David Erik Nelson

Mitt Romney and I went to the same high school – three decades apart. This would be immaterial, except the Washington Post just published a fascinating 5,500-word remembrance of Mitt Romney’s hijinks at Cranbrook, a high-pressure prep school in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

I attended this same school in the 1990s; it’s an architectural gem, the staff is excellent, the program an academic crucible. Later, as a University of Michigan student, I shared a broken-down house with three fellow Cranbrook alums. One was in a sociology class, and we were delighted when he revealed that his textbook listed Cranbrook as “one of the last vestiges of American aristocracy.”

Because Mitt and I attended Cranbrook exactly 30 years apart, we ended up standing back-to-back on a balmy June evening in 2005 – the same year Mitt received the school’s 2005 Distinguished Alumni Award. The governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I stood together at the lip of a deep, inset fountain, which gurgled contentedly, almost as though it was whispering ♪♫Daaaaave, I would be an excellent place for a GOP splaaashdown!♫

A Question of Character

Jason Horowitz’s May 10 Washington Post piece is long, detailed, and narrative, but so effectively pulls its punches that (apart from the title, which I imagine was written by an editor) it has no express argument at all.

Yet the piece has elicited a lot of reaction. Clearly, it shows that Mitt is a homophobe! Clearly, it shows he’s a bully! Clearly, it shows he’s a friend of the Jews! Clearly, it shows he’s a classist prick! A meretricious lout! A great practical joker! A disrespectful, bloodthirsty monster! Clearly, it’s totally not germane because no one would pick a president based on what that person was doing in high school!

Clearly it’s not clear what we’re supposed to take from this – but that seems fine, because as of last Friday everyone in the old media and on its coat-tails was perfectly happy to take the dark glass Horowitz delivered us and scry it for meaning.

But, as a Cranbrook alum, and as someone who was bullied [1] in those pleasant pastures among those dark Satanic Mills [2], and as someone who was a Jew at Cranbrook during what might have been the queerest time in history to be a Jew at Cranbrook, what interested me most were the Facebooked reactions of my old classmates. And their thoughts eerily matched mine: That doesn’t really sound so different from what things were like when we were there.

Then, of course, there’s this Wall Street Journal blog post penned by an alum who was gay at Cranbrook a decade after I’d graduated. His concluding sentence: “Call us elitist, or removed, or privileged, but don’t say that Cranbrook hasn’t changed.”

The Promised Land

What initially struck me about Horowitz’s article wasn’t the description of Cranbrook – which was so familiar that it didn’t even strike me that it should have changed more over the 30 most tumultuous years of the 20th Century – but a simple mistake.

In explaining the division between boarding students and “day boys” (who were “day students” by the time I came to Cranbrook, because the two campuses had largely been integrated), Horowitz notes: “Students within the limits of Detroit’s 8 Mile Road had the option to attend the school without boarding.”

This comes just a bit after Horowitz takes pains to highlight Cranbrook’s “significant Jewish contingent” at that time. He even mentions that Romney dated Mary Fisher – the stepdaughter to Max Fisher, who was certainly one of the most notable Jewish-American philanthropists of the 20th Century – and notes how “studiously nondenominational” the school was.

But Horowitz has gotten this admissions policy exactly wrong: By the time Mitt was enrolled, Cranbrook had long taken measures to limit Jewish enrollment (as is both attested and documented in the biography of Cranbrook’s most politically significant alum during my tenure, Daniel Ellsberg). One measure was to mandate that students living south of 8 Mile – i.e., within Detroit city limits – must attend as boarding students (at a much higher tuition rate). [3]

Until the 1970s, the vast bulk of Southeast Michigan’s Jewish population – including my own father (not a Cranbrook alum) – lived within Detroit, largely along its northern edge. When I was a student this policy was characterized as anti-Semitic, not racist, although it obviously affected a huge African-American population. Make of that what you will. [4]

But, I think most tellingly, this was a policy that teachers told us about in the 1990s. I know this will sound absurd – I am, after all, talking about one of the last vestiges of the aristocracy – but when I was a student the school was admirably ahead of the curve on multiculturalism, with classes with names like “Diversity?” and teachers who didn’t play with kid gloves. Our privilege – by dint of socio-economic class, race, gender, creed – was not something we were permitted to blithely ignore. Classroom debates asked us to take a long look at how it was we ended up where we were, and what we might owe the rest of the world as a consequence. The kid gloves were left at the school room door. Our folks got their money’s worth – because this is what they were paying for.

