preparing students to compete and win consistently at local, state and national levels.” Upon accepting her award, Garrett remarked that she was raised by a single mom who modeled the importance of learning every day, and that she wished her mom could be here to see her receiving this honor. She also thanked AAPS’ elementary teachers for preparing students to succeed in higher level classes later in their school years.

Superintendent’s Report

Allen reported that Pioneer has won the 2011 national Grammy award, along with $15,000, and that this is the only time that a school has won it twice in Grammy history. He also noted that many high school seniors were awarded scholarships ranging from $1,000 to $2,500, and that 14 of the 16 graduating seniors from Roberto Clemente have been accepted to college.

Allen commended the efforts of students at Scarlett’s portfolio day, as well as Pioneer’s drafting and architecture students, and Community’s mock trial team. He encouraged the public to view the art of AAPS art teachers now on exhibit at the UM Work gallery on State St, and wished all district retirees the best of times in their retirement.

Public Commentary on Class Offerings

Merla Steltmann, an exchange student from Germany currently studying at Huron, addressed the board during public commentary, acknowledging and offering her appreciation for the many opportunities to take classes here that are not available elsewhere.

Agenda Planning

The board held a substantial discussion on whether or not they should hold an exit interview for Robert Allen as he transitions from the interim superintendency back into his regular role as deputy superintendent of operations.

Though there was immediately general support for the suggestion of holding such a meeting, there was some debate over its format and content. Some trustees suggested that the point of such a review would be to provide Allen with a formal review of his work as superintendent for use in future job searches. Others suggested the goal should be to receive feedback from Allen on how to work best with the incoming superintendent.

In the end, Mexicotte suggested that an informal evaluation of Allen be done so that the discussion could be contained under the rubric of an executive session. Allen’s feedback to the board could be done as part of that discussion. The executive session could be scheduled sometime during June. She also noted that the board always has the option of releasing a public statement of appreciation for an employee’s work with the district, and that they could choose to release a summary of the fine work that Allen has performed in his role this year.

The board also agreed to add a study session on June 3 to discuss the budget. This session will begin at 3:30 p.m., and will be held at the Balas administration building at 2555 S. State St. The public is invited.

Finally, Mexicotte suggested the board needs to set aside time to discuss how the district can best position itself to receive the one-time “best practice” funding being offered by the state, as well as how to address the upcoming changes to the foundation allowance for half-day kindergarten students. She assigned the executive committee to review whether these discussions could be bundled with the budget study session on June 3, or whether they should be part of a separate, additional study session later in the month.

Items from the Board

Simone Lightfoot reported having visited a middle college in Flint, which she encouraged AAPS administrators to visit, particularly to debunk the idea that parental involvement is required to ensure secondary student success.

Nelson reported having joyfully attended a smattering of community events including a breakfast at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, The Neutral Zone’s Breakin’ Curfew talent show, the AAPS retirees’ reception, the student and teacher art shows, Scarlett’s portfolio day, and the AAPS homebuilding program banquet.

Baskett requested that the administration provide the following data to the board: the complete number of staff requirements; current number of staff by race and gender; and the number of suspensions from this year. She also suggested that the board might want to review guidelines for school visits, noting that some are easier to visit than others. Finally, she encouraged the public to press members of the state board of education to share their stance on the current budget proposal being considered by the state legislature. “I want to know,” Baskett questioned, “if the state board can’t stand for us and our children, why are they there?”

Baskett closed by urging graduating seniors to “be careful, be safe, have fun, so when you look back on this [time], it can be memorable and not tragic.”

Thomas reported that Scarlett’s portfolio day was amazing, and that students were very polished and well-prepared. “Of the five students I interviewed,” he said, “I would have hired any one of them.” He also expressed pride at the percentage of Roberto Clemente graduating seniors who are going on to college (87.5%) and thanked everyone at Roberto Clemente for their hard work.

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

Absent: Trustee Christine Stead

Next regular meeting: June 8, 2011, 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Study session on the budget: June 3, 2011, 3:30 p.m. in the main conference room of the Balas administration building, 2555 S. State. [confirm date]

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded organizations like the Ann Arbor Public School system, which is overseen by the AAPS board. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.