This meeting is a regular event in the election process, and will include the approval of the list of election workers for the Aug. 5, 2014 primary. The three-member commission consists of chief of police John Seto, city attorney Stephen Postema and city clerk Jackie Beaudry.

Possibly of more interest than the approval of the list of election workers will be an update on proceedings in the pending legal dispute over the way that some misprinted ballots might be counted. Nearly 400 misprinted ballots were sent out to Ward 3 absentee voters.

Printed correctly on the ballots were Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen. However, Bob Dascola – who had filed a successful lawsuit against the city in order to be a candidate – was mistakenly left off the ballots. The city has sent replacement ballots to those voters, with a letter of instructions.

Dascola’s position is that votes in the Ward 3 race that are cast on the misprinted ballots should not count. Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, has filed a motion expressing that position – as post-judgment relief in the lawsuit that was won to put Dascola on the ballot in the first place. Michigan’s Secretary of State has filed a motion to allow that state agency to intervene in the lawsuit, and takes the position that such ballots should be counted. See ”Ann Arbor Ballot Dispute: Michigan Wants In” for Chronicle coverage.

At the election commission’s meeting, an update will also likely be provided on the status of the number of potentially disputed ballots. Votes that could be disputed are those that were cast on misprinted ballots for which a replacement ballot has not yet been received. As of yesterday, July 14, that number stood at 12. Of those 12, successful contact had been made with five of the voters, who indicated they’d be submitting a replacement ballot.

Update: Of the 392 voters who were sent misprinted ballots, 131 have returned correctly  printed replacement ballots. Only 10 misprinted ballots have been received that have not been replaced with a properly printed second ballot. That leaves more than 250 voters who received a misprinted ballot, who have not yet returned any ballot. Beaudry reported at the meeting that in elections with high-interest races  (like this year’s mayoral race), the percentage of returned absentee ballots could be 90% or higher. But she noted that often ballots are not returned until very close to the date of the election. So there’s still an outstanding possibility that a voter could send in a misprinted ballot, without sufficient time to rectify the situation. However, Beaudry reported that procedures are in place to ensure that anyone who turns in a misprinted ballot in person on Election Day will be provided a correctly printed ballot. Efforts are ongoing to make contract with those who have sent in a misprinted ballot. The election workers were all approved.

[.mp3 of July 15, 2014 election commission meeting]

Absentee ballots sent in first wave by ward. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle.)

Based on the dataset released by the city clerk’s office, the first wave included a total of 1,879 ballots. Among the city’s five wards, the largest number of ballots (599, or about 32%) was sent to Ward 2 voters. Ward 2 offers a closely-watched city council race  – for the seat that no incumbent is contesting. Sally Petersen, the current councilmember in that position, is running for mayor. Kirk Westphal and Nancy Kaplan are contesting the Democratic primary to fill that seat.

By ward, the smallest number of ballots in the first wave (160 or 8.5%) was sent to Ward 1 voters.

The total number of absentee ballots sent in the first wave two years ago (1,919), for the August 2012 primary, was roughly on par with this year.

Of the 1,879 ballots sent in this year’s first wave, 1,138 or 60% of them were also sent to voters in the August 2012 first wave.

An application to receive an absentee ballot can be downloaded from the city clerk’s website. [.pdf of absentee ballot application form] Completed applications can be mailed or hand delivered to the clerk’s office on the second floor of city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104. The applications can also be scanned and emailed to cityclerk@a2gov.org.

A spreadsheet containing names and addresses of voters to whom absentee ballots have been sent is provided free of charge by the Ann Arbor city clerk to anyone who signs up on the email list. Summing the columns in that spreadsheet yields a breakdown by ward of the initial wave of 3,697 ballots as follows: Ward 1 – 454; Ward 2 – 987; Ward 3 – 600; Ward 4 – 807; Ward 5 – 849.

Unlike the August primary, when the election of precinct delegates was a barrier to establishing separate absent voter counting boards, absentee ballots for the Nov. 6 election will be counted by a total of 11 different counting boards. Counting absentee ballots separately, instead of at the precincts, reduces the amount of work that poll workers have to do – because otherwise, they’d be responsible for feeding the absentee ballots through the optical scanning machine.