The entire point of bringing up these policies – which, to my understanding, remained in place until the early ’70s – was to discuss how institutions change over time. Cranbrook was – and evidently remains – a smart place, and a complicated place. It’s a classic example of how institutions – real institutions with real traditions, institutions like governments – make their progress: sidling and inch-long, often mind-numbingly slowly, but bending toward justice.

The Rich Are Different

The implied argument in Horowitz’s Washington Post parable – the argument being made explicit by us chattering hordes now – is that there is something to be said about Mitt here, something that can be distilled from these facts about his boyhood cruelty, about an environment that was intense and rarified.

As the caretakers of a half-way decent democracy, this should probably disturb us. The last few election cycles have seen our national discourse stumble into the logical endgame of identity politics. We’ve ceased even to bother asking how a candidate’s identity might influence his or her performance of duties, and instead seem content to ask how his or her identity influences our guts. With John F. Kennedy (a Catholic), or with Joe Lieberman (a practicing Orthodox Jew), our questions about their strange Otherness was at least couched in functional concerns: How might their identities impact their performance of the duties of their offices?

But in the Birther controversy (or lack of one for John McCain, who was born in Panama) and with questions of Romney’s socioeconomic class and upbringing and faith [5], no one seems to be bothering to ask: “Does this obstruct the performance of his function?” It all seems to just swirl around: “Is he like me? Is he too different? Are the rich too different from me? Did He who made the lamb make thee?”

After all, how could your average American possibly expect to see his or her interests effectively addressed by a slightly right-of-center moderate millionaire with an elite education, a pragmatic attitude towards universal medical coverage, and several New York Times bestsellers in bookstores? Are we seriously worried that Mitt Romney might get elected in 2012, or that we already elected him in 2008?

It’s one thing to not want a Jew VP because you fear the President might drop dead during Yom Kippur and there’d be no one to pilot the ship of state until sundown. It’s another not to want a Jew VP because you aren’t a Jew, and Jews are different, and you aren’t comfortable with that, and what if he decided he didn’t want a White House Christmas tree and oh good God won’t someone think of the children!!!

Whatever nebulous feelings we might now have about Mitt and Mormonism and bullies and boys bleaching their hair and growing it long, Horowitz’s Washington Post article has at least brought us one concrete fact: Mitt Romney is an enthusiastic prankster. And that, my Dear Readers, my Trusted Interlocutors, brings us back to me and Mitt standing at our high school reunion in 2005.

We stood together once, Mitt and I. It was June and it was warm and it was breezy and the sun was westering, and there were a lot of other folks there. Because Cranbrook is small, they hold their reunions mod 5, which means that everyone who graduated in 1930, ’35, ’40, ’45 . . . ’65 (like Mitt), ’70 . . . ’95 (like me) share one big reunion. The next year it’s the 1931, ’36, ’41, ’46 . . . etc. kids who reunite, and so on. So Mitt and I shared a reunion.

I was standing in Cranbrook’s celebrated Quadrangle next to that lovely fountain drinking a beer and talking to General Ambrose Burnside (not his real name). The general looked past my shoulder and said, “Holy shit, that’s Mitt Romney!” I turned, and not five feet away, three-quarters turned away from me, was the governor of Massachusetts. He wasn’t flanked by security, or by his wife, or by anyone in particular. He was in an Izod and chinos, smiling and chatting to a young African-American man who, judging from his blue-and-green club tie and navy blazer, was one of the students there to serve the alums. The kid was smiling, hands clasped in front of his belt, asking something complicated. Mitt was smiling back and nodding and squinting a little in the sun.

“Who?” I asked.

“The governor of Massachusetts, asshole,” and then it clicked: Less than a year earlier Romney had backed same-sex civil unions. A few months later some skinny, crazy-named black guy from Chicago had slam-dunked at the DNC Convention. America seemed to be bending toward justice.

“Oh. That Mitt Romney.” I looked again, “That dude either has a huge ass or a terrible tailor,” I said. And it drunkenly dawned on me: I will almost certainly regret not pushing this guy into the fountain. At the very least, I will have assaulted the governor of the Hated Commonwealth of Massachusetts [6].

But those fountains steps can be slick, and I worried he’d brain himself on the way down, and then I’d be the man who murdered the governor of Hated Massachusetts. And I didn’t like imagining the aftermath: Some middle-aged dude, ass-down in a big fountain, the water pouring over him, shocked and ashamed, and stuck in wet shoes for the rest of the evening. I didn’t like the idea of how triumphantly malicious I’d feel, about how I’d screw up that club-tie kid’s chance to talk to Someone Really Goddamn Important, when he ought to be clearing cocktail glasses off of linen tablecloths.

And then General Burnside said, “You want another beer?” and I did.

And we left.

But, maybe, if I’d seen the Washington Post article back then, I would have rushed Mitt.

After all, of all the guys who want to have their finger on the national trigger, we now know that Mitt’s the one who can take a joke.

Notes:

[1] I hate saying that. The cognitive dissonance I experience typing the words “I was bullied in school” is so great that I’m almost overwhelmingly tempted to delete the following 600 words (which, agreed, might well be a blessing for both the reader and me).

On the one hand, the term “bullied” carried nowhere near the weight then – either for kids or for adults in education –  that it does now. Back then it never dawned on me to take my problems to a teacher or administrator. I simply could not fathom what they might do about any of it. Consequently, I’m a big, unstunted grown-up man now, and feel like “it’s all water under the bridge” and “didn’t mean anything.” There are kids – even today, and certainly in the 1960s, as the Washington Post article demonstrates – who suffer a great deal more at the hands of their peers than I ever did. What I experienced was mild by comparison. Or, at least, that’s what I want to say. Hey, I’m fine! “It gets better,” kids!

On the other hand – which I’ll just arbitrarily call my left hand, the one that clicks and grinds when I rotate my wrist even now, 20-plus years on – I was bullied right into a broken arm, and bullied beyond. I was bullied right up until I stopped giving a fuck about what it should mean to be “one of the guys” – which happened to coincide with my classes largely switching to being mixed-gender. (When I attended Cranbrook the middle schools were entirely gender segregated, as were a good portion of the freshman and sophomore humanities classes. Having seen firsthand – both as a student and a teacher – how young American men railroad young American women in classroom discussions, I have trouble beefing with this policy. A lot of the girls really liked it. But if you’re an effete, loud-mouthed, heterosexual fat-boy who has trouble socializing with males, single-sex education is pretty hellish.)

So yeah, I also got pushed and shoved and snotted on and tripped and my hair surreptitiously clipped and that broken wrist and . . . well, that’s as honest as I’m going to be about it. The things that were most hurtful will sound so mild in the telling that maybe it’s better to leave it there. In 1999, when coverage of the University of Michigan’s Naked Mile was interrupted to report on something awful that had happened in a little Denver town with the floral name of Columbine – and in the following years, as we started zero-tolerancing all sorts of bullied kids out of our public schools – I understood those boys, all those terrible boys who made threats, who packed heat, who lashed out. I understood because I remembered sitting on the benches that line Cranbrook’s beautiful, wood-paneled halls with my buddy General Ambrose Burnside (not his real name), and talking about how we might stalk through the Quadrangle, who we’d kill, in what order, and how. But not why. Why was pretty self-evident.

And, just in case it’s unclear why I never finally cracked and curled finger ’round trigger: It was because the classes were small, and regardless of how one’s peers felt and what they said, the teachers valued a loud-mouthed “fat faggot fuckup” who would try answering any question, no matter how obtuse. If my experience is any indication, then a simply mind-boggling number of young lives are saved each year by well-timed – and likely entirely unknowing – chuckles, back-pats, and tossed off attaboys from over-worked, under-compensated teachers.

Anyway, on the up-side, I was a day student, so I didn’t have to share communal showers with those pricks.

Incidentally, since it may begin to seem important, the bulk of folks who picked on me were my fellow Jews – but that’s really just selection bias: The vast bulk of my peers were Jews.