Nine of the 11 count boards correspond to precincts that have exactly the same ballot. For example, city clerk Jackie Beaudry explained to The Chronicle in response to an emailed query that AVCB11 (absent voter count board 11) includes Precincts 5-9 and 5-11 – because those two precincts have the exact same ballot.

But two of the count boards (AVCB1 and AVCB2) include precincts with multiple ballot styles, due to the way that district boundaries fall for the county board of commissioners. And they’re coded differently in the spreadsheet to make sure that the city staff issue the correct ballots to voters. For example, AVCB1 includes precincts in Ward 1 that are split between county board districts 7 and 8 – which are coded in the spreadsheet’s count board field as 1-1-7 and 1-1-8, respectively. [Ward 1, Precinct 1, county BOC district 1 or 2].

The combination of ballot styles in some of the count boards is based in part on at least two considerations. One is that the small number of ballots for some of the styles could conceivably pose a risk to voter anonymity. For example, in an extreme case, where a single absentee ballot were issued for one of the ballot styles, the reported election results for that count board would correspond exactly to that person’s voting preferences. And the name of the person could be identified through the clerk’s routinely disseminated AV spreadsheet.

Another consideration is the number of people and amount of paperwork associated with a count board. Establishing a separate count board to handle 100 ballots would require the same number of people and paperwork as a count board that handles 1,000 ballots. According to Beaudry, the city expects that each of the 11 count boards will handle 1,000-2,000 ballots in the upcoming Nov. 6 election.

Current trustees Andy Thomas and Christine Stead were on hand to talk over the roles and responsibilities of a trustee. No potential candidates showed, however. Attendance at the information meeting was not mandatory for candidacy.

To appear on the ballot as a school board candidate, candidates must file paperwork at the Washtenaw County clerk’s office by Tuesday, Aug. 14 by 4 p.m. Candidates must file an affidavit of identity and either a nominating signature petition with the county clerk or, in lieu of the petition, pay a $100 nonrefundable fee. According to the Washtenaw County Clerk Elections website, for a nominating petition, candidates in districts with 10,000 or more in population such as Ann Arbor must collect a minimum of 40 signatures and a maximum of 100. Trustee Thomas strongly suggested getting more than the base 40 signatures, in case some of them turned out to not be valid AAPS district voters. The withdrawal deadline ends at 4 p.m. on Friday, Aug. 17.

An AAPS candidate meeting will be held on a yet-to-be-determined date in August at the Balas Administration Building. The League of Women Voters will be hosting a candidate forum before the November elections, date and time to be announced.

Write-in candidates must file a declaration of intent form by Friday, Oct. 26 by 4 p.m., just under two weeks before the Nov. 6 election.

For more information, prospective candidates to the board of education can contact Teri Williams, AAPS election coordinator, at 734-994-2233 or teriw@aaps.k12.mi.us. For election-specific information, candidates can contact Ed Golembiewski, director of elections, at the Washtenaw County clerk’s office at 734-222-6730 or golembiewskie@ewashtenaw.org. The county clerk’s office is located at 200 N. Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor.

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

The forum was held at Pioneer High School.

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

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

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

Why AAPS Says the Technology Bond is Needed

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

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

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

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

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

What the Tech Bond Would Buy and How

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

Forum Q & A

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

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

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

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

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

Forum Q & A: Bandwidth

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

Forum Q & A: Unit Costs and Vendors

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

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

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

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

Forum Q & A: Contingency Plans

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

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

Forum Q & A: Old Equipment

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

Forum Q & A: Technology Use in Teaching and Learning

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

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

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

Green thanked everyone for attending and for sharing their opinions.

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

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

This ballot likely reflects a sentiment against the Fuller Road Station, which would include a train station, bus terminal and – in its first phase – a large parking structure. At last report, the facility would be a joint city of Ann Arbor-University of Michigan project, located on city-owned land that's designated as part of the park system.