[2] Yeah, okay, I’ll own that this flourish seems totally excessive. The school song I was most familiar with at Cranbrook was not “Forty Years On” – which I vaguely remember singing at graduation – but “Jerusalem,” which is based on a poem by William Blake and, for a Jew, is probably the most fascinating possible thing to sing in a “nondenominational” church during your “nondenominational” graduation ceremony from a school founded to provide that church with choir boys, situated in the richest community in America. “Satanic mills” indeed.

[3] As an aside, I can see how Horowitz cocked this up. A few grafs earlier he quotes a Romney classmate who says he “commuted from east Detroit” [sic] each day. Unless Horowitz is from the Metro area and older than mid-thirties, he has no reason to know that the speaker is almost certainly not talking about the section of Detroit east of Woodward Avenue – which is usually called the “Eastside” – but rather likely meant “East Detroit,” an entirely separate community that’s bordered on its southern edge by 8 Mile, and thus entirely outside, and north, of Detroit. In 1992 East Detroit changed its name to “Eastpointe” for marketing reasons. But, if you came of age even as late at the ’80s, you likely still think of this as East Detroit. See, for example, this Eminem track – with apologies to women, the Beastie Boys, Kid Rock, and the Loch Ness Monster – around the 2 min 6 sec mark.

[4] I’d hate to give the impression that, by the 1990s, there was any hint of institutional racism or anti-Semitism lingering at the school. Far from it, the institution itself sought to be as broad and inclusive as possible, in terms of teaching staff and student body, and was certainly far more diverse than the neighboring public schools (esp. in terms of nationality). It was also overrun with Jews like me. By the time I graduated, the Jewish High Holidays were also school holidays, purely for pragmatic reasons: It was impossible to get anything done on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur because a quarter of the school was gone. I’m not arguing that 1990s Cranbrook was a Rainbow Coalition Utopia, I just want folks to have an accurate picture of what the aristocracy was in the 1990s.

[5] I knew exactly one Mormon who attended Cranbrook in the seven years I was there – which certainly makes Mormons the most extreme minority at Cranbrook, far outnumbered by Jews, Hindus, Muslims, African-Americans, homosexuals, Latinos, Canadians, lady hockey players, etc. He was a nice – if, upon reflection, somewhat odd – kid who was widely accepted, and happened to be either a nephew or cousin to Jim Davis (of “Garfield” fame). Nonetheless, I’d be dishonest if I said anything other than this: “His Mormon cosmology was mercilessly mocked as ludicrous, primarily by the Jews I knew and spent the most time with.” Before you judge us too harshly, please bear in mind that we were total and unforgivable assholes.

[6] At that time I had a beef with Middlesex County, Mass, as a consequence of a snow-emergency/parking/towing/plastic-Santa situation that had gotten somewhat out of control. There’s no sense pointing fingers now, but a bench warrant may have been issued. I have subsequently avoided the Commonwealth ever since.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our publication of local columnists like David Erik Nelson. 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!

Members of the LGBTQ student group Riot Youth addressed the Ann Arbor Public Schools board at its meeting of the committee-of-the-whole on Feb. 15. (Photo by the writer.)

Trustee Glenn Nelson noted that these interwoven topics had been a high priority for the board since a 2009 study session at which the board reviewed how AAPS was functioning in these areas compared to best practices in the field of education. “[T]his is not a topic of the evening,” Nelson said. “This was a deliberate and high-priority commitment where we really want to make progress.”

Also at the Feb. 15 committee meeting, the board members discussed an administrative recommendation to implement all-day kindergarten district-wide, which they approved at a special meeting on Feb. 18, 2012. The Chronicle previously reported on that meeting and the committee discussion. 

Anti-Bullying Policy

In December 2011, the Michigan state legislature passed an anti-bullying law requiring each school district to craft a policy specific to bullying, to hold a public hearing on it, and to submit it to the state by June of 2012. At the Feb. 15 committee-of-the-whole meeting, the board heard from the public regarding bullying in the district, and also from members of the LGBTQ student group Riot Youth, who shared their recommendations for the AAPS policy and associated regulations. The board requested that AAPS administration draft a bullying policy for initial review by early May 2012.

Bullying: Public Commentary

Local activist Jim Toy argued that bullying is “soul-murder” and must be addressed as such. He added that bullying is perpetrated throughout society, and said schools are a good place to begin to address this behavior. Toy thanked the board for its concern, for actions it has already taken, and for actions it will take in the future to address bullying in the district.

Three students spoke about their personal experiences of being bullied in AAPS. Hind Omar and Mekaram Aljabal each contended that the district does not do a good job of embracing diversity, and tends to “shove it under the rug” when something inappropriate is said, instead of addressing it openly. Leo Robertson spoke in detail about relentless harassment he has experienced as a result of his former last name (Minus), clothing choices, and sexual orientation.

Robertson contended that students who had assaulted him had not been disciplined, and that the administrators to whom he had reported multiple serious incidences, including verbal and written death threats, had barely helped. Robertson, too, the board that the district had “swept [his harassment] under the rug,” and said that the district’s regulations against bullying are not being enforced. He urged the board to create a “watchdog committee” to be sure reports of bullying are properly addressed.

Robertson’s mother, Kelly Robertson, also addressed the board, saying that her son’s harassment was “the most horrendous thing [she's] ever experienced.” She said that bullying cannot be allowed to continue to destroy the self-esteem of teenagers in the district, and contended that administration had been unaccountable. Robertson accused some AAPS administrators of “turning a blind eye,” and being “good spin doctors.” She noted that her family is currently working with the ACLU to get her son’s physical, mental, and verbal assault properly addressed. “It’s very serious,” Robertson said. “If you don’t have a child who’s been through it, you have no idea.”

Bullying: AAPS Regulations and New State Policy Mandate

AAPS deputy superintendent of human resources and general counsel Dave Comsa explained to the board that a new state law passed in December 2011 requires all schools to adopt a bullying policy. Currently, Comsa pointed out, the district addresses bullying on page 10 of its Student Rights and Responsibilities handbook, but does not have a formal board policy.

Comsa briefly reviewed some provisions the state has required be included in the new policy, including: an affirmative statement prohibiting bullying; prevention of retaliation for those reporting bullying; the identification by job title of those responsible for investigating allegations of bullying; and a procedure for notifying the parents of both the alleged perpetrator and the student allegedly being bullied. Comsa noted that the legislation passed by the state also encourages annual training and education programs for students and parents.

Finally, Comsa noted that there were three template policies the district could consider when beginning to craft its own policy – one from the state, one from the Michigan Association of School Boards, and one from a local private legal firm. Comsa asked the board how they would like to proceed with developing a policy. The board directed Green to have her staff prepare a policy and recommend it to the board for review by mid-April or early May, which she agreed was a reasonable timeline.

Bullying: Riot Youth Recommendations

Nelson introduced Riot Youth, an LGBTQ student group supported by the Neutral Zone teen center, which recently conduced a climate survey in four of the district’s high schools and incorporated the results into a theatrical presentation, which they had performed at the previous board meeting. Riot Youth members attended the Feb. 15 school board committee-of-the-whole meeting to share their recommendations with the board on what to include in the new bullying policy and its associated regulations.

Seven students addressed the board on behalf of Riot Youth: Emma Upham, Avery Bond, Leo Robertson, Carson Borbely, Ashley Burnside, Kylah Thompson, and Indigo Spranger. They passed out a copy of a bullying policy they had crafted based on the template put out by the state, and noted that their proposed policy went a little further in some areas.

Borbely began the presentation by saying that Riot Youth was excited to be partners with the school board in creating a comfortable school climate where all students would feel safe. He contended that creating an effective bullying policy, along with effective means of enforcing it, would support the diversity of the student body.

Spranger offered some specific suggestions to the board. First, she noted that the curricula used in history and in health classes were not inclusive of LGBTQ students. For example, she said, the gay movement happened alongside the civil rights movement, but there is little mention of it. Similarly, in health class, she said, “We have to hear about straight sex all the time, but gay sex is never brought up … It’s just as important for us to learn about protection and safety.”