Out of curiosity, The Chronicle asked intern Hayley Byrnes to take a look at the names of people voters wrote by hand on their ballots. 

Of the 1,206 Ward 1 voters who dragged themselves to their polling stations on a rainy Tuesday last November, 57 filled in the bubble next to the blank space for write-in candidates.

None of the people whose names were written on any of those 57 ballots could have won the election. Some were not the names of actual people who live in Ward 1, or even actual people at all.

But even among those actual Ward 1 residents whose names were put forward by voters, none of them had filed officially for a write-in candidacy. They were therefore not legal opponents in the election. Those 57 bubbles, however, reflected the votes of 57 Ward 1 voters.

Writing in the name of a person who has not registered as a write-in candidate – on a ballot that offers only one candidate – could reasonably be seen as an expression of dissatisfaction.

So The Chronicle wanted to discover: What form did voters’ dissatisfaction take?

Ward 1 Compared to Other Wards

How did the 57 write-ins (4.73%) for Ward 1 compare to other wards?

Bar Chart A. Percentage of write-in ballots for Nov. 8, 2011 Ann Arbor city council elections by ward.

In Ward 3, 1.29% of voters wrote in a candidate. In Ward 4, that figure was 1.11%. Ward 5 had 0.81% write-ins, while Ward 2 had 0.17%. So Ward 1 had more than three times as many write-ins as any other ward.

To consider those numbers in the context of each ward’s contest, the lowest percentage of write-ins (by far) came from Ward 2, where Jane Lumm won one of the closest races, garnering 60% of the vote. The Ward 2 race was expected to be close, so it’s not surprising that only six voters ward-wide chose to “waste” their votes.

A slightly closer race than Ward 2 turned out to be Ward 4, where Marcia Higgins won with 59% of the vote – but it was not necessarily expected to be that close. That could explain a greater willingness of a Ward 4 voter to write in a candidate than in Ward 2.

But beyond numbers and percentages, available online on the Washtenaw County clerk’s website, no record is kept of the text of the write-ins themselves, other than the physical ballot. Ballots are sealed, and the number of handwritten candidate names are tallied as “write-ins” – even if no candidate registered as a write-in candidate.

Ballots as Public Documents

According to Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), citizens “are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees.”

Bar Chart B: Ward 1 Write in ballots by precinct

Whether that broad sentiment of “full and complete information” applies to voted ballots, which are entitled to strict secrecy, is not a part of the explicit language of the FOIA. But in May 2010, Michigan’s then-attorney general Mike Cox concluded that ballots are subject to the FOIA.

In attorney-general opinion #7247, Cox writes that voted ballots do indeed “constitute ‘public records’ for the purposes of the FOIA.” The opinion continues by explaining that because ballots are virtually untraceable to an individual after they have been tabulated, making them available to the public does not violate ballot secrecy.

While the public has the right to see voted ballots, the timeframe for that access is more restrictive than for an ordinary FOIA request. In the same opinion, Cox concluded that the ballots could be released 30 days after certification by the relevant board of canvassers.

For the Nov. 8, 2011 city of Ann Arbor election, the county board of canvassers certified the results on Nov. 16, opening the earliest window for access on Dec. 16. After that window opened, The Chronicle arranged with the city to inspect ballots. In the interest of efficiency, we targeted Precincts 4 and 8 in Ward 1, because together they supplied almost half of the write-in ballots (24 of 57).

While Precinct 9 offered another 16 write-ins, the Clague Middle School polling station for Precinct 9 was the same polling station for a precinct in a different ward – Ward 2, Precinct 6. The voting machine does not separate the ballots by ward, so on balance we expected to be more efficient by opting for precincts that wouldn’t require sorting by ward.

Names of Write-Ins

The 300 Ward 1 ballots we inspected were held in two blue-and-red bags – each with an unbroken seal on the handles. After breaking the seals, city clerk Jacqueline Beaudry remained present throughout the inspection, thus complying with another restriction that a city official be present at all times during ballot inspection.

After 30 minutes we’d confirmed all 24 write-in ballots from precincts 4 and 8. Here’s a sampling of the names that voters filled in on their ballots:

Anyone Else.

John Hilton. Likely a reference to the editor of the Ann Arbor Observer. The printed monthly magazine's articles are also available on arborweb.com

Mr. No Fuller. This ballot likely reflects sentiment against the Fuller Road Station, which would include a train station, bus terminal and – in its first phase – a large parking structure. The facility has been proposed as a joint city of Ann Arbor-University of Michigan project, located on city-owned land that's designated as part of the park system.

Mary Elton. Likely the car enthusiast, spouse of Bob Elton.

Robert Elton. Likely the local car historian who is one of the founders of the Rolling Sculpture Car Show. Image links to Ann Arbor District Library video of a history of Chrysler by Elton.

Pat Clancy. Possibly the co-operator of Lil Dog Rescue.

Grant J. Weber. Possibly a former student at the Ross Business School at the University of Michigan.

Wickboldt. Likely Richard Wickboldt, who ran unsuccessfully for the Ward 1 Democratic nomination for city council in 2007, a race won by Sabra Briere.

Sarah Pinckleman. Likely an English instructor at Washtenaw Community College.

Cthulhu. A fictional character from the short story “The Call of Cthulhu” by H. P. Lovecraft, published in 1928. The creature has a following for the 2012 presidential election.

Wards are represented on the city council by two councilmembers, one of whom stands for election each year. Briere’s wardmate, Sandi Smith, has not announced publicly any plans for seeking re-election to her Ward 1 city council seat in 2012.

But of the names written in on last November’s Ward 1 city council ballots, Cthulhu is the least likely to challenge for her seat – he’ll apparently be otherwise occupied running for president: Chthulhu for President in 2012 Facebook page.

[.pdf of full set of 24 write-in ballots for city council in Ward 1, precincts 4 and 8, from the Nov. 8, 2011 election.]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!

At Wednesday’s regular meeting, the highlight was a presentation on the special education millage that will appear on the ballot on May 3, 2011. The proposed tax would renew an existing levy for the next seven years, and is projected to generate $14 million to support special education services in school districts across Washtenaw County. Of that amount, AAPS would be allocated around $5.7 million.

The special ed millage is not the same kind of proposal as the unsuccessful November 2009 ballot proposal – which was to levy a new, additional 2 mill tax to support general operations for districts countywide.

In addition to the presentation, the board heard its usual range of board and association reports during the meeting.

Special Education Presentation

By way of background, at its December 2010 board meeting, the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) voted to place before voters a renewal of an existing tax that supports special education in all school districts in Washtenaw County. It will appear on the ballot on May 3, 2011.

The funds collected through the millage support special ed services for students with physical, mental or emotional disabilities up to age 26.

First approved in 2004 at the rate of 1 mill, the six-year millage expired after the 2010 tax season. The proposed renewal of the special ed tax, at a rate of 0.985 mill, would extend another seven years – through 2017. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value. The millage appears on tax bills under the label WISD SPEC ED.

Countywide, the millage would generate around $14 million. According to WISD, the estimated distribution among school districts in the county would look like this:

Ann Arbor                 $5,767,020
Chelsea                      752,360
Dexter                       790,300
Lincoln                    1,464,120
Manchester                   281,540
Milan                        403,480
Saline                     1,349,460
Whitmore Lake                296,100
Willow Run                   542,640
Ypsilanti                  2,163,000
9 Public School Academies    189,980
Total                    $14,000,000

-

Representatives from the AAPS Student Intervention and Support Services (SISS) were present at Wednesday’s meeting to update the AAPS board on the services currently being offered, their hopes for the future and to discuss the importance of the upcoming special education millage.

Special Ed: Addressing Areas of Disproportionality

Elaine Brown, assistant superintendent for SISS, began by discussing the efforts the district has made to address two areas the state had identified about two years ago as disproportional. These two areas were: (1) the disproportionate representation of specific learning disabilities and cognitive impairment; and (2) and disproportionate suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities. In a followup phone interview with The Chronicle, AAPS communications director Liz Margolis explained that “disproportional” in this context means that the state felt the district was identifying a higher number of male African American students as special education students than would be warranted based on their statistical representation in the district.