Not using inclusive examples in class contributes to the isolation often experienced by LGBTQ students, Spranger said. She noted how teachers’ assumptions about gender identity encourage stereotypes, and argued that teachers should be taught how to be allies. Finally she noted that schools having only gender-specific bathrooms and locker rooms was not reflective of the diversity of the student body: “There aren’t just ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ identities. There are so many things in between … That’s just not how everyone is.”

Other Riot Youth members added more details about their proposed policy amendments, including the importance of having clear procedures for addressing bullying once it has happened. The students suggested that the policy should protect students who report harassment, address cyberbullying and other bullying that takes place outside of school, and include provisions for educating people who bully about why it’s wrong so they can develop empathy.

Upham reiterated that it’s critical that the policy include regular training of staff, teachers, counselors, and administration as well as students. She suggested the district should teach alternative ways to resolve the problems that motivate bullying behavior. Finally, she thanked the board for adding “gender identity” and “gender expression” into board policy 2050 on non-discrimination. The board added those terms in 2009.

Board policy 2050 in its entirety now reads:

No person shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in any educational program or activity available in any school on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, creed, political belief, age, national origin, linguistic and language differences, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, socioeconomic status, height, weight, marital or familial status, or disability.

Upham closed the presentation by saying, “Thank you for taking that step. Thank you for the work you’ve done, and for the interest.”

Board members universally praised Riot Youth members for their courage, for the clarity and perspective they brought to the discussion, and for situating their comments in the larger context of celebrating diversity rather than merely preventing bullying. Mexicotte added that the board was “absolutely committed to this work, to making school climate as safe as it can be,” and thanked Riot Youth for their input as the board writes its bullying policy.

Green also commended the board for working with Riot Youth on this issue, and asserted that the board’s strong commitment to addressing school climate and bullying set AAPS apart from other school districts. She noted that those who bully can have underdeveloped social and emotional skills, and said that she is working to bring the social and emotional component of learning — which, she noted, some people call “character education” — into the equation in order to “make [AAPS] a better place for all.”

Bullying: Board Discussion

Trustee Susan Baskett expressed concern about the harassment described by the Robertson family during the public commentary period and asked what the administration could do to ensure that parents’ issues do not get lost in the system. Green responded that all allegations of harassment will be taken very seriously and addressed appropriately. But Baskett persisted. “How does a parent know you have taken action, regardless of what it is?”

Green reviewed the harassment resolution procedures she had followed in her previous district, which included documentation of every incident in triplicate, the need for parents to resolve the issue at the appropriate administrative level, and an anonymous review of all incidences of harassment and their resolution. Over the years, she said, her district was able to track the incidences of harassment going down.

Baskett questioned the chain-of-command approach, asking, “What if the parents think the responsible superintendent is sitting on it?”

Mexicotte suggested the board should consider a provision in the policy that makes explicit the protocol parents should follow in working up the chain. “I have done the math,” she said, “and it would take three and a half weeks [for an issue] to get to the board, but it’s not usually going to get to us.” Stead added that the district should clarify its expectations about prompt communication to all staff. “My expectation is that within 24 hours, we should be able to get back to people, if for nothing else to say, ‘We got your message. We are looking into it.’” Mexicotte agreed, “This is standard business practice.”

Trustee Simone Lightfoot said she liked the idea of coming together to look at reports of bullying incidences, but that she was “less enamored to know about what happened than knowing what was fixed, and what student or staff names keep rising to the top.” Lightfoot said she was interested in establishing an oversight committee to be sure the district was following up properly. Comsa responded that one of the provisions that could be included in the policy would require an investigation of bullying to be completed within three school days.

Thomas questioned how far the school’s domain can reach in terms of enforceable policy, specifically regarding cyber-bullying. Comsa answered that the courts are currently working that out, and trying to balance First Amendment rights with education rights. Green added that if bullying negatively impacts a student’s school experience — regardless of where it took place — the district could take action.

School Climate Update

In 2009 the board directed AAPS administration to assess the school climate districtwide. At the Feb. 15 committee-of-the-whole meeting, top AAPS instructional administrators presented a summary of the survey data collected since then. AAPS deputy superintendent for instruction Alesia Flye noted that there has been significant turnover in AAPS instructional services department since the climate survey process was initiated. That had resulted in inconsistent use of the survey tool and data collection, she said. However, she and her staff have produced as comprehensive of a report as possible, she said, and fully recognize the importance of cultivating positive school climates, as noted in the district’s strategic plan.