“Our mission is to ensure that every special needs student has access to, and progresses in, the general education curriculum,” Brown said, reading from the SISS mission statement at Wednesday’s meeting. “Each student with special needs will be provided appropriate supports, interventions, and strategies to afford she or he an opportunity to receive the highest quality education in the least restrictive environment.”

SISS addressed the disproportions by developing corrective action plans that focused on identifying early those students who may have academic or behavioral concerns, Brown said. The earlier identification was accomplished through an emphasis on communication between teachers, administrators and parents.

Special Ed: Corrective Action – Achievement Teams

The chief tool for increasing communication are the district’s achievement teams. Ruth Williams, the interim assistant superintendent of education, said that students with potential issues are targeted earlier through regular meetings of a school’s achievement team, which includes teachers and administrators.

After identifying students who may have potential behavioral or academic issues, teachers can use a range of solutions to attempt a remedy of the situation. These solutions, called interventions, can range from simple disciplinary tactics to regularly scheduled meetings with the student and the student’s parents.

“During these meetings, teachers discuss concerns about the student’s performance and the interventions they have tried,” Williams said. “We also invite the parents – it’s important to keep them informed about our concerns.”

This increased focus on early identification was accompanied by the creation of a database to document what efforts have been made with students, and the effectiveness of those efforts. Teachers can log information about what has and has not been effective while working with a student. This information can help other teachers make informed, data-driven decisions about the best way to deal with a student. Other than interventions, the database includes information such as a student’s test scores or discipline referrals.

“We are focused on success for all students,” Williams said. “We want to make child-centered, data-driven decisions with consistent implementation and team consensus.”

In the eyes of the state, these corrective action plans worked. As of Feb. 18, 2011, the Department of Education deemed the district to be back in compliance in the two problem areas. Brown did add that these corrective plans will help in the future as the state continues to monitor the district.

“We have to make sure we have procedures in place to ensure compliance,” Brown said. “As long as we stay up on our documentation and our compliance processes, we will be okay.”

Brown then moved to show how the district had documented its success by using achievement teams: The number of special education students identified by the district has declined. After achievement teams were implemented in 2008, there was a noticeable decrease in the number of special education students, dropping from 2,215 students in 2008 to 2,170 in 2009 and 2,094 in 2010.

This drop, Brown said, was due to earlier identification of students with potential problems, as well as providing proper support to those students.

Special Ed: Changes in Special Education Numbers

After addressing the trend of a declining special education population, Brown was quick to explain that the decreasing numbers did not mean that funding could decrease.

One segment of the district’s special education population that is increasing is the number of students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In 2010 there were 241 students with ASD, up from 154 in 2005. In addition, Brown said, supporting these students costs more, and that the trend seen in Ann Arbor is also being seen across the nation.

She added that the district was mandated to maintain their levels of funding, an issue that would be expanded on later in the discussion.

Special Ed: Technology Upgrades

Jeff Flynn, the assistive technology consultant for the district, updated the board on new technology that SISS had purchased with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – widely known as the federal stimulus bill. He also outlined a number of items that SISS was hoping to purchase, but that would have to be reviewed by the board.

Brown added that the role technology can play is immensely important.

“We need to ensure that we align our technology purchases with our curriculum and instruction,” she said. “Providing students with technology is one of the best ways to close the achievement gap.”

One of the larger purchases yet to be approved is the Kurzweil 3000, a server-based piece of software that can convert text to speech so students can be read to, along with writing and editing features. The district is currently using an earlier version of the software, and SISS is looking to purchase an updated version.

“We’re also exited about the software’s web-based licenses that allows students at home to access this support – we find that compelling and exciting,” Flynn said.

Flynn also introduced the board to the “Tap It” 42-inch touch screen monitors. These touch screens, if approved by the board, would be located at Skyline, Pioneer and Huron high schools, as well as Forsythe middle school and Haisley, Abbot, Wines and Logan elementary schools.

Trustee Susan Baskett asked why those schools were chosen to host the touch screens. Flynn replied that they were chosen because they had the groups of cognitively- and health-impaired students who would most benefit from the technology.