School Climate: Public Commentary

Abraham Shamar, father of two AAPS graduates and two current AAPS students, thanked the board and district for working on the issue of positive school climate, including training teachers and administration about cultural, social, and religious diversity. However, he also noted, “Recent experiences with [his] family indicate that there is still a need for more training.” He also volunteered to share his experiences with the administration at their request.

School Climate: Survey Data

Flye, along with AAPS assistant superintendents Dawn Linden (elementary) and Joyce Hunter (secondary), reviewed the school climate survey data, which were collected from students, parents, staff, and teachers. Pioneer and Huron high schools completed their surveys in 2009-10, Skyline High School completed its survey this school year, 2011-12.  Other elementary, middle, and high schools completed surveys during the 2010-11 school year.

Linden reported that 2,334 students, 405 teachers or staff, and 1,513 parents were surveyed at the elementary level. She also noted that not all elementary schools used the same survey tool or assessment method, and that participation levels varied widely from school to school.

She highlighted positive trends (parents feel welcome, students believe teachers have high expectations of them, and teachers use data to monitor student growth), as well as areas for growth (cafeteria and playground staff responsiveness, inclusivity and technology use in curriculum, and students using available resources if they’re struggling).

Hunter noted that the middle and high schools had used the “WE” surveys, which present the same questions to teachers, students, and the staff as a whole in order to compare perceptions. She reviewed details of the secondary level survey results, highlighting trends and growth opportunities in terms of rigor, relevance, relationships, and leadership. She noted that there were some themes that appeared throughout the secondary schools, but others that were unique to each building.

In summary, Hunter outlined the district’s “response plan” for the secondary level school climate data, including: sharing building level data with principals; monitor bullying and provide anti-bullying education; encourage more interdisciplinary instruction; solicit additional student feedback; better aligning curriculum with advanced and college-level expectations; and implement a new guidance curriculum. The guidance curriculum is further discussed below.

Flye noted that the survey tools and survey administration processes used at each level would be standardized, and from now on administered annually at all levels.

School Climate: Board Response

The board thanked the district staff for the survey data, but expressed concern about the inconsistent participation and wide variability in results between schools. Given the wide ranges in the data presented, some trustees expressed an interest in reviewing the school-level data. Administrators responded by saying the building-level data could be sent to board members. Trustees also requested more demographics on the respondents.

Nelson noted that the data do not reveal the proportion of students being bullied — that the data could describe a few awful cases, or pervasive lower-level bullying. Thomas noted that this was an improvement from the last time climate data was presented to the board, but that there is still a lot of data missing. Flye concurred, saying, “We are confident we can clean up a lot of this,” including clarifying some of the questions.

Trustee Irene Patalan encouraged additional professional development based on the survey data – for teachers and support staff. She also suggested that schools should be able to compare data with other schools and collaborate on response plans.

Nelson noted that the WE surveys do have national norms associated with them for individual response items, but that the AAPS review did not include those. Mexicotte went further, questioning whether the WE survey was actually the tool the board had directed administration to use back in 2009. She asked board secretary Amy Osinski to review the board minutes from the 2009 study session at which school climate was discussed. “I’d like you find that [recommended] survey” Mexicotte said. “It is important to us that it be nationally normed and also be given on an ongoing basis. We were so dismayed that the elementaries had developed their own surveys and delivery models.”

Director of student accounting Jane Landefeld said that part of the issue in determining which survey to administer was cost, but Mexicotte countered, “That was the board’s decision. The board was willing to bear the cost.”

The board made a few additional suggestions to the administration regarding future climate surveys. Mexicotte suggested conducting a more robust statistical analysis, including figuring out which data are statistically significant, given various sample sizes at each school. Thomas added that he is concerned about getting a representative sample, and pointed out, “The sample size is not as important as the bias that went into selected those respondents.”

Mexicotte suggested that it will be important to disaggregate ranges, giving the following example: “A range of 39-47% on a certain item could mean that one school is at 39% and the others are all at 47% or the reverse.” She noted that following just ranges over time could mean that change would not become evident, even if significant change occurs. She also suggested focus groups could be done with the pieces of data that are the most important but not well understood.

Baskett expressed disappointment with the school climate report and level of data shown. She suggested that future surveys include more qualitative, open-ended answers in students’ own words. Nelson requested grouping over time. “Over the next six years,” he said, “I hope these [data] improve and I hope the instrument is such that I know whether things got better or worse.”

School Guidance Program

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green explained that the board had significant discussion in 2009 about the district’s guidance and counseling program, and determined that the district needed to take a new direction in organizing and delivering services in this area in order to maximize use of the skills of school guidance counselors. She noted that assistant superintendent Joyce Hunter had taken the lead in the last 18 months to redesign the guidance and counseling program at the secondary level.

Guidance: Program Description

Hunter described a traditional guidance program as one where counselors work independently, and much of counselors’ time is spent on administrative tasks such as student scheduling and standardized test delivery. She explained that the main goal of the redesigned program was to shift from that traditional approach to a comprehensive program in which counselors lead whole schools in delivering a standardized guidance curriculum, while still providing academic counseling and responsive services.

The vision of the new guidance and counseling program will free counselors from a large chunk of administrative, non-counseling activities, Hunter continued, and includes four components: a guidance curriculum (structured lessons delivered to groups of students); individual academic planning; responsive services (support groups, individual student counseling, referrals to outside agencies); and system support (working with families and the community).

She explained that the district had formed a district-wide guidance and counseling advisory committee made up of administrators, counselors, parents, students, and the board. The committee began its work by undertaking a needs assessment of parents, students, and teachers to determine what a comprehensive guidance and counseling program should include. Hunter also noted the committee reviewed models from other states, and is eager to fully implement the new program.

Guidance: Board Response

Trustees had some questions about the guidance curriculum. Hunter clarified that lessons will be delivered to groups of students by counselors, classroom teachers, or other staff or community members. The lessons will include topics such as study skills, tolerance, diversity, and test-taking skills. Logistically, the lessons will be integrated into each school depending on available scheduled time – Forum time at Community, Skytime at Skyline, or the advisory period at the middle schools. Baskett asked how the guidance curriculum would be delivered at Huron and Pioneer high schools, which do not have open time. Hunter told Baskett that said extended class times would be scheduled throughout the year to deliver the curriculum.

Hunter also noted that a brochure explaining the new program to parents would be printed and posted on the district’s website.

Several trustees expressed concern that counselors are still being tied up with significant administrative work, which keeps them from actually working with students. Hunter assured them that the administration is working to free counselors from non-counseling duties so they can be more active in individual student planning. Hunter confirmed that counselors are limited to monitoring 325 students each.

Stead suggested including teachers on the district-wide guidance and counseling advisory committee, as well as considering the hiring of additional support staff if possible in the future.

Patalan invited John Boshoven, a longtime guidance counselor at Community High School, to share any feedback he had on the new program as proposed.

Boshoven thanked the board for its efforts in this area, and for honoring school guidance counselors with a recent proclamation. He too expressed frustration that counselors “spend half their time trying to fix up schedules,” and reported that counselors are “feeling a lot of pressure” to meet students’ needs. Boshoven also noted that it’s not truthful for AAPS to call its model comprehensive when it leaves out kindergarten through 6th grade, and commended Green for having a broader vision.

Green thanked Boshoven for capturing her vision for a comprehensive K-12 pupil services program, saying “it’s way too late” to start guidance counseling in the 8th grade. She noted that AAPS is the first district she’s worked in without an elementary counseling program, and noted that the district needs to deal better with equity issues and social and emotional learning.

Lightfoot asked “What priority are we going to give students who are underachieving?” She suggested that the comprehensive guidance and counseling program be phased in, and that the kids who have the most need receive services first. She also suggested having a list of “ways to get involved” for parents online.

Mexicotte also noted that there are no special education personnel on the district-wide advisory committee, and nothing in the program that explains the role that counselors play in helping special education students develop a personal curriculum in order to graduate. “We still struggle with a bifurcated system,” she said. “We still seem not to have ownership of the special education student.”

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

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