The touch screens can be positioned upright to be used for presentations or laid flat to be used as an interactive table for a group of students. Flynn said this technology is great for allowing autistic or cognitively impaired students to communicate with the computers.

Baskett raised concerns over the cost of some of these items, including the ongoing cost of maintenance that will come down the road.

Flynn and the other SISS representatives didn’t have specific figures for maintenance, but said they planned on bringing more specific figures to the next meeting when the board begins to review some of the larger purchases SISS is looking to make.

Special Ed: Helping Students Transition

Cassandra Benion, SISS assistant director, followed Brown by talking about how SISS helps special education students transition from a school setting to life after they graduate.

Benion started by summarizing how the district’s transition services help students enrolled in high school. She highlighted the Practical Assessment Exploration System (PAES), which has been in use for about a year. The PAES program is a research-based assessment that identifies a student’s interests, functional skills, aptitude for community-based employment and workplace strengths and weaknesses.

This program is used along with a number of events, hosted by SISS and other supporting organizations, that school officials believe address important areas of transition by outlining what services are available for special education students and their families.

Special Ed: Young Adult Programs

Benion also discussed the possibility of establishing a Young Adult Program for special needs students transitioning after high school.

YAPs serve special education students who need services after graduating high school. Students usually move into the program around the age of 20 and can be in the program until the age of 26.

Currently, YAP programs are hosted in Saline and in five other locations throughout the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

Benion said the conversation about starting a YAP in Ann Arbor began about two years ago when parents were looking for an alternative to the program offered by WISD. She added that the WISD program is either near or at its capacity, while the YAP program in Saline offered more space and room for activities.

“Both programs have similar offerings with the exception of available space,” Benion said, adding that students in the Saline YAP are grouped into three tiers. The first tier includes students learning general life skills, the second has students learning about employment and the final tier prepares students for transitioning into society. The WISD program does not have these groups, and a program in Ann Arbor could offer local families a closer, more appealing setup, she said.

Board president Deb Mexicotte added that the parents comparing the programs in Saline and the WISD have found Saline’s program more appealing.

“I believe that many of the parents opted for that site based on evaluations of the WISD’s sites,” she said. “In looking at a range of choices, people are looking for sites like the Saline model.”

Benion said that the next step to be tackled would be finding a suitable location. Representatives from the SISS have visited sites, finding that school buildings provide the best venues. Saline’s program is housed in the former high school, and the WISD has programs at locations such as Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College.

Once a site is secured, Benion said that discussions can start about program details, such as what sorts of resources will be required.

Special Ed: Importance of the Special Education Millage

After the presentation, much of the trustees’ response centered on how important passage of the upcoming special education millage is, emphasizing that funding these initiatives is mandatory, and not doing so would require the funds to come from cuts elsewhere in the district.

Special Ed: Budget Breakdown

Trustee Glenn Nelson began by outlining the specific figures the district is dealing with and how much of an impact the millage would have. Brown had supplied a breakdown of the AAPS special education costs, which amounted to just over $37 million. Nelson added in other costs related to meeting federal guidelines, bringing the total to roughly $40 million.

Nelson then explained the extensive process of receiving reimbursement from federal and state levels of government. The district is reimbursed for portions of everything – from money spent on transportation to general costs, reducing the final cost.

“It’s important to use the net amount, not the gross amount, when thinking about costs,” he said.

In 2010, the district was left with $4 million to pay from the general fund after going through the reimbursement process. Nelson connected these figures to the impact of the upcoming vote in May to support special education.

“The millage will produce almost $6 million a year,” Nelson said. [Nelson's figure is roughly the amount that would be allocated just to AAPS – countywide, it would generate around $14 million.] “Without the millage, our costs would have been more like $10 million rather than $4 million, so that we would have $6 million less in the general fund for other purposes.”

Nelson went on to say that providing this support is mandatory, and funding for special education services could not decrease.

“This mandate that we must maintain the funding effort has a financial hammer,” he said. “If we don’t do that, we don’t get all the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds from the federal government. We wouldn’t be cutting expenditures, because we’d be cutting revenues too.”

Trustee Andy Thomas supported Nelson’s comments about the importance of the funding that would be provided by the millage.

“In the absence of the millage, there would be roughly $6 million, in addition to cuts that are accruing from changes in foundational allowance, that we would have to absorb, and it would have to come out of other programs,” Thomas said. ["Foundational allowance" refers to the per-pupil amounts that schools receive from the state School Aid Fund.] “There is kind of a false debate that the special education millage is more money being shoveled into the pot, increasing funding for general education students. By setting this aside, we have a way of meeting the need of the special education students.”

Trustee Christine Stead said that, even with the millage, there would still be remaining costs the district would have to cover, making the millage funds even more important.

“It’s difficult because, even if the millage passes, we’ll still have to make cuts somewhere to maintain our level of services,” she said.

She added that, over the next two years, the board would be hard-pressed to consider funding increases. With coming decreases in education funding from Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget proposal and the effect of declining property values on the millage, approving increases in funding will become difficult.

“This is the context we’re operating in,” Stead said. “We have to be realistic.”

Special Ed: Investing in the Future

Nelson concluded the discussion by emphasizing what this millage will mean to the district, calling the money “an investment.”

“The earlier you make the investments, the greater return you get,” he said. “This $6 million we’re thinking about putting into lives, it will save many times that later on. It’s an investment in the truest form of that word, and it’s time for us as a society to be making the investments rather than cutting them.”

Board Reports

The 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.

Board Report: Performance Committee

Nelson updated the board on the March 1 meeting of the board’s performance committee. Nelson reported on the committee’s discussion regarding the possible purchase of Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) software, a new piece of testing and evaluation software.

He explained that the NWEA test could be given in all grades in reading, math, language usage and science. The tests are online and are adaptive, which means they are personalized to students based on their performance on initial questions. The NWEA tests can also be given up to three times per year, which he said make them much more useful for planning than the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) tests, which does not have as fast a turnaround time.

A presentation had been given by Andy Ingalls, executive director of instruction for the Chelsea school district, who attested to the quality of the product during the committee meeting.

Nelson also discussed how the testing data can be aggregated in different ways, grouping students based on performance and identifying the subject areas in which a student may be excelling or falling behind. These student performance measures also include measurements of entire classes, allowing for teachers to be judged on the growth of their students.

Thomas praised the student evaluation portion of the software, saying that having the baseline of a student’s abilities to work with so soon will prove to be very valuable.

Nelson concluded his report by giving the board a general idea of the costs that would be associated with the purchases. According to Nelson, the low end would include leasing 1,100 computers, the minimum they would need to be able to run the program, for $365,000 per year. The most expensive option would be the outright purchase of 3,300 computers for $3.7 million, a one-time cost.

Nelson acknowledged that this program will have to be compared against other priorities when the budget is being created this year, but said he felt it was a strong option.

“The benefits are so large that this may be the best use of our funds,” he said.

Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS deputy superintendent for instruction, added that there were other districts interested in the software, and by purchasing it together, a better deal could be reached.

Board Reports: Planning Committee

There was no report from the planning committee, as it had not met since the last board meeting. Stead, who reported from the committee to the board, did say that the committee’s future work will include trying to meet with Gov. Rick Snyder to discuss education funding in the context of economic development.

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 Wednesday’s meeting, representatives from the Youth Senate and the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee were on hand to present during the meeting’s association reports.

Association Reports: Youth Senate

Nikila Lakshmanan, a junior senator from Community High School, along with other local high school students, updated the board on the Youth Senate’s efforts. These included an upcoming job search convention they will be attending and work done by the Youth Activist Training and Networking – a group started by community high school students to empower youth interested in helping the community and volunteering.

In addition to summarizing the work of the Youth Senate, Lakshmanan invited the board and the public to join them in their volunteer efforts. The group usually meets every Friday at 6:15 p.m. at the downtown Youth Senate office – at 202 E. Huron St., #101 – before heading out to help feed the homeless with different sponsors. Lakshmanan said that volunteers talk with the homeless while helping set up and serve food.

Association Reports: AAPAC

The report from Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee was delivered by Melany Raubolt, the co-vice chair for AAPAC and the parent of an autistic student at Slauson Middle School. Raubolt praised everyone who has worked with AAPAC to enrich the lives of special needs students, adding that her son, an eighth-grade student at Slauson, was fully with his regular education peers and will be transitioning to Pioneer High School next year.

Raubolt also touched on the upcoming special education millage, expressing her organization’s support for the measure. She asked for community support in the formation of a Young Adult Program (YAP), a concept that was discussed during the presentation by the SISS on the district’s special education performance.

“This millage is a special education renewal, serving a critical function in our communities by empowering all students with the necessary tools required for individual success,” she said.

Superintendent’s Report

Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS deputy superintendent for instruction, gave the superintendent’s report in place of interim superintendent Robert Allen, who was away at a conference.

She noted a number of awards recently received by AAPS students, including awards in math, choir, chess, and athletics. In addition, she reported that students in one class at Pattengill did a service project instead of exchanging Valentine’s cards with each other this year.

Dickinson-Kelley also stated that Allen was a keynote speaker at a recent Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce meeting, which resulted in chamber members making visits to two AAPS schools. She noted that the participants were very impressed with the schools they visited.

Dickinson-Kelley reported that National African-American Parent Involvement Day (NAAPID) had been a large success throughout the district. Finally, she encouraged all staff and community members to attend the forums and final interviews of the two remaining candidates for AAPS superintendent. [The forums and interviews were held later that week, on March 4-5, and resulted in the board decision to enter into negotiations with Patricia Green to be the next AAPS superintendent.]

Financial Report

Nancy Hoover, the district’s director of financial operations, provided the first briefing for the board during Wednesday’s meeting. Hoover’s brief report touched on grant money received by the district and how it was being used.

Currently, the district is able to cover some salaries of high school teachers with a $1.9 million grant from federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. This allows the district to remove that expense from the general operating budget.

Trustees took the opportunity to make a point about how budget figures could look artificially low or high because of these funding shifts. Trustee Glenn Nelson warned against reading too much into coming figures.

“When we do the budget for the 2012 fiscal year with none of these grants, these high school salaries are going to come back in, and it will look like the general fund budget has increased,” he said. “This is purely an artifact of accounting, not a real increase.”

Trustee Andy Thomas echoed these sentiments.

“It’s important to realize that, in making comparisons from year to year, there are a number of adjustments such as this that need to be taken into account,” he said.

Pioneer Field Bid Update

Randy Trent, executive director of physical properties for the district, gave the board a special briefing on the progress of collecting bids for work on the Pioneer High School football dressing room and field.

The project includes building new dressing room facilities and putting in new turf for a practice field next to the school’s football stadium. Trent recommended selecting Granger Construction for the bid at a cost of just over $42.3 million. Trent said that past dealings with Granger have been positive.

The board took action on the proposal later in the meeting, voting unanimously to approve it as part of a consent agenda, which also included minutes and gift offers.

Public Commentary: Bullying

The meeting opened with public commentary from Christa Moran, a parent concerned about the presence of bullying in the district. Moran spoke about a bullying situation in which her son was forced out of AAPS by a student who she said was extorting money from him. In her description, the situation was addressed poorly by his school, and resulted in ongoing retribution bullying. Once her son became suicidal, she pulled him out of AAPS, and enrolled him in a local charter school where he is now thriving.

Moran spoke, she said, on behalf of students without a support system, and who don’t have anywhere else to go. She noted that bullying policies are inconsistently applied across schools, and urged all board members and administrators to take the issues of bullying and “predatory aggression” seriously. Moran suggested surveying parents and students regarding their experiences with bullying, instituting a bullying policy similar to the districtwide zero-tolerance policy toward weapons, and training student bystanders about how to deal with bullying episodes they witness.

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

Absent: Simone Lightfoot.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 7 p.m., at the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

About the writer: Eric Anderson is an intern for The Ann Arbor Chronicle